The History Of Satan
Codex Gigas devil
This is the second of my two articles about Satan. The other, "The Implausibility of Satan", I must confess to being the better article, and recommend reading it first. My expertise is more in logic and not in history. That said, I believe that some information I have found on Satan from a historical perspective has merit, and so I have posted it here.
How this page came about is I was reading on Earl Doherty's Age of Reason site, where he has a short discussion of the origins of the Old Testament "Satan" character. I found his discussion interesting and therefore asked Mr. Doherty permission to reproduce that discussion here, which he has graciously allowed. (For the rest of Mr. Doherty's discussions on Satan, refer to the reader feedback section on his Age of Reason site.) From Mr. Doherty:
How this page came about is I was reading on Earl Doherty's Age of Reason site, where he has a short discussion of the origins of the Old Testament "Satan" character. I found his discussion interesting and therefore asked Mr. Doherty permission to reproduce that discussion here, which he has graciously allowed. (For the rest of Mr. Doherty's discussions on Satan, refer to the reader feedback section on his Age of Reason site.) From Mr. Doherty:
|
I wonder how many believers realize that the concept of Satan as we know it is a late development in the Old Testament. Prior to the period of Persian domination over Israel in the post-Exilic period (following 538 BCE), this evil entity does not seem to have existed in the Jewish mind and is not to be found in the biblical writings. It was under the influence of the Persians, with their Zoroastrian concept of a conflict between the spirit of light and good (represented by the god Ahura-Mazda) and the spirit of darkness and evil (represented by the god Ahriman) that Jewish thinkers transformed one of heaven's angels into an opponent of God and the source of evil. Let me quote from the Harper's Bible Dictionary:
|
|
"(In Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3:1-2) Satan is depicted as a member of God's court whose basic duty it was to 'accuse' human beings before God. He is clearly not at this point an enemy of God and the leader of the demonic forces of evil, as he becomes later.... It should be noted that 'the serpent' of Genesis 3 is never in the O[ld] T[estament] identified as Satan.
"It is during the late postexilic period (after ca. 200 B.C.) and in the intertestamental literature that one first finds the development of the idea of Satan that is assumed in the N[ew] T[estament] writings. Probably under the influence of Persian ideology, there developed in Hebrew thought the idea of a dualism rampant in the created order—a dualism of good versus evil. There existed already the idea that God had a heavenly host, a group of messengers to carry out his work and orders. The Persians also believed in a ruler over the powers of evil, who had many servants in this realm known as demons. The Hebrews could easily understand and assimilate such thinking into their already existing ideas, but they had not yet developed any idea of a major being as a leader of the forces of evil.... "Satan and his cohorts then came to represent the powers of evil in the universe and were even known in Jesus' time as the Kingdom of Satan, against which Jesus had come to fight and to establish the Kingdom of God...." ["Satan", p.908-9] |
|
If Satan truly exists, it is strange that centuries of revelation to the Jews through their prophets and sacred writings, so much of which were concerned with human behavior and its correction, should have failed to include this figure and his role, and stranger still that the idea has so clear a connection with Persian cosmology. Of course, ignorance of history, and the suppression of the spirit of investigation which might lead to such insights, helps keep alive an idea which in any other area would be dismissed as primitive and embarrassing.
|
Some readers who have read the above material from Mr. Doherty have taken issue with the claim that Satan is a character added to Jewish thought not long before the Christian era. Some readers have pointed out that Isaiah is very old, and Isaiah has references to Satan. Well, maybe not. The actual scripture references "Lucifer". It is commonly believed by Christians that Lucifer and Satan are the same being. But is this really true? I don't expect anybody to take my word that they aren't the same being, but there are Christian sources that say they are not the same being! Here are some links:
http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r9810q.htm
Also, here is a link to article that says much the same as Mr. Doherty says, and also discusses Isaiah, but give more details. It is an interesting read.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm
Some people want to insist that the "Satan" in the Book of Job is the same Satan as Christians understand him today. Just reading the Book of Job, and if Satan is already the enemy of God as Christians say he is, then why is God spending so much time talking to Satan, and allowing him to torment Job?
One reader of this site claimed that the explanation for why there is so very little about Satan in the early Jewish writings is that God uses "progressive revelation." In other words, God chooses to reveal more to man over time. God feels that more primitive cultures were not ready to know as much about spiritual matters as we are today. Well, if the "Satan" in Job and Zechariah are the same Satan as Christians understand him to be today, exactly what someone was to understand of Satan at the time those books were written does not seem to be very clear. Most Christians today feel that people must be wary of Satan's tricks. If Satan's tricks are something that people should be wary of, I don't see how anyone could have understood that from the references to Satan in Job and Zechariah. So, for thousands of years prior to the Christian age, Satan had been free to do his tricks upon mankind, and God didn't bother to tell anyone to be wary until He deemed that it was time for some more "progressive revelation"?
As I said from the beginning, I know that history is not my forte, so if someone chooses to dismiss what I'm saying here because it isn't my field, okay. But check out my links, and then read the Bible references yourself. And then ask yourself which explanation for why Satan's character seems to have changed over time seems more believable, "progressive revelation" or Satan is simply a fictional character whose persona has changed over time?
http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/faq/r&r9810q.htm
Also, here is a link to article that says much the same as Mr. Doherty says, and also discusses Isaiah, but give more details. It is an interesting read.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm
Some people want to insist that the "Satan" in the Book of Job is the same Satan as Christians understand him today. Just reading the Book of Job, and if Satan is already the enemy of God as Christians say he is, then why is God spending so much time talking to Satan, and allowing him to torment Job?
One reader of this site claimed that the explanation for why there is so very little about Satan in the early Jewish writings is that God uses "progressive revelation." In other words, God chooses to reveal more to man over time. God feels that more primitive cultures were not ready to know as much about spiritual matters as we are today. Well, if the "Satan" in Job and Zechariah are the same Satan as Christians understand him to be today, exactly what someone was to understand of Satan at the time those books were written does not seem to be very clear. Most Christians today feel that people must be wary of Satan's tricks. If Satan's tricks are something that people should be wary of, I don't see how anyone could have understood that from the references to Satan in Job and Zechariah. So, for thousands of years prior to the Christian age, Satan had been free to do his tricks upon mankind, and God didn't bother to tell anyone to be wary until He deemed that it was time for some more "progressive revelation"?
As I said from the beginning, I know that history is not my forte, so if someone chooses to dismiss what I'm saying here because it isn't my field, okay. But check out my links, and then read the Bible references yourself. And then ask yourself which explanation for why Satan's character seems to have changed over time seems more believable, "progressive revelation" or Satan is simply a fictional character whose persona has changed over time?
Home Up
