Note: this is the accepted version of an article that appeared in the Journal for the Study of the

New Testament, Volume 39, Issue 1 (2016), published by Sage. The published version of the
article can be accessed at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0142064X16660911.
Significant revisions were made before publication, so please cite the published version only.

Diabolical Data: A Critical Inventory of New Testament Satanology

Thomas J. Farrar, Cape Peninsula University of Technology; King’s Evangelical Divinity School

Guy J. Williams, Wellington College

Abstract

This study counts references to Satan in the NT, by any designation. First, all candidate texts are

surveyed. These include occurrences of the words ᾶ and (with and without

the article) and 31 other terms which potentially refer to Satan, descriptively or allegorically.

Having laid ground rules for counting potential references in close proximity, candidate texts in

which the referent is uncertain are analyzed exegetically to decide whether they do refer to

Satan. These include texts in which ᾶ or occurs without the article, and texts

in which neither ᾶ nor occurs. Through exegesis, a final count of 135

references to Satan in the NT is obtained. An alternative, probability-weighted approach

estimates the number at 127.6. In either case, the total is strikingly greater than a naïve

summation of instances of ᾶ and .

Keywords

devil, Satan, terminology, titles, frequency, count

Corresponding authors: Thomas J. Farrar, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, PO Box 1906, Bellville,
7535, South Africa. Email: [email protected]; Guy J. Williams, Wellington College, Crowthorne, RG45
7PU, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]
1. Introduction

In the OT and most ancient Jewish lite atu e, “ata is only a marginal figure (Reeg 2013: 82).1

This is particularly apparent when considered alongside his prominence in the NT, which we aim

to quantify in this study. By comprehensively counting the NT references to Satan we hope to

create a reference point for scholarship and, alongside the companion piece in this two-part

stud , illust ate the e e ge e of a disti ti e “ata olog i ea l Ch istia it . B “ata e

mean the general concept of a leading spiritual figure of evil, acknowledging that different terms

may have different nuances. Our methodology consists of surveying all possible references to

Satan and analyzing uncertain cases.

Transliterations of the Hebrew ׂ ׂ or Aramaic ׂ ׂ ׂ occur 36 times in the NT, always following

the lexical form ᾶ . 2 However, our work does not end here. It is not certain that all

instances of ᾶ refer to our Satan concept. Furthermore, other terms denoting this

concept must be counted.

Most prevalent among these is , hi h Most ofte i the Ne Testa e t…is used fo

the p ope a e De il (Pierce 2010: 1199).3 This word also occurs 36 times,4 although again,

there are cases where the referent is debatable. Three plural occurrences, obviously referring

1
The comment refers to rabbinic literature, but is equally applicable to the OT, in which ׂ ׂ ַ or ׂ ׂ as
a spiritual being occurs only in Num. 22:22-32; 1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2. See Stuckenbruck (2013b)
on the paucity of Satan in Second Temple texts.
2
Note the v.l. in 2 Cor. 12:7.
3
Similarly Silva 2014: I, 692.
4
The number could be 37 if is retained in Lk. 4:5. However, following NA28 we exclude it.

2
to slanderous humans, can be dismissed (1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 2:3). In these,

functions adjectivally (Wallace 1996: 224).

The equivalence of ᾶ and in the NT is evident from Synoptic parallels in the

parable of the sower,5 and from interchange of terms within texts.6 Both terms derive from ׂ ׂ ,

one by transliteration and one by (LXX) translation. 7 Oscillation between ᾶ and

is probably due to stylistic variation and the terminology assumed by an author to be

current among his audience.

2. Other possible terms for Satan

Table 1 contains a list of NT terminology (besides ᾶ and ) claimed by some

scholars to refer to Satan.

Table 1

Greek term (nominative) Translation Text(s)

the tempting [one] Mt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5
the evil [one]; the evil Mt. 5:37; 5:39; 6:13; 13:19;
[person]; evil 13:38; Jn 17:15; Eph. 6:16; 2
Thess. 3:3; 1 Jn 2:13; 2:14;
3:12; 5:18; 5:19
ῶ the ruler of demons Mt. 9:34; 12:24; Mk 3:22;
Lk. 11:15
… him that can destroy in / cast Mt. 10:28 / Lk. 12:5
ͅ / ... into Gehenna

5
Mk : ; Lk. : ; f. Mt. : . These pa allels a t as a ‘osetta sto e “ odde l : .
6
Mt. 4:1-11; Jn 13:2,27; Rev. 2:9-10; Rev. 12:9; Rev. 20:2; cf. TJob 3:3- . No material distinction may be
asse ted et ee these te s i the NT (Foerster 1964: 79).
7
1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7; Ps. 109(108):6; Zech. 3:1-2.

3
ἔ ῖ

Beelzeboul Mt. 10:25; 12:24; 12:27; Mk

3:22; Lk. 11:15; 11:18; 11:19
the strong [man] Mt. 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk.
11:21
[ ] the birds [of the air] Mt. 13:4; Mk 4:4; Lk. 8:5
the enemy Mt. 13:25; 13:28; 13:39; Lk.
10:19
ἡ the power of darkness Lk. 22:53; Col. 1:13
[ ] the father of [lies] Jn 8:44
the thief Jn 10:10
the wolf Jn 10:12
the ruler of this world Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11
[ ]
the destroyer 1 Cor. 10:10
ῶ the god of this age 2 Cor. 4:4
Beliar 2 Cor. 6:15
[ ῖ ] the [ancient] serpent 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9;
12:14; 12:15; 20:2
ώ the aeon of this world Eph. 2:2
ῆ the ruler of the power of the Eph. 2:2
air
the spirit now working in the Eph. 2:2
ῖ ῖ sons of disobedience
ῆ
the opposing [one] 1 Tim. 5:14
Gehenna (as metonym) Jas 3:6
the adversary 1 Pet. 5:8
ͅ ͅ he that is in the world 1 Jn 4:4
a star fallen from heaven to Rev. 9:1
ῆ earth
ῆ the angel of the abyss Rev. 9:11
Ἀ ώ Abaddon Rev. 9:11
Ἀ Apollyon Rev. 9:11
[ ] the [great red] dragon Rev. 12:3; 12:4; 12:7; 12:9;
12:13; 12:16; 12:17; 13:2;
13:4; 16:13; 20:2

4
 ῶ ῶ the accuser of our brethren Rev. 12:10
ἡ ῶ

3. Rules for counting

It is necessary to define rules for counting candidate references to Satan in close proximity. All

arthrous substantives are counted. Anarthrous substantives are counted if not subordinate to

another candidate reference.8 Plural terms that may include Satan amongst others are omitted

(e.g., Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 2:6-8). Under these rules, the number of candidate references to Satan

in the NT is 147.9

8
For example: ͅΒ ῶ (Mt. 12:24) and ῶ
(1 Pet. 5:8) each count as a single reference, whereas Β ... ... ͅ ῶ
(Mk 3:22) and ᾶ ᾶ (Mk 3:23) count as two each. Jn 8:44 contains two
references ( and [ ]; and do not
count). Eph. 2:2 contains three, and Rev. 12:9 four.
9
See Conclusion for a full list. To qualify as a candidate a reference must have scholarly support later than
1900 (of course it is possible we may have overlooked some such references). On this basis we exclude
hi ho su je ted [the eatio ] i ‘o . : . This as i te p eted as “atan by Godet (1883: 516) and
is still frequently mentioned as an option (Bultmann 1952-1955: I, 230; Mounce 1995: 184n172; Moo
1996: 515- ; Ja kso : ; othe s listed Du a : , ut this optio see s estigial
since it no longer receives any serious consideration; the discussion focuses on God and Adam. Similarly,
the lio i Ti . : as ega ded as “ata Chase : -122) but, while this option is still
mentioned unenthusiastically by a few (e.g. Ryken et al 1998: 514; Bell 2007: 11n50; Spencer 2014: 152),
it seems not to have any supporters. The consensus is that the lion imagery taken from Ps. 22:21 signifies
danger or death without denoting a specific referent (Dornier 1969: 249; Guthrie 1990: 188-189; Lea 1992:
256; Oberlinner 1994-1996: II, 179; Griffiths 1996: 219; Weiser 2003: 324-325; Towner 2006: 644n107).

5
The 56 cases where ᾶ 10
or 11
occurs almost certainly refer to Satan due to

the monadic or par excellence use of the article (Wallace 1996: 222-224).12 Equally certain are

descriptive titles explicitly identified with Satan in context: the tempter (Mt. 4:3), the enemy (Lk.

10:19),13 the father of lies (Jn 8:44), and the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10).14 However,

there are many cases where the referent is debatable, because ᾶ or is

anarthrous or different terminology is used. We now turn to exegesis of these, classifying them

according to likelihood of a Satanic referent: almost certain, highly probable, probable,

improbable, highly improbable, or almost certainly not.

4. Exegesis of debatable references

4.1

The third most common term for Satan in the NT is the e il o e ). Π occurs

as a singular substantive with the article 16 times.15 Of these, three are obviously not Satan: Lk.

6:45, where should be read elliptically (cf. Mt. 12:35); Rom. 12:9, where

10
Mt. 12:26 (twice); Mk 1:13; 3:26; 4:15; Lk. 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; Jn 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom.
16:20; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 5:15; Rev. 2:9; 2:13
(twice); 2:24; 3:9; 12:9 and 20:2 (following NA28); 20:7.
11
Mt. 4:1; 4:5; 4:8; 4:11; 13:39; 25:41; Lk. 4:2; 4:3; 4:13; 8:12; Jn 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim.
3:6; 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26; Heb. 2:14; Jas 4:7; 1 Jn 3:8 (thrice); 3:10; Jude 9; Rev. 2:10; 12:12; 20:10.
12
Cf. Kelly (2006: 72- , ho disti guishes the o o ou f o the p ope ou
.
13
Cf. TJob 7:11; 47:10; TDan 6:3-4.
14
The term , borrowed into Hebrew as ֹ ַ , occurs in rabbinic literature as a legal term
ea i g a use , p ose uto “pe e : , i ludi g fo a geli p ose uto s su h as “a a el a d
Satan (ExRab 18:5; LevRab 21:4; MAvot 4:11; TargJob 33:23).
15
Chase (1891: 115-117) also proposed ῶ ῶ as such (dubiously).

6
is neuter; and 1 Cor. 5:13, which quotes an LXX phrase (Deut. 17:7; 22:24; etc.) referring to the

generic lawbreaker.

The remaining 13 substantive occurrences merit consideration. Where gender is ambiguous,

three possibilities exist: the evil one (masculine, par excellence use of article), the/an evil person

(masculine, generic use of article) or evil (neuter, abstract use of article). Only the first would

refer to Satan.

We can be almost certain in seven cases that is the evil one.16 In Mt. 13:19, the term

is masculine and exegeted by Synoptic parallels (Mk 4:15; Lk. 8:12). In Eph. 6:16, the term

corresponds to in v. 11. In 1 Jn 2:13, 2:14 and 5:18 the term is masculine, and in 1

Jn 3:12 it corresponds to in vv. 8-10. 1 Jn 5:19 corresponds to 5:18. It is highly

probable that in Mt. 13:38 corresponds to in v. 39.17 Five cases are

more difficult, being gender-ambiguous and lacking a corroborative reference to or

ᾶ .

In Mt. 5:37 both satanic (NIV) and abstract (NASB) interpretations are contextually plausible.

Ho e e , e il as a a st a tio is o he e else des i ed as a sou e of diso edie e i

16
Contra “u a a ia s : su p isi g asse tio that the asso iatio of the e il o e ith
“ata is ot fou d i Matthe s Gospel o else he e i the Ne Testa e t ! I the AF this desig atio
for Satan occurs in Barn 2.10, 21.3, MartPol 17.1, and possibly Did 8.2.
17
Harder (1968: 559- a d Ve he : a gue fo the eute he e. The ju tapositio ith so s
of the ki gdo suggests the possi ilit of a i pe so al efe e t, so s of e il f. so s of diso edie e ,
Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6). However, the tares have been sown by (13:39), who has a kingdom
(Mt. 12:26). Given this, the precedent in 13:19 and the paternal imagery for Satan elsewhere (Jn 8:44; 1
Jn 3:10; Acts 13:10; cf. 4Q174 1.8), a satanic referent is highly probable.

7
Matthew. Instead, sources are the heart (9:4; 12:34-35 cf. Lk. 6:45; 15:19), and ultimately Satan

(4:1-11; 13:19; 16:23). Moreover, an oath may be associated with the e il o e possibly a Satan-

like figure) in 1En 69.15.18 Betz (1995: 272n598) states, Overtones of demonic evil should not

be denied, because oath was understood since Hesiod to be a demonic being. Hence,

following most scholars we consider this reference probable.19

The context of Mt. 5:39 suggests the generic reading, But I tell you, do not resist an evil person

(NIV), followed by nearly all scholars. Weaver (1992: 58) argues persuasively that the recurring

Deuteronomic command to remove the evil one from your midst (Deut. 17:7 etc.) forms the

background. A few, however, have argued for a reference to the devil; 20 most substantially

Bruner, who holds that there is a double entendre referring to the generic human and the

spiritual evil one. Despite this intriguing possibility, the lack of evidence and contrary consensus

merit a judgment of highly improbable .

In Mt. 6:13 the petition ἡ ᾶ is known in English liturgical tradition

as an abstract reference to evil. However, there are strong arguments for reading the evil one .

(1) virtually all the Greek patristic writers read as Satan (Ayo 1992/2003: 95). (2)

In ApocJas 4.28- , Ja es petitio s the Lo d, G a t us, the efo e, ot to e te pted the

18
Isaac 1983/2011: 48; Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: I, 538; Akenson 2000: 31; Waddell 2004:
20n46; Branden 2006: 82n184.
19
Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: I, 538; Lanier 1992: 61; Gundry 1994: 109; Sim 1996: 77; Garland
1999: 259; Keener 1999: 223n181; Bonnard 2002: 71; Bruner 2004: I, 242f; Branden 2006: 111; Grimshaw
2008: 208n52; Witherington 2009-2010: I, 149; Carson 2010: 269; Pierce 2010: 1199; Talbert 2010: 85;
Evans 2012: 126; De Bruin 2013: 185n11; Silva 2014: IV, 266.
20
Gundry 1994: 109; Bruner 2004: I, 249-250.

8
de il, the e il o e (Williams 1996: 31, trans.). This te t p o a l e hoes the Lo d s P a e

(Harding 2010: 464), and may therefore be early evidence for satanic interpretation (together

with Jn 17:15; see below). (3) Matthean usage favours a personal referent. 21 (4) Syntactical

considerations favour a personal referent: (i) more commonly links with a personal

indirect object using and with an impersonal i.o. using .22 (ii) While O Neill (1993: 18-19)

thinks the safest approach is to assume that the prayer covered a wide range of evils, Vögtle

(1978: 101) notes that in this case the article should have been omitted.23 (iii) I NT usage, he

po ē os means evil in the abstract, the word all usually appears before it B o :

207). 24 (iv) In every LXX and NT case where arthrous is indisputably neuter and

abstract, the e is a e pli it o t ast ith good .25 (5) A common objection against the satanic

interpretation is the lack of precedent in Jewish literature.26 However, possible precedents do

21
5:37; 13:19; 13:38; no clear instance of abstract, arthrous .
22
In the LXX, NT and AF: occurs with personal indirect object 14 times and with impersonal i.o. 10
times. occurs with a personal i.o. 8 times (all in LXX) and with an impersonal i.o. 46 times. Some
ambiguous cases are omitted from these counts, including Did 8.2 and the frequent idiom where the i.o.
is the of a personal foe (Lk. 1:74 and 28 times in LXX, almost always with ). For criticism of this
a gu e t see O Neill : .
23
It is true, as Betz (1995: 411-412) and Luz (2001-2007: I, 323) stress, that Jewish prayers such as the
Shemoneh Esreh and bBer 60b refer to evil more broadly. However, the communities that produced these
prayers did not share the cosmic dualism of Jesus and the early church, so the parallel is not compelling.
24
Cf. Mt. 5:11; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 4:18; cf. Did 3.1; 10.5; in LXX, Prov. 20:8; with , Gen. 48:16; 2
Kgdms 17:14; Job 2:3; Ps. 120(121):7; Prov. 1:33; 3:7: 5:14; 16:30. This is why (pace Luz 2001-2007: I, 323),
2 Tim. 4:18 and Did 10.5 do not support a neuter reading of Mt. 6:13b but actually highlight the different
syntax used for abstract evil.
25
In NT, the sole instance is Rom. 12:9; in LXX, 2 Kgdms 14:17; Isa. 5:20; Amos 5:14. (There are dozens of
other neuter arthrous forms of in the LXX which refer to evil deeds and are not truly abstract as
in the neuter reading of Mt. 6:13b. See e.g. Deut. 9:18; 4 Kgdms 14:24; Isa. 65:12).
26
Vögtle 1978: 101; Grayston 1993: 294; Page 1995: 114. Page rejects this argument since the title is well-
established in the NT.

9
e ist, oth fo the desig atio e il o e fo supe atu al figu es,27 and for apotropaic prayer

offered for protection against S/satan(s).28 Fo i sta e, let ot a sata ha e po e o e e

(Aramaic Levi, 4QLevb 10); Let ot “ata ule o e e, o a u lea spi it (Plea for

Deliverance, 11QPsa 19:13-16. Eshel 2000: 76, trans.). (6) The likelihood that the Prayer is

primarily eschatologi al fa ou s eadi g the e il o e due to “ata s ole i Matthea

27
See a o eo E . . E il o es i Ju : ; : ; : p o a l a e supe atu al oppo e ts
(Eve 2002: 169; De Bruin 2013: 185n11). The Hebrew is used as a p ope a e to des i e “ata
o Belial i Q Bla k : . Cf. TJo : V; : V; E : J.
28
See Eshel (2000); Wold (forthcoming 2015). Eshel identifies nine apotropaic prayers from the Second
Temple Period, and also notes the apotropaic use of Num. 6:24-26 and Psalm 91 in Qumran and rabbinic
literature. See also 2Bar 21.23.

10
eschatology. 29 It is thus probable that Matthew understood as Satan in the

prayer.30 31

In Jn 17:15 the possi le depe de e o the Lo d s P a e ,32 coupled with the fivefold use of

for Satan in 1 Jn, implies a highly probable reference to Satan.33 In 2 Thess. 3:3 the

writer, having requested prayer for deliverance from wicked and evil ( ῶ ) men, assures

his readers that the Lord will guard them . An e ho of the Lo d s P a e is also

29
Brown 1961: 207; Botha 1967: 48; Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: I, 594; Sim 1996: 77.
30
While it remains popular to ega d Mt. : as a Matthea o positio due to the lause s a se e i
Lk. 11:2-4 (Goulder 1963: 42; Brooks 1987/2015: 38; Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: I, 442; Sim 1996:
77; Oakman 1999: 145-146; Gagnon 2011: 1384), the consensus that the Didachist did not depend on
Matthew renders this untenable (Milavec 2005; Van De Sandt 2008: 124; Young 2011: 209-210; cf. Garrow
2003; Draper 2005). While the Lukan prayer length is probably older (Botha 1967: 44-45; Jeremias 1970:
91-92; Vögtle 1978: 94; contra Goulde : , the Matthea fo is also a e ea l t aditio
(Cameron 1984/2005: 80); both may go back to Jesus (Botha 1967: 46; Jeremias 1970: 93). That the prayer
i so e fo o igi ated ith Jesus is a epted the ast ajo it of i te p ete s Pit e : .I
a ase, the ag ee e ts et ee Did . a d Mt. : p o a l est o a o o litu gi al t aditio
(Niederwimmer 1998: 136; cf. Van De Sandt and Flusser 2002: 295). By contrast, in Mt. 13:19
is redactional (cf. Mk 4:15; Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: II, 399), and most scholars also regard Mt.
5:37b as redactional (Banks 1975: 224; Guelich 1976: 454; Brooks 1987/2015: 38-40; Davies and Allison
1988-1997/2004: I, 538; Sim 1996: 77; Becker 1998: 294; Wachob and Johnson 1999: 437; Meier 2007:
197; contra Piper 1979: 206n91). Mt. 13:36-43 is widely regarded as composed or substantially edited by
Matthew (composed: Gerhardsson 1972: 29-31; Jeremias 1972: 81-85; Van Tilborg 1972b: 44n5;
Catchpole 1978: 560-51; Brooks 1987/2015: 38-40; Davies and Allison 1988-1997/2004: II, 427; Luomanen
1998: 131-133; Lybæk 2002: 120; Marulli 2010: 69; edited: Crossan 1973: 259-261; Jones 1995: 345;
authentically dominical: Khatry 1991). Thus Mt. 6:13b is probably the only pre-Matthean use of
for Satan in the Gospel. Matthew may therefore have borrowed this satanic designation from
the liturgical tradition and introduced it in 5:37, 13:19 and 13:38.
31
So most scholars cited under 5:37, as well as Goulder 1963: 42; Foerster 1964: 79; Albright and Mann
1971: 74; Van Tilborg 1972a: 104; Kistemaker 1978: 324; Garland 1992: 226; Almond 2014: 27. Defending
the neuter view are Harder 1968: 560-561; Verhey 1982: 207; Betz 1995: 411-413 (who claims it is the
majority view); Luz 2001-2007: I, 323.
32
Proponents of such dependence include Brooke 1980: 306 (reservedly); Walker 1982; Harvey 2004: 365.
33
As argued, e.g. by Harder 1968: 560; Schneider 1985: 288; Stuckenbruck 2013a: 203-204.

11
possible here. 34 The writer would not shift from plural to singular if the meaning remained

unchanged; thus is ot ge e i ut ea s eithe the evil one or evil . Given

“ata s p o i e e i the Thessalo ia letters and the a tithesis ith the Lo d , it is highly

probable that refers to Satan.35

4.2 Other proper names

Beelzeboul ( ) is of uncertain etymology; various theories have been proposed. 36

Outside the NT, the term is used as an epithet for Satan only in TSol, which likely depends on

the Synoptic Gospels (Dochhorn 2013: 103-104n11). The (reconstructed) Aramaic ‫ל‬

possibly indicates a powerful spirit in 4Q560 (Penney and Wise 1994).37 That was

regarded as a malevolent spirit is evident from the desig atio ruler of demons along with his

apparent ability to possess people He has Beelzeboul , Mk 3:22). Wahlen (2004: 126n98)

states,

34
Chase 1891: 112-114; Weatherly 1996: 286; Ellis 2002: 71n93; Witherington 2006: 242n16; O B ie
2009: 97.
35
So Foerster 1964: 80; Bassin 1991: 262; Malherbe 2000: 446; Redalié 2011: 140-141; Weima 2014: 689;
contra Trilling (1980: 137), who thinks it impossible to distinguish between masculine and neuter
meanings here.
36
For the etymology: MacLaurin 1978; Wahlen 2004: 125-126; Turner 2008: 278.
37
Fo a t / : , ho e e , iti izes thei e o st u tio as st o gl h potheti al .

12
 It has long been asserted that Mark equates Satan with the ruler of demons (3.22-23) and

Luke equates Beelzebul with the ruler of the demons (11.15), but that only Matthew

equates Beelzebul with Satan (12.24, 26).38

He notes, however, that if the lines in Mk 3:22 are synonymously parallel (as is likely)39 the

distinction between Beelzeboul and the ruler of demons disappears.40 Moreover, in Lk. 11:18

implies the equation of Satan with Beelzeboul. 41 Matthew simply makes the equation more

obvious than Mark or Luke. Perhaps we should not read Satan back into Jesus oppo e ts words

in Mt. 9:34 or 10:25 since only Jesus makes this identification. Nevertheless, Matthew probably

expects the reader to appl Jesus ide tifi atio to all ases. We classify Mt. 12:24, 26 as highly

probable references to Satan; all other Synoptic references to Beelzeboul and/or the ruler of

demons are probable.42

Although Beliar/-al derives from the OT common noun ‫ ( ְל ַ ַל‬o thless ess : Deut. 13:13;

Judg. 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam. 1:16; etc.), in later writings it o u s as a pe so al a e fo “ata

38
Cf. Martin 2010: 673.
39
Gundry 1994: 232-233; 1993/2004: I, 172.
40
“o Fo a t / : : “ata , the P i e of the de o s…is also Beelze ul ; also Pes h : ;
Lührman 1987: 36. However, Gnilka (1980b: 149) regards Beelze ul i Ma k as a folk de o , e eath
Satan.
41
Garrett 1989: 39 says that Luke ide tifies “ata ith Beelze ul, the ule of de o s . “o also
Klostermann 1975: 127; Schürmann 1994: 230.
42
Regarding Beelzeboul as a synonym for Satan in all cases are Watson 1992:183; Pierce 2010: 1199;
Schreiber 2014: 449; Silva 2014: IV, 266.

13
(Thrall 1994-2000: I, 474). Documents which use Beliar/-al as a name for the leader of evil spirits

include T12P, TSol, AscenIs, CD, 1QM and 1QH (Arndt et al 2000: 173). This literary background43

and the antithesis ith Ch ist in 2 Cor. 6:15 together suggest a personal referent for in

this text.

Some scholars regard 2 Cor. 6:14-17 as a non-Pauline interpolation.44 That is a NT hapax

legomenon contributes little to this hypothesis. Given that Paul has the widest angelic/demonic

vocabulary of all NT writers (Williams 2009: 84), he may well introduce another designation for

Satan here. It is highly probable that the text as transmitted refers to Satan.45

4.3 Anarthrous instances of ᾶ and

There are a number of occurrences of ᾶ and which are morphologically

anarthrous but semantically definite. In Mt. 4:10 the a ti le s absence is unsurprising: Greek

nouns seldom carry the article in the vocative, even when definite (Wallace 1996: 67-68). In

context, the referent is obviously . In Lk. 22:3 the article is not retained in NA28.

There is no reason to suppose that this ᾶ is different from ᾶ mentioned six

other times in Luke-Acts (including Lk. 22:31). The Johannine parallel (Jn 13:27 cf. 13:2) has the

43
Tomson (2014: 113) thinks Belial here is take f o apo al pti dualis a d at o e e alls the Wa
“ oll, the Testa e ts of the T el e Pat ia hs, a d the Ma t do of Isaiah , especially TLevi 19.1.
44
E.g. Gnilka 1968: 66; see discussion and counterarguments in Starling 2013. Other options include: this
section originally stood between chapters 9 and 10 (Schmeller 2010-2015: I, 378-379); Paul is using
traditional material (Carrez 1986: 168-169; Wolff 1989: 146-148).
45
Foerster 1964 TDNT I: 607; Wolff 1989: 150; Watson 1992: 183; Thrall 1994-2000: I, 474-475; Gräßer
2002-2005: I, 260; Bell 2007: 21; Williams 2009: 101; Schmeller 2010-2015: I, 374; Theißen 2011: 55; Silva
2014: IV, . Fo Ca ez : , Belia est p es ue s o e de “ata .

14
article.46 Possibly, ᾶ functions as a proper name here. Notably, here alone in Luke-Acts

is ᾶ e tio ed i the a ato s oi e.

In Acts 13:10, although is vocative the article would normally precede if it were

definite (cf. 1 Kgdms 13:4 LXX; Mt. 8:29 par.). However, there are exceptions (1 Tim. 6:11,

following NA28), and it is also possible that functions as a proper name here. In any

case, the familial imagery confirms the referent (see note Error! Bookmark not defined.),

sta di g i e phati o t ast to hat is i plied Ba -Jesus .47 This text presupposes that

false prophets function as agents of the devil (Smith 2012: 34), a concept shared with

HermMan 11.6-16 (cf. Rev. 16:13; 20:10). Hence, this is almost certainly a reference to Satan48

(contra Kell : , ho suggests so of a e e as a possi le t a slatio a d a gues

that likely refers to sin rather than Satan here).

In 2 Cor. 12:7 Paul refers to ᾶ hi h is s o ous ith his tho i the flesh .

Most E glish t a slatio s ha e a messenger of Satan (NIV; NRSV; NASB; etc.). However, support

has grown for eadi g a gel he e.49 In any case, although ᾶ is anarthrous, the Corinthian

context leaves no plausible alternative to interpreting it as Satan.

46
On possible literary dependence: Adamczewski 2010: 13-38.
47
Roloff 1981: 199; Peterson 2009: 381n38.
48
Pesch 1986: II, 25; Jervell 1998: 343-344.
49
Price 1980; Carrez 1986: 230-231; Wolff 1989: 247-248; Thomas 1996; Thrall 1994-2000: II, 808f; Gräßer
2002-2005: I, 197-198; Williams 2009: 105f; Martin 2010: 674; Wallace 2011: 272-273; Becker 2013: 136.

15
In 1 Pet. 5:8 the readers are told (following NA28) that ῶ

ῖ ῶ ῖ . Elliott notes that it is grammatically possible to

take as an adjective modifying , i.e. your slanderous adversary , but

o ludes that it more likely functions here, as generally elsewhere in the Bible, as a substantive

De il ) standing in apposition to adversary (Elliott 2000: 853). In fact, is not in the

attributive position, being anarthrous. While it could function as a predicative adjective ( Your

adversary is slanderous ) this is unlikely in light of NT usage and the tradition-historical parallel

between 1 Pet. 5:8 and Jas 4:7,50 where is a definite noun.

Elliott (2000: 854) suggests that the article is omitted in 1 Pet. 5:8 because functions

he e virtually as a proper name . In any case, the whole expression ῶ

is defi ite, so it efe s to the ad e sa par excellence. Ἀ corresponds semantically to

ׂ ׂ ,51 while recalls the description of in Job 1:7, 2:2 LXX. Zoological

imagery for Satan is not uncommon in the NT.52 Thus, 1 Pet. 5:8 almost certainly refers to Satan,

who persecutes Christians through human agents.53

50
Ja es a d Pete see to use i depe de tl a t aditio al tea hi g that o e ted Proverbs 3:34 with
the eed fo hu ilit a d esista e of the de il (Moo 1985: 147).
51
A e a t t a slatio Thu : .
52
Cf. birds (Mt. 13:4 par.), serpent and dragon (Rev. 12:9; 2 Cor. 11:3), and (possibly) wolf (Jn 10:12).
Williams (2006) discusses connections between animals and evil spirits, including Satan/lion imagery.
53
See Paschke (2006) for possible historical background to this text.

16
In Rev. 12:9; 20:2 NA28 omits the article before . Here too, the word may function as

a proper name. In any case, it is joined by a conjunction to the definite ᾶ , and

occurs in the immediate context (12:12; 20:10).

All of the above cases may be classified as almost certain. However, other anarthrous

occurrences of ᾶ and are more problematic. Regarding Mk 3:23, Dochhorn

(2013: 104) makes the interesting proposal that the anarthrous occurrences of ᾶ are

semantically indefinite, meaning: How can a satan (Beelzeboul, ruler of demons) cast out a

satan (a de o ? It is only in v. 26 that Mark clarifies that Beelzeboul is not merely a satan, but

the Satan. This explanation arguably has greater coheren e tha the usual t a slatio , How can

Satan cast out Satan? Furthermore, numerous occurrences of ׂ ׂ in Second Temple literature

aea iguous a d a efe to “ata o a sata as a kind of being (e.g. 1En 40:7; see

Stuckenbruck 2013b: 59, 62-64).

However, Matthew has understood these two instances of ᾶ as definite, since he adds

the article to both. Furthermore, nowhere else in the NT is ᾶ used for a class of spirits.

Thus, it seems more likely that ᾶ is semantically definite in Mk 3:23; probably both cases

refer to Satan. If Satan cast out his own minions he would, indirectly, be casting out himself.

Mk 8:33 (Mt. 16:23) presents Peter as rebuking Jesus for foretelling his death, and Jesus

responds, saying: ὕ , ᾶ. The absence of the article may be due to the

vocative (cf. Mt. 4:10). At first glance it appears that ᾶ here merely describes Peter as a

17
human adversary, si e the fo us of Jesus e uke is o Peter being a hindrance and setting his

mind on the things of men. In support of this reading, ׂ ׂ is applied as a common noun

( ad e sa ) in a number of cases (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs 5:4; 11:14; 11:23; 11:25; Ps.

109:6). In two of these (1 Kgs 11:14, 23) the LXX transliterates ׂ ׂ as .54

However, the anthropological interpretation faces significant difficulties. While Peter possibly

heard the e uke as, Get behind me, hinderer! 55 Mark s eade s ould ha e hea d, Get behind

me, Satan! Gibson (1995/2004: 58) a gues that “ata as ot a unknown quantity in the

thought world of Mark and his audience, but the proper name of a particular being.56 Mark has

prodded his readers in this direction with his earlier usage of ᾶ (1:13; 3:22-27; 4:15), so

8:33 likely also refers to this known figure. By transliterating this Semitic term and refraining

from translation as he does elsewhere (5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:34),57 Mark ensures that his readers

will interpret ᾶ as a proper name, commensurate with earlier occurrences.58 Hence, one

54
1 Kgs 11:14 and 11:23 are both subsumed into 3 Kgdms 11:14.
55
As per the definition of the Aramaic loanword ׂ ׂ ׂ in Jastrow (1886-1903/1926: 1554).
56
Similarly Williams 2009: 88.
57
Other Semitic transliterations not explained by Mark ( , , , ) were
probably known to his readers from common Christian teaching, liturgy, or basic familiarity with Judaism.
That Mark does not provide a translation for and is more difficult to explain (cf. Jn 1:38;
20:16). He may expect his readers to infer the meaning from the interchange with (Mk 9:5
cf. 9:17; 10:35 cf. 10:51; 11:21 cf. 12:14; 14:14 cf. 14:45).
58
Foerster 1964: 158- : the t aditio ould ha dl ha e etai ed the A a . o d e ept as a te fo
the o e oppo e t .

18
should ot s eete the ea i g of the o d (Focant 2004/2012: 341); ᾶ here is

Satan.59

Furthermore, Peter setting his mind on the things of men does not rule out supernatural

influence. Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Christ, a confession attributed (in Matthew)

to divine revelation, not flesh and blood. Both Evangelists follow this pericope with a saying

about the coming of the Son of Man, and then by the transfiguration, in which Peter features

prominently. The apocalyptic character of the narrative thus suggests that Peter unwittingly

se es as “ata s tool here (Witherington 2001: 243).

Further support for this interpretation comes from the parallel with Mt. 4:10, where Jesus issues

a similar rebuke (ὕ , ᾶ), unquestionably addressing Satan himself. Finally, a concept

identified by Dochhorn (2013: 99), which he claims was widespread in early Christianity and

Judaism, may help to explain the apparent awkwardness of addressing Peter as Satan. He

suggests: A pe so is the spirit which dwells in the person concerned. This may further

explain Mt. 10:25, where Jesus opponents have called him Beelzeboul. The charge is not that

Jesus literally is Beelzeboul, but that Jesus has Beelzeboul (Mk 3:22). Similarly, Mk 8:33/Mt.

16:23 may imply that Pete has Satan. Hence, Mk : p esupposes a Satanology of inspiration

(Dochhorn 2013: 99). Therefore, Mk 8:33 and Mt. 16:23 are highly probable references to Satan.

59
Osborne 1973: 188; France 2002: 338n61; Almond 2014: 27. Marcus (2002-2009: II, 607-615) vacillates:
he states that the word ᾶ he e p ese es so e of its o igi al se se of ad e sa ut goes o
to o lude that Pete has e o e “ata s outhpie e a d falle i to the lut hes of “ata i delusio .

19
Jn 6:70 closely parallels Mk 8:33/Mt. 16:23: a confession of faith by Peter is followed by Jesus

identifying the diabolical connections of one of his disciples. Jesus tells the Twelve that ῶ

ἷ and, the narrator adds, he means Judas. Some scholars believe the Fourth

Evangelist knew the rebuke of Simon but changed the referent to Judas son of Simon (6:71) to

enhance his portrait of Peter.60

Plummer (1913: 166) regards as an adjective here, claiming that the translation one

of you is devil , although awkward in English, is closest to the Greek. Most translations have,

one of you is a devil .61 Wallace (1996: 249) rejects this rendering, arguing that is a

monadic noun in the NT. He fu the a gues ased o Col ell s ule 62 that is

semantically definite here: one of you is the devil . What might this mean? Dochhorn (2013: 99)

sees the same idiom as in Mk 8:33: Judas is [the] devil inasmuch as the devil dwells in his heart

(Jn 13:2, 27). It is thus highly probable that this text refers either indirectly or metaphorically to

Satan.

4.4 Parabolic, metaphorical, and visionary designations

60
Schnackenburg 1982: II, 78; Anderson 1996: 231; Blaine 2007: 39, 49.
61
Foe ste : opts fo this t a slatio ut still ega ds the te t as e phasisi g the lose elatio
i to hi h e a e te ith “ata . “il a : I, si ila l e de s a de il hi h he ega ds as
an indirect reference to Satan.
62
I se te es he e the opula is e p essed, A defi ite p edi ate o i ati e has the a ti le he it
follo s the e ; it does ot ha e the a ti le he it p e edes the e Col ell : . Cf. J : ;
5:27; 10:36; 19:21.

20
A number of other possible designations make use of rich and varied imagery, reflecting

narratives, visions, and wider oral/literary discourse. The strong man (Mt. 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk.

11:21-22) is not explicitly identified as Satan in the Synoptics. However, Stein notes how in Mark,

the parable begins with ’, a st o g ad e sati e hi h introduces a contrary explanation of

why demons are being exo ised i the i ist of Jesus (Stein 2008: 184).63 Specifically, Jesus

counters the Beelzeboul accusation by confirming that “ata s realm, though not at war with

itself, is indeed under attack (Wessel and Strauss 2010: 747). The strong man almost certainly

symbolises Satan.

The birds (Mt. 13:19; Mk 4:15; Lk. 8:12) and the enemy (Mt. 13:39) respectively are allegorical

references to Satan in the interpretations of the parables of the sower and tares.64 Similarly,

John the Seer plainly tells his readers (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) that the dragon-serpent which appears

repeatedly in his visions denotes Satan. It is necessary to count all references to these figures as

references to Satan.

The power of darkness (ἡ ) is ascribed by Jesus to the chief priests in Lk.

22:53. The same e p essio o u s i Col. : He has delivered us from the power of

darkness ).65 In Luke, Satan has already been implicated twice in events leading up to the trial

(Lk. 22:3; 22:31). Furthe o e, the e a e th ee othe efe e es to “ata s po e i Luke-Acts

63
Also, of Luke 11:23, Schmithals : o se es the o t ast of de “ta ke “ata fo de
“tä ke e Gott i pl i g a dualit of po e .
64
The e e is a lite al des ipti e title fo “ata i Lk. : , as dis ussed a o e.
65
A allusio to the Lo d s P a e is just possible (Chase 1891: 117-119).

21
(Lk. 4:6; 10:19; Acts 26:18). Most striking is the parallel with Acts 26:18: so that they may turn

from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God .66 can refer to a ruler or

functionary personally or the sphere in which rule is exercised (Arndt et al 2000: 353). In these

texts and in Eph. 2:2, Satan has rather than being . Thus, Lk. 22:53 probably

does not refer to Satan directly but to satanic power (Chance 1988: 69): Die Ma ht de

Fi ste is ist si he die Ma ht des “ata s (Theißen 2011: 60n35).67 Similarly, in Col. 1:13, ἡ

may refer to Satan himself,68 or at least to the realm of darkness, the

sphere in which Satan holds sway (Davids 2008: 256).69 Even then, because this realm implies

the existence of a satanic ruler, 70 we consider these two texts as probable (albeit implicit)

references to Satan.

The thief and/or the wolf in John 10:10-12 represent Satan, according to a few scholars. 71

Odeberg st esses the pa allel et ee the thief s steali g a d dest o i g a d the de il s

murdering and lying in John 8:44. Reinhartz, using a reader-response approach, identifies a

os ologi al tale ithi the Fourth Gospel in which the cosmological referent of the thief and

wolf is revealed in John 13:2, 27. If we assume John intended the thief and the wolf to be read

allegorically, the indefinite (10:1) and plural (10:8) make it unlikely that

66
Theiße : states, Fi ste is u d “ata si d i Apg : e u de . Die Ma ht de
Fi ste is ist si he die Ma ht des “ata s.
67
Cf. Klostermann 1975: 218; Schmithals 1980: 216; Sabourin 1992: 353; Evans and Sanders 1993/2001:
38; Bovon 2007-2011: IV, 267-268; Edwards 2015: 651.
68
So Löfstedt 2010: 117-118; cf. Watson 1992: 183 and others mentioned by King 1998: 42.
69
Similarly Wilson 2005: 116; Pierce 2010: 1200.
70
This po e is thologis h-personal aufzufasse G ilka a: 48).
71
Odeberg 1929: 327-328; Reinhartz 1992: 91-92; cf. Brown 1966: 394.

22
 (10:10) represents a specific individual. A satanic referent for is more

plausible72 73 but not compelling.74 In any case, it has not been shown that John intended these

images to be read allegorically. 75 The thief is almost certainly not Satan, while the wolf is

classified as highly improbable.

The serpent in 2 Cor. 11:3 deceives Eve by its cunning, which could be interpreted as a further

mythical-metaphorical reference to Satan. The basic argument for this interpretation places it

in the context of the tradition of Satan in Paradise. Looking ahead to v. 14, Paul displays

k o ledge of the detail that “ata t a sfo s hi self i to a a gel of light hi h pa allels the

narrative from the Life of Adam and Eve and other texts. Satan is the mastermind behind or the

mouthpiece of the se pe t, a d thus Paul s se pe t i . ight e a p o fo “ata hi self.

The eade s p esu ed k o ledge allo s fo filli g i the details.76 Further evidence for this

i te p etatio is Paul s appa e t ide tifi atio of “ata ith the Ede i se pent in Rom. 16:20.77

72
Note NT use of zoological imagery for Satan (supra on 1 Pet. 5:8) and the use of the same emphatic verb
for satanic activity in Mt. 13:19.
73
This view was popular among patristic exegetes; see list in Thomson (2014: 222).
74
See list of interpretive options in Brunson (2003: 332).
75
Bult a / : ightl alls this a genuine parable which may not be allego ised ; f.
Ridderbos (1997: 360); Van der Watt (2000: 65, 118).
76
See further Schreiber (2007: 450); Williams (2009: 95).
77
This holds true if Gen. 3:15 is the source of Paul s allusio so espe iall Do hho ; f. Wolff
1989: 212-213; Leenhardt 1995: 217; Schreiner 1998: 804; Seifrid 2007: 692), but Brown (2010) argues
that Paul alludes to Ps. 110:1. Löfstedt (2010: 122) thinks Rom. 16:20a alludes to Gen. 3:15, Ps. 110:1,
Ps. : , o to t o o o e of these e ses .

23
The Satan interpretation has strong support,78 but a recent counter-argument is proposed by

Brown (2011: 197-199), who claims that Paul did indeed have knowledge of the serpent-Satan

association but conspicuously avoided making this connection in 2 Cor. 11:3-14. However,

despite the uncertainty, contra Brown v. 3 still seems a better fit with a deliberate reference to

“ata . The i ediate o te t i . o pa es the pu e i gi hu h to E e, aki g a

connection in v. 3 to the legendary tradition of sexual temptation of Eve by Satan.79 It seems

difficult to account for the virginity metaphor without a presumed Satanic referent, and so we

may take the serpent here as a probable reference to Satan (as it certainly is in Rev. 12:9; 20:2).80

The fifth trumpet vision (Rev. 9:1-11) contains four plausible references, which must be taken

together. The first is a star, fallen from heaven to earth, given the key of the shaft of the abyss.

After the abyss is opened and the locusts attack, their king is described as the angel of the abyss

( ̓ ῆ ) whose Hebrew name is Abaddon (Ἀ ώ ; Heb. ֹ ַ ֲ ) and

whose Greek name is Apollyon (Ἀ ). The two main views of the angel in v. 11 are that

he is Satan or an angel of Satan.81 Koeste s a gu e ts run thus: (1) The DSS use similar terms

78
Proponents include Malherbe 1961: 127-128; Furnish 1975: 486; Wolff 1989: 212-213; Garrett 1991:
99; Lambrecht 1999: 173; Thrall 1994-2000: II, 662; Garland 2003: 462; Harris 2005: 741; Collins 2013:
213; Seifrid 2014: 405n281. Those not suggesting this identification include Carrez 1986: 210; Gräßer
2002-2005: II, 119.
79
“ee esp. U zu ht I Pa adies , Wi dis h : . The p o le of o al dep a it is also a ke
theme in the Life of Adam and Eve literature; see Schreiber (2007: 447).
80
Also Jus Dial 100.4-5; cf. 39.6; 45.4; 70.5; 79.4; 91.4; 102.3; 103.5; 112.2; 124.3; 125.4; Diog 12.3-8.
81
Satan: Kraft 1974: 140-142; Avalos 1993: 679; Aune 1998: II, 534; Theißen 2011: 55; Patterson 2012:
194-195; Koester 2014: 461. An angel of Satan: Thompson 1990/1997: 83; Mounce 1998: 191; Osborne
2002: 373; Resseguie 2009: 147. Undecided: Prigent 1981: 139-140; Beale 1999: 491-493; Thomas 2010:
95-96; Chester 2014: 341n24. A third view, the angel of death: Bauckham 1993/2000: 65; Guiley 2004: 1.
Note, however, that this does not exclude Satan (cf. 1 Cor. 10:10; AscenIs 9.16).

24
for Belial, for instance the angel of the pit, the spirit of destruction ( ֹ ַ ֲ (4Q286 7 II). (2) In

the Synoptic Gospels, Satan is the ruler of demons (Mk 3:22-23; Mt. 12:24-26; Lk. 11:15-18; cf.

Eph. 2:2), just as Abaddon is king of the demonic locusts here. (3) The dragon (symbolizing Satan)

wears diadems (Rev. 12:3), which matches Abaddon s kingship. (4) The beast which comes from

the abyss (Rev. 11:7; 17:8) receives dominion from the dragon (Rev. 13:2-4), which implies the

d ago s reign over the abyss. We could add (5) the designation of Satan as the Destroyer in 1

Cor. 10:10 (see below). The arguments against identifying Abaddon as Satan include: (1′) Satan

is unlikely to be introduced into the visions in this indefinite manner, since elsewhere he is

introduced explicitly (Mounce 1998: 191). (2′) Although he has angels (Rev. 12:7-9), Satan

himself is not called an angel elsewhere. (3′) In standard reference works there is no suggestion

that Abaddon is Satan,82 since Abaddon is a place in the OT and DSS.

As for the fallen star in v. 1, we may have an inclusio with v. 11, in which case Abaddon and the

fallen star are the same. Most scholars make this connection and regard the fallen star as a

satanic angel or Satan himself. Others, however, hold that he is God s messenger.83 Favouring

the former view is the association of the dragon with falling stars and falling from heaven (Rev.

12:4, 7-9; cf. Lk. 10:18), imagery likely derived from Isa. 14:12-14; 24:21-22. Fallen angels are

also stars in 1En 19:14; 21:4-6; 88:1; 90:24-26.

82
Jeremias 1985; Hutter 1999; Arndt et al 2000: 1; Guiley 2004: 1.
83
Roloff 1993: 114; Osborne 2002: 373.

25
However, Osborne notes that this would be the only place in Revelation where God sends an

evil angel to execute his will. Osborne further sees little differen e et ee the sta falli g he e

a d the a gel des e di g i ‘e . : (though Patterson makes much of the tense

difference).84 Tho pso a gues that the he ͅ) who is given the key to the abyss in 9:1 is

not the fallen star but the fifth angel.85 He asks why an incarcerated angel would be given the

key to his own prison. Furthermore, in 1En 20:2 it is a holy angel (Uriel) who is over Tartarus.

Finally, the fallen star in Rev. 9:1 seems likely to be that of 8:10;86 yet there is little evidence for

interpreting Wormwood as Satan (Koester 2014: 449-450). All told, we are probably not justified

in identifying Abaddon as Satan. That the fallen star of v. 1 is Satan is highly improbable.

4.5 Descriptive titles

There are further terms which possibly refer to roles or concepts of Satan which are neither

metaphors nor proper nouns.87 The destroyer arises as Paul exhorts the Corinthians to avoid

following the example of Israelites in the wilderness who were destroyed by the destroyer

( ώ o ) (1 Cor 10:10). Although the OT does ot efe to the

dest o e dest o i g Is aelites i the ilde ess, the participle is used in Ex. 12:23

84
In Rev. 20:1 is a present participle, whereas in Rev. 9:1 is a perfect
participle which may highlight the irreversibility of the fall (Patterson 2012: 190).
85
Thompson 1999: 261.
86
See Patterson (2012: 190) for a counterargument.
87
That is, i additio to the e il o e , the e e a d the a use of the eth e , dis ussed a o e.

26
LXX for the destroyer of the Egyptian firstborn. This is the likely source of the term for Paul, who

is probably otherwise dependent on Numbers 14 (Fee 2014: 505). 2 Sam. 24:16 LXX refers to

the angel that destroyed ( ͅ ͅ ͅ ), who is the angel of the Lord (cf. 1

Chr. 21:12, 15; 2 Chr. 32:21; Sir. 48:21; Acts 12:23). appears again in Wis. 18:25

and Heb. 11:28, referring to an angel responsible for executing judgment (Ciampa and Rosner

2007: 726).

Is there any reason to think that Paul has Satan in view as opposed to an unspecified destroying

angel? Perhaps so. Paul has changed the participle used in the LXX to a noun,

, possibly a term of his own coinage.88 This suggests a spe ifi ei g. “ata s fu tio

as an agent of destruction is known from other biblical texts,89 and Satan is apparently identified

with the Angel of Death in certain rabbinic texts90 and possibly in AscenIs 9.16.91 Moreover, in

the only other use of a word from the family in 1 Corinthians (5:5), Paul refers to

divinely endorsed destruction by Satan of a wicked person.92 Dest o e is o e of “ata s oles.93

88
This is the earliest known use of the noun. Another early Christian occurrence is in ActsPhil 130, used
for the dragon/serpent, who is identified with Satan (Arndt et al. 2000: 703).
89
Job 1:6-19; 2:1-7; Lk. 13:16; Jn 8:44; Acts 10:38; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 12:7; 1 Tim. 1:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Pet.
5:8; Rev. 12:12-17. Note that in Job 1:6-19, Job 2:1- , Co . : ; Co . : a d Ti . : , “ata s
destructive activity is divinely sanctioned.
90
See esp. bBBat 16a; note other references in Aus 2008: 9.
91
A d he he has plu de ed the a gel of death, he ill ise o the thi d da K i / : ,
t a s. He otes p i e as a alte ati e e de i g .
92
This parallel is noted by Garland (20 : , suggesti g that Co . : a efe to “ata . Arndt
et al. (2000: 703), following Dibelius (1909: 44f) also sees a possible reference to Satan here, as do Kelly
(2006: 50) and Witherington (2007: 156).
93
Bell 2007: 299n35; Hays 2011: 85; Thiselton 2006: 179.

27
Having already read this passage, a reader could be expected to identify Satan as the destroyer

in 10:10. We classify this case as probable.94

The god of this age in 2 Cor. 4:4 ( ῶ has blinded the minds of the

unbelievers . While a few have understood as the referent as God Himself (e.g. Young and Ford

2008: 115-117), almost all modern commentators identify Satan here (Harris 2005: 328n49).95

The pejo ati e o otatio s of this age in Paul (1 Cor. 1:20, 2:6-8; 3:18; Gal. 1:4; cf. 1 Tim.

: ; Tit. : strongly suggest it (Thrall 1994-2000: I, 306).96 Mo eo e , Paul s la guage a out

blindi g agai st the gospel s light anticipates his later description of Satan as one who clothes

himself as a a gel of light (11:14) (Seifrid 2014: 196). While in the OT God is the ultimate

cause of spiritual blindness (Isa. 6:10), he a use age ts to this e d Kgs 22:19-23), and

Satan could be such an agent (cf. 2 Thess. 2:9-12).97 It would be unusual for a monotheist like

Paul to use to refer to someone other than God. However, can be understood

ironically here, like Phil. 3:19 (Thrall 1994-2000: I, 308).

While this terminology for Satan may be unique within the NT, the idea that he presides over

the present order is widespread in the NT.98 Moreover, similar terminology is used in John (

94
Satan is a likely or possible referent according to Barth 1974: I, 214; Schrage 1991-2001: II, 402; Merklein
1992-2005: II, 250-251; Schnabel 2006: 539-540; Theißen 2011: 55-56.
95
E.g. Furnish 1975: 247; Carrez 1986: 107; Wolff 1989: 85; Thrall 1994-2000: I, 306; Gräßer 2002-2005: I,
152-153; Schmeller 2010-2015: I, 241-245.
96
Similarly Garrett 1990: 104; Bell 2007: 238f; Williams 2009: 99.
97
Fo “ata as God s se a t see Page .
98
Lk. 4:5-7; Acts 26:18; Jn 12:31; 16:11; 1 Jn 5:19; Rev. 13:2.

28
 ), 99 Ignatius ( ῶ ), 100 and above all,

Ascension of Isaiah.101 Gokey (1961: 75) a gues that the losest p otot pe fo Ig atius te is

Paul s use of the plu al ῶ (1 Cor. 2:6-8), which he regards as evil

spirits.102 It is highly probable that the god of this age is Satan.

Three striking terms occur in Eph. 2:2: the aeon of this world, the ruler of the power of the air,

and the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience. The second term is very probably a

designation for Satan, who is frequently described as a ruler in early Christian texts (besides

those above, Mt. 9:34; 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk. 11:15; Barn 4.13; 18.2; cf. HermSim 1.3-6).

ῆ means the ruler of demonic forces,103 whom the Synoptic

Gospels identify as Satan. This identification is o fi ed the de il s appea a e later in

Ephesians (4:27; 6:11-16).

Numerous commentators regard ῶ , too, as a personal

embodiment of the present evil age. 104 The parallel with (both introduced by

), the use of Ἀ ώ as the name of a god, and Gnostic usage support this interpretation. The

99
See below.
100
IgnPhld 6:2; IgnMagn 1:2; IgnTrall 4:2; IgnRom 7:1; IgnEph 17:1; 19:1.
101
god of that o ld , As e Is . K i / : , f. . ; . -3; 10.12; 10.29; 11.16). Lindgård
(2005: 134n105) and De Bruin (2013: 186n12) regard this text as independent of Paul.
102
Cf. Williams 2009: 136-137.
103
Arnold 1989; Hoehner 2002: 311-312. Hübner (1997: 159) notes associations of satanic figures with
the air in TestBen 3.4 (Beliar) and 2En 29.5 (Satanail).
104
Barth 1974: I, 214; Lona 1984: 247-248; Goulder 1996: 2029; Hübner 1997: 158f; Best 1998: 204; Arndt
et al 2000: 33; Schnackenburg 1991: 91; Yee 2005: 49-50; Sellin 2008: 167-169; less confidently, Sasse
1964: 207.

29
probable personal use of ῖ ῶ in IgnEph 19.2 (Schoedel 1985: 91n24) furnishes

additional evidence. Most such scholars interpret the Aeon as Satan, but not all: Yee sees here

a polemic against a false god. Meanwhile, other scholars reject an unusual, personal meaning

for ώ here and opt for its usual temporal/spatial sense.105 Arnold concedes that a personal

meaning for ώ would have been intelligible to the readers, but thinks the temporal usage

just before and after our text (1:21; 2:7) conditions them to interpret 2:2 the same way.

However, personifying ώ need not entail divesting it of temporal meaning. Hence we regard

this as a probable reference to Satan.

A third title in Eph. 2:2, ῖ ῖ ῆ , is

also regarded by some as a personal designation in apposition to .106 Others reject

this interpretation on syntactical grounds: this spirit, unlike the preceding aeon and ruler, is not

introduced by ; and the genitive may be subordinate to (or

ῆ or ).107 Both Best and Sellin offer explanations for the syntactical shift108

and reject options other than apposition as implausible.109 In particular, Sellin thinks the spi it

105
Arnold 1989: 59; Muddiman 2001: 103-104; Hoehner 2002: 310; Gombis 2004: 410; Fowl 2012: 69.
106
Lona 1984: 249; Arnold 1989: 61; Hübner 1997: 157; Best 1998: 205; Sellin 2008: 171. Barth (1974: I,
215) thinks personal and impersonal meanings are complementary.
107
Hoehner 2002: 315; seemingly Fowl 2012: 69. Muddiman 2001: 104 is undecided.
108
Fo Best, this ge iti e is o asio ed the p e edi g ge iti es a d st i t g a ati al o e t ess
cannot be expected (op. cit. . Fo “elli , Der Grund für den syntaktischen Wechsel ist ganz einfach die
Tatsache, dass diese dritte Aussage sich nicht mehr auf den einstigen Wa del der Adressaten
bezieht...sondern auf das auch gegenwärtig andauernde Wirken dieser Macht auf die Nicht- E e kte
(op. cit.).
109
Best otes that the spi it la ks the spatial se se of the ai , a d that the supe atu al o otatio of
ules out a a th opologi al i te p etatio of spi it .

30
 a o l efe to den obersten Dämon si e the de il has spi its plu al . This objection is not

de isi e e ause othe ea l Ch istia te ts efe to the de il s spi it si gula .110 The exegetical

u e tai ties e ui e a i p o a le lassifi atio fo this thi d a didate desig atio i Eph.

2:2.

The ruler of this world ( ), as mentioned above, appears thrice in

the Fourth Gospel (12:31; 14:30;111 16:11). There is good reason to regard this as Satan, a figu e

thologi ue e p u t e à l apo al pti ue jui e )u stei : . In addition to the

conceptual parallels noted above, Wahlen (2004: 126) notes the semantic similarity between

this designation and Beelzeboul. 1 Jn : asse ts that the whole world lies in the power of the

e il o e , implicitly identifying Satan as the ruler of the world. Moreover, the Gospel texts about

the ule of this o ld (especially 14:30) implicate him in Jesus i pe di g death, just as “ata

is implicated in Jn 13:2, 27. Referring to in 12:31, Sorensen (2002: 134-135) states

that Jesus uses the vocabulary of exorcism to describe the overthrow of the demonic ruler of

this o ld .112 Hence, although the Fou th Gospel does ot e pli itl ide tif the ule of this

o ld , it is highl p o a le that the te efe s to “ata .113

110
HermMan 11.3; cf. Jus Dial 82.3, where the ambiguous could
mean that u lea spi it of the De il Falls / : o l esp it i pu , le dia le Bo i ho :
I, 411).
111
is probably interpolated in 14:30, but the sense is the same.
112
Similarly Twelftree 2007: 196.
113
For more detailed studies see Sevrin (1992); Kovacs (1995); Löfstedt (2009).

31
The tempter (1 Thess. 3:5, ) is not explicitly identified, but this participial phrase

refers to Satan in Mt. 4:3. Given that Satan has just been mentioned in 1 Thess. 2:18 and that

Paul regards tempting as one of his functions (1 Cor. 7:5), the te pte is almost certainly

Satan.114

The adversary is thwarted according to 1 Tim. 5:14 if younger women marry, bear children and

keep house (thus, ͅ ͅ ). The

participial form of to be in opposition to ; Arndt et al 2000: 88) is substantivised by

the a ti le a d he e ea s the opposi g o e o , o e elo ue tl , the ad e sa . Two

possible interpretations have attracted considerable support: (1) a human adversary of the

gospel (or a collective noun for such adversaries), and (2) Satan. According to Marshall (1999:

605), (1) is the majority view. However, his survey is dated115 and (2) now seems to have more

support.116

In support of (1), this substantival participle is nowhere else used for Satan in the NT, but is used

of a human adversary (2 Thess. 2:4).117 Furthermore, the introduction of Satan in the following

114
So Holtz 1986: 129-130; Reinmuth 1998: 133-134; Malherbe 2000: 195; Kelly 2006: 57; Schreiber 2014:
188.
115
Even Marshall cites more scholars in favour of view (2) (eight) than (1) (six), and all six supporters of
(1) wrote prior to 1960. To these can be added Guthrie 1990: 116; Büchsel 1965: 655. More recent
supporters of (1) include Roloff 1988: 299-300; Arichea and Hatton 1995: 122. Undecided between (1)
and (2) are Knight 1992: 229; Oberlinner 1994-1996: I, 242; Quinn and Wacker 2000: 446.
116
Kelly 1963: 119; Dornier 1969: 93; Schelkle 1968-1976: III, 259; Hasler 1978: 41; Bartelink 1987: 209;
Fee 1988: 123; Lea 1992: 152; Moss 1994: 106; Lona 1998: 542; Collins 2002: 142; Bobichon 2003: II,
864n8; Marshall 1999: 605; Towner 2006: 357; Neudorfer 2007: 197; Theißen 2011: 62 (seemingly); Wall
and Steele 2012: 130; Silva 2014: IV, 266.
117
Albeit a human adversary with satanic characteristics (2 Thess. 2:9).

32
sentence seems redundant if he has just been mentioned: a pronoun would do. Finally, it is not

easy to explain how fits Satan;118 this function seems to contradict that of

Satan in 5:15.

The counterarguments are stronger. The religious-historical evidence linking to

the developing Satan concept is impressive (see especially Bartelink, 1987). The noun ׂ ׂ is

translated with in Job 1:6 THEO, while the verb ַ ׂ is translated with ῖ

in Zech. 3:1 LXX (where the corresponding noun is translated ).119 Ps-Philo s LAB has

the cognate anteciminum (45.6) hi h must be a reference to Satan and almost certainly

reflects ׂ ׂ in the lost Hebrew original. 120 In patristic literature, is used

frequently for Satan121 (e.g. 1 Clem 51:1; MartPol 17:1; Jus Dial 116.8; Cl Paed 1.8, Strom 4.18;

Martyrium Lugdunensium in Eus HistEccl 5.1.5; 5.16.7; Or Cels 6.44;122 AposCon 3.1;123 AscenIs

11.19?124).

If the consecutive references to ͅ ͅ and ᾶ in 5:14-15 are redundant,

they are no less so than ... and in 3:6-7. Σ ᾶ

118
Quinn and Wacker (2000: 446) state that if it were not for this last p o le , The ase fo the
ad e sa = “ata ould e all ut e tai .
119
As Ba teli k : otes, this te t is the i petus fo Justi s use of for Satan
i Jus Dial . le dia le, so ad e sai e : Bo i ho : I, ; f. . ; . ; . .
120
Jacobson 1996: I, 67; II, 1037; Harrington 2010: 360n.g.
121
See full list of patristic references in Lampe (1961: 154). Cf. ApAb 24.5; 2En 70.6; Vita 33.3.
122
Origen says is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Σ ᾶ /Σ ᾶ .
123
occurs twice in a section on widowhood, and may reflect a traditional interpretation
of 1 Tim. 5:14.
124
This text survives only in Ethiopic.

33
in 5:15 may be intended to clarify the less familiar designation in 5:14. Moreover, if

is a subjective genitive in both 3:6 and 3:7 (so Towner 2006: 257-259), then we have

a precedent contrasting the accusing and seducing functions of Satan in consecutive

sentences.125

From the context, the most obvious human sources of speech that is highly insulting:

abuse, reproach, reviling , Arndt et al 2000: 602) are the ad ido s of : ho a e gossips

and busybodies, saying hat the should ot . References to slanderous talk mainly implicate

women in the Pastoral Epistles. 126 Moreover, the Pauline corpus tends to use the plural for

anonymous human teachers who oppose Paul.127 Thus, the masculine singular ͅ ͅ

has no obvious human referent. Λ does not explicitly describe an accusing function, but

is consistent with it. Alternatively, the o je t of “ata s e ili g a e God (Quinn and Wacker

2000: 446). A possible parallel to this idea is Jude 9, which may implicate the devil in

(Marshall 1999: 604).128 While uncertainty remains, the adversary here is probably Satan.

125
Cf. BBat a: [Satan] comes down to earth and seduces, then ascends to heaven and awakens wrath.
126
1 Tim. 3:11; 5:13; Titus 2:3; but see the non-gendered comments in 1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:3.
127
Towner 2006: 357. He cites 1 Cor. 16:9 and Phil. 1:28, both of which have plural participles of
. Cf. 1 Cor. 4:18-19; 2 Cor. 10:2-12; 11:12-15; Gal. 1:7; 5:12; Phil. 3:2; 3:18-19; 2 Thess. 3:2; 1
Tim. 1:6-7; 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:2-13; Tit. 1:10-11. Thus, contra Arichea and Hatton 1995: 122, we cannot
translate ͅ ͅ e e ies ut ust etai the si gula .
128
This applies if is a des ipti e ge iti e a e di t of sla de , as a gued G ee :
82- , a d ot a att i uti e ge iti e a sla de ous judg e t .

34
Him that can destroy both soul and body in / cast into Gehenna (Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5129) has been

interpreted by a few scholars as Satan.130 Wright regards the description as too vindictive for

God. However, as Weaver (2015: 206n171) notes, there is virtually unanimous agreement that

the referent is God. Gregg (2006: 148n4) points out two flaws in the satanic interpretation. (1)

Nowhere else in the literature of the church are believers told to fea the de il. The a e told

to esist him (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9) . Indeed, HermMan 12.6.1-3 instructs readers not to fear the

devil but instead to fear the one who can do all things, ho oth sa es a d dest o s .131 Fearing

God is prevalent in the OT and NT (Prov. 1:7; Eccl. 12:13; Isa. 8:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:17; Rev. 14:7; cf.

4Mac 13:14-15). (2) It is doubtful whether a Second Temple monotheistic Jew would have

believed that Satan rather than God ultimatel had po e o e o e s soul .132 Indeed, while the

early church attributed power to Satan in the present age, even over death (Heb. 2:14), there is

no suggestion that this power extends to the hereafter. Satan belongs to the first part of the

antithesis (Mt. 10:28a/Lk. 12:4) among those who can kill the body only (Carson 2010: 295). At

the eschaton he will be among those cast into Gehenna (Mt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10). Only later,

apocryphal works make “ata the jailer of the damned (Russell 1977: 241). These texts almost

certainly refer to God, not Satan.133

129
Possi l , Luke s es hatolog diffe s f o Matthe s he e Miliko sk , ut this does ot affe t
the issue at hand. Cf. 2 Clem 5:4.
130
Grundmann 1968: 297; Wright 1996: 454-455.
131
Ehrman 2003: II, 303-305, trans.; cf. HermMan 7.1-2; 12.4.6-7; 12.5.3; Rev. 2:10.
132
Gregg, op. cit.; cf. Jas 4:12; Heb. 10:31.
133
L h poth se ui oit i i “ata plutôt ue Dieu se heu te à tout le o te t o e à la te i ologie de
e e set Bo a d : .

35
Gehenna in Jas 3:6 is understood by a surprising number of commentators as a metonym for

the devil as the ultimate source of evil speaking.134 Support is taken from ApAb 14:5 and 31:5,

which describes Azazel personally (including his tongue) as the place of final punishment; as well

as from (Arak 15b, in which God joins the prince of Gehinnom in condemning the evil-tongued

slanderer. McCartney further observes that su h usage ould e a alogous to hea e as a

metonym for God (Jas 5:18). However, Bauckham (1998: 119-122) rightly criticises this

interpretation, noting that the ApAb references are eschatological. 135 The ‘a is prince of

Gehenna , though he may be identified with Satan (b$abb 104b), appears to be a servant of God.

As Alliso states, No first-century text depicts Gehenna as a source of evil on earth or as

[present] home for the devil. 136 Rather, the ea i g of Jas : is that The tongue that sets the

wheel of existence on fi e ill itself e set o fi e. It is highly improbable that this is a reference

to Satan.

He that is in the world (1 Jn 4:4) is typical of the unequal cosmic dualism which underlies the

Johannine worldview.137 There are three interpretatio s of he that is in you a d he that is i

the o ld respectively: (1) The Spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist or error;138 (2) Christ and

134
McCartney 2009: 191n21; cf. Laws 1980: 152; Davids 1982: 143; Moo 1985: 126; Johnson 1995: 260;
Holloway 1996: 82; Arnold 1997: 98; other commentators cited in Bauckham (1998: 120n2).
135
The sa e is t ue of the to e ts of “ata des i ed i QH : a d ited Joh so : .
136
Allison 2013: 541. Similarly, Popkes : : über die Gehenna als Strafort oder Sitz des Teufels sagt
de Te t i hts.
137
Lieu 1991: 83; 2008: 134; Köstenberger 2009: 281; Jobes 2014: 65-67.
138
Bo a d : : est l esp it de l e eu , du dia le, des fau -p oph tes, du o de . Similarly
Köstenberger 2009: 455; Von Wahlde 2010: III, 145.

36
the antichrist (4:3); 139 (3) God and the devil. 140 (1) can be ruled out syntactically, since the

masculine cannot have the neuter as its antecedent.141 Vo Wahlde s suggestio

that the masculine is erroneous is dubious. In favour of (2), (4:3) is a nearer

masculine antecedent than (3:8-12) (although apart from this genitive subordinate

to [ ] the antichrist has not been mentioned since 2:22). Associations between the

antichrist and the world are found in 1 Jn 4:3 (where the exact phrase ͅ ͅ occurs142)

and 2 Jn 7. In favour of (3), the primary cosmic-dualistic contrast in Johannine writings is

between God and the devil (Jn 8:41-44; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 3:10; 5:18-19). The contrast between Christ

and antichrist, while lexically obvious, is never highlighted by the writer. Moreover, the devil is

the o e ho is overcome in 1 Jn 2:13-14, just as the false prophets in whom this one dwells are

overcome in 1 Jn 4:4 (Jobes 2014: 106). The o ld is i “ata s po e (1 Jn 5:19; Kelly 2006:

162-163); he is its ruler (Jn 12:31 etc.; Kruse 2000: 148).

It is impossi le to e e tai hethe he that is in the world refers to Satan or the antichrist.

Perhaps these options are not mutually exclusive. Thatcher suggests that the author may not

have distinguished them carefully, since both represent evil and opposition to God (Thatcher

139
Lieu 1991: 87; Kelly 2006: 162-163 (who vacillates between (2) and (3)); Painter 2002: 255; Jobes 2014:
182. Strecker (1996: 137-138) thinks the referents are God and the antichrist.
140
Schackenburg 1984/1992: 203- ho sa s the e a e o dou t a out the efe e t ; Klau k :
239; Watson 1992:184; Kruse 2000: 91; Thatcher 2006: 476; Hahn 2009: 107 (who allows the Antichrist is
a possibility).
141
Painter 2002: 255; Jobes 2014: 182.
142
Strecker (1996: 137) thinks it is obvious that ͅ ͅ i : is the a ti h ist e ause ith this
des iptio the autho epeats o d fo o d hat as said of the appea a e of the a ti h ist i .
However, the subject of 4:3b is neuter ( , i.e. [ ] ) and thus distinct from the
masculine object of 4:4b.

37
2006: 476; cf. 2 Thess. 2:9). An ambiguous referent would parallel the (probably intentional)

ambiguity of personal pronouns in 1 John referring to God or Christ.143 Whether explicitly or

subtly, Satan is probably in view.

5. Conclusion

All 147 potential references are classified in Table 2.

Table 2
Probability of Texts Count
Satan reference
Almost certain Mt. 4:1; 4:3; 4:5; 4:8; 4:10; 4:11; 12:26x2; 12:29x2; 13:4; 13:19; 13:25; 103
(100%) 13:28; 13:39x2; 25:41; Mk 1:13; 3:26; 3:27x2; 4:4; 4:15; Lk. 4:2; 4:3;
4:13; 8:5; 8:12; 10:18; 10:19; 11:18a; 11:21; 13:16; 22:3; 22:31; Jn
8:44x2; 13:2; 13:27; Acts 5:3; 10:38; 13:10; 26:18; Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor.
5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 6:16; 1 Thess. 2:18;
3:5; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6; 3:7; 5:15; 2 Tim. 2:26; Heb. 2:14; Jas
4:7; 1 Pet. 5:8; 1 Jn 2:13; 2:14; 3:8x3; 3:10; 3:12; 5:18; 5:19; Jude 9;
Rev. 2:9; 2:10; 2:13x2; 2:24; 3:9; 12:3; 12:4; 12:7x2; 12:9x4; 12:10;
12:12; 12:13; 12:14; 12:15; 12:16; 12:17; 13:2; 13:4; 16:13; 20:2x4;
20:7; 20:10
Highly probable Mt. 12:24; 12:27; 13:38; 16:23; Mk 8:33; Jn 6:70; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 14
(80%) 17:15; 2 Cor. 4:4; 6:15; Eph. 2:2b; 2 Thess. 3:3
Probable (60%) Mt. 5:37; 6:13; 9:34; 10:25; Mk 3:22x2; 3:23x2; Lk. 11:15; 11:18c; 18
11:19; 22:53; 1 Cor. 10:10; 2 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 2:2a; Col. 1:13; 1 Tim.
5:14; 1 Jn 4:4
Improbable Eph. 2:2c; Rev. 9:11x3 4
(40%)
Highly Mt. 5:39; Jn 10:12x2; Jas 3:6; Rev. 9:1 5
improbable
(20%)
Almost certainly Mt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5; Jn 10:10 3
not (0%)

143
Griffith 2002: 75; Lieu 2008: 215; Smith 2008: 313; Jobes 2014: 84.

38
By our count there are 135 NT references to Satan. If we assign numerical probabilities to the

categories (almost certain=100%, highly probable=80%, probable=60%, improbable=40%, highly

improbable=20%, almost certainly not=0%) then a probability-weighted estimate of the number

of references to Satan would be 127.6.

One implication of this study is that the importance of Satan in NT studies may be

underestimated (insofar as the number of references is an appropriate metric). Indeed, the total

at which we have arrived is nearly double that which would be obtained by naively summing the

69 singular occurrences of ᾶ and . In the following, companion study we use

the data obtained here to draw wider lessons about NT “ata olog .

References
Adamczewski, Bartosz
2010 The Gospel of the Na ati e We : The H pe te tual ‘elatio ship of the Fourth
Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).
Allison, Dale C., Jr.
2013 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James (ICC; London: T&T
Clark).
Akenson, Donald Harman
2000 Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Albright, W.F. and Mann, C.S.
1971 Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 26; New
York: Doubleday).

39
Almond, Philip C.
2014 The Devil: A New Biography (London: I.B. Tauris).
Anderson, Paul N.
1996 The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: its unity and disunity in the light of John 6
(WUNT, 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Arichea, Daniel C. and Hatton, Howard A.
1995 A Ha d ook o Paul s Lette s to Ti othy and Titus (UBS Handbook Series; New
York: United Bible Societies).
Arndt, William F., Danker, Frederick W., and Bauer, Walter
2000 A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian
literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn).
Arnold, Clinton E.
1989 Ephesians, Power and Magic: the concept of power in Ephesians in light of its
historical setting (SNTSMS, 63; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1997 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare (Three Crucial Questions; Grand
Rapids: Baker).
Aune, David E.
1998 Revelation (3 vols.; Word Biblical Commentary, 52; Dallas: Word Books).
Aus, Roger David
2008 The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the Death, Burial, and
Translation of Moses in Judaic Tradition (Studies in Judaism; Lanham: University
Press of America).
Ayo, Nicholas
1992/2003 The Lord's Prayer: A Survey Theological and Literary (Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield).
Avalos, Hector Ignacio
1066 “ata , i B u e M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (eds.), The Oxford
Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press): 678-679.
Banks, Robert
1975 Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 28; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Bartelink, G.J.M.

40
 1987 Α ΙΚΕΙ Ε Ο Wide sa he als Teufels- u d Dä o e ezei h u g , Sacris
Erudiri 30: 205-224.
Barth, Markus
1974 Ephesians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vols.; AB,
34; New York: Doubleday).

Bassin, François

1991 Les deux épîtres de Paul aux Thessaloniciens (Commentaire Évangélique de la

Bible, 13; Vaux-sur-Seine: Édifac).

Bauckham, Richard
1993/2000 Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T&T Clark).
1998 The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypse. (NovTSup,
93; Leiden: Brill).
Beale, G.K.
1999 The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Becker, Jürgen
1998 Jesus of Nazareth (trans. James E. Crouch; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Becker, Michael
2013 Paul a d the E il O e , i Ida F öhli h a d E kki Koske ie i eds. , Evil and the
Devil (LNTS, 481; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark): 127-141.
Bell, Richard H.
2007 Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in
New Testament Theology (WUNT, 216; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Best, Ernest
1998 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC; London: T&T Clark).
Betz, Hans Dieter
1995 The Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia, 54; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Black, Matthew
1990 The Do olog to the Pate Noste ith a Note o Matthe . , i Philip ‘.
Davies and Richard T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish

41
 and Christian Literature and History (JSOTSup, 100; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press): 327-338.
Blaine, Bradford B., Jr.
2007 Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple (Society of
Biblical Literature Academia Biblica, 27; Atlanta: SBL Press).
Bobichon, Philippe

2003 Dialogue avec Tryphon: Introduction, Texte Grec, Traduction (2 vols.; Fribourg:
Université de Fribourg).

Bonnard, Pierre
1983 Les épîtres johanniques (CNT, 13c; Genève: Labor et Fides).
2002 L é angile selon saint Matthieu (CNT, 1; Genève: Labor et Fides).
Botha, F.J.
1967 ‘e e t ‘esea h o the Lo d s P a e , Neotestamentica 1: 42-50.
Bovon, François
2007-2011 L é a gile selo sai t Lu (4 vols.; CNT, 3; Genève: Labor et Fides).
Branden, Robert Charles
2006 Satanic Conflict and the Plot of Matthew (Studies in Biblical Literature, 89; New
York: Peter Lang.
Brooke, George J.
1980 The Lo d s P a e I te p eted th ough Joh a d Paul , Downside Review 98:
298-311.
Brooks, Stephenson
1987/2015 Matthe s Co u it : The E ide e of his “pe ial “a i gs Mate ial
(Bloomsbury Academic Collections, Biblical Studies: Gospel Interpretation;
London: Bloomsbury).
Brown, Derek R.
2010 The God of pea e ill sho tl ush “ata u de ou feet : Paul s
es hatologi al e i de i ‘o a s : a , Neotestamentica 44: 1-14.
2011 The God of this Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul ,
PhD dissertation, Edinburgh University.
Brown, Raymond E.

42
 1961 The Pate Noste as a Es hatologi al P a e , TS 22: 175-208.
1966-1970 The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29; New York: Doubleday).

Bruner, Frederick Dale

2004 Matthew: A Commentary (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, revised edn).
Brunson, Andrew C.
2003 Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus
Pattern in the Theology of John (WUNT, 158; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Büchsel, F.
1965 ῖ , TDNT: III, 654-656.
Bultmann, Rudolf
1952-1955 Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; trans. Kendrick Grobel; London: SCM
Press).
1971/2014 The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare,
and J.K. Riches; The Johannine Monograph Series; Eugene: Wipf and Stock).
Cameron, Ron
1984/2005 Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James (HTS, 34; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press).
Carrez, Maurice
1986 La deuxième épître de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT, 8; Genève: Labor et
Fides).
Carson, D.A.
2010 Matthe , i T e pe Lo g a III a d Da id E. Ga la d eds. , Matthew &
Mark The E posito s Bi le Co e ta , ‘e ised Editio , ; G a d ‘apids:
Zondervan): 23-670.
Catchpole, David R.
1978 Joh the Baptist, Jesus a d the Pa a le of the Ta es , SJT 31: 557-570.
Chance, J. Bradley
1988 Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts (Macon: Mercer University
Press).
Chase, Frederic Henry

43
 1891 The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (TSt 1/3; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Chester, Andrew
2014 Chaos a d Ne C eatio , i Joh Ashto ed. , Revealed Wisdom: Studies in
Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland (Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, 88; Leiden: Brill): 333-348.
Ciampa, Roy E. and Rosner, Brian S.
2007 Co i thia s , i G.K. Beale a d D.A. Ca so eds. , Commentary on the New
Testament use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic): 695-752.
Collins, Raymond F.
2002 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press).
2013 Second Corinthians (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic).
Colwell, E.C.
1933 A Defi ite ‘ule fo the Use of the A ti le i the G eek Ne Testa e t , JBL 52:
12-21.
Crossan, John Dominic
1973 The “eed Pa a les of Jesus , JBL 92: 244-266.
Davids, Peter H.
1982 The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
2008 Colossia s , i Philip W. Co fo t PW ed., Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians,
Philemon (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, 16; Carol Stream: Tyndale House):
227-312.
Davies, W.D. and Allison, D.C.
1988-1997/2004 Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; London: T&T Clark).
De Bruin, Tom
2013 The g eat o t o e s : The i di idual s st uggle et ee good a d e il i the
Testa e ts of the T el e Pat ia hs a d i thei Je ish a d Ch istia o te ts ,
PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Dibelius, Martin

44
 1909 Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Dochhorn, Jan
2007 Paulus und die polyglotte Schriftgelehrsamkeit seiner Zeit. Eine Studie zu den
exegetischen Hintergründen von Röm 16,20a , ZNW 98: 189-212.

2013 The De il i the Gospel of Ma k , i Ida F öhli h a d E kki Koske ie i eds. ,

Evil and the Devil (LNTS, 481; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark): 98-107.
Dornier, P.
1969 Les Épîtres Pastorales (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda).
Draper, Jonathan A.
2005 Do the Dida he a d Matthe ‘efle t a I e o a le Pa ti g of the Wa s ith
Judais ? , i Huu a De “a dt ed. , Matthew and the Didache: Two
Documents from the same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum):
217-241.
Duncan, John
2015 The Hope of C eatio : The “ig ifi a e of ’ ‘o . i Co te t ,
NTS 61: 411-427.
Edwards, James R.
2015 The Gospel According to Luke (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans).
Ehrman, Bart D. (ed. and trans.)
2003 The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; Loeb Classical Library, 24; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press).
Elliott, John H.
2000 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 37B; New
York: Doubleday).
Ellis, E. Earle
2002 The Making of the New Testament Documents (BI, 39; Leiden: Brill).
Eshel, Esther
2000 Apot opai P a e s i the “e o d Te ple Pe iod , i Esthe G. Chazo ed. ,
Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea scrolls
(Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 48; Leiden: Brill): 69-88.
Evans, Craig A.

45
 2012 Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; New York: Cambridge University
Press).
Evans, Craig A. and Sanders, James A.
1993/2001 Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (Eugene: Wipf
& Stock.
Eve, Eric
2002 The Je ish Co te t of Jesus Mi a les (JSNTSup, 231; London: Sheffield
Academic Press).
Falls, Thomas B.
1948/2003 St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (rev. Thomas P. Halton; ed. Michael
Slusser; Selections from the Fathers of the Church, 3; Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press).
Fee, Gordon D.
1988 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary, 13; Peabody:
Hendrickson).
2014 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn).
Focant, Camille
2004/2012 The Gospel according to Mark: A Commentary (Leslie Robert Keylock, trans.;
Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament, 2; Eugene: Wipf & Stock).
Foerster, Werner
1964 , TDNT: II, 72-81.
Fowl, Stephen E.
2012 Ephesians: A Commentary (The New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press).
France, R.T.
2002 The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Furnish, Victor Paul
1975 II Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 32A;
New York: Doubleday).
Gagnon, Robert A.J.

46
 2011 The Lo d s P a e , i Geo ge Tho as Ku ia ed. , Encyclopedia of Christian
Civilization (4 vols.; New York: Wiley-Blackwell): II, 1384-1387.
Garland, David E.
1992 The Lo d s P a e i the Gospel of Matthe , RevExp 89: 215-228.
1999 Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New
Testament; Macon: Smyth & Helwys).
2003 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic).
Garrett, Susan R.
1989 The De ise of the De il: Magi a d the De o i i Luke s W iti gs
(Minneapolis: Fortress).
1990 The God of This Wo ld a d the Affli tio of Paul: Co : - , i Da id L. Bal h,
Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (eds.), Greeks Romans, and Christians:
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 99-117.
1991 Lest the Light in you be Darkness : Luke 11:33-36 and the Question of
Co it e t , JBL 110: 93-105.
Garrow, Alan J.P.
2003 The Gospel of Matthe s Depe de e o the Dida he (LNTS, 254; London: T&T
Clark).
Gerhardsson, Birger
1972 The Seven Parables in Matthew XIII. NTS 19: 16-37.
Gibson, Jeffrey B.
1995/2004 Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity (T&T Clark Academic Paperbacks;
London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark).
Gnilka, Joachim
1968 Co : -7.1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the
T el e Pat ia hs , i Je o e Mu ph -O Co o ed. , Paul and Qumran:
Studies in New Testament Exegesis (London: Geoffrey Chapman): 48-68.
1980a Der Kolosserbrief (HTKNT, 10; Freiburg: Herder).
1980b Das Evangelium nach Markus, (EKKNT, 2; Zürich: Benziger).
Godet, Frédéric Louis
1883 Co e ta o “t. Paul s Epistle to the ‘o a s (New York: Funk & Wagnalls).

47
Gokey, Francis X.
1961 The Terminology for the Devil and Evil Spirits in the Apostolic Fathers (Patristic
Studies, 93; Washington: The Catholic University of America Press).
Gombis, Timothy G.
2004 Ephesia s as a Na ati e of Di i e Wa fa e , JSNT 26: 403-418.
Goulder, M.D.
1963 The Co positio of the Lo d s P a e , JTS 14: 32-45.
1996 The Je ish-Christian Mission, 30- , i W. Haase ed. , Vorkonstantinisches
Christentum: Neues Testament (ANRW, II.26.3; Berlin: De Gruyter): 1979-2037.
Gräßer, Erich
2002-2005 Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (2 vols.; ÖTK, 8; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus; Würzburg: Echter).
Grayston, Kenneth
1993 The De li e of Te ptatio – a d the Lo d s P a e , SJT 46: 279-296.
Green, Gene L.
2008 Jude & 2 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic).
Gregg, Brian Han
2006 The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q (WUNT, 207; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck).
Griffith, Terry
2002 Keep yourself from idols: A new look at 1 John (JSNTSup, 233; London: Sheffield
Academic Press).
Griffiths, Michael
1996 Timothy and Titus (Baker Bible Guides; Grand Rapids: Baker).
Grimshaw, James P.
2008 The Matthea Co u it a d the Wo ld: A A al sis of Matthe s Food
Exchange (Studies in Biblical Literature, 111; New York: Peter Lang).
Grundmann, Walter
1968 Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT, 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Guelich, R.

48
 1976 The Antitheses of Matthew v.21-48: Traditional and/or Redactional? NTS 22:
444-457.
Guiley, Rosemary Ellen
2004 A addo , i The Encyclopedia of Angels (New York: Infobase Publishing, 2nd
edn): 1-2.
Gundry, Robert H.
1994 Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under
Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn).
Gundry, Robert H.
1993/2004 Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (2 vols.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Guthrie, Donald
1990 The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries, 14; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Hahn, Horst
2009 Tradition und Neuinterpretation im ersten Johannesbrief (Zürich: Theologischer
Verlag).
Harder, Günther
1968 , TDNT: VI, 546-562.
Harding, Mark
2010 P a e , i C aig A. E a s ed. , The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical
Jesus (London: Routledge): 461-465.
Harrington, D.J.
1983/2011 Pseudo-Philo , OTP: II, 297-378.
Harris, Murray J.
2005 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Harvey, A.E.
2004 A Companion to the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2nd edn).
Hasler, Victor

49
 1978 Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: Neues
Testament, 12; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Hays, Richard B.
2011 First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press).
Hoehner, Harold W.
2002 Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic).
Holloway, Gary
1996 James & Jude (College Press NIV Commentary; Joplin: College Press).
Holtz, Traugott
1986 Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT, 13; Zürich: Benziger).
Hübner, Hans
1997 An Philemon, An die Kolosser, An die Epheser (HNT, 12; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Hutter, M.
1999 A addo , i Ka el Va De Too , Bo Be ki g, a d Piete W. Va De Ho st
(eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2nd rev. edn): 1.
Isaac, E.
1983/2011 Ethiopi Apo al pse of E o h , OTP: I, 5-90.
Jackson, T. Ryan
2010 Ne C eatio i Paul s Lette s: A “tud of the Histo i al a d “o ial “etti g of a
Pauline Concept (WUNT II, 272; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Jacobson, Howard
1996 A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo s Li e A ti uitatu Bi li a u : ith Lati Te t
and English Translation (2 vols.; Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums
und des Urchristentums, 31; Leiden: Brill).
Jastrow, Marcus
1886-1903/1926 A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the
Midrashic Literature: With an Index of Scriptural Quotations (2 vols.;
New York: Pardes Publishing).
Jeremias, Joachim

50
 1970 The Lo d s P a e i Mode ‘esea h , i ‘i ha d Batey (ed.), New Testament
Issues (London: SCM Press): 88-101.
1972 The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2nd edn).
1985 Ἀ ώ , TDNT: I, 4.
Jervell, Jacob
1998 Die Apostelgeschichte (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue
Testament, 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Jobes, Karen H.
2014 1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Johnson, Luke Timothy
1995 The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB,
37; New York: Doubleday).
Jones, Ivor Harold
1995 The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary (NovTSup, 80;
Leiden: Brill).
Keener, Craig S.
1999 A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Kelly, Henry Ansgar
2006 Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kelly, J.N.D.
1963 The Pastoral Epistles: I & II Timothy, Titus Bla k s Ne Testa e t
Commentaries; London: A&C Black).
Khatry, Ramesh
1991 The Authenticity of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares and Its
I te p etatio , PhD dissertation, Westminster College, Oxford.
King, Martha
1998 An Exegetical Summary of Colossians (SIL International Exegetical Summaries,
12; Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics).
Kistemaker, Simon J.
1978 The Lo d s P a e i the Fi st Ce tu , JETS 21: 323-328.

51
Klauck, Hans-Josef
1991 Der erste Johannesbrief (EKKNT, 23/1; Zürich: Benziger).
Klostermann, Erich
1975 Das Lukasevangelium, (HNT 5, Tübingen: Mohr)
Knibb, M.A.
1983/2011 Ma t do a d As e sio of Isaiah , OTP: II, 143-176.
Knight, George W., III
1992 The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Koester, Craig R.
2014 Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 38A;
New Haven: Yale University Press).
Köstenberger, Andreas J.
2009 A Theolog of Joh s Gospel a d Lette s (Biblical Theology of the New
Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Kovacs, Judith L.
1995 No “hall the ‘ule of This Wo ld Be D i e Out : Jesus Death as Cos i Battle
in John 12:20- , JBL 114: 227-247.
Kraft, Heinrich
1974 Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT, 16a; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Kruse, Colin G.
2000 The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Lambrecht, Jan
1999 Second Corinthians (Sacra Pagina, 8; Collegeville: Liturgical Press).
Lampe, G.W.H.
1961 A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lanier, David E.
1992 The Lo d s P a e : A The ati a d “e a ti -“t u tu al A al sis , CTR 6: 57-72.
Laws, Sophie

52
 1980 The Epistle of James Bla k s Ne Testa e t Co e ta ies; Lo do : A&C
Black).
Lea, Thomas D.
1992 1, 2 Timothy, Titus (New American Commentary, 34; Nashville: B&H Publishing).
Leenhardt, Franz J.
1995 L épît e de “ai t Paul au ‘o ai s (CNT, 6; Genève: Labor et Fides; 3rd edn).
Lieu, Judith M.
1991 The Theology of the Johannine Epistles (New Testament Theology; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
2008 I, II and III John: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press).
Lindgård, Fredrik
2005 Paul s Li e of Thought i Co i thia s : 6-5:10 (WUNT, 189; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Löfstedt, Torsten
2009 The ‘ule of This Wo ld , Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74: 55-79.
2010 Paul, “i a d “ata : The ‘oot of E il a o di g to ‘o a s , Svensk Exegetisk
Årsbok 75: 109-134.
Lona, Horatio E.

1984 Die Eschatologie im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief (Forschung zur Bibel, 48;
Würzburg: Echter).

1998 Der erste Clemensbrief (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern, 2;

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Lührman, Dieter

1987 Das Markusevangelium (HNT, 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Luomanen, Petri
1998 Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Matthew's View of
Salvation (WUNT, 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Luz, Ulrich
2001-2007 Matthew (3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

53
Lybæk, Lena
2002 New and Old in Matthew 11-13: Normativity in the Development of Three
Theological Themes. (FRLANT, 198; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
MacLaurin, E.C.B.
1978 Beelze oul , NovT 20: 156-160.
Malherbe, Abraham J.
1961 Through the Eye of the Needle: Simplicity or Singleness? , Restoration
Quarterly 5: 119-129.
2000 The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB, 32B; New York: Doubleday).
Marcus, Joel
2002-2009 Mark: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 27; New York: Doubleday).
Marshall, I. Howard
1999 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T
Clark).
Martin, Dale B.
2010 Whe did a gels e o e de o s? , JBL 129: 657-677.
Marulli, Luca
2010 The Pa a le of the Weeds Matthe : -30): A Quest for its Original
Fo ulatio a d its ‘ole i the P ea hi g of the Histo i al Jesus , BibThBul 40:
69-78.
McCartney, Dan G.
2009 James (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic).
Meier, John P.
2007 Did the Histo i al Jesus P ohi it All Oaths? Pa t , JSHJ 5: 175-204.
Merklein, Helmut
1992-2005 Der erste Brief an die Korinther (3 vols.; ÖTK, 7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus; Würzburg: Echter).
Milavec, Aaron
2005 A ‘ejoi de , JECS 13: 519-523.

54
Milikowsky, Chaim
1988 Whi h Gehe a? ‘et i utio a d es hatolog i the “ opti Gospels a d i
ea l Je ish te ts , NTS 34: 238-249.
Moo, Douglas J.
1985 The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1996 The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Moss, C. Michael
1994 1, 2 Timothy & Titus (College Press NIV Commentary; Joplin: College Press).
Mounce, Robert H.
1995 Romans (New American Bible Commentary, 27; Nashville: B&H Publishing).
1998 The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Muddiman, John
2001 The Epistle to the Ephesians Bla k s Ne Testa e t Co e ta ies; Lo do :
Continuum).
Neudorfer, Heinz-Werner
2004 Der erste Brief des Paulus an Timotheus (Historisch Theologische
Auslegung Neues Testament; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus).
Niederwimmer, Kurt
1998 The Didache: A Commentary. (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
O B ie , Pete T.
1977/2009 Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup, 49; Eugene: Wipf &
Stock).
O Neill, J.C.
1993 The Lo d s P a e , JSNT 16: 3-25.
Oakman, Douglas E.
1999 The Lo d s P a e i “o ial Pe spe ti e , i B u e Chilto a d C aig A. E ans
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (New Testament Tools and Studies,
28/1; Leiden: Brill): 137-186.
Oberlinner, Lorenz
1994-1996 Die Pastoralbriefe (3 vols.; HTKNT, 11; Freiburg: Herder).

55
Odeberg, Hugo
1929 The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells).
Osborne, B.A.E.
1973 Pete : “tu li g-Blo k a d “ata , No T 15: 187-190.
Osborne, Grant R.
2002 Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic).
Page, Sydney H.T.
1995 Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic).
2007 “ata : God s se a t , JETS 50: 449-465.
Painter, John
2008 1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina, 18; Collegeville: Liturgical Press).
Paschke, Boris A.
2006 The ‘o a ad bestias Execution as a Possible Historical Background for 1 Peter
. , JSNT 28: 489-500.
Patterson, Paige
2012 Revelation (New American Commentary, 39; Nashville: B&H Publishing).
Penney, Douglas L. and Wise, Michael O.
1994 B the Po e of Beelze u : A A a ai I a tatio Fo ula f o Qu a ,
JBL 113: 627-650.
Pesch, Rudolf

1976 Das Markusevangelium: Erster Teil, HTKNT 2, Freiburg: Herder).

1986 Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; EKKNT, 5; Zürich: Benziger).

Peterson, David G.

2009 The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).

Pierce, Chad T.

56
 2010 “ata a d ‘elated Figu es , i Joh J. Colli s a d Da iel C. Ha lo eds. ,
Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 1196-1200.

Piper, John
1979 Lo e You E e ies : Jesus' Lo e Co a d i the “ opti Gospels a d i the
Early Christian Paraenesis: a History of the Tradition and Interpretation of Its
Uses “NT“M“, ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Pitre, Brant
2005 Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the
Origin of the Atonement (WUNT, 204; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Plummer, Alfred
1913 The Gospel according to St. John, with maps and introduction (Cambridge Bible
for Schools and Colleges, 36; London: Cambridge University Press).
Popkes, Wiard
2001 Der Brief des Jakobus (THKNT, 14; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Price, Robert M.
1980 Pu ished in Paradise: An Exegetical Theory on II Corinthians 12:1- , JSNT 7:
33-40.
Prigent, Pierre
1981 L Apo al pse de “ai t Jea (CNT, 14; Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé).
Quinn, Jerome D. and Wacker, William C.
2000 The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and
Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Redalié, Yann
2011 La Deuxième Épître aux Thessaloniciens (CNT, 9C; Genève: Labor et Fides).
Reeg, Gottfried
2013 The de il i a i i lite atu e , i Ida F öhli h a d E kki Koske ie i eds. , Evil
and the Devil (LNTS, 481; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark): 71-83.
Resseguie, James L.
2009 The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic).
Reinhartz, Adele

57
 1992 The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel (SBLMS,
45; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

Reinmuth, Eckart
1998 De e ste B ief a die Thessalo i he , i N. Walte , E. ‘ei uth, a d P. La pe,
Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon (NTD, 8/2;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 105-158.
Ridderbos, Herman
1997 The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary (trans. John Vriend;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Roloff, Jürgen
1981 Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
1988 Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT, 15; Zürich: Benziger).
1993 The Revelation of John (trans. John E. Alsup; Continental Commentaries;
Minneapolis: Fortress).
Russell, Jeffrey Burton
1977 The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press).
Ryken, Leland, Wilhoit, James C., and Longman, Tremper III (eds.)
1998 Lio , i Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press):
514-515.
Sabourin, Leopold
1992 L É a gile de Lu : I t odu tio et Co e tai e (Roma: Editrice Pontificia
Università Gregoriana).
Sasse, Η.
1964 ώ , TDNT: I, 197-209.
Schelkle, Karl Hermann
1968-1976 Theologie des Neuen Testaments (4 vols.; Dusseldorf: Patmos).
Schmeller, Thomas
2010-2015 Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (2 vols.; EKKNT, 8; Ostfildern: Patmos).
Schmithals, Walter

58
 1980 Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: Neues Testament,
3/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Schnabel, Eckhard J.
2006 Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (Historisch Theologische Auslegung
Neues Testament; Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus).
Schnackenburg, Rudolf
1982 The Gospel according to St. John (3 vols.; trans. Kevin Smyth; New York:
Crossroad).
1991 The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Commentary (trans. Helen Heron; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).
1992 The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (trans. Reginald and Ilse
Fuller; Crossroad: New York).
Schneider, Johannes
1985 Das Evangelium nach Johannes (THKNT, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Schoedel, William R.
1985 Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress).
Schrage, Wolfgang
1991-2001 Der erste Brief an die Korinther (EKKNT, 7; Zürich: Benziger).
Schreiber, Stefan
2007 The G eat Oppo e t: The De il i Ea l Je ish a d Fo ati e Ch istia
Lite atu e , i F ied i h Vi ze z ‘eite e , To ias Ni klas, a d Ka i “ höpflin
(eds.), Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and
Reception (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin: de
Gruyter): 437-457.
2014 Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (ÖTK, 13/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus).
Schreiner, Thomas R.
1998 Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic).
Schürmann, Heinz
1994 Das Lukasevangelium: Zwieter Teil (HTKNT 3, Freiburg: Herder).
Seifrid, Mark A.

59
 2007 Romans , i G.K. Beale a d D.A. Ca so eds. , Commentary on the New
Testament use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic): 607-694.
2014 The Second Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans).
Sellin, Gerhard
2008 Der Brief an die Epheser (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue
Testament, 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Sevrin, Jean-Marie
1992 Le P i e de e o de: La fu tio h istologi ue du dia le da s le uat i e
éva gile , i Mi hel Lag e et al, Figu es du Dé o ia ue, Hie et Aujou d hui
(Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, 55; Bruxelles: Facultés
universitaires Saint-Louis): 63-82.
Silva, Moises
2014 New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (4 vols.).
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Sim, David C.
1996 Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTSMS, 88; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Smith, D. Moody
2008 The Histo i al Figu e of Jesus i Joh , i J. ‘oss Wag e , C. Ka i ‘o e, a d
A. Katherine Grieb (eds.), The Word leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and
Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 310-324.
Smith, Mitzi J.
2012 The Literary Construction of the Other in the Acts of the Apostles: Charismatics,
the Jews, and Women (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.).
Snodderly, Mary Elizabeth Chilcote
2008 A socio- heto i al i estigatio of the Joha i e u de sta di g of the o ks
of the de il i Joh :8 , PhD dissertation, University of South Africa.
Sorensen, Eric
2002 Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (WUNT,
157; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Spencer, Aída Besançon

60
 2014 2 Timothy and Titus (New Covenant Commentary Series; Eugene: Wipf &
Stock).
Sperber, Daniel
1984 A dictionary of Greek and Latin legal terms in rabbinic literature (Ramat Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press).
Starling, David I.
2013 The of Co : : Be o d the I passe , NovT 55: 45-60.
Stein, Robert H.
2008 Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic).
Strecker, Georg
1996 A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress).
Stuckenbruck Loren T.
2013a E il i Joha i e a d Apo al pti Pe spe ti e: Petitio fo P ote tio i Joh
, i Cat i H. Willia s a d Ch istophe ‘o la d eds. , Joh s Gospel a d
Intimations of Apocalyptic (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark): 200-232.
2013b The De o i Wo ld of the Dead “ea “ olls , i Ida F öhli h a d E kki
Koskenniemi (eds.), Evil and the Devil (LNTS, 481; London: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark): 51-70.
Subramanian, J. Samuel
2009 The Lo d s P a e i the Gospel of Matthe , i Allan J. McNicol, David B.
Peabody, and J. Samuel Subramanian (eds.), Resourcing New Testament Studies:
Literary, Historical, and Theological Essays in Honor of David L. Dungan (London:
T&T Clark): 107-122.
Talbert, Charles H.
2010 Matthew (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic).
Thatcher, Tom
2006 Joh , i T e pe Lo g a III a d Da id E. Ga la d eds. , Hebrews-
Revelation The E posito s Bi le Co e ta , ; G a d ‘apids: )o de a :
413-506.
Theißen, Gerd

61
 2011 Mo otheis us u d Teufelsglau e: E tstehu g u d Ps hologie des i lis he
“ata s thos , i Nie ke Vos & Wille ie Otte eds. , Demons and the Devil
in Ancient and Medieval Christianity (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 108;
Leiden: Brill): 37-70.

Thiselton, Anthony C.
2006 A ‘et ospe ti e ‘eapp aisal of Wo k o “pee h-A t Theo , i Thiselton on
Hermeneutics: The Collected Works and New Essays of Anthony Thiselton.
(Ashgate Contemporary Thinkers on Religion; Burlington: Ashgate): 131-216.
Thomas, John Christopher
1996 A a gel f o “ata : Paul s tho i the flesh Co i thia s . - , Journal
of Pentecostal Theology 9: 39-52.
Thomas, Rodney Lawrence
2010 Magical Motifs in the Book of Revelation (LNTS, 416; London: T&T Clark).
Thompson, Leonard L.
1990/1997 The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Thompson, Steven
1999 The E d of “ata , Andrews University Seminary Studies 37: 257-268.
Thomson, Robert W.
2014 Nonnus of Nisibis, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John (Society of Biblical
Literature Writings from the Islamic World, 1; Atlanta: SBL Press).
Thrall, Margaret E.
1994-2000 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(2 vols.; ICC; London: T&T Clark).
Thurén, Lauri
2013 Pete a d the Lio , i Ida F öhli h a d E kki Koske ie i eds. , Evil and the
Devil (LNTS, 481; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark): 142-155.
Tomson, Peter J.
2014 Ch ist, Belial, and Women: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 Compared with Ancient Judaism and
ith the Pauli e Co pus , i ‘ei u d Bie i ge , E a uel Natha , Didie
Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson (eds.), Second Corinthians in the Perspective of
Late Second Temple Judaism (Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum, 14; Leiden: Brill): 79-131.

62
Towner, Philip H.
2006 The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Trilling, Wolfgang
1980 Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT, 14; Zürich: Benziger).
Turner, David L.
2008 Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic).
Twelftree, Graham H.
2007 In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic).
Verhey, A.D.
1982 E il , ISBE: II, 206-210.
Van de Sandt, Huub and Flusser, David
2002 The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity
(Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, 5; Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum).
Van de Sandt, Huub
2008 Matthe a d the Dida he , i Da id C. “i a d Bo is ‘eps hi ski eds. ,
Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries. (LNTS, 333; London: T&T Clark):
123-138.
Van der Watt, Jan G.
2000 Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel According to John (BI,
47; Leiden: Brill).
Van Tilborg, Sjef
1972a Fo - iti is of the Lo d s P a e , NovT 14: 94-105.
1972b The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill).
Vögtle, Anton
1978 The Lo d s P a e : A P a e fo Je s a d Ch istia s? , i Jako J. Petu ho ski
Michael Brocke (eds.), The Lo d s P a e a d Je ish Litu g (London: Burns &
Oates): 93-118.
Von Wahlde, Urban C.

63
 2010 The Gospel and Letters of John (3 vols.; Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans).
Wachob, Wesley Hiram and Johnson, Luke Timothy
1999 The “a i gs of Jesus i the Lette of Ja es , i B u e Chilto a d C aig A. E a s
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus (New Testament Tools and Studies,
28/1; Leiden: Brill): 431-450.
Waddell, J.A.
2004 Will the ‘eal Judais Please “ta d up? ‘itual “elf-Definition As Ideological
Dis ou se f o Qu a to Je usale , Henoch 26: 3-23.
Wahlen, Clinton
2004 Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (WUNT, 185; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck).
Walker, William O., Jr.
1982 The Lo d s P a e i Matthe a d i Joh , NTS 28: 237-256.
Wall, Robert W. and Steele, Richard B.
2012 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans).
Wallace, Daniel B.
1996 Greek Grammar beyond the basics: an exegetical syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Wallace, James Buchanan
2011 Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1-10): Paul's Heavenly Journey in the Context
of Early Christian Experience. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 179; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Watson, Duane F.
1992 De il , ABD: 2, 183-184.
Weatherly, Jon A.
1996 1 & 2 Thessalonians (College Press NIV Commentary; Joplin: College Press).
Weaver, Dorothy Jean
1992 T a sfo i g No esista e: F o Lex Talionis to Do Not ‘esist the E il O e ,
in Willard M. Swartley (ed.), The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New
Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press): 32-71.

64
 2015 Matthe s Missio a Dis ou se: A Lite a -Critical Analysis (Bloomsbury
Academic Collections: Biblical Studies – Gospel Narrative; London: Bloomsbury
Academic).
Weima, Jeffrey A.D.
2014 1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic).
Weiser, Alfons
2003 Der zweite Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT, 16; Zürich: Benziger).
Wessel, Walter W. and Strauss, Mark L.
2010 Ma k , i T e pe Lo g a III a d Da id E. Ga la d eds. , Matthew & Mark
The E posito s Bi le Co e ta , ‘e ised Editio , ; G a d ‘apids:
Zondervan): 671-989.
Williams, Francis E.
1996 The Apo pho of Ja es , i Ja es M. ‘o i so ed. , The Nag Hammadi
Library in English (Leiden: Brill, 4th rev. edn): 29-37.
Williams, Guy J.
2006 A Apo al pti a d Magi al I te p etatio of Paul s Beast Fight i Ephesus
Co i thia s : , JTS 57: 42-56.
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 (FRLANT, 231;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Wilson, R. McL.
2005 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (ICC;
London: T&T Clark).
Windisch, Hans
1924 der zweiter Korintherbrief (KEK, 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Witherington, Ben, III
2001 The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
2006 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
2007 Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on
Hebrews, James and Jude Do e s G o e: I te Va sity Press).

65
 2009-2010 The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New
Testament (2 vols.; Downers Grove: IVP Academic).
Wold, Benjamin
forthcoming 2015 Apot opai P a e a d the Matthea Lo d s P a e , i Ja Do hho n,
Susanne Rudnig-Zelt and Benjamin Wold (eds.), Das Böse, der Teufel
und Dämonen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Wolff, Christian
1989 Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THKNT, 8; Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt).
Wright, N.T.
1996 Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Yee, Tet-Lim N.
2005 Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish Identity and Ephesians
(SNTSMS, 130; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Young, Frances M. and Ford, David F.
1987/2008 Meaning and Truth in Second Corinthians (Eugene: Wipf and Stock).
Young, Stephen E.
2011 Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers: Their Explicit Appeals to the Words of
Jesus in Light of Orality Studies (WUNT, 311; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Zumstein, Jean
2007 L é a gile selo “ai t-Jean (CNT, 4B; Genève: Labor et Fides).

66