The intermediate state in 1 Clement (part 1)

1 Clement is an early Christian letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.1 The consensus date for this document is c. 96 AD, though it may have been written as early as the 70s.2 It is traditionally ascribed to Clement of Rome; the name Clement 'appears in the titles of each manuscript in which the letter survives'.3 For convenience we will refer to the author as Clement. One can find scholars arguing that the author was 'almost certainly...a Gentile believer'4 or, on the other hand, 'almost certainly a Jewish Christian'!5 Given the writer's knowledge of Old Testament and Jewish tradition but familiarity with and use of Hellenistic ideas, Hagner's balanced statement seems on point: 'We may be sure…that Clement was either a Jew whose Hellenization was complete, or a Greek who had drunk deeply of Jewish thought and practice.'6 The high valuation of this letter in the patristic Church can be seen from its inclusion (together with 2 Clement) at the end of the New Testament in Codex Alexandrinus, one of the most important early biblical manuscripts.

Some Christadelphian apologists have attempted to enlist the author of 1 Clement as essentially a proto-Christadelphian. For instance, in a recent talk on early Christianity, Dave Burke says the following:

In the letter of Clement to the Corinthians we find New Testament theology7 exclusively; we don’t find the deity of Christ, we don’t find the pre-existence of Christ, we don’t find the Trinity, we don’t find the immortal soul, we don’t find a supernatural devil; everything here is exactly as we [Christadelphians] believe. It’s perfectly consistent with New Testament theology.8

More recently, in a Facebook post from August 2015, Dave asserts the following:

Clement's theology is utterly apostolic; there is no evidence that he believed in immortal soulism, the pre-existence of Christ, the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, or an evil supernatural devil.

This appears on a Facebook page authored by Dave which is entitled 'Christian History'. The stated purpose of this page is 'to provide information about early Christian history, the Reformation, and the three Great Awakenings.' The page does not state that it offers a Christadelphian slant on early Christian history, so one would expect the information to be factual or at least in line with the current scholarly consensus. Sadly, this is not the case.

In fact, 1 Clement 51.1 refers to 'the adversary' and it is universally agreed by scholars that this is a reference to Satan (as I have discussed previously). Moreover, scholars have concluded that several passages in 1 Clement presuppose the pre-existence of Christ.9 Dave does not mention any of this evidence. However, our main concern in this article is with Clement's individual eschatology: his beliefs concerning the afterlife. Dave's assertion in this respect is imprecise: he says there is no evidence that Clement believed in 'immortal soulism' and infers that, because Clement believed in resurrection, his individual eschatology must have been identical to that of Christadelphians. However, this implicitly creates a false dichotomy as though Christadelphian conditionalism and 'immortal soulism' (a term Dave does not define) are the only options. If, by 'immortal soulism', Dave means the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul founded upon Platonic dualism, in which the soul is temporarily imprisoned in the body which is a mere shell, then one can heartily agree that Clement held no such anthropology. However, there is a third possibility that Dave does not mention: that of an intermediate state, in which the soul continues to exist after death while awaiting the consummate goal of bodily resurrection.

Hence, the question that needs to be asked is whether there is any evidence that Clement believed in a post-mortem existence prior to the resurrection. In order for Clement's theology to be exactly as Christadelphians believe, the answer would have to be no. However, the answer from the scholarly literature, and from careful exegesis of certain passages in 1 Clement, is a decisive yes!

Before turning to these passages we must first note our agreement with Dave that the doctrine of bodily resurrection is at the core of Clement's individual eschatology.10 Consider, for instance, 1 Clement 24.1:

We should consider, loved ones, how the Master continuously shows us the future resurrection that is about to occur, of which he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruit by raising him from the dead.11

Having noted this, we must reiterate that Clement's belief in resurrection does not imply his disbelief in any post-mortem existence (as in Christadelphian theology). Schmisek reminds us that Clement 'did not spell out the nature of his resurrection anthropology' and that he 'felt free to draw on pagan imagery to convey the concept of resurrection'.12 More importantly, 1 Clement refers to a blessed state of existence which faithful believers and martyrs in particular enter immediately after death. The most significant text in this respect concerns the martyrdom of Peter, Paul and some women, and reads as follows:

3. We should set before our eyes the good apostles. 4. There is Peter, who because of unjust jealousy bore up under hardships not just once or twice, but many times; and having thus borne his witness he went to the place of glory that he deserved. 5. Because of jealousy and strife Paul pointed the way to the prize for endurance. 6. Seven times he bore chains; he was sent into exile and stoned; he served as a herald in both the East and the West; and he received the noble reputation for his faith. 7. He taught righteousness to the whole world, and came to the limits of the West, bearing his witness before the rulers. And so he was set free from this world and transported up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance. 6.1. To these men who have conducted themselves in such a holy way there has been added a great multitude of the elect, who have set a superb example among us by the numerous torments and tortures they suffered because of jealousy. 2. Women were persecuted as Danaids and Dircae and suffered terrifying and profane torments because of jealousy. But they confidently completed the race of faith, and though weak in body, they received a noble reward. (1 Clement 5.3-6.2)13

It should be obvious that, prima facie, this passage constitutes evidence for Clement's belief in post-mortem existence. A plain reading of the text suggests that these martyrs went somewhere after death and received a reward. Certainly, one will never hear the kind of language used in this passage at a Christadelphian funeral! However, Dave neglects to mention this passage when summarizing Clement's theology in his talk and on his Facebook page. This is not because Dave is unaware of the passage; in fact, he had discussed it in an online discussion forum almost a decade earlier (assuming, according to my recollections, that Evangelion was Dave's user name on this forum). However, neither in that post nor at any time since (as far as I am aware) has Dave shown any familiarity with scholarship on this passage and others relevant to our subject. It is to this scholarship that we now turn.

Based on my survey of scholarship, it appears that most scholars conclude, based primarily on 1 Clement 5.3-6.2, that Clement believed in an intermediate state. Some of these, such as Lampe,14 Bauckham,15 Hill,16 Wright,17 and Lehtipuu,18 explicitly locate the intermediate state in heaven. Others, such as Lindemann,19 Lona,20 Arndt et al,21 and Mutie,22 do not explicitly describe Clement's intermediate state as 'heaven' but do conclude that he believed in post-mortem existence.

More nuanced views are those of Sumney, who thinks Clement's intermediate state concept applied to martyrs only,23 and Gonzalez, who thinks 1 Clement is ambiguous about the kind of post-mortem existence which the martyrs enjoy.24

Having surveyed the literature, it is apparent that most scholars have concluded that Clement's theology included the notion of post-mortem existence in an intermediate state for believers. None of the scholars I read concluded that Clement held that believers ceased to exist between their death and resurrection (although Sumney held this to be the case with the exception of martyrs). Contemporary scholarship weighs against Dave Burke's claim that the theology of 1 Clement corresponds exactly to that of Christadelphians in the matter of individual eschatology. Accordingly, I call on Dave to provide his Christadelphian audiences with an objective picture of Clement's theology and to stop presenting his own private interpretations as factual information.

This is Part One of a two-part article. In the next installment, I will interact with Dave's exegesis of 1 Clement 5.3-6.2 and provide exegetical arguments that Clement believed that the righteous dead go to heaven to await the resurrection.

Footnotes

• 1 The prescript of the letter reads, 'The church of God that temporarily resides in Rome, to the church of God that temporarily resides in Corinth' (Ehrman, B.D. (2003). The Apostolic Fathers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 35).
• 2 Gregory, A. (2006). I Clement: An Introduction. The Expository Times, 117(6), 223-230 (here pp. 227-228).
• 3 ibid., pp. 224-225.
• 4 Skarsaune, O. (2009). Does the Letter to the Hebrews Articulate a Supersessionist Theology? In R. Bauckham, D. Driver & T. Hart (Eds.), The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (pp. 192-200). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 198.
• 5 Sanders, J.T. (1993). Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations. London: SCM Press, p. 220.
• 6 Hagner, D.A. (1973). The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. Leiden: Brill, p. 8.
• 7 Read: the Christadelphian version of New Testament theology.
• 8 These remarks are from a talk Dave delivered in 2014, which can be downloaded here (the discussion of 1 Clement begins around the 9:45 mark).
• 9 E.g. 1 Clement 16.2, 16.17, 36.2, 42.1. These are the texts adduced by Talbert who concludes that 1 Clement 'assumes pre-existence' and thus 'reflects an epiphany model' of Christology (Talbert, C.H. (2011). The Development of Christology during the first hundred years. Leiden: Brill, p. 36). I hope to discuss Clement's Christology in detail in a future post.
• 10 Wright states: 'He not only believes in final resurrection; he mounts various arguments to show that it is not as unreasonable a thing to believe as one might suppose. First, the sequence of day and night, and seedtime and harvest, indicates that such a progression is built into the created world… Clement then – boldly, we may think – advances the apparent parallel of the phoenix, which rejuvenates itself after dying every 500 years. And he rounds off his exposition with three biblical passages which demonstrate, he says, that "the creator of all things will create the resurrection of those who have served him in holiness, in the assurance of a good faith."' (Wright, N.T. (2003). The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 481) Similarly, Chester: 'The main concentration of eschatological themes in 1 Clement… is to be found in chapters 23-27. It is clearly the delay of the Parousia that constitutes one main problem that the writer has to deal with… Chapters 24-26 provide the main, central thrust of this section as a whole, arguing for the resurrection of the body as not in the least improbable, on the analogy of the seed dying in order to product fruit and the phoenix rising from the ashes. Clearly the writer sees the doubts about the Parousia, and those about the resurrection of the believers, as closely bound up together.' (Chester, A. (2007). Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 455.) See also Mutie, J. (2015). Death in Second-Century Christian Thought: The Meaning of Death in Earliest Christianity. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, pp. 56-57. Offering a different perspective is Schmisek, who surprisingly claims that 'resurrection was not a major issue for Clement and he spent little time discussing it' (Schmisek, B. (2013). Resurrection of the Flesh or Resurrection from the Dead: Implications for Theology. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, p. 3.)
• 11 Ehrman, op. cit., p. 81.
• 12 Schmisek, op. cit., p. 4.
• 13 Ehrman, op. cit., pp. 43-47; emphasis added.
• 14 Lampe thinks that topos refers to 'heaven' in 1 Clement 5.4, 5.7 (Lampe, G.W.H. (1961). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 1397).
• 15 Bauckham regards the word sunēthroisthē in 1 Clement 6.1 as possibly suggesting that 'the great multitude joined the martyrs just mentioned in heaven: this would supply a reference to the heavenly reward of the great multitude of martyrs, which is otherwise missing but which is expected by comparison with the examples of Peter, Paul and the women' (Bauckham, R.J. (1992). The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature. In ANRW II.26.1, pp. 539-595; here p. 561).
• 16 Hill concludes that Clement believed in a 'heavenly version of the intermediate state' and yet that 'absolutely no tension can be detected, in Clement's mind' between this and his 'vigorous Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body' (Hill, C.E. (2001). Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 85). Hill's exegesis of the relevant passages in 1 Clement is the most detailed among the scholars cited here. We will consider it in more detail in the second part of this article.
• 17 Wright says that 'Clement believed in a temporary post-mortem heaven rather than in the righteous going to Hades' and argued that 1 Clement 5.4-6.2 dovetail with Clement's teachings on the resurrection of the dead: 'We are not surprised, therefore, to find that Clement articulates a doctrine of resurrection not far removed from that of the New Testament. To begin with, however, it might have seemed otherwise. In the early chapters Clement speaks of the apostles Peter and Paul having died and gone, in the first place, to a "place of glory", and in the second to the "holy place". He goes on to speak of martyrs who "received a noble reward", of those who obtain the gift of "life in immortality", and of presbyters who have finished their course and have obtained "a fruitful and perfect release (analysis)", and who now need have no fear of being moved "from the place appointed to them". By themselves these passages could have been taken to indicate a belief in a final disembodied state, capable of being described in shorthand (though Clement does not use this phrase) as "going to heaven". But when Clement expounds his own view of the final state of the blessed departed, he makes it clear that this language about Peter, Paul and the others must refer to their temporary abode in a blessed, glorious and holy place. He not only believes in final resurrection; he mounts various arguments to show that it is not as unreasonable a thing to believe as one might suppose' (Wright, op. cit., p. 479).
• 18 Lehtipuu regards this passage from 1 Clement as one witness to a widespread conviction 'that martyrs will pass immediately to heaven at the moment of their death': 'The conviction that martyrs will pass immediately to heaven at the moment of their death is so widespread that it can be called "a commonplace in martyrological literature."… The emphasis of the martyr accounts is on the continuation of life after death without any interruption.' (Lehtipuu, O. (2015). Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 169).
• 19 Lindemann regards 1 Clement 5.4-7 as referring to a post-mortem state of existence analogous to that implied by NT passages such as Luke 16:22f, 23:43 and Acts 7:56-59. He writes, 'τόπον vgl. Apg 1,25 (dort ἴδιος statt ὀφειλόμενος) und in der Sache Joh 14,2f; Ign Magn 5,1; vgl. auch die etwas rätselhafte Bemerkung in Apg 12,17: Petrus ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον (M. Smith, NTS 7, 1960/61, 86-88 sieht hier einen literarischen Zusammenhang und ein Argument gegen die Petrus-Rom-Hypothese; s.u.). Zur eschatologischen Bedeutung von δόξα s. Röm 8,18.21. V. 4 besagt wohl nicht, daß dem Märtyrer "ein besonderer Platz am postmortalen, interimistischen Ort der Frommen" zuteil wird oder er schon "in die volle Seligkeit" gelangt ist, auf die "andere Tote noch bis zur Endvollendung warten müssen" (so Baumeister aaO. 242, der auf 44,5 verweist; s. dort), denn ein Vergleich mit anderen ist gar nicht im Blick. Die Stelle bestätigt freilich eine im NT vor allem in den lk Schriften zu beobachtende Tendenz zur Individualisierung der Eschatologie (vgl. Lk 16,22f; 23,43; Apg 7.56.59),' (Lindemann, A. (1992). Die Clemensbriefe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 37-38).
• 20 Lona regards the 'place of glory' in 1 Clement 5.4 as the eschatological place (Ort) of salvation. He writes on this 'place of glory' that it is 'ein klarer Hinweis auf die von Petrus empfangene eschatologische Belohnung' (Lona, H.E. (1998). Der erste Clemensbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 161). He adds in a note, 'Zu τόπος als eschatologischem Ort des Heiles vgl. auch I Clem 44,5; II Clem 1,2; Herm Sim IX 27,3 (104,3)' (ibid., p. 161 n. 1). On 1 Clement 5.7 he writes, 'Das Verlassen der Welt bedeutet in diesem Fall das Hingehen zu einem anderen Ort' (ibid., p. 166). In 1 Clement 50.3-4 Lona finds a concept of the intermediate state similar to what is found in Jewish apocalyptic and in NT passages such as Luke 23:43 and Phil. 1:23: 'Das Zitat, dessen Herkunft in einem zweiten Schritt erörtert wird, will offensichtlich das zuvor Gesagte unterstreichen. Gemäß der vom Vf. praktizierten Schriftauslegung ist der als Zitat angeführte Text wörtlich zu nehmen. In diesem Fall sind τὰ τεμεῖα (die Kammern) identisch mit dem χῶρος εὐσεβῶν von V.3. Der Aufenthalt dort hat eine beschützende Funktion, aber er ist nicht dauernd, sondern nur für die Zeit des göttlichen Zornes gedacht, bis Gott sich des guten Tages erinnert und die Gläubigen auferstehen läßt. Zwei Aspekte sind in diesen Wort enthalten, die das Verständnis der Stelle im Kontext bestimmen. Der erste und vordergründige ist der eschatologische. Präzis ist er aber nicht. Die in der Liebe Vollendeten würden in diesen Aufenthaltsort eingehen - was nur als postmortales Ereignis vorstellbar ist - , um dort auf den guten Tag zu warten, an dem Gott sie auferstehen lassen wird. ἀναστήσω ist als Auferstehungsverheißung auszulegen. Die jüdische Apokalyptik kennt ähnliche Vorstellungen über einen Zwischenzustand. Sie sind auch dem NT nicht fremd (vgl. Phil 1,23; Lk 23,43), wenngleich die Ausdrucksweise dort nicht so bildreich ist wie in I Clem 50,4' (ibid., p. 534).
• 21 The lexicon classifies topos in this text under the following definition: ‘a transcendent site: esp. of the place to which one’s final destiny brings one’ (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 1011).
• 22 Mutie states that the writer of 1 Clement 'concludes his understanding of death by suggesting that those who are perfected in love have already entered their glorious places in Christ’s kingdom. [cites 1 Clement 50.3-4] In other words, not only does the writer of 1 Clement understand death in terms of sleep, but he also, within the tradition of the Old Testament, affirms the survival of the soul beyond the physical death. As Dewart observes, "it is interesting to note that the letter contains one of the passages in the Apostolic Fathers which seems to affirm the survival of the soul independently of the body" after death.' (Mutie, op. cit., pp. 56-57).
• 23 Sumney's main focus is Paul's individual eschatology. He argues that in Paul's view,  'most people (including believers) cease to exist at death' but 'Martyrs and others of exceptional faithfulness...may be exceptions to this general rule and thus possess a limited existence with God before the parousia' (Sumney, J.L. (2009). Post-Mortem Existence and Resurrection of the Body in Paul. Horizons in Biblical Theology, 31(1), 12-26; here p. 12). He regards Acts 7:59, Revelation 6:9-11 and 4 Maccabees 17:17-18 as evidence for a belief that 'the fate of martyrs differs from that of others...martyrs are already in heaven with God' (ibid., p. 24). He interprets 1 Clement 5.3-6.2 in the same way, as affirming a 'post mortem existence for martyrs': 'Clement says that Peter has gone to the ‘place of glory’ because he is a martyr (1 Clem 5:4). Clement goes on to say that Paul is in ‘the holy place’ (5:6) and that women martyrs receive a ‘noble reward’ (6:2). So various people within the early church thought that post mortem existence for martyrs, including Paul, was different from the state of others' (ibid., p. 25). Sumney's thesis has been criticized by Orr, who says that the literature cited by Sumney holds out martyrs as examples to imitate but does not differentiate their fate from that of other believers. Orr says Sumney has missed 'the fact that the texts that he cites, although they speak of the martyrs being with God, do not, in fact, distinguish between martyrs and other believers. So 4 Maccabees does indeed picture martyrs being present with God following their death, but these are held out as examples for readers to imitate so that they too will suffer like these martyrs. The state of those who die without suffering is not raised. The implicit understanding of the book is that those who τῆς εὐσεβείας προνοοῦσιν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας (7:18) will suffer death and so will go to be with God. Similarly, Revelation appears to apply the description (if not the term) of martyr to all believers (7:9, 14). Sumney argues that Polycarp distinguishes between martyrs and other believers in Philippians 9:2 when, in fact, he is using their example and reward to call his readers to imitate them (9:1). The same note of imitation is found in 1 Clement 5 (cf. 5:1). Further, it seems that Paul himself fails to make any distinction between martyrs and other Christians. In any case, this distinction would be very odd in a letter where he so definitely sees himself as a model for other Christians' (Orr, P. (2014). Christ Absent and Present: A Study in Pauline Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 46).
• 24 Gonzalez states: 'The early church fathers tend to support the view that the martyrs, through some means, and within a context of an anthropology that is never defined, go straight to heaven at their deaths. In the earlier chapters of 1 Clement, reference is made to Peter and Paul, who were martyred and who are respectively described as having gone ‘to his appointed place in glory’ (εἰς τὸν ὁφειλόμενον τόπον της δόξης), and ‘departed from this world and went to the holy place’ (ὁυτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη). 1 Clement also refers to the martyrs as having received ‘a noble reward’ (ἔλαβον γέρας γενναῖον). There is some ambiguity in this matter, however. It is notable (and rather overlooked) that 1 Clement never explicitly describes the martyrs or the righteous dead as having ascended or as specifically having gone to heaven. The extent to which the state in which the martyrs exist is merely blessed in anticipation rather than in reality is unclear. It may be either that the immediate admittance of the martyrs to heaven is simply assumed, or that this idea has not yet fully matured in the concept of early Christianity… From what we have seen, the concept of the immediate post-mortem ascent of the soul itself is not explicitly found in the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers." Perhaps it may be assumed in 1 Clement, and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp with regard to the martyrs. However, in relation to the martyrs as discussed in 1 Clement and the Polycarp texts, there is still no concept of a soul as separate from the physical body, nor of the motion of ascent of the martyrs to God. The martyrs are portrayed as receiving an immediate reward upon death, although the tension with the teaching of the resurrection is at times quite apparent.' (Gonzalez, E. (2014). The Fate of the Dead in Early Third Century North African Christianity: The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas and Tertullian. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 57-58). Gonzalez shows reserve in his exegesis of this passage, but this does not amount to an endorsement of a Christadelphian reading of Clement's theology.

The Angels that Sinned (and Tartarus) Revisited

Two years ago I wrote a review of Christadelphian interpretations of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 - two texts which have traditionally been understood to refer to fallen angels. I considered three interpretations that I have come across in Christadelphian literature. The first asserts that the 'angels' who 'sinned' (2 Peter) or 'left their first estate' (Jude, KJV) were a pre-Adamic race. The second asserts that these 'angels' were Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16). The third (popularised in a pamphlet by Steven Cox) asserts that these texts do allude to a Jewish apocryphal tradition about fallen angels (found in 1 Enoch) but denies that Peter and Jude endorsed it, claiming instead that they view it as merely hypothetical rather than historical.

In my review, I described these three views and the arguments used to defend them. I then explained why I do not think any of them fits the language and argument of 2 Peter and Jude. Instead, I favour the traditional and standard scholarly view, that 2 Peter and Jude were referring to a fall of angels as events from the past. In this, they drew on a traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 which regards the 'sons of God' as angels.

Jonathan Burke has written a response to my review. Since his response is very brief, I will quote it in full:

This takes a very long time to say very little; Farrar basically argues that Cox’s ‘if’ interpretation is contrived. But the matter of whether or not Peter and Jude regard their source as recounting a historical event requires more work than either Farrar or Cox have carried out. Farrar’s own proposal that tartarosas in 2 Peter refers to the underworld is made without any substantiating lexical evidence (not even a search in the LXX), and without even a single citation from the relevant literature.

Burke also states the following in a footnote:

While it is true this interpretation is popular, especially among theologians, it is hardly an established position in the broader literature and is challenged repeatedly on lexical and contextual grounds.

Before addressing what Burke has said here, let us point out what Burke has not said.

(1) He does not respond to my comments on pre-Cox Christadelphian interpretation of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. He thus avoids the question of whether Christadelphians have historically misunderstood these texts.

(2) Burke criticizes Cox's and my exegesis as insufficient, but offers no exegesis of his own. In this instance he criticizes the work of others without providing any constructive contribution of his own.

(3) Concerning whether the writers regarded the content of the allusion in 2 Peter 2:4/Jude 6 as historical, Burke says my arguments are inadequate ('the matter...requires more work') but does not say why. He offers no specific criticism of my exegesis aside from the comment on tartarōsas, which is peripheral to the historical question.

Now let us deal with what Burke has said.

(1) Lack of references to scholarly literature

Burke criticizes me for not referring to 'any substantial lexical evidence' or 'even a single citation from the relevant literature'. The problem with this criticism is not that it is unjustified,1 but that Burke himself immediately runs afoul of it. He states that the meaning of tartarōsas as the underworld is not established in the literature and is 'repeatedly challenged on lexical and contextual grounds,' although it is popular among 'theologians.' He does not provide 'even a single citation from the relevant literature' to support these claims. In fact, according to the comments policy of Burke's own website, these comments ought to be removed!2 In any case, this post will make up for the lack of engagement with academic literature in my older post.

(2) Whether the events described in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are regarded by their authors as historical

I argued in my post that the context of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 demonstrates that their authors regarded the content of these allusions as historical. Burke suggested that my arguments were inadequate ('the matter...requires more work'). Burke does not say why he finds my exegesis inadequate or offer any specific criticism thereof aside from the comment on tartarōsas, which is peripheral to the historical question. Thus Burke has not raised any arguments on this point that require a response.

However, I will reiterate my argument in greater detail, and will show that scholars have reached the same conclusions as myself.

2 Peter 2:4 is the beginning of a single sentence which (in Greek) runs until the end of v. 10. The whole sentence reads as follows:

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:4-10 NASB)

In the Greek, the four conditional statements of vv. 4-7 are all governed by a single 'if' (ei) in v. 4, and are joined together with 'and' (kai). Hence, the apodosis ('then' statement) that begins in v. 9 is dependent on a single four-part protasis ('if' statement):3

if God did not spare angels when they sinned...

    and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah...

    and condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction...

    and rescued righteous Lot...

[then] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment...

Logically, the apodosis in vv. 9-10 follows only if all four parts of the protasis are valid.4 Moreover, in context, 2 Peter is undoubtedly making an historical argument.5 He is arguing from historical precedent that for the false teachers of his own day, 'their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep' (v. 3).6 If the examples in vv. 4-7 are merely hypothetical, they do not serve the author's rhetorical goal of demonstrating the certainty of a coming judgment in history (see esp. 2 Peter 3:3-13).7

Furthermore, all three incidents recounted by 2 Peter in 2:4-7 come from Genesis (a traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, in the case of v. 4). Indeed, in editing Jude's material this writer has rearranged the Watchers story and Sodom and Gomorrah incidents into chronological order, which suggests an historical interest.8 Moreover, he offers no hint that he differentiates the historical truth value of the incident in v. 4 from those in vv. 5-7. The same is true of Jude 6, where Jude sandwiches the reference to rebellious angels in between straightforward references to two events from biblical history (Israel's unbelief in the wilderness, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).9 These are the simple but compelling reasons for concluding that the content of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 was held by these authors to be historical.

The only scholar known to me who challenges the consensus above is Charles. He allows that the tradition cited in Jude 6 depends on 1 Enoch, but suggests:

The presentation of the angels in v. 6 is abrupt. This can mean one of several things. It may reflect the assumption that the audience is familiar with the traditions, needing no introduction or explanation. It may also indicate that Jude is borrowing from Jewish apocalyptic imagery without necessarily endorsing its theological content, employing the imagery for his own purpose.10

Charles goes on to argue for the latter explanation, based on the obscure argument that the Watchers in the Book of Daniel are holy, not fallen, angels. This argument has no relevance to the interpretation of Jude 6 since Jude never uses the term 'watchers'. Charles also argues in a separate paper that whereas in 1 Enoch and Jubilees, the angels' fall is explicitly linked to fleshly lust, in Jude 'it is a fall from authority, domain, and position' and thus 'The picture is one of contrast' (between Jude and the Enochic tradition).11 This argument is unconvincing because these two sins are not mutually exclusive. 1 Enoch 12.4 describes the Watchers as having 'left the high heaven, the holy eternal place' (cf. 15.3). Meanwhile, the word homoion in Jude 7 may be intended to implicate the angels of v. 6 in sexual immorality.12 Jude may differ in emphasis in his depiction of the angels' sins, but this is a very weak basis on which to argue that he did not endorse the theological content of the allusion. Charles neglects to address the point which has persuaded most scholars that Jude 6 intends to refer to historical events: that it is sandwiched between two straightforward references to biblical history. One should also note that Charles does not extend his claim concerning Jude 6 to 2 Peter 2:4.

No firm basis for challenging the consensus that 2 Peter and Jude use the fallen angels story as sacred history can be found in the text itself. Instead, it must be read into the text for theological reasons.13

(3) The meaning of Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4

Burke criticizes my claim that tartarōsas in 2 Peter refers to the underworld.14 He states that this claim is controversial without providing any evidence, and without suggesting what he thinks the term means. His comments thus merit no response, but we can add value by surveying scholarly views on the significance of this New Testament hapax legomenon in 2 Peter 2:4.15

There is indeed some scholarly disagreement concerning the precise meaning of tartarōsas in 2 Peter 2:4. There are basically three issues here: (i) the meaning of Tartarus in Greek mythology; (ii) the use of this term in Second Temple Jewish literature; (iii) whether 2 Peter takes the term directly from Greco-Roman sources, or from Jewish sources, or both.

Tartarus in Greek Mythology

First attested in Hesiod's Theogony (c. 700-665 BC), Tartarus is 'a fearful dungeon, far beneath the earth' which served as 'a prison for superhuman rebels'.16 Burnett observes that by the classical period,

the concept of Tartarus possessed a certain clear taxonomy, which included its: 1) location within Hades, 2) function as a prison and place of punishment, and 3) stygian environment.17

One can already see a close parallel with 2 Peter 2:4, since Tartarus here is explicitly identified as a place of punishment characterized by darkness. But let us continue with standard lexical authorities.

BDAG says the following concerning Tartarus (within the entry on tartaroō since this is the word actually used in the NT):

Tartarus, thought of by the Greeks as a subterranean place lower than Hades where divine punishment was meted out, and so regarded in Israelite apocalyptic as well18

LSJ gives two definitions for Tartaros, namely, 'the nether world generally' and the same 'personified as husband of Gaia and father of Typhoeus.'19 A separate entry for tartaroō defines this verb as 'cast into Tartarus or hell.' Slater's Lexicon to Pindar defines Tartaros simply as 'the underworld.'20

Tartarus in Second Temple Jewish Literature

The noun tartaros occurs three times in the LXX (Job 40:20; 41:24; Proverbs 30:16). Its meaning in these texts is a matter of scholarly debate. Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie's A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint defines the word in these three passages as 'deep place,' 'lowest place of the deep' and 'place of imprisonment' respectively.21 While one can see how all three of these definitions derive from the Greek mythological meaning, only the third seems close to the Greek sense.

Cox, translating Job in the New English Translation of the Septuagint, transliterates tartaros in Job 40:20; 41:24 LXX as Tartarus, and on both occasions clarifies in a footnote, 'i.e. the nether world.'22 Cook, translating Proverbs, also transliterates the term as Tartarus, without offering any explanatory note.23 It appears that these translators think the LXX has straightforwardly borrowed the term from Greek mythology. This is the position taken by Goff:

References to the Titans and Tartarus in the LXX indicate that Jewish translators of Hebrew texts incorporated knowledge of Greek mythology (e.g., 2 Kgdms 5:18; Prov 30:16).24

Reading these LXX texts quite differently is Seventh Day Adventist scholar Papaioannou. In his PhD dissertation on places of punishment in the Synoptic Gospels (which offers a thoroughly conditionalist interpretation), he includes a short appendix on Tartarus. This he begins with a description of the origin of this term in Greek mythology, which is limited to Hesiod's Theogony. He does not discuss any Greek or Greco-Roman literature from the classical period or later, but turns immediately to the LXX. In Job 40:20 LXX (in the passage in which the MT speaks of Behemoth), Papaioannou interprets, 'Tartarus here is to be understood as a reference to the watery places which hippopotamus frequents'.25 Similarly, in Job 41:24 LXX (in the passage in which the MT speaks of Leviathan), Papaioannou interprets, 'The "lowest parts of the deep," therefore, can only be a reference to the depths of the "sea" (or other body of water?) that mysterious Leviathan could wade.26 Lastly, concerning Prov. 30:16 LXX, Papaioannou acknowledges that Tartarus has no equivalent in the MT. While he describes the exact meaning of Tartarus here as 'elusive,' he concludes that 'Tartarus is again a reference to the sea.'27

Problematically, Papaioannou largely interprets these LXX texts through the lens of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). He appears not to allow for the possibility that the LXX translators have redacted the meaning of the these texts by introducing mythological language which was faint or absent in the Hebrew. Moreover, he neglects to adduce any external evidence that 'watery places' (a river, in the case of the hippopotamus!) falls within the semantic field of tartaros.

A more convincing exegesis of these LXX texts is offered by Burnett. Having thoroughly surveyed references to tartaros in Greek and Greco-Roman literature down through the Hellenistic period, Burnett turns to Second Temple literature, beginning with the three LXX passages. After noting that tartaros in these texts has no parallel in the MT or Targumim and 'thus seem to reflect additions to the Hebrew texts,'28 he summarizes the meaning of the term in each case.

Job 40:20 LXX indicates that four-footed beasts (tetraposin) dwell within tartaros. Burnett describes this use of tartaros as 'vague' and 'ambiguous', although he notes the possibility that the translator had in mind Cerberus, a four-footed beast from Greco-Roman mythology. He thinks that in Job 41:24 LXX and Prov. 30:16 LXX 'the translators maintained the common Greco-Roman taxonomy of Tartarus as a deep place associated with Hades.'29 He notes that

it is striking that nowhere in the LXX did a translator feel compelled to explain the characteristics of Tartarus... it seems that the translators assumed their audiences' familiarity with this concept. This hypothesis is strengthened by the LXX translators' use of mythology related to Tartarus. Numerous times throughout the LXX, the translators chose to render the Hebrew terms gibbôr, gībbōrîm, npîlîm, and rpā’îm with the terms gigas and titan.30

Burnett suggests an apologetic motive for the incorporation of such Greco-Roman mythological concepts by the translators:

the Jewish translators were attempting to legitimize and legitimate their religion over that of the Greeks by proving the antiquity of their religious ideology. Considering the ingrained nature of the myth of Tartarus, the Titans, and the Giants in Greco-Roman culture, what better apologetic could Jews have brought to bear than the proof that the myths related to Tartarus were actually Jewish in origin?31

Tartarus appears in other Second Temple Jewish literature as well. Josephus, for instance, 'connected the Jewish traditions of the fallen angels to the ancient Greek myth of Titans, who were giants that rebelled against Chronos and were bound in chains in Tartarus (Ant. 1.73).'32

Particularly important to interpreting 2 Peter 2:4 is 1 Enoch. Here, Burnett summarizes:

The author of 1 Enoch not only employed Tartarus, but also derived much of his work from Greco-Roman mythology, subsuming the taxonomy of Tartarus and equating the Watcher tradition with titanomachy and gigantomachy.33

1 Enoch was originally written in Hebrew. However, a Greek version of the work (preserved in Codex Panopolitanus) refers to 'Uriel, one of the holy angels, the one over the world and Tartarus' (1 Enoch 20.2).34 This occurs in the context of descriptions of the place of punishment of the fallen angels - which have much in common with the description of Tartarus in Hesiod's Theogony.35 De Vivo notes that Tartarus refers to a place of punishment for sinners also in Philo, Josephus, Apocalypse of Ezra, Testament of Solomon, and Sibylline Oracles.36 Significantly, Sib. Or. 2.303 (302, Greek) uses the Greek word zophos to describe the darkness of Tartarus - just as 2 Peter 2:4 does.37

The use of Tartarus in Jewish literature and its relevance for interpreting 2 Peter 2:4 can be summarized as follows:

Since Tartarus appears in the LXX, the Pseudepigrapha, and first-century Jewish authors, it is probable that the author of 2 Peter was using a common word and making reference to a concept that had become familiar in Judaism in this time of religious syncretism. Further, the primary text that narrates the punishment of the sinful angels (Book of Watchers 1 En. 1–36) uses the term Tartarus.38

the concepts of Tartarus and the Greek myths of Titans and Giants underlie much of the treatment in eschatology in the Jewish literature of the [Second Temple] period.39

Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4

There seems to be virtually universal agreement among commentators today that 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 are drawing on the fallen angels interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 as expanded upon in Jewish tradition.40 Scholarly consensus also now holds this to be the background to 1 Peter 3:19.412 Peter and Jude use similar terminology to 1 Enoch in describing the punishment of the rebellious angels, including Tartarus, darkness, and chains.42 There is scholarly debate as to whether 2 Peter, in referring to Tartarus, is borrowing the terminology directly from Greek mythology43 or through the mediation of Jewish apocalyptic.44 The latter seems more likely:

Peter qualifies that by this divine judicial act they were ‘sent…to the underworld’ (tartarōsas). This verb, found only here in the NT, refers to being sent to Tartarus, the ‘deepest region of the underworld, lower even than Hades’ (OCD 1476)…The name given to this place of punishment in classical mythology was taken up by Jewish apocalyptic literature and appears to have found its way into the Jewish consciousness in general (Job 41:24; 1 En. 20.2; Philo, Embassy 7 § 49; 14 § 103; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.33 § 240; Sib. Or. 2.303). Jewish thinking modified reflection on the theme, however, as God now becomes the one who consigns the evil to ‘Tartarus itself and profound darkness’ (Philo, Rewards 26 § 152). ‘Dark Tartarus’ is juxtaposed with Gehenna (Sib. Or. 4.186). A small step was made from seeing this as the place of punishment of the Titans to speaking of it as the place where sinful angels were consigned (Glasson 1961: 62-67). This is precisely the connection made not only in 2 Pet. 2:4 but also in the Sib. Or. 1.98-103: 'Watchers… were mighty, of great form, but nevertheless they went under the dread house of Tartarus guarded by unbreakable bonds, to make retribution, to Gehenna of terrible, raging, undying fire.'45

Whence 2 Peter took the term Tartarus is not crucial to our purpose since it is, in either case, clear what he means: 'The rebellious angels had been... "Entartared".'46 Scholars point out that this does not refer to a final punishment but a provisional one in preparation for the final judgment.47 The consensus view of the meaning of 2 Peter 2:4 is shared even by conditionalist scholars.48

In summary, there is every reason to conclude that 2 Peter 2:4, like other Jewish literature, borrows from Greek mythology to describe the place of punishment for fallen angels. One cannot be sure of its geographical location in the writer's cosmology, but he clearly assumes its existence to be real.

Conclusion

The finding of my post from two years ago was that (1) 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 refer to an angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 (mediated by Jewish tradition), and that (2) these two early Christian writers treated these events as part of sacred history. A closer look at these two texts and their treatment in scholarly literature, with special emphasis on the reference to Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4, has provided further confirmation of this conclusion.

Christadelphian writers long held conclusion (2) but not (1), ignoring the findings of biblical scholarship and arguing for an oblique allusion to some other biblical event. When a Christadelphian finally adopted (1), he simultaneously abandoned (2) in order to avoid the logical consequence of (1) and (2): that a New Testament writer believed in the existence of fallen angels. This simply cannot be accepted by a Christadelphian writer because his theological presuppositions do not allow it to be true. Hopefully, Christadelphians who are more interested in evidence than dogma will reconsider their exegesis of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 - and its theological consequences.

Footnotes

• 1 In my defense I would note that I was not writing an academic article but a popular-level response to a popular-level pamphlet by Cox (who himself seems to formally cite only one published source).
• 2 The comments policy notes: 'When discussing post content, please demonstrate familiarity with the topic by referring to material from the relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature...comments failing to do so may be removed, at our discretion.'
• 3 'vv. 4-9 involve a lengthy conditional sentence whose protasis (vv. 4-8: consisting of 4 clauses introduced by ei and continued by 3 successive uses of kai) is balanced by a concluding apodosis (vv. 9-10a)' (Richard, E. (2000). Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, p. 349); 'The protasis ("if") in 2:4-8 consists of three negative examples (about the rebellious angels, the generation destroyed by the flood, and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah) and two positive examples (Noah and Lot). The point of these examples is made clear in the beginning of the apodosis ("then") in 2:9: "then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial and to keep the unrighteous punished until the day of judgment."...The general conclusion (2:9) is that just as in the distant biblical past God has rescued righteous persons like Noah and Lot and punished evildoers (the rebellious angels, the flood generation, and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah), so at the future judgment (which the false teachers are denying) God will rescue the righteous and punish the wicked.' (Harrington, D.J. (2008). 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, pp. 269-270).
• 4 'This saying is the conclusion of the examples and is constructed using "if/then" logic. Namely, if God is capable of administering justice and deliverance in the examples above, then God still knows how to deliver the godly – the verb is in the present tense – and has not forgotten how to keep those who are not godly for the punishment that awaits them.' (Reese, R.A. (2007). 2 Peter and Jude. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 153).
• 5 '2 Peter uses the watcher story as an example of God’s ability to punish the unrighteous, but he is not so interested in the details of the story as the outcome for the watchers, who are treated as real examples. Jude also uses 1 Enoch authoritatively.' (Vanbeek, L. (2000). 1 Enoch among Jews and Christians: A Fringe Connection? In S.E. Porter & B.W. Pearson (Eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (pp. 93-115). London: T&T Clark, p. 103).
• 6 'The judgment of God involves both the punishment of the ungodly and the salvation of the faithful. But is there any evidence that God does, in fact, so act? The writer provides an answer in the form of a long sentence (vv. 4-10), beginning with the conditional “if” and concluding with “then.” If this and this and this and this happened, then you have your answer; God certainly does know how to punish and to rescue. Three cases of punishment are offered: First, the sinning angels (sons of God) of Gen. 6:1-4. The author here reveals familiarity with a Jewish writing, 1 Enoch (probably dated between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D.) which offers an elaborate interpretation of biblical history. According to 1 Enoch 10, the angels of Genesis 6 became involved with earthly women and their offspring loosed war, violence, and idolatry in the world. As punishment, these angels were cast down into hell (tartarus) to be confined in dark pits until the final day of judgment. It is interesting that the writer assumes the readers not only knew 1 Enoch but also regarded it as an authoritative account of God’s activity' (Craddock, F.B. (1995). First and Second Peter and Jude. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 112).
• 7 'For the author of 2 Peter the story of the angels who sinned and their eventual judgement and punishment is a powerful example of the certainty of divine judgement on those who deny the parousia and who seek to compromise or adapt the faith of the apostles so as to make it palatable to the syncretic theosophy of the age. The message to the opponents and scoffers is clear – if God did not spare even angels who sinned, how much more certain is his judgement upon humans who do likewise?' (Billings, B. (2008). ‘The Angels who Sinned … He Cast into Tartarus’ (2 Peter 2:4): Its Ancient Meaning and Present Relevance. The Expository Times, 119(11), 532-537. Here p. 534).
• 8 'In rewriting Jude 5-8 the author of 2 Peter has omitted the example of the exodus generation (Jude 5) and added the case of the flood generation (2 Pet 2:5). Also he has put the examples in their biblical chronological order: rebellious angels, flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah' (Harrington, op. cit., p. 269).
• 9 'The example in Jude 6 is sandwiched between two clearly historical examples in Jude 5 and Jude 7. This suggests that Jude saw the story of the fallen angels as historical (he handles Genesis 6:1-4 with restraint unlike its use in 1 Enoch)' (Witherington, B., III. (2007). Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, p. 612); 'Here, then, [Jude] has aligned references to episodes in Exodus/Numbers, 1 Enoch, and Genesis. Nothing is said about the status of any of these works, nor is it said that one was ranked higher or lower in authority than another. Each is considered an appropriate source of information about the Lord’s punishing acts in the past. That is, like Genesis and Exodus/Numbers, 1 Enoch is a source of facts about what God has done' (VanderKam, J.C. (1996). 1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature. In J.C. VanderKam & W. Adler (Eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (pp. 33-101). Assen: Royal van Gorcum, p. 35.); 'It is possible, of course, that Jude alluded to a traditional story without believing it was historical, but this is problematic since the judgment of Israel in the wilderness and Sodom and Gomorrah are considered to be historical events. We must beware of a rationalistic worldview that dismisses such strange events as impossible. The objection most raise is that angels are asexual (Matt 22:30). Actually, Matthew did not say angels do not have sexuality, but they neither marry nor are given in marriage. There is no evidence that angels reproduce or engage in sexual intercourse. But when angels come to earth, they often come as human beings; and presumably the human form is genuine, not a charade, so that the sexuality of angels when they appear on earth is genuine… It is instructive, however, that many cultures have the story of the sexual union of angels and human beings. I would suggest that such accounts are distortions of an event that once occurred, an event that is accurately recorded in Gen 6:1-4. Nevertheless, the presence of such a story in so many cultures functions as evidence of a historical event that occurred. Do sexual unions between angels and human beings still happen today? I think the point of the imprisonment of angels and the flood narrative is that God now hinders any such unions from taking place' (Schreiner, T.R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Nashville: B&H Publishing, p. 451); '"Text" I refers to three groups of people: Israel in the wilderness (Num 14), the Watchers or fallen angels (I Enoch 6-19), and the cities of the Plain (Gen 19)… Both the groups and the individuals were well-known scriptural examples of judgment, who function here as types. So in these "texts" we have not verbal prophecies but historical types, to which Jude refers in summary form rather than by quoting Scripture. In verses 5-6, however, there are some more or less precise verbal allusions to the actual texts of Scripture [he cites Deut. 1:32; 9:23; Ps. 106:24; 1 Enoch 12:4; 15:3, 7; 10:12)]' (Bauckham, R. (1990/2004). Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. London: T&T Clark, pp. 182-183); In his use of the Enochic Watchers story in Jude 6, Jude 'indirectly relays his affection and trust in the pseudepigrapha as true and authoritative material' (Opoku-Gyamfi, F. (2015). The Use of Scripture in the Letter of Jude. Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, 5(1), 73-102. Here p. 88).
• 10 Charles, J.D. (2005). The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 15(1), 40-48. Here p. 48.
• 11 Charles, J.D. (1994). The Use of Tradition-Material in the Epistle of Jude. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 4(1), 1-14. Here p. 7.
• 12 so Kelly, J.N.D. (1969). A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. London: A&C Black, p. 258.
• 13 These theological reasons could be: (1) the canonical problem of New Testament writers apparently regarding Enochic tradition as authentic history; (2) the theological problems posed by an angelic rebellion.
• 14 Burke rebukes me for not substantiating my claim that Tartarus refers to the underworld here, but there are two reasons why I did not. Firstly, I was responding to Cox's pamphlet, and he had not proposed a different meaning for Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4. Cox and I apparently agree on the referential meaning of the allusions in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6; we only disagree on the rhetorical purpose and historical significance of these allusions. Secondly, the meaning of Tartarus in this text is not central to my exegetical argument. However, inasmuch as it highlights the mythological content of these passages, it is worth analyzing further here.
• 15 Hapax legomenon is a technical term for a word that occurs only once in a body of writings.
• 16 Bernstein, A.E. 1993. The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 22. Similarly, Sacks states that in Greek mythology, Tartarus was 'a lowermost abyss in Hades' realm...the scene of punishment for the evil Titans and for the worst human sinners' (Sacks, D. (1995). 'Afterlife'. In A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 8-9).
• 17 Burnett, C. (2013). Going through Hell: TARTAROS in in Greco-Roman Culture, Second Temple Judaism, and Philo of Alexandria. Journal of Ancient Judaism, 4(3), 352-378. Here p. 355. 'Stygian' means very dark.
• 18 Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 991.
• 19 LSJ.
• 20 Pindar lexicon
• 21 Lust, J., Eynikel, E., & Hauspie, K. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Part II. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, p. 469.
• 22 Cox, C.E. (2007). Job. In A. Pietersma & B. Wright (eds.), New English Translation of the Septuagint (pp. 667-696). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 695-696.
• 23 Cook, J. (2007). Proverbs. In A. Pietersma & B. Wright (eds.), New English Translation of the Septuagint (pp. 621-647). Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 642.
• 24 Goff, M.J. (2010). Ben Sira and the Giants of the Land: A Note on Ben Sira 16:7. Journal of Biblical Literature, 129(4), 645-655, here p. 653 n. 34.
• 25 Papaioannou, K.G. (2004). Places of punishment in the Synoptic Gospels. PhD Dissertation, University of Durham, p. 173.
• 26 op. cit., p. 174.
• 27 op. cit., 174.
• 28 Burnett, op. cit., p. 367.
• 29 ibid.
• 30 ibid.
• 31 ibid.
• 32 Donelson, L.R. (2010). I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 116.
• 33 Burnett, op. cit., p. 373.
• 34 trans. De Vivo, J. (2014). 2 Peter 2:4-16: The Redaction of the Biblical and Intertestamental References Dependent on Jude 5-11 and their Overall Significance for the Document. PhD Dissertation, Loyola University, p. 49. According to Pierce, the reference to Tartarus is also present in three Ethiopic manuscripts (Pierce, C.T. (2009). Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in Its Tradition-Historical and Literary Context. PhD Dissertation, Durham University, p. 51).
• 35 Bautch, K.C. (2003). A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19: No One Has Seen What I Have Seen. Leiden: Brill, pp. 130f. For his part, Papaioannou says little of the reference to Tartarus in 1 Enoch 20.2, merely expressing surprise at the 'lack of more references to Tartarus in...1 Enoch since it deals at most length with the fallen Watchers which in turn somewhat resembles the Greek myth of the Titans whence the concept of Tartarus emerged' (op. cit., p. 176).
• 36 De Vivo, op. cit., pp. 50-51.
• 37 op. cit., p. 52.
• 38 op. cit., p. 51.
• 39 Burnett, op. cit., p. 352.
• 40 'First Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude appear to assume that their readers have some knowledge of a tradition concerning the imprisonment of the fallen angels in Gen 6' (Donelson, op. cit., p. 116); 'Here, 2 Peter alludes to [the Watchers] story; but, instead of using traditional Hebraic language, 2 Peter uses the language that was familiar to Hellenistic Greeks and Jews - ταρταρώας (‘sending someone to Tartarus’) is the language used to describe the lowest place of imprisonment in the Greek underworld, the place where defeated gods, ancient giants, and others were consigned to torment… In 2 Peter the angels who sinned are not spared this judgment but are rather cast into darkness to wait for the final judgment that will come (Reese, op. cit., pp. 150-151)'; cf. Harrington, op. cit., pp. 269-270; Bauckham, op. cit., pp. 186-188; Fuchs, E. & Reymond, P. (1988). La Deuxième Épitre de Saint Pierre, L’Épitre de Saint Jude (2nd ed.). Genève: Labor et Fides, p. 84; Paulsen, H. (1992). Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 132-133; and other commentators cited below.
• 41 'While exegetes have considered a wide range of interpretative possibilities for this enigmatic Petrine text, the consensus today is that the passage also refers to the tradition of angels imprisoned in a liminal space, a tradition that underscores justice and divine judgment' (Bautch, K.C. (2014). ‘Awaiting New Heavens and a New Earth’: The Apocalyptic Imagination of 1-2 Peter and Jude. In E.F. Mason & T.W. Martin (Eds.), Reading 1-2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students (pp. 63-82). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 72-73).
• 42 'In 1 Enoch 54, Enoch sees a valley burning with fire, where ‘iron fetters of immense weight’ are being forged for ‘the armies of Azael’ (on these chains or bonds, see also 1 En. 13.1-2; 14.5; 56.1-2; 88.1). This binding in chains is echoed in Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4.' (Donelson, op. cit., p. 116).
• 43 Witherington, Ben, III. (2007). Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 352; Billings, op. cit., p. 535.
• 44 De Vivo, op. cit., pp. 47-52; Kelly, op. cit., p. 331; Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 336-337.
• 45 Green, G.L. (2008). Jude & 2 Peter. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, pp. 250-251.
• 46 Bernstein, op. cit., p. 251.
• 47 '[This text] alludes not to an indefinite punishment in the future but to one that lasts only until the Last Judgment' (ibid.); 'The angels who had sinned were “thrown down”, according to 2 Pet 2:4 by God himself into “the Tartarus”, to be kept there for the coming judgment' (Mussies, G. 'Giants'. In K. van der Toorn, B. Becking & P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd ed.) (pp. 343-345). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 344).
• 48 Papaioannou (op. cit., pp. 179-180) thinks that 2 Peter refers to fallen angels but depicts Tartarus as a place of temporal banishment on the earth; his arguments are rather thin. Fudge takes 2 Peter 2:4 to refer to punishment of fallen angels, but does not see this as problematic for conditionalism 'since (1) it concerns angels, not men, and (2) it speaks of detention before judgment rather than punishment following it' (Fudge, E.W. (2011). The Fire that Consumes (3rd ed.). Eugene: Wipf & Stock, p. 226).

Supernatural Evil in the Apostolic Fathers (11): Conclusions

Having gone through references to Satan and other supernatural evil in the Apostolic Fathers over the previous ten posts, we are now in a position to draw some overall conclusions.

1. Satan is mentioned by all, or nearly all, of the Apostolic Fathers.


Those Apostolic Fathers who undoubtedly mention Satan are 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Those Apostolic Fathers for which legitimate uncertainty exists, but which in my judgment probably do mention Satan, are the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis, the Didache, and the Epistle to Diognetus. There is not one writer among the Apostolic Fathers who can be said conclusively not to have referred to Satan.1 A spreadsheet of all the relevant references can be downloaded here.


2. The number of virtually certain references to Satan in the Apostolic Fathers is at least 50, and the number of possible references is 71. A reasonable estimate of the number of references to Satan in the Apostolic Fathers is 59.


A virtually certain  reference is defined as one which is supported by a clear scholarly consensus, with virtually no objections.2 Possible references are those for which there is some scholarly support but it is disputed, whether on text-critical or exegetical grounds. These are divided here into two categories: probable and improbable. According to my judgment, the number of probable references is 9,3 and the number of improbable references is 12.4 Thus, my overall estimate for the number of references to Satan in the Apostolic Fathers is 59.


The references to Satan are not, of course, evenly distributed across the Apostolic Fathers corpus: The Shepherd of Hermas singlehandedly accounts for nearly half the virtually certain references; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas together comprise nearly two-thirds of the virtually certain references. Most other documents in the Apostolic Fathers have just one or two. Hence, Satan is a recurring theological theme in early post-apostolic Christian discourse but by no means a dominant theme.


3. Other forms of supernatural evil are mentioned by at least four Apostolic Fathers, and possibly by five.


Those Apostolic Fathers writings which almost certainly refer to other forms of supernatural evil (such as demons or bad angels) are Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis. In addition, in our analysis of the Didache we found that this document probably contains implicit references to supernatural evil in addition to Satan himself. 


Those Apostolic Fathers who almost certainly do not refer to any form of supernatural evil other than Satan are 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Polycarp of Smyrna, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Epistle to Diognetus. Hence, Satan receives more attention in the Apostolic Fathers than demons or bad angels. This is similar to what we find in the New Testament (at least outside the Synoptic Gospels).


4. Language associated with Satan, demons, etc. is broadly consistent with that found in the New Testament.


Most of the terms and concepts used to describe Satan in the Apostolic Fathers (devil, Satan, evil one, ruler/lord, serpent, the concept of deceit, the verb energeō, the idea that the devil flees when resisted) are also found in the New Testament, although there is some innovation in terminology (e.g. the black one, the lawless one, the lord of this city). The same is true of terms and concepts used to describe other supernatural evil (angels of Satan, angelic rulers in the heavenly realms, angels whose arrangement came to nothing, demons as bodiless spirits, demons as potentially inhabiting humans).


In the Apostolic Fathers there is no attempt to systematize Satanological or demonological concepts. The ideas are taken over from the tradition and adapted to the writers' rhetorical and pastoral purposes but are not developed further. Systematization of these doctrines seems to occur for the first time in Justin Martyr.


5. The Apostolic Fathers collectively support the notion of Satan as a supernatural, personal being.


Wherever a writer's references to Satan contain enough contextual detail to enable some understanding of how he conceived of Satan, it is clear that a supernatural, personal being is in view. We have seen this in the case of Ignatius of Antioch, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, Papias of Hierapolis (if fragment 23 is authentic), and the Shepherd of Hermas.


Admittedly, in some writings all references to Satan are too cursory to allow an exegetical assessment of whether the writer understood Satan to be a personal being or a personification. This would include 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Polycarp of Smyrna, the Didache, and the Epistle to Diognetus. However, in every case the language used is perfectly consistent with the notion of Satan as a supernatural, personal being. Furthermore, in some cases, known historical links between these writers and others who undoubtedly believed Satan to be a supernatural personal being (e.g. Polycarp's relationship with Ignatius) make it highly probable that their references to Satan are to be understood in the same way. Finally, there is little positive evidence in any of these writings suggesting the writer regards Satan as a personification.5


6. The Apostolic Fathers contain no evidence of controversy in the Church about Satan and other supernatural evil beings.


First, as in the New Testament, and as in the later apologetic and heresiological writings, no Apostolic Father mentions any disagreement in the Church about whether Satan or demons exist or about whether these are literal beings or figures of speech. Secondly, as in the New Testament, the way the writers introduce references to Satan and other supernatural evil beings is casual and unassuming. The writers do not attempt to define such beings, to justify making reference to them, or to prove that they exist. They consistently behave as though they are assuming that all their readers share the same beliefs as themselves in this matter.


In the period covered by the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, different writers have different levels of emphasis on supernatural evil and invoke such ideas for different rhetorical purposes. Nevertheless, the basic concept of Satan, demons and angels good and bad - the underlying worldview - appears to have been unanimous in the Church throughout this period.


This creates a major problem for those who claim that the traditional Christian doctrine of Satan and evil is a distortion of the New Testament evidence. It is beyond dispute that the doctrine of Satan as a supernatural personal being was entrenched as Christian orthodoxy by the end of the second century, as is evident from the writings of such luminaries as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria. If this was the result of apostasy from earlier Christian teaching, we would expect to find evidence of controversy. We would expect to find writers defending their view of Satan against other competing doctrines. However, we find nothing of the kind.


Overall Conclusion


The only natural conclusion is that the doctrine of Satan and supernatural evil became entrenched as Christian orthodoxy because it had been part of Christian teaching from the beginning. In other words, the reason why the writers of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers appear to have believed Satan, demons and angels are real cosmic beings is because this is exactly what they did believe! Those who hold to traditional Church teaching on supernatural evil can rest assured that these ideas are present in Christian literature early and often.


One cannot help but regard as ingenious the hermeneutical approach of Rudolf Bultmann and his school, who frankly confess that the New Testament worldview regarded demons and spirits as real, but who regard this worldview as irreconcilable with modern science. They therefore embark on a programme of 'demythologization' of all mythical language in the New Testament (in their case, reinterpreting it in existentialist terms). Whatever one may make of Bultmann's conclusions, they are based upon an attempt to marry sound, historical-critical exegesis of ancient texts with a modern worldview.


Far less reputable is an approach which uses tendentious exegesis of texts about Satan and demons to recast early Christian writers in the image of the modern interpreter, thereby excising the spirit world from the text and artificially harmonizing these writings with a modern, scientific worldview. The starting point for any theology of Satan and demons that is truly Christian must be sound, grammatical-historical exegesis of the writings of the early Church.




Footnotes

• 1 The only text usually classified among the Apostolic Fathers that has not been discussed here is the Apology of Quadratus. The reason for the omission is obvious: this document survives only in a 49-word fragment preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. This fragment makes no mention of supernatural evil, but it would be absurd to try to infer anything from such a silence.
• 2 The 50 virtually certain references to Satan are: 1 Clement 51.1; 2 Clement 18.2; Ignatius to the Ephesians 10.3, 13.1, 17.1, 19,1; Ignatius to the Magnesians 1.2; Ignatius to the Trallians 4.2; 8.1; Ignatius to the Romans 5.3; 7.1; Ignatius to the Philadelphians 6.2; Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 9.1; Polycarp to the Philippians 7.1 (two); Martyrdom of Polycarp 2.4(3.1), 17.1 (two); Epistle of Barnabas 2.1, 2.10, 4.10, 4.13, 15.5, 18.1, 18.2, 20.1, 21.3; Hermas Mandates 4.3.4, 4.3.6, 5.1.3, 7.2 (two), 7.3, 9.9, 9.11, 11.3, 11.17, 12.2.2, 12.4.6 (two), 12.4.7, 12.5.1, 12.5.2 (two), 12.5.4, 12.6.1, 12.6.2 (two), 12.6.4, Hermas Similitudes 9.31.2.
• 3 Didache 8.2; Papias Fragment 23; Diognetus 12.6, 12.8; Hermas Mandates 7.3; Hermas Similitudes 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 8.3.6.
• 4 2 Clement 20.4 (this text was not discussed in the post on 2 Clement but is considered to be a possible reference to Satan by Tuckett, C.M. (2012). 2 Clement: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 301. Since no scholar seems to have defended this view ardently, I left it out); Didache 16.4, lost ending; Epistle of Barnabas 9.4; Papias Fragment 13; Diognetus 12.3; Hermas Mandates 6.2.1, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.7, 6.2.9, 6.2.10.
• 5 Some scholars have seen demythologizing tendencies in 1 Clement 3.4 and Didache 1.1. See our discussions of those two writings for arguments that these texts do not suggest that their authors held a demythologized view of Satan.

Supernatural Evil in the Apostolic Fathers (10): Epistle to Diognetus

The so-called 'Epistle to Diognetus' (henceforth just Diognetus) is an anonymous text addressed to one Diognetus. It is not really an epistle in the sense of Paul's epistles. In fact, it is generally regarded as a composite work consisting of two sections: an apology aimed at non-Christians (chapters 1-10) and a homily aimed at Christians (chapters 11-12).1 Furthermore, it is probably the latest writing included in the (admittedly artificial) Apostolic Fathers corpus: 'The majority of scholars date it to 200'.2 With such a late date being probable, it is not as valuable for reconstructing early post-apostolic Christian thought as other Apostolic Fathers writings usually dated from the late first to mid second century (e.g. 1 Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Didache, etc.) Numerous other proto-orthodox Christian writings from the late second century survive which are not classified among the Apostolic Fathers, such as the works of Irenaeus, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch. Nevertheless, for sake of completeness let us proceed to investigate supernatural evil in Diognetus.

The apologetic portion of Diognetus (chapters 1-10) contains no reference to Satan, demons or other supernatural evil, in its extant form. However, it would be inadvisable to make arguments from silence about the author's views on this basis because, in addition to the copy break that occurs apparently at the end of the apologetic portion, there is a lacuna (a missing section of text) at Diognetus 7.6 and 'there is no way to know how much of the intervening text has been lost, whether just a few words or a page or more.'3 The lacuna occurs in an eschatological section,4 and since Satan is often mentioned in eschatological contexts in early Christianity,5 it is not impossible that the missing text referred to him. Of course it would be pure speculation to positively claim that the lost portion of text mentioned Satan; very likely it did not. The point is that the possibility cannot be completely discounted, which is yet another reason why arguments from silence carry little weight.

One observes in Diognetus 2.4 that, similar to what we found in the Didache, the author describes idols as 'lifeless.' Since other early Christian writers saw a demonic dimension to idolatry (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:19-21; Rev. 9:20; Justin, 1 Apology 9), does this suggest that the author of Diognetus rejected such a view? Not necessarily. As we pointed out in our discussion of the Didache, there were two traditional Jewish polemics against idolatry. One (found especially in Hellenistic Jewish literature), 'contrasts lifeless idols (along with the "ignorance" in which idolatry is based) with the one, true, creating and redeeming God (along with "knowledge of Him").'6 The other tradition, 'although it agreed that idols are "nothings" and lifeless human products, saw in idolatry the service or the influence of demons (Jub. 2.4-6; 22.16-22; 1 En. 19; 99.6-10; T.Naph. 3.3-4).'7 Thus both polemical strategies agreed on the lifelessness of idols, so the declaration in Diognetus that idols are 'lifeless and dead' is actually compatible with both. Meecham commenting specifically on this passage in Diognetus, states, 'That both views could be held in the mind without a sense of conflict may be seen in Paul.'8 This can also be seen in Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 9, who uses the same language as Diognetus for idols ('lifeless and dead') but also states that they 'have not the form of God...but have the names and shapes of those evil demons which have appeared'.9 Is there any plausible explanation for why the author of Diognetus might have omitted the polemic that linked idols to demons? Perhaps: at the end of his polemic against idolatry, he concludes:

I could say many other things about why Christians do not serve such gods, but if someone supposes that these comments are not enough, I imagine saying anything more would be superfluous. (Diog 2.10)10

Thus, the author explicitly tells us that he is omitting some of his polemic against idolatry. In view of this, it would be inadvisable to make an argument from silence that the writer did not consider idolatry to have a demonic dimension or did not believe in demons.11

Turning to the homily portion of Diognetus (chapters 11-12), there is again no clear reference to supernatural evil, but there are three references to 'the serpent' (ho ophis) in Diognetus 12.3-8 which may refer to Satan. The passage reads as follows:

3 Nor is that which is written obscure, how at the beginning God planted "a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the middle of paradise," thereby revealing life through knowledge. But those who were there at the beginning made use of it in an impure way, and became naked through the deceit of the serpent. 4 For life cannot exist apart from knowledge nor secure knowledge apart from true life. 5 When the apostle considered this marvel he criticized knowledge that is exercised apart from the true command that leads to life, saying "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up." 6 For the one who thinks he knows anything apart from the knowledge that is true and attested by life does not know; he is deceived by the serpent and does not love life. But the one who has come to know with reverential fear, and who seeks life, plants in hope and expects to receive fruit. 7 Let your heart be knowledge and your life be the true, comprehensible word. 8 If you bear this tree and pluck its fruit, you will always harvest what God desires. The serpent cannot touch such things nor can deceit defile them. Nor is Eve corrupted, but a virgin is trusted [Or: but is believed on as a virgin]. (Diognetus 12.3-8)12

Jefford notes that the writer of Diognetus does not explicitly identify the serpent as Satan in this passage.13 However, he elsewhere states that the serpent seems allegorical and that the writer appears to assume a link between the serpent of Genesis and the great dragon of Revelation (which is explicitly identified as Satan).14

Gokey notes that while the 'deceit of the serpent' in 12.3 (referring to the events in Eden) does not require an active interpretation, the deceit by the serpent in 12.6 'would favour an active interpretation.'15 Similarly 'the serpent cannot touch such things nor can deceit defile them' (12.8) suggests an active meaning. Among lexical authorities, BDAG regards the serpent in v. 6 as 'clearly the devil,'16 while Lampe also identifies the serpent here with the devil.17 Such an interpretation of the serpent of Genesis 3 was already a well-established tradition in the church by the time this text was written (Rom. 16:20;18 2 Cor. 11:3 cp. v. 14;19 Rev. 12:9; 20:2; 1 Apology 28).

It should be stressed, however, that the identification of the serpent with Satan here seems to be allegorical rather than literal. The writer is not necessarily implicating Satan in the events of Eden; rather, he refers historically to the serpent of Eden (12.3), and then proceeds to use Edenic imagery (serpent, tree, Eve) allegorically to describe the present circumstances of the church. Whatever the serpent denotes in the present, it is an active force which can deceive the ignorant (12.6) but cannot touch the knowledgeable and reverent (12.8). It is impossible to be certain about the referent, but the only active force identified with the serpent elsewhere in early Christian writings is Satan, and he is therefore the most likely candidate.

Footnotes

• 1 Foster states, 'It can be seen that whereas the first ten chapters have an apologetic focus, the final two have inner ecclesial concerns' (Foster, P. (2006). The Epistle to Diognetus. The Expository Times, 118(4), 162-168, here p. 164). See also Jefford, C.N. (2013). The Epistle to Diognetus (with the Fragment of Quadratus): Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 12. Foster also observes, 'These sections appear to represent two distinct sources that have been combined during the process of transmission. The identification of this seam is supported by a marginal note in the manuscript at the end of chapter 10 which reads "and here the copy has a break"' (op. cit., p. 163).
• 2 Williams, H.H.D., III. (2015). [Review of the book The Epistle to Diognetus (with the Fragment of Quadratus): Introduction, Text, and Commentary, by C.N. Jefford]. Themelios 39(3), 567-569, here p. 568. Others propose dates in 'the late second century or early third' (Grant, R.M. (1988). Greek Apologists of the Second Century. London: SCM Press, p. 178) or 'to some moment during the 2nd century, with a preference for the latter decades of that period' (Jefford, op. cit., p. 28).
• 3 Ehrman, B. (2003). (Ed. & trans.). The Apostolic Fathers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 124.
• 4 Jefford states that 'the textual lacuna complicates any interpretation of the eschatological context. One thus cannot know what further materials on this topic may have originally been here or reconstruct the missing words that may once have served to explain what now appears as a sudden turn of theme' (op. cit., p. 232).
• 5 E.g. Matt. 12:24-32; 25:41; Luke 10:18-19; John 12:31; Romans 16:20; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 20:2-7.
• 6 Horsley, R.A. (2004). Gnosis in Corinth: I Corinthians 8.1-6. In E. Adams & D.G. Horrell (Eds.), Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church (pp. 119-128). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 127.
• 7 ibid.
• 8 Meecham, H.G. (1949). The Epistle to Diognetus: Greek Text with Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p. 33.
• 9 trans. Barnard, L.W. (1997). The First and Second Apologies. Mahwah: Paulist Press, p. 27.
• 10 trans. Ehrman, op. cit., p. 135.
• 11 Having noted that most of the Apologists believed in the malignant influence of demons, Meecham adds, 'The author of Diognetus gives no hint that he held the general view, though we may not, e silentio, conclude the contrary' (op. cit., p. 22).
• 12 trans. Ehrman, op. cit., pp. 157, 159.
• 13 Jefford, op. cit., p. 102; cf. Russell, J.B. (1981). Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 46 n. 49.
• 14 Jefford, op. cit., pp. 254-255.
• 15 Gokey, F.X. (1961). The Terminology for the Devil and Evil Spirits in the Apostolic Fathers. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 118-119 n. 12.
• 16 Arndt, W., Danker, F.W. & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 744.
• 17 Lampe, G.W.H. (1961). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 989.
• 18 Those who regard Rom. 16:20 as an allusion to Gen. 3:15 include: Foerster, W. (1967). 'ὄφις', in TDNT V.566-582, here p. 581; Wolff, C. (1989). Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, pp. 212-213; Mounce, R.H. (1995). Romans. Nashville: B&H Publishing, p. 280; Schreiner, T.R. (1998). Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 804; Dochhorn, J. (2007). Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit. Eine Studie zu den exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16, 20a. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche, 98(3-4), 189-212, here p. 195; Williams, G.J. (2009). The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 93-94. Regarding Rom. 16:20 rather as an allusion to Ps. 110:1 are Forsyth, N. (2003). The Satanic Epic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 305; Brown, D.R. (2011). The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, pp. 119-124. Undecided between these two options is Löfstedt, T. (2010) Paul, Sin and Satan: The Root of Evil according to Romans. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok, 75, 109-134, here p. 122.
• 19 Those who think Paul implicitly identifies the serpent with Satan here include Malherbe, A.J. (1961). Through the Eye of the Needle: Simplicity or Singleness? Restoration Quarterly, 5, 119-29, here pp. 127-128; Furnish, V.P. (1975). 2 Corinthians: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, p. 158; Wolff, op. cit., pp. 212-213; Garrett, S.R. (1991). "Lest the Light in You be Darkness": Luke 11:33-36 and the Question of Commitment. Journal of Biblical Literature, 110(1), 93-105, here p. 99; Garland, D.E. (1999). Second Corinthians. Nashville: B&H Publishing, p. 462; Lambrecht, J. (1999). Second Corinthians. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, p. 173; Harris, M.J. (2005). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 741; Williams, op. cit., pp. 94-95; Collins, R.F. (2013). Second Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 213; Seifrid, M.A. (2014). The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 405 n. 281. For counterarguments, see Brown, op. cit., pp. 197-199.