Satanology and Demonology in The Apostolic Fathers

Skip to main content
Academia.edu
Log InSign Up
pdf
Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke (Svensk Exegetisk
Årsbok)
Thomas Farrar
Thomas Farrar
or download with email
Academia.edu
Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke (Svensk Exegetisk
Årsbok)
Download
SEÅ
83 (2018): 156–91
Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke
THOMAS J. FARRAR
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
[email protected]
NTRODUCTION
A study by Jonathan Burke infers the existence of a “minority report” within early Christian literature of
“texts without references to supernat-ural evil.”
More specifically, he avers
that certain texts among the Apostolic Fathers corpus exhibit a significant mar-ginalization of Satan and
demons, and that the cause of this is an etiology of evil which is anthropogenic rather than supernatural.
is in turn constitutes evidence “for a first century demythologicalChristianity which survived well into
the second century though only asa minority report.”
An “e
cient explanation” for this “marginalization”and “demythologization” is “non-belief in Satan and

demons” on thepart of the authors.
Burke thus o
ers a radical reappraisal of Christianideas about evil in the early post-apostolic period.
e Apostolic Fathers texts Burke marshals in support of his thesisare Didache, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the
earliest portions of Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 1–4) and Martyrdom of Polycarp. He further claims
Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,”
SEÅ
81 (2016): 127–28.
2
Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 128.
that the
Apology of Quadratus
and the
Epistle to Diognetus
complementhis findings.
Texts that present “clear evidence of strong mythologicalbelief” with a “Satanic etiology of evil” are
limited to Barnabas and theletters of Ignatius,
while the later portions of Shepherd of Hermas (Vi-sion 5, Mandate, Similitude) reflect a “weak
mythological view.”
Poly-carp’s
To the Philippians
and the fragments of Papias are not discussed(disappointingly, since they contain some relevant
material).
is article interacts critically with Burke’s study, arguing that hisconclusions are invalidated by significant
methodological and exegeticalshortcomings. A detailed alternative synthesis on satanology
anddemonology in the Apostolic Fathers is not o
ff
ered herein,
but thefundamental counterclaim is that all of the Apostolic Fathers texts areconsistent with their
authors having believed in mythological evil.Granted, the frequency and intensity of references to
mythological evilvary. Perhaps Burke is right that such diversity demands an explana-tion.
However, Burke has both exaggerated the diversity (by understat-ing the concern with supernatural evil
beings in several Apostolic Fa-thers texts) and over-explained it (since diverse content should
beexpected in occasional writings penned by di
erent authors to di
erentaudiences for di
erent purposes). An online supplement contains additional material that space didnot allow to be
included herein.
10
Texts and translations of the ApostolicFathers herein are, unless otherwise indicated, those of Bart
D.Ehrman.
11
Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 159–60.
For a positive synthesis by the present author, see


omas J. Farrar, “
e Intimateand Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature,”
JECS
26 (forthcoming 2018).
10
See https://osf.io/5x2ge. References to “online supplement” refer to this material.
11
Bart D. Ehrman,
e Apostolic Fathers
, 2 vols., LCL (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 2003).
Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok
83 157
SSESSMENT
OF
B
URKE
ETHODOLOGY
Literary Scope
One might quibble with Burke’s decision to analyse only the ApostolicFathers—“a rather arbitrary
collection of writings made for the sake of convenience and based on (modern) tradition”
12
—in a religion-histori-cal study. Surely, characterising Christianity in the late first century through mid-
second century requires attention to other writings (e.g., Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Peter,
Justin’s writings, and severalcanonical texts). Still, Burke’s argument—if successful—would at
leastestablish the existence of the “demythological Christianity” that heposits.
Imprecise Language
Burke uses some terminology in imprecise, confusing ways. (i) Burke’ssubtitle refers to “A Minority
Report.” In modern administrative proce-dure, a minority report is “a formal expression of the view of a
group …that is di
erent from the view of the majority.”
13
is is a reasonablemetaphor for a dissenting theological position expressed in early Christ-ian literature.

However, Burke’s empirical results construe the demythol-ogised position on Satan and demons as the
majority
view among the Apostolic Fathers. Relative to what majority do these writings constitutea dissenting
minority? Burke never explains. In fact, Burke conceptualis-es the Apostolic Fathers’ “minority report” as
the remainder of “a firstcentury demythological Christianity” that contrasts mainly with “Chris-tian texts
from the mid-second century onwards.”
14

is conveys theodd picture of a minority report that antedates the majority position
12
Ehrman,
Apostolic Fathers
, 1:12.
13
Nancy Sylvester,
e Guerrilla Guide to Robert’s Rules
(New York: Penguin, 2006), 41.
14
Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 127, 161.158 Farrar:
Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers
Related Papers
The Intimate and Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Lit…
By Thomas Farrar
Talk of the Devil: Unpacking the Language of New Testament Satanology (Jour…
By Thomas Farrar şi Guy Williams
New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents in Second Templ…
By Thomas Farrar
Then the Devil Left: Satan’s lack of presence in the Apostolic Fathers
By Jonathan Burke
Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report | Svensk exegetisk år…
By Jonathan Burke
READ PAPER
AboutPressBlogPeoplePapersJob BoardAdvertise
We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:PhysicsChemistryBiologyHealth SciencesEcologyEarth SciencesCognitive

ScienceMathematicsComputer Science
TermsPrivacyCopyrightAcademia ©2020

Satanology and Demonology in The Apostolic Fathers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satanology and Demonology in The Apostolic Fathers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Skip to main content

or download with email

Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

More speciﬁcally, he avers

cient explanation” for this “marginalization”and “demythologization” is “non-belief in Satan and

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 161.

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 160.

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 159–60.

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 157–59.

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 149.

For a positive synthesis by the present author, see

e Intimateand Ultimate Adversary: Satanology in Early Second-Century Christian Literature,”

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 160–61.

See https://osf.io/5x2ge. References to “online supplement” refer to this material.

, 2 vols., LCL (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 2003).

Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok

erent from the view of the majority.”

is is a reasonablemetaphor for a dissenting theological position expressed in early Christ-ian literature.

e Guerrilla Guide to Robert’s Rules

(New York: Penguin, 2006), 41.

Burke, “Satan and Demons,” 127, 161.158 Farrar:

Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers

By Thomas Farrar şi Guy Williams

New Testament Satanology and Leading Suprahuman Opponents in Second Templ…

Find new research papers in:PhysicsChemistryBiologyHealth SciencesEcologyEarth SciencesCognitive

You might also like