The problem with this idea of the "evolution of Satan" is the heavy weight of contrary evidence that it ignores.
Let's start with the Book of Job. Many scholars believe it to have been the earliest-written book of the Bible. Satan shows up at a divine conference, mocking God's righteousness and idealism. "Oh, of *course* Job worships you and lives devoutly; just look at how much you've favored him!" the devil sneers, cynicism on full display. "Take away his prosperity and his health and he'll turn on you." The Lord does not do this, though, at least not directly; he allows Satan to smite Job and destroy his prosperity and health, to put Job's character to the test.
So we have, from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel going around causing chaos (a departure from the right Order Of Things) and specifically trying to destroy those who are faithful to God, not only physically but spiritually. (Satan's goal here was not to destroy Job's prosperity and health, afterall; that was simply a means to an end. What he actually wanted to accomplish by all this was to break Job's faith in God!)
Nor is the Book of Job alone in this picture. While Job does stand out among the canonical books of the Old Testament, modern discoveries of ancient Israelite apocryphal works are replete with similar imagery, of Satan as an adversary to God, going around trying to destroy people's faith and lead them astray. It's believed that these works were censored as a part of the deuteronomistic reforms begun in the days of King Josiah, who reigned from about 640-609 BC, making this allegedly "post-exilic" understanding of Satan predate the Babylonian conquest of Judah, let alone the return of the exiles and the subsequent events that were supposed to have prompted this concept of the Devil per this article.
When the totality of the evidence is considered, it's hard to claim with a straight face that the notion of the Devil as a cosmic adversary, and direct author of evil and misfortune, was a post-exilic invention.
Hi Bob. Thanks for your engagement. Let's take each of your arguments in turn:
"Let's start with the Book of Job. Many scholars believe it to have been the earliest-written book of the Bible."
We actually don't know when exactly the book was written. Scholars place it anywhere from the 7th to 3rd centuries BCE. It is typically dated as (post-)exilic.
"Satan shows up at a divine conference, mocking God's righteousness and idealism. "Oh, of *course* Job worships you and lives devoutly; just look at how much you've favored him!" the devil sneers, cynicism on full display. "Take away his prosperity and his health and he'll turn on you." The Lord does not do this, though, at least not directly; he allows Satan to smite Job and destroy his prosperity and health, to put Job's character to the test. So we have, from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel going around causing chaos (a departure from the right Order Of Things) and specifically trying to destroy those who are faithful to God, not only physically but spiritually."
Not exactly. We have a divine conference, yes, but it is a scene of the Divine Council familiar from ancient near Eastern religious texts, especially from Canaanite religion (where El is head of the Council). Here, it is not "Satan" that we meet but "The Satan", where "Satan" is not a name but a title: The Accuser. In the divine Court, the Accuser is like a prosecutor. There is no indication that the Satan is either causing chaos or a departure from the Order of Things; rather, he seems to be a divine functionary serving God in his Council. This has become the standard academic view. So no, we don't have "from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel." The links you've made there are those you've read into the text based on influences from other parts of the tradition.
"Nor is the Book of Job alone in this picture. While Job does stand out among the canonical books of the Old Testament, modern discoveries of ancient Israelite apocryphal works are replete with similar imagery, of Satan as an adversary to God, going around trying to destroy people's faith and lead them astray. It's believed that these works were censored as a part of the deuteronomistic reforms begun in the days of King Josiah, who reigned from about 640-609 BC, making this allegedly "post-exilic" understanding of Satan predate the Babylonian conquest of Judah, let alone the return of the exiles and the subsequent events that were supposed to have prompted this concept of the Devil per this article."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you please cite some sources? I'm very familiar with the apocryphal/pseudepigraphic literature and none of it matches that description/dating. There *are* a lot of apocryphal works that emerge in the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE that aim to fill out the figure of a cosmic adversary (e.g., The Book of Enoch, The Life of Adam and Eve, etc.), but there are precisely the historical inventions I speak about in this series/monograph. That is the period in which the Devil is invented amidst apocalyptic reimaginations. There are no known apocaryphal works from the 7th century that were supposedly censored by King Josiah such as you describe.
"When the totality of the evidence is considered, it's hard to claim with a straight face that the notion of the Devil as a cosmic adversary, and direct author of evil and misfortune, was a post-exilic invention."
In light of the above, I would summarize that we have no pre-exilic materials suggestive of a cosmic Devil figure directing evil and misfortune. The date of Job is debated, but is probably exilic or post-exilic, and even there the Satan is a figure in the Divine Council, not a rebellious angel, etc. There are no 7th century texts I'm aware of that match your description above (though I welcome any evidence to the contrary).
> There is no indication that the Satan is either causing chaos or a departure from the Order of Things; rather, he seems to be a divine functionary serving God in his Council.
Not sure where you're getting that interpretation from, but it doesn't arise from the text of the Book of Job:
1:5 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
So a divine council came together, and Satan "also" came. He is presented here as distinct from "the sons of God" who are supposed to be there.
1:6 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
God asks "what are you doing here?" because he doesn't belong. And instead of a straight answer, Satan gives an evasive one. "Oh, I've just been wandering around here and there." Moreover, he's been wandering around here and there *in the Earth,* not in Heaven where divine beings dwell.
> Here, it is not "Satan" that we meet but "The Satan", where "Satan" is not a name but a title: The Accuser. In the divine Court, the Accuser is like a prosecutor.
I'm familiar with that theory, but now look at verses 9-11. This is no prosecutor at work! Satan is not accusing Job of any wrongdoing; rather, he accuses *the Lord,* saying "the only reason Job isn't being an evil man is because of your favoritism towards him." He implicitly acknowledges that Job *is not an evil man,* but blames that on God and comes up with the purely hypothetical claim that if the alleged favoritism were removed, Job would turn evil. And when God grants him the ability to test this theory and he fails, he petulantly claims that it's only because he didn't hurt Job deeply enough, and that even more abuse would surely lead to Job turning evil.
If "the standard academic view" is that this behavior is the picture of a functionary serving God, and not of an enemy seeking to humiliate God by destroying the faith of someone God holds in such high regard, this does not speak particularly highly of the academics in question.
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you please cite some sources? I'm very familiar with the apocryphal/pseudepigraphic literature and none of it matches that description/dating. There *are* a lot of apocryphal works that emerge in the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE that aim to fill out the figure of a cosmic adversary (e.g., The Book of Enoch, The Life of Adam and Eve, etc.), but there are precisely the historical inventions I speak about in this series/monograph.
It's been a while since I read up on this stuff; I'd have to go back and dig up some references. But the names of the books you cite here, the books of Enoch and of Adam and Eve, were definitely among them. (Though as I recall there are multiple books by each of those names! So it's possible that you're thinking of a different Enoch and a different Adam and Eve than I am.) I'll look around and see what I can find.
The problem with this idea of the "evolution of Satan" is the heavy weight of contrary evidence that it ignores.
Let's start with the Book of Job. Many scholars believe it to have been the earliest-written book of the Bible. Satan shows up at a divine conference, mocking God's righteousness and idealism. "Oh, of *course* Job worships you and lives devoutly; just look at how much you've favored him!" the devil sneers, cynicism on full display. "Take away his prosperity and his health and he'll turn on you." The Lord does not do this, though, at least not directly; he allows Satan to smite Job and destroy his prosperity and health, to put Job's character to the test.
So we have, from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel going around causing chaos (a departure from the right Order Of Things) and specifically trying to destroy those who are faithful to God, not only physically but spiritually. (Satan's goal here was not to destroy Job's prosperity and health, afterall; that was simply a means to an end. What he actually wanted to accomplish by all this was to break Job's faith in God!)
Nor is the Book of Job alone in this picture. While Job does stand out among the canonical books of the Old Testament, modern discoveries of ancient Israelite apocryphal works are replete with similar imagery, of Satan as an adversary to God, going around trying to destroy people's faith and lead them astray. It's believed that these works were censored as a part of the deuteronomistic reforms begun in the days of King Josiah, who reigned from about 640-609 BC, making this allegedly "post-exilic" understanding of Satan predate the Babylonian conquest of Judah, let alone the return of the exiles and the subsequent events that were supposed to have prompted this concept of the Devil per this article.
When the totality of the evidence is considered, it's hard to claim with a straight face that the notion of the Devil as a cosmic adversary, and direct author of evil and misfortune, was a post-exilic invention.
Hi Bob. Thanks for your engagement. Let's take each of your arguments in turn:
"Let's start with the Book of Job. Many scholars believe it to have been the earliest-written book of the Bible."
We actually don't know when exactly the book was written. Scholars place it anywhere from the 7th to 3rd centuries BCE. It is typically dated as (post-)exilic.
"Satan shows up at a divine conference, mocking God's righteousness and idealism. "Oh, of *course* Job worships you and lives devoutly; just look at how much you've favored him!" the devil sneers, cynicism on full display. "Take away his prosperity and his health and he'll turn on you." The Lord does not do this, though, at least not directly; he allows Satan to smite Job and destroy his prosperity and health, to put Job's character to the test. So we have, from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel going around causing chaos (a departure from the right Order Of Things) and specifically trying to destroy those who are faithful to God, not only physically but spiritually."
Not exactly. We have a divine conference, yes, but it is a scene of the Divine Council familiar from ancient near Eastern religious texts, especially from Canaanite religion (where El is head of the Council). Here, it is not "Satan" that we meet but "The Satan", where "Satan" is not a name but a title: The Accuser. In the divine Court, the Accuser is like a prosecutor. There is no indication that the Satan is either causing chaos or a departure from the Order of Things; rather, he seems to be a divine functionary serving God in his Council. This has become the standard academic view. So no, we don't have "from the very beginning, a picture of Satan as the Devil, a renegade angel." The links you've made there are those you've read into the text based on influences from other parts of the tradition.
"Nor is the Book of Job alone in this picture. While Job does stand out among the canonical books of the Old Testament, modern discoveries of ancient Israelite apocryphal works are replete with similar imagery, of Satan as an adversary to God, going around trying to destroy people's faith and lead them astray. It's believed that these works were censored as a part of the deuteronomistic reforms begun in the days of King Josiah, who reigned from about 640-609 BC, making this allegedly "post-exilic" understanding of Satan predate the Babylonian conquest of Judah, let alone the return of the exiles and the subsequent events that were supposed to have prompted this concept of the Devil per this article."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you please cite some sources? I'm very familiar with the apocryphal/pseudepigraphic literature and none of it matches that description/dating. There *are* a lot of apocryphal works that emerge in the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE that aim to fill out the figure of a cosmic adversary (e.g., The Book of Enoch, The Life of Adam and Eve, etc.), but there are precisely the historical inventions I speak about in this series/monograph. That is the period in which the Devil is invented amidst apocalyptic reimaginations. There are no known apocaryphal works from the 7th century that were supposedly censored by King Josiah such as you describe.
"When the totality of the evidence is considered, it's hard to claim with a straight face that the notion of the Devil as a cosmic adversary, and direct author of evil and misfortune, was a post-exilic invention."
In light of the above, I would summarize that we have no pre-exilic materials suggestive of a cosmic Devil figure directing evil and misfortune. The date of Job is debated, but is probably exilic or post-exilic, and even there the Satan is a figure in the Divine Council, not a rebellious angel, etc. There are no 7th century texts I'm aware of that match your description above (though I welcome any evidence to the contrary).
Best,
Brendan
> There is no indication that the Satan is either causing chaos or a departure from the Order of Things; rather, he seems to be a divine functionary serving God in his Council.
Not sure where you're getting that interpretation from, but it doesn't arise from the text of the Book of Job:
1:5 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
So a divine council came together, and Satan "also" came. He is presented here as distinct from "the sons of God" who are supposed to be there.
1:6 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
God asks "what are you doing here?" because he doesn't belong. And instead of a straight answer, Satan gives an evasive one. "Oh, I've just been wandering around here and there." Moreover, he's been wandering around here and there *in the Earth,* not in Heaven where divine beings dwell.
> Here, it is not "Satan" that we meet but "The Satan", where "Satan" is not a name but a title: The Accuser. In the divine Court, the Accuser is like a prosecutor.
I'm familiar with that theory, but now look at verses 9-11. This is no prosecutor at work! Satan is not accusing Job of any wrongdoing; rather, he accuses *the Lord,* saying "the only reason Job isn't being an evil man is because of your favoritism towards him." He implicitly acknowledges that Job *is not an evil man,* but blames that on God and comes up with the purely hypothetical claim that if the alleged favoritism were removed, Job would turn evil. And when God grants him the ability to test this theory and he fails, he petulantly claims that it's only because he didn't hurt Job deeply enough, and that even more abuse would surely lead to Job turning evil.
If "the standard academic view" is that this behavior is the picture of a functionary serving God, and not of an enemy seeking to humiliate God by destroying the faith of someone God holds in such high regard, this does not speak particularly highly of the academics in question.
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you please cite some sources? I'm very familiar with the apocryphal/pseudepigraphic literature and none of it matches that description/dating. There *are* a lot of apocryphal works that emerge in the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE that aim to fill out the figure of a cosmic adversary (e.g., The Book of Enoch, The Life of Adam and Eve, etc.), but there are precisely the historical inventions I speak about in this series/monograph.
It's been a while since I read up on this stuff; I'd have to go back and dig up some references. But the names of the books you cite here, the books of Enoch and of Adam and Eve, were definitely among them. (Though as I recall there are multiple books by each of those names! So it's possible that you're thinking of a different Enoch and a different Adam and Eve than I am.) I'll look around and see what I can find.