<p>In this monograph, I argue that Satan was not perceived as a universal malevolent deity, the embodiment of evil, or the &ldquo;ruler of Pandaemonium&rdquo; within first century Christian literature or even within second and third century Christian discourses as some scholars have insisted. Instead, for early &ldquo;Christian&rdquo; authors, Satan represented a pejorative term used to describe terrestrial, tangible, and concrete social realities, perceived of as adversaries. To reach this conclusion, I explore the narrative character of Satan selectively within the Hebrew Bible, intertestamental literature, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q, the Book of Revelation, the Nag Hammadi texts, and the Ante-Nicene fathers.<br />
I argue that certain scholars&rsquo; such as Jeffrey Burton Russell, Miguel A. De La Torre, Albert Hernandez, Peter Stanford, Paul Carus, and Gerd Theissen, homogenized reconstructions of the &ldquo;New Testament Satan&rdquo; as the universalized incarnation of evil and that God&rsquo;s absolute cosmic enemy is absent from early Christian orthodox literature, such as Mark, Matthew, Luke, Q, the Book of Revelation, and certain writings from the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Using Jonathan Z. Smith&rsquo;s essay Here, There, and Anywhere, I suggest that the cosmic dualist approach to Satan as God&rsquo;s absolute cosmic enemy resulted from the changing social topography of the early fourth century where Christian &ldquo;insider&rdquo; and &ldquo;outsider&rdquo; adversaries were diminishing. With these threats fading, early Christians universalized a perceived chaotic cosmic enemy, namely Satan, being influenced by the Gnostic demiurge, who disrupts God&rsquo;s terrestrial and cosmic order. Therefore, Satan transitioned from a &ldquo;here,&rdquo; &ldquo;insider,&rdquo; and &ldquo;there,&rdquo; &ldquo;outsider,&rdquo; threat to a universal &ldquo;anywhere&rdquo; threat. This study could be employed as a characterization study, New Testament theory and application for classroom references or research purposes.</p>