Last semester I was writing a paper on this passage for a class of NT Archaeology. I had been fascinated by this strange passage that is found on this controversial book written by someone claiming to be Peter. This is the only passage (in the NT) that mention that the evil angels were tossed to “the Tartarus” (in the participle form, ταρταρώσας). In my research, I found similar beliefs in Second Temple literature/archaeology about the state of the dead and the Tartarus, which are related to Greek customs (like coins found on the eyes of dead Jewish people buried in ossuaries) and literature (e.g. Hesiod´s Theogony).
I really want to see others opinions about this passage, and why this book made his way to the NT canon, even when this book had some strange passages. Any thoughts or opinions on Peter’s Tartarus? What does the author meant by that? Why was accepted on the canon? Are there any quotations or comments made by later Christians about this passage? Do this suggest that some early Jewish-Christians had an amalgam of belief?
All comments are welcome!
I used to wonder about this passage as well. If the fallen angels (demons?) were cast down to hell (Tartarus) and are bound in chains and “reserved unto judgment,” then what was it that Jesus was casting out of people (exorcisms)? If all the fallen angels (demons) are bound in chains until judgment, then who or what are the “principalities and powers” and “rulers of spiritual wickedness in high places” referred to by Paul?
Remove this passage, or perhaps the whole book, and problem is solved. 
David said
I used to wonder about this passage as well. If the fallen angels (demons?) were cast down to hell (Tartarus) and are bound in chains and “reserved unto judgment,” then what was it that Jesus was casting out of people (exorcisms)? If all the fallen angels (demons) are bound in chains until judgment, then who or what are the “principalities and powers” and “rulers of spiritual wickedness in high places” referred to by Paul?Remove this passage, or perhaps the whole book, and problem is solved.
It seems to me that the NT is full of diverse and even bizarre (like this one) views. About those passages, some view these “powers” as evil ones (spiritual), other scholars (as far as I had read) view them in general neutral terms (earthly ones).
I agree with your solution, seems to solve many problem…and created others
Joel said
It seems to me that the NT is full of diverse and even bizarre (like this one) views. About those passages, some view these “powers” as evil ones (spiritual), other scholars (as far as I had read) view them in general neutral terms (earthly ones).
I agree with your solution, seems to solve many problem…and created others
I’m not sure how anybody could suggest these “principalities, powers etc” could be, as you put it, “earthly ones.” Paul makes that clear, I think, when he states, “For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, BUT against….” The “NOT” and the “BUT” makes a clear distinction between earthly (human) and, well, something else. Whatever that might be…
David said
Joel said
It seems to me that the NT is full of diverse and even bizarre (like this one) views. About those passages, some view these “powers” as evil ones (spiritual), other scholars (as far as I had read) view them in general neutral terms (earthly ones).I agree with your solution, seems to solve many problem…and created others
I’m not sure how anybody could suggest these “principalities, powers etc” could be, as you put it, “earthly ones.” Paul makes that clear, I think, when he states, “For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, BUT against….” The “NOT” and the “BUT” makes a clear distinction between earthly (human) and, well, something else. Whatever that might be…
The “logic” behind that interpretation is that these “powers” are earthly but the “ones behind them are evil spirituals ones.” So it works something like this (according to that view): spiritual powers>control behind the curtain=earthly powers. In my view, that interpretation is a “theological-grounded gymnastic” interpretation.
Joel said
The “logic” behind that interpretation is that these “powers” are earthly but the “ones behind them are evil spirituals ones.” So it works something like this (according to that view): spiritual powers>control behind the curtain=earthly powers. In my view, that interpretation is a “theological-grounded gymnastic” interpretation.
We still have a problem here LOL! If evil spiritual beings are behind the powers that be, then how do we reconcile that with Romans 13:1 ” Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” So therefore, God is “ordaining” that evil spiritual beings are behind the powers that be, AND, that we should be subject to them? The whole thing gets a little crazy doesn’t it?
Like you said, “theological-grounded gymnastics!” LOL!
I know, but I really don’t care about that or those who support such notion (that I cannot even recall where I read that, long time ago when I was doing my undergrad degree). I think is more interesting the mention of the Tartarus and why that book made its way in the canon. Do early Christian did not had any problems with this kind of suspicious references?
Another dead bot and another dead thread. Eleven years old. Wow. And between two people who are not regular participants.
2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment…
We haven’t got there yet in the thread but definitely a text that is sourced from the Book of Enoch. One irritating thing is that all the mainstream translations, even the NRSV, insist on translating tartarus as “hell”, giving readers exactly the wrong idea. The fallen Watchers are being imprisoned until final judgement. This is a clearly a temporary repository of the damned, not a final destination, certainly not the traditional view of Hell.
There is also a variant reading which transforms “deepest darkness” into something like “gloomy dungeons” which is indeed the view of the matter in Enoch. When the character Enoch is taken on his journey into the netherworlds the prisons of the Watchers are one of his destinations.
Demonology is a particularly interesting subject and I hope to spend some time on it in my thread. Behind the NT writings is a constellation of associations going back centuries, a good chunk of it generated by apocalyptic speculation like what comes out of Enoch.
Joel and David, whoever and wherever you are, I hope you are well. I’m sorry your stay here was so brief.
For the Greeks.
The only book of the NT written to Jews was the book of Hebrews. 👏
Everything else was written for a Gentile audience. 2 Peter 2:4 is elaborating on the pagan mythology. It was written for Romans:Greeks. Tales about Titans, monsters and Hades, and prisons. Everybody knew that αγγελος was a human being:messenger. The supernatural kind are called αρχαγγελος. The whole angelic-demon caste system:angelogy:angelic-hierarchy is all much later invention of the Rabbis with autism.
The book of Job was also written for a Gentile audience. Enoch(s) was also written for a Gentile audience which is why it’s not part of the ancient Hebrew Bible (the Law and Prophets: the Torah and Nevi’im)
The Ketuvim is for entertainment to argue with Christians. It’s best not to consider any of those Ketuvim genre books as honest information about anything to begin with.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)