“... Jason Zurawski makes a compelling case for rereading Wis 2:24. He argues that the author of Wisdom is not describing a superhuman evil nor “an original sin which fundamentally altered the structure of the cosmos and humanity's place in it.” Key to Zurawski’s argument is the semantic range of the term διαβόλος, which he suggests refers to a more general adversary, a meaning more consistent with the use of the term at the time Wisdom of Solomon was composed. Zurawski is not the first to suggest that the “devil” here is not a Satan figure. Not only is there no reference to “envy [φθόνος]” in Gen 3, but numerous scholars have suggested in light of Wis 10:1–4 that the adversary is a reference to Cain. The Cain-as-adversary reading fits Wis 10:1–4 and it appears that Wis 2:24 was read as a reference to Cain by the author of 1 Clement. Furthermore, Cain is a key figure in Philo’s view of the origin of evil. The two dominant views of the adversary in Wis 2:24 are either a Satan figure or Cain, but neither option is entirely satisfying. [...] 1 Clem 3:4–4:7. See Jan Dochhorn, “Mit Kain kam der Tod in die Welt: Zur Auslegung von SapSal 2,24 in 1 Clem 3,4; 4,1-7, mit einem Seitenblick auf Polykarp, Phil. 7,1 und Theophilus, Ad Autol. II, 29,3-4,” ZNW 98 (2007): 150–59. ...”