Biblical Basis for "Satan"

[jongarvey]

@John_Harshman

Do you refer to the temporal sequence of bible books, or do you refer to increasing understanding of what the books mean in the millennia since the canon was defined?

The temporal sequence of books, although as I said in my initial response, that is hard to determine (for example, is Job very old or relatively new?).

@John_Harshman

Hey, what about my second question?

You asked if the subject is about knowledge or about discussion. I assumed that you would understand that revelation is assumed to a source of knowledge, not merely of discussion.

What we can see from the relatively few OT references to Satan is that direct references are scant before the exile. But by the time of the prophet Zechariah, writing soon after the return from exile in an apocalyptic style, Satan is represented as accusing the high priest Joshua, in the presence of “the angel of Yahweh,” and being told by the latter, “Yahweh rebuke you!”

This fits pretty neatly both into the OT Job scenario, and also that in NT Jude: in Zechariah’s apocalyptic visionary genre, Satan falsely accuses those whom God wants to bless, and yet retains some kind of status that allows him to be in the company of a mighty angel rather than lurking in hell, or somewhere. He also has sufficient status that even the (presumed) archangel leaves his rebuke in the hands of Yahweh himself, in the same way that Jude describes in the NT.

Now, exactly where that idea “came from” is speculative: it is said by academics to have been adopted from Babylonian ideas during the exile, but then the apocalyptic genre, quintessentially Jewish, which is the main vehicle for “angel discourse” both inside and outside Scripture, arose at the same time, so in my view it is unwise to be confident in outsourcing it.

What is clear is that both the canonical OT and the NT are far more restrained than the extra-canonical literature, in which whole hierarchies of angelic beings, good and evil, join in the fun: that maybe represents the “discussion” element in the inter-testamental period.

By the New Testament (and Jonathan will disagree here, judging from previous threads at PS, but I think found litttle support from the Christian commenters) only the Sadducees are, amongst the Jews, recorded as denying angels and devils altogether. Satan as the arch deceiver is viewed as a heavenly being finally defeated and evicted by the victory of Jesus. He has allies, described by Paul as “powers and principalities in the heavenly realms,” with influence over sinful human affairs at political and religious levels.

For that reason, antisupernaturalist scholars have suggested Paul is talking about “institutional evil,” and they are right - but he means that at more than a merely human level.

Once again, that link to geopolitics goes back at least as far as Daniel (if we discount 1 Chron 21), and is seen in spades in the final book of the New Testament.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@jongarvey

In all 18 of the “devil” uses, LXX translates “satan” as “diabolos,” as it also does in the disputed Chronicles instance.

But so what? It also uses diabolos for human opponents.

@jongarvey

Anarthrous it may be,

Don’t you see the significance of the anarthrous noun?

@jongarvey

but the Jewish translators seem to have noticed there is no obvious reason, and certainly none in the text, that an unnamed political enemy of Israel would be the occasion for inciting David to sin by taking a census.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion? They used an anarthrous noun which they elsewhere use for mortal opponents, and you somehow draw the conclusion that they’re referring to a supernatural evil being?

It makes perfect sense for David to number the people for war, after having been threatened by an enemy nation. It makes a lot less sense for satan to randomly make people number the people for war, of all weird things to do.

@jongarvey

“Diabolos” generally has the sense of (false) slander, rather than mere enmity, in which sense it is used in just a few NT instances (though mostly it refers to Satan).

The sense of false slander is entirely dependent on context. The most commonly used sense is simply “opponent”, which is why it was sometimes used by the LXX as a translation of satan.

@jongarvey

But nothing like that appears to make sense in the Chronicles passage,

Of course it does. Look at this passage.

1 Kings 11:
14 The LORD brought against Solomon an enemy, Hadad the Edomite, a descendant of the Edomite king.

You should be aware that the English “an enemy” here is a translation of the underlying Hebrew “satan”. So right here in the actual Bible we have an enemy nation being referred to as satan, exactly what many scholars believe is happening in 1 Chronicles 21:1.

@jongarvey

But by the time of the prophet Zechariah, writing soon after the return from exile in an apocalyptic style, Satan is represented as accusing the high priest Joshua, in the presence of “the angel of Yahweh,” and being told by the latter, “Yahweh rebuke you!”

But even if this is interpreted as a supernatural being (as opposed to a personification, which is how some early Second Temple Period exegetes understood it), it’s still not the satan of traditional theology, just a recalcitrant member of God’s own angelic court.

@jongarvey

Now, exactly where that idea “came from” is speculative: it is said by academics to have been adopted from Babylonian ideas during the exile, but then the apocalyptic genre, quintessentially Jewish, which is the main vehicle for “angel discourse” both inside and outside Scripture, arose at the same time, so in my view it is unwise to be confident in outsourcing it.

This is a false dichotomy. There’s no contradiction between the apocalyptic genre being quintessentially Jewish, and still incorporating Babylonian ideas from the exile. Texts such as the Books of Enoch are very obvious cases in point.

@jongarvey

By the New Testament (and Jonathan will disagree here, judging from previous threads at PS, but I think found litttle support from the Christian commenters) only the Sadducees are, amongst the Jews, recorded as denying angels and devils altogether.

It’s probably true that by the New Testament only the Sadducees, among the Jews, are recorded as denying angels and devils altogether. But there’s plenty of evidence, among the Jews, for the acceptance of angels but the denial of supernatural evil beings such as the traditional satan and demons. There’s also plenty of evidence for this view in the New Testament.

@jongarvey

Satan as the arch deceiver is viewed as a heavenly being finally defeated and evicted by the victory of Jesus. He has allies, described by Paul as “powers and principalities in the heavenly realms,” with influence over sinful human affairs at political and religious levels.

This is a highly artificial synthesis, as opposed to what the New Testament says. The most striking fact about New Testament satanology is that it has no satanology. In contrast with Second Temple Period texts, the New Testament does not present a satanology or demonology. This is one of the reasons why later Christian commentators had to invent this stuff much later. Fallen angels don’t even appear in Christianity until the mid-second century.