Satan and the Problem of Evil: From the Bible to the Early Church Fathers

By Archie T. Wright and Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Satan's transformation from opaque functionary to chief antagonist is one of the most striking features of the development of Jewish theology in the Second Temple Period and beyond. Once no more than an "accuser" testing members of the human community, Satan, along with his demons, is presented by Jewish apocalyptic texts and the New Testament as a main source of evil in the world. In Satan and the Problem of Evil, noted scholar Archie Wright explores this dynamic in both its historical and theological trajectories.

Interactions with Zoroastrianism led Jewish and Christian writers of the Second Temple Period to separate God from responsibility for evil in the world. This led to the emergence of a heavenly being that is responsible for evil and suffering: Satan. Satan and the Problem of Evil charts the development of Satan traditions and the problem of evil from the Hebrew Bible and its various translations in the Greek Septuagint to Jewish literature from the Second Temple Period to the Greek New Testament. It concludes by examining the writings of the early church theologians, from the late first century through the fourth century CE. Wright argues that these latter writers present a shift in the understanding of Satan to one that is significantly different from the Jewish Scriptures, extrabiblical Jewish literature, and the New Testament.

Accessibly written and comprehensive in scope, Satan and the Problem of Evil offers researchers, scholars, students, and even the general reader a definitive treatment of a perennial question.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Release date: Feb 15, 2022
• ISBN: 9781506484655

Book preview

Cover Page for Satan and the Problem of Evil

Praise for Satan and the Problem of Evil

"In his new book, Satan and the Problem of Evil: From the Bible to the Early Church Fathers, published by Fortress Press, Archie T. Wright masterfully guides his readers through a complex web of literary sources pertaining to one of the thorniest and most enigmatic characters of early Jewish and Christian etiologies of evil—Satan. Wright’s book admirably succeeds in a thorough and meticulous exploration of the origins and early history of this elusive antagonist in the literature of ancient Israel, of various texts from Second Temple Period Judaism(s), the writings of the New Testament, and the literature of the apologists and theologians of the early church. Although Wright’s book deals mainly with the figure of Satan, it provides important methodological lessons for understanding other antagonists of early Jewish mythologies of corruption, including Melchiresha, Mastema, and Belial. A remarkable study, rigorous in character and judicious in quality throughout, it demonstrates Wright’s philological depth, historical prowess, and highly nuanced theological sensibilities. It is indisputably the definitive work on Jewish and Christian demonology in modern scholarship and will long hold that position. Methodological insights of this portentous study will continue to have a profound impact in upcoming decades on the field of early Judaism in general and on studies of Jewish demonology in particular. This brilliant, nuanced, and thought-provoking study is a must-read for everyone who is interested in the theology and history of early Judaism and early Christianity."

—Andrei A. Orlov, professor of Judaism and Christianity in antiquity at Marquette University; author of eighteen books, including The Enoch-Metatron Tradition and The Glory of the Invisible God: Two Powers in Heaven Traditions and Early Christology

Archie Wright offers a valuable study taking an in-depth look at the various iterations of ‘Satan’ from the ancient Near East through the Patristic Era. Whether scholar or student, anyone interested in the reification of evil as figured in the ultimate baddie will benefit from this fine book.

—Benjamin Wold, associate professor of early Judaism and Christianity, Trinity College Dublin; specialist in Second Temple Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls

"The basic questions of religions are: ‘What is man?’ and ‘Where does evil come from?’ In addition to the tradition of physical evil, the Judeo-Christian traditions have identified, understood, and transmitted the tradition of a personified ethical evil, most commonly known as the satan or Satan. The figure of Satan, representative and instigator of the ethical evil in the world, has been the subject of several books and studies in recent decades.

Wright’s extensive study explores the three-millennia Judeo-Christian traditions and examines how the ideas about this personified evil were identified and understood, and how the tradition associated with it has evolved. The author provides a detailed analysis of all the relevant texts in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible and Septuagint), corpuses of the Second Temple Period such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha, the writings of the New Testament, and the literature of the apologists and theologians of the early church. Wright’s book opens new horizons, showing that significant changes in interpretation—a shift in the theological understanding of the role or function of the satan or the devil in the world—have taken place in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha. This interpretation led to the characteristics of early Christian literature, the period of the apostolic and early church fathers, in which the biblical opponent, the investigator satan, became the capital-S Satan, the heavenly evil being in direct opposition to the God of Israel and the church, and in some worldviews nearly as powerful. I warmly recommend this book to anyone who wants to get to know the worldview and the problem of evil in the Old Testament, the literature of the Second Temple Period, and early Christianity through in-depth analysis.

—Ida Frölich, professor emerita, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest

Brilliantly interweaving concerns for exegesis and theology, Archie Wright offers an illuminating survey of ancient perspectives on the problem of evil. Wright’s book makes scholarly findings on the fascinating history of Satan accessible and engaging, powerfully demonstrating how ancient discussions of the demonic can resound with sharp relevance in our own difficult times.

—Annette Yoshiko Reed, professor, department of religious studies and Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University; author of Demons, Angels, and Writing in Ancient Judaism (2020)

Archie Wright provides a learned, yet also accessible, examination of the development of the figure of Satan in early Jewish and Christian traditions as well as plausible reasons for this evolution. The result is a fascinating study of a figure who turns out to be remarkably versatile. Biblical scholars and students alike will enjoy reading this fine book.

—Cecilia Wassen, Uppsala University, Sweden

How does Satan’s presence reconcile with God’s absolute sovereignty and human responsibility? Different groups, including the nascent Christian movement, clashed and separated on this issue from Second Temple Judaism. Wright’s analysis is a fascinating look at the eternal human quest for an answer to the ‘problem of evil.’

—Gabriele Boccaccini, professor of Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins, University of Michigan; founding director of the Enoch Seminar; and author of Paul’s Three Paths to Salvation (2020)

Satan and the Problem of Evil

Satan and the Problem of Evil

From the Bible to the Early Church Fathers

Archie T. Wright

Foreword by Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Fortress Press

Minneapolis

SATAN AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

From the Bible to the Early Church Fathers

Copyright © 2022 Fortress Press, an imprint of 1517 Media. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Email [e-mail] or write Permissions, Fortress Press, PO Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1209.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA and used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover image: iStock/duncan1890, Token of Michel Fexandat, Printer of Paris, 1552

Cover design: Kris Miller

Print ISBN: 978-1-5064-3249-6

eBook ISBN: 978-1-5064-8465-5

While the author and 1517 Media have confirmed that all references to website addresses (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing, URLs may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

This book is dedicated to those working to confront the darkness of the human-inflicted evils of genocide and human trafficking.

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgments

1: Origins of Evil

2: Satan and the Devil in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint

3: The Satan Figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls

4: The Satan Figure in the Second Temple Period Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Writings

5: Satan and His Other Names?

6: Satan in the New Testament

7: Satan and the Devil in the Early Church

Conclusion

Bibliography

Subject Index

Scripture and Ancient Text Index

Foreword

In this book, Archie Wright takes readers on a tour of ancient sacred texts and cultures to address the origin and development of belief in a satanic figure. As Wright’s discussion amply demonstrates, emerging discourse about Satan in antiquity was far from theoretical. Every step of the way, it was dictated by attempts to come to terms with the malevolent and, indeed, commonly shared vicissitudes of human experience. As such, the question is larger in scope than the Jewish, Christian, and related traditions that could be mentioned and explored here. What is it that drove speech about evil to assume a personifying dimension? Would it not have sufficed to think of evil in principled terms, and does belief in God require (a) subordinate or equivalent counterpart(s)? Or, when considering ancient worlds, do we rather formulate the question the other way around: What would have driven anyone to think of evil in principled rather than personifying terms? The boundaries between principle and person may have been fluid. Thus, at what point does evil, when regarded as a destructive force with a certain logic to how it works, acquire a name?

While Wright does not ultimately answer questions put this way, his work covers an array of views in written sources whose authors conceive of powers adverse to human flourishing that operate between the poles of divine authorization, on the one hand, and independent activity, on the other. Readers of the treatment in this volume will find a general trend from the former (ancient Israel, Second Temple Jewish tradition, including New Testament writings) to the latter (writings from the patristic period, including gnostic sources), though diversity will have persisted. Reverberating throughout is the conviction that, whatever God’s role may be, evil is here and cannot be wished away. Thus, and perhaps more importantly, Wright recovers for us a wide array of issues that shaped and conditioned explanations for why and, more importantly, how the world is not what it ideally should be. In biblical and related traditions, we therefore do not so much encounter a series of illusionary ideas as realistic attempts to grapple with real problems that vex and complicate human longing for a better world. With this in mind, discourse about figures presiding over evil would have served attempts to manage adversity, the experience of which not only evoked explanation but also inspired the search for mitigating strategies to curb evil’s baffling effects.

While for many today the very idea of believing in or conceptualizing a satan figure constitutes unnecessary baggage from a bygone era, there remains an undeniable continuity with the past. Humanity, whether then or now, knows all too well the problems posed by natural disasters, suffering of all kinds, repressive impositions of social order, individual acts of wrongdoing, and activity that undermines human dignity. Readers will find many contemporary issues and efforts to come to terms with them among the expert readings Wright offers in the pages that follow.

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Munich, Germany

Acknowledgments

Doctoral studies can be dark days, not least in the midlands of an English winter. But I was intrepid when I began my doctoral work at Durham University, so I chose a dark topic in any climate: the origin of evil spirits. When I subsequently took up a position at a conservative evangelical university, I was not done with the topic, which eventually would take on an even darker hue in what would become this book, Satan and the Problem of Evil. Part of my fascination with this subject, which would spur me to continue along this trajectory, was the way in which some of my colleagues and students were blaming or rebuking Satan for what seemed to me to be unadulterated human evil. So off I went on a second journey into darkness, this time to explore the intractable relationship between human evil and what might be deemed Satan-inspired evil. My study is, of course, historical, but I would be remiss not to mention the impetus a conservative, evangelical environment had upon the questions I became increasingly compelled to pose.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the many who encouraged me to follow the evidence regardless of what others may think or say, not least Loren Stuckenbruck, my dissertation supervisor, colleague, and cherished friend. Brad Embry, Ron Herms, and Jack Levison offered untold encouragement throughout this ten-year project. They are dear friends, each of them. I especially want to thank Kaitlynn Merckling, who pushed me the last few months to finish the project.

I want to offer my gratitude to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for their generous Confraternity of Christian Doctrine grant that allowed me the time and opportunity to cut back on my adjunct teaching to finally finish this book. Without this funding, I can imagine I would still be writing the volume now, in the fall of 2021.

Neil Elliott, who at the time was with Fortress Press, took on this project and offered keen encouragement along the way. He claimed it is an important volume, and I hope to prove him right. Fortress Press, in particular Ryan Hemmer, has been extremely professional throughout the production of this book.

There is also the untold number of colleagues and friends in the academy whose sustained encouragement never waned, even if my enthusiasm for the topic did. I am grateful to them too.

Finally, a word to my readers. I hope, once you have read this volume, that you will reckon with darkness, take it seriously—though a book is hardly necessary to make the case that evil is rife in our world—and attempt to make life better for those around us and to be that shining light upon the hill.

Archie T. Wright

Norfolk, Virginia

2021

Chapter 1

Origins of Evil

Introduction

The Problem of Evil has been an issue plaguing humanity since the earliest days of its existence on the earth. Individuals, peoples, and nations of various religions and cultures have asked the question, Why does evil exist in our world? Theists might have asked (and still do), Why does God (or the gods) allow evil to exist? Judeo-Christians may wonder if the so-called first couple, Adam and Eve, were responsible for its beginnings, or was (or is) there some malevolent force in the world that is responsible for it? Religions and civilizations have offered many explanations through the millennia, but none of the accounts they have offered provide any consolation to suffering humanity in God’s creation.

In the twenty-first century, some form of what we call evil has manifested itself among various radical religious groups—Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and others. However, these types of groups have been operating for centuries: the Sicarii, Christian Crusaders, Guy Fawkes, the Iron Guard in 1930s Romania, the Nazis led by Hitler, the Stalinist regime, the Red Brigade, the Shining Path, the Ku Klux Klan, the Islamic State, the Taliban, and al Qaeda; the list is endless. One might then ask, Is there some evil force behind those who take part in these groups, or is it simply the free will of the members driven by an ideology? Others also blame natural disasters on this evil force (or, at times, God), and there are many other scenarios in which an evil force is blamed for suffering. Stories in the newspapers or online portray too many examples of evil being perpetrated by these groups, who, knowingly or unknowingly, are playing an active part or tool in the manifestation of evil and the suffering of humanity or the environment.

Among the three theistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the manifestation of the problem of evil is often articulated in relation to the expression theodicy. The word comes from the Greek theos (god) and dikē (justice), meaning just God, and, as mentioned, relates to how one explains the goodness of the Judeo-Christian God and his sovereignty coexisting alongside the presence of evil. The term was coined by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) in his work to demonstrate that the evil in the world does not contradict that God is good.¹ The concept of theodicy attempts to deal with how bad things happen to good people.²

Why must people suffer? It has been recognized throughout history, in every culture and religion, that the human condition is defined by suffering. It is a condition that all of humanity confronts and accepts each day. Its presence and purpose are and have been beyond our comprehension throughout history because suffering appears to often strike the people who have done the least to merit it.

The philosophical view of the problem of evil offers various responses as to why evil exists in the world; three merit recognition. The first response suggests that God allows evil in the world because evil allows opportunity for virtue to flourish. This solution might argue that the Nazi death camps existed so that a heroic figure such as Anne Frank could emerge.³ The second response endeavors to explain why God might be justified in permitting evil while at the same time suggests this is no reason to deny the existence of God or some higher power. The third response is that the problem of evil and suffering is a good reason that there is no theistic God; thus, it is all up to individuals to make the right choices. Amid the ongoing attempts to answer the question of the problem of evil, some argue it is a result of free will in which humanity functions.⁴ But if it is a result of free will, why would one choose to do evil rather than do good or at least be neutral about things? Is there something in the world that influences people to do evil? A solution to this question, offered by the majority of those who hold some form of a theistic worldview, is the existence of a character who has been accused of being the first creature to choose his/its free will to oppose the will of God; this being has been identified, rightly or wrongly, as the satan figure or devil who is deemed to be a malevolent, autonomous or semiautonomous, anti-God figure.

The question that always arises concerning theodicy is, If God is good, omniscient, and omnipotent, why is there evil in the world? We are told in the Jewish Scriptures that God, at times, appeared to be the cause of evil—he hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then killed him and his army, he became angry at King David for taking a census and killed a number of the Israelites, and he caused the primordial Flood, which killed all but a handful of people on the earth, just to name a few of the incidents. However, the evolving religion of Israel in the postexilic period began to separate God (YHWH) from evil and the responsibility for evil’s origins. During this period, we see the emergence of the satan figure, who became a prominent character as the perpetrator of evil. However, the figure performs this function while operating under the authority of God (see, e.g., Job 1–2).

Some in Christianity argue that the satan figure is autonomous and acts independently of God’s will, but if that is the case, then it becomes difficult to argue that God is all-powerful. If the satan figure is acting under the authority of God, then the question remains, Why is there evil in the world? If God is perfectly good, then evil should be contrary to his nature, not, as some might argue, connected to it (see Isa 45:7). As a result, individuals may arrive at several conclusions: (1) God is not perfectly good, (2) God is not all-powerful, (3) God is not all-knowing, or (4) God does not exist. An analysis of these responses goes beyond the scope of this volume, but as one can see, these are difficult issues to address, particularly for those with an (Evangelical) Christian, or even a general Judeo-Christian, worldview. However, an examination of the history and understanding of the satan figure may assist in guiding a future discussion of these larger issues.

So where does this satan figure fit into this big picture of good versus evil? To determine satan’s role in God’s plan, one must ask, Who or what exactly is this being (or, possibly, beings)? What are the origins of this creature? Is he/it part of an ancient myth or a compilation of mythical traditions? Or, as some have suggested through the ages, is he/it a very real being who is determined to stop the goodness and love of God from being perpetrated in creation, especially among humanity? In addition, one must ask, what is the literary or even scientific evidence for the reality of this being, what does the Bible say about him/it, what do texts from other ancient cultures offer concerning the emergence of such a character, and what do Jewish and Christian extrabiblical texts have to say in relation to the satan figure?

Influential Cultures

As mentioned, other cultures and religions likely influenced various ideas within the Israelite religion, and the satan character would have been no exception. Scholars have argued that the religious ideas of Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Greece played some role in the emerging satan tradition found in the Israelite religion and later Christian tradition.⁵ In the Israelite exilic and postexilic periods, we see sectarian divisions developing among the various groups in (what would become known as) Judaism(s), and at the same time, one can observe the emergence of apocalypticism among the diverse Jewish worldviews and the literature created by these groups. In what follows, we will examine the problem of evil and the evil figures that played a major role in perpetuating this malevolent problem within the various cultures.

PERSIA

This issue of the problem of evil (and the satan figure), in relation to Judeo-Christian traditions, most likely originated during the Babylonian exile, when the Israelites came in contact with the Zoroastrian religion. Some suggest that the Israelites had considerable interaction with the religions of these cultures.⁶ In Zoroastrian texts, possibly dated to the Babylonian/Persian era (although extant manuscripts are dated from the ninth to tenth century CE), one discovers the problem of evil was not unbeknownst to the authors of the literary works that emerged from these nations.

In 539 BCE, Cyrus, king of Persia (a Zoroastrian), conquered Babylon. As a result, Zoroastrianism began to infiltrate Babylonian culture, and as participants in that culture, the Israelites likely came in contact with the cosmology and theology of the Zoroastrians and were to some degree impacted by it. It should be noted that this exchange of ideas was likely not unilateral. The (perhaps best described as henotheistic) Zoroastrian religion has at the head of its pantheon the Wise or Good Lord, Ahura Mazda. From Ahura Mazda, a duality of two spirits emerges, Spenta Mainyu (the Holy or Bountiful Spirit) and Angra Mainyu (the Destructive or Opposing Spirit). The two are often identified as good and evil spirits, but more precisely, they are two notions that represent the opposites of life; thus, a strong notion of dualism exists within Zoroastrianism.

In this dualistic worldview, human beings have the free will to choose between the two forces or paths. Spenta Mainyu, the Bountiful Spirit, upholds the principle of righteousness (asah) that guides the cosmos. Operating under Spenta Mainyu are the Amesh Spentas, or the Holy Immortal Ones (angelic or archangel-like figures). Each is said to represent some characteristic of Ahura Mazda, and they are the custodians of nature. Angra Mainyu, the Opposing Spirit, attempts to disobey the principle of asah and, at the same time, endeavors to influence humanity to do the same. Humans then have a choice between the two paths set out before them, good and evil. Within Zoroastrianism, Angra Mainyu is identified as the adversary of Ahura Mazda and is the spirit or a (minor) god of destruction, death, and darkness. One might argue that within the characteristics and actions of Angra Mainyu, one can recognize some of the traits and the role of the satan figure that emerged in the Christian tradition.⁷

MESOPOTAMIA

The religious tales of these ancient Near Eastern cultures included the development of supernatural evil beings and adversaries of the gods. One of the major texts discovered among these tales is the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, written in Akkadian, the ancient language of Babylon.⁸ The epic tells the story of the protagonist Gilgamesh, who is the king of Uruk. He has a traveling companion named Enkidu, with whom he traverses the landscape encountering monsters, the cave of the sun, goddesses, men who appear as scorpions, and an assortment of unchaste women. The epic offers some of the same early traditions that we find scattered throughout the Bible, including several motifs that may have impacted the development of a satan-type figure in the ancient world. In the story, Gilgamesh and Enkidu encounter a supernatural opponent that they confront in the Cedar Forest where the god Enlil goes to rest. Here, the monster Humbaba emerges to block the entryway into that paradisiacal place of refuge for Enlil (cf. Gen 3:23–24 and the cherub guarding paradise’s gates).

Similar to the later Christian satan figure, Humbaba is the guardian of the dark places and is meant to terrify humans. Humbaba is associated with fire and death; however, it must be made clear that Humbaba is only a possible symbolic representation of the type of adversary that emerges in later Christianity, not necessarily the origin of that figure. The satan figure of postexilic Judaism did not necessarily possess these specific characteristics of Humbaba. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of the characteristics of this creature were adopted by authors in the development of the later satan figure or some other heavenly being.

A further possible source on a developing satan tradition may be found in the Epic of Gilgamesh’s god Enki (Ea), who is a member of the divine court (cf. Job 1–2) and continually attempts to rebel to some degree (against Enlil?). He breaks ranks with his fellow court members and warns Utnapishtim of the coming of a flood event that will destroy the world (cf. 1 En 10.2, in which Sariel warns Noah of the coming Flood).

CANAAN

The Ras Shamra manuscripts, discovered at the site of the ancient Canaanite city of Ugarit, offer a view into the religious world of the Canaanites.⁹ Their gods included Ba’al (god of fertility) and Mot (god of the underworld; death personified),¹⁰ among others, who are mentioned in the biblical text (e.g., Ba’al is referenced in Num 25:3; Judg 2:13; 1 Kgs 16:32; 22:53; Ps 106:28; Rom 11:4; and Mot in Hab 2:5; Job 18:13). However, the Canaanites did worship a supreme god, El, who is likely related to the Mesopotamian god Enlil and the Hebrew God Elohim.

The god Mot is the primary character who conceivably played a role in the later emergence and elaboration of a satan-type figure. He is the god of the underworld who represents death and infertility, and he resides in the city of the Pit. Mot, like Enki in the Epic of Gilgamesh or Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, is a bit of a rebel. It appears one of his primary tasks was to terrorize the earth and its inhabitants (cf. Job 1–2; 1 Pet 5:8). However, he apparently exceeds the boundaries of this task, and so Ba’al goes down to the underworld to correct the situation. A fight ensues, in which Ba’al is killed by Mot. Ba’al’s sister, Anat, decides to take revenge for her brother and kills Mot. As a result, Ba’al is brought back from the dead, and he then restores fertility to the land. Surprisingly, Mot is also resurrected and the two gods begin another deadly battle that will last for eternity.

From the Canaanite accounts, three themes emerge that perhaps are echoed by the Christian view of the satan figure: (1) he is the god of the underworld; (2) he is identified as evil in his battle with Ba’al who, in his action to try to stop Mot from terrorizing the earth, is understood to be good; (3) Mot is categorized as a son of the god El (the satan figure is called a son of God [bene haElohim], in Job 1:6), and (4) Mot is understood as an adversary of good (a theme that has been assumed, rightly or wrongly, of the satan figure in the New Testament [NT]).

Another Ugaritic text that perhaps contributes to the development of the later satan figure is called the Lovely Gods.¹¹ During the god El’s drinking party, mrzḥ, he encounters the creature Habayu, who is depicted in the text as lord of horns and tail, a common image for the Christian satan figure. Unfortunately, Habayu is not found in any other Ugaritic text, so little is known about him or his role. Some have suggested that he is related to the god Resheph, a West Semitic god known for his destructive acts and associated with death and the underworld (or possibly Humbaba in the Epic of Gilgamesh). Resheph has been portrayed as a creature with a tail, and its counterpart Nergal is described as lord of horns.¹²

EGYPT

The problem of evil in Egyptian culture takes on a slightly different perspective. Egyptian gods and goddesses were expressions of the god Aten, the one true god. All things originated from Aten, including both good and evil. However, it was clear that evil forces caused disorder in the cosmos. Humans were also responsible for their decisions and actions and had to answer for them after death: following their time on earth, each individual would enter the underworld (tuat) to be judged by the god Anpu. Persons considered to be evil were tortured and burned or devoured by demons. Tuat becomes an ethereal place of the dead (cf. Sheol in the Hebrew Bible).

The Egyptians also had a god who was considered wicked. Set was an immortal being branded as the god of blazing heat and usually portrayed as being red in color. Set is known to have battled with his brother Osiris and his nephew Horus in a struggle of good versus evil. In the early days of the Egyptian dynasties, the god Set and his nephew Horus were worshipped together, each representing one aspect of the deity. This may have a parallel within the biblical text (cf. the Canaanite texts from Ras Shamra) in which God is known to have created both good and evil (Isa 45:7), but, in later Christianity, evil became personified in the satan figure.

GREECE

The deities of Greek mythology possess both good and evil traits, which, like in Egyptian mythology, originated from a one true god. This dualistic nature of the gods and goddesses can be seen in divine beings such as Pan, Hermes, and Hades, which, as some argue, influenced the emerging satan figure.¹³ Hades is the god of the underworld in Greek mythology, and he may perhaps correspond to the Canaanite god Mot. As the god of the underworld, Hades (also known as Pluton) is the giver of all the blessings that come from the earth: he is the possessor and giver of all the metals, including gold and silver, and he is a god of the earth’s fertility. Hades also causes infertility, he can become invisible by a special headdress, and he dwells in the place of torment for the wicked souls of the dead, where we also find demonic figures (erinnyes). However, Hades knew little of the events taking place in the human realm or on Olympus. In later times, the name Hades was transferred to his kingdom so that it became a name for the underworld itself.

Substantial Shaping of the Satan Figure?

As noted in the discussion above, some points of contact, although no direct parallels, in the literature and imagery suggest that the cultures of the ancient Near East (ANE) may have played a role in the development of the satan figure in later Jewish and Christian traditions. It seems possible, if not probable, that some of these ideas were known to later Jewish and Christian authors and conceivably adopted in some form. Many of the figures mentioned struck fear into the hearts of humanity because they were in conflict or battled with one or more of their cultures’ good gods. In addition, some of the functions or activities of these evil figures seem to have been developed further by the Jewish and Christian traditions of the satan figure. More importantly, we see connections between these gods, beings, or creatures and the problem of evil. The stories in which we find these figures attempt to answer such questions as, Why is death part of the human existence? Why do people suffer? and Who or what is responsible for this suffering? As such, it seems that these figures helped the people of those cultures contend with the ideas of suffering, evil, and sin. Is it possible that this was also a reason for the emergence satan figures in Second Temple Period (2TP) Judaism?

What’s Ahead?

We must note that possible influences of other ANE cultures can be observed in the representation of the satan figure in the Hebrew Bible (HB). However, as we will discuss below, one facet of the Persian religion and its influence appears to have had a greater effect than others on the development of the satan tradition in Judaism and Christianity (although not precisely to the same extent): Zoroastrian dualism. This dualism, or at least the version of it adapted by the Jewish and Christian worldviews, seems to have played a role in the early stages of separating YHWH from the responsibility for evil in the world.

A likely result of this separation was the emergence of a heavenly being, perhaps even a minor deity, that appeared to be responsible to some extent for evil and suffering (although not necessarily by its own authority). As in other cultures, this being, which we call satan, or hasatan, emerged in the ancient world as a divine being who undertakes certain actions for God (the gods) in an effort to test members of the human community, or, as we will see, bring affliction and destruction upon individuals.

Considering this figure’s role in the problem of evil, we began this study with a brief review of the possible influences of the cultures of the ANE. In what follows, we will explore the development of the satan/hasatan tradition(s) in light of the question of the problem of evil. We will begin with a study of the use of the term(s) in the HB and its various translations in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Jewish literature from the 2TP and the late first and early second centuries CE, and the Greek NT. The study will conclude with an examination of the writings of early church theologians beginning in the late first through fourth century CE. This last period is particularly important, as it presents a shift in the understanding of this heavenly figure. As I will argue, his/its treatment is significantly different in these later texts than it is in the Jewish Scriptures, the extrabiblical Jewish literature (e.g., Jubilees, 1 Enoch, etc.), and even the NT.

1 See Gottfried Leibniz, Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil, trans. E. M. Huggard (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951).

2 See Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Schocken Books, 1981); Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992).

3 See N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 28.

4 See Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977).

5 Jeffery Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987). For example, the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish depicts the struggle of a new, younger god, Marduk, with the older primordial gods, Apsu and Tiamat, who were often understood as watery chaos. Once he defeated the older gods, Marduk was appointed king of the gods. Later he became responsible for creating the world. During the struggle, Tiamat took Kingu as her partner and gave birth to monster serpents and dragons—an impressive evil force, according to the myth. See L. W. King, Enuma Elish: The Epic of Creation (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2010). Cf. Canaanite Ba’al myth. See, for example, Stephen C. Russell, Mighty Baal Essays in Honor of Mark S. Smith (Leiden: Brill, 2020).

6 See, for example, Erhard Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Atlanta: SBL, 2014); Susan Niditch, The Responsive Self: Personal Religion in the Biblical Literature of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015).

7 See Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2001).

8 Morris Jastrow and Albert T. Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic: On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

9 Michael Coogan and Mark S. Smith, eds., Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012).

10 It may be possible to suggest a similar hierarchy to the Zoroastrian pantheon, in which the two spirits, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu, operate under the leadership of Ahura Mazda.

11 See Coogan and Smith, Stories from Ancient Canaan, 167–69.

12 See Coogan and Smith, 169.

13 See T. J. Wray and Gregory Mobley, The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

Chapter 2

Satan and the Devil in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint

Introduction

Rivkah Schärf Kluger contends, In the world of the Old Testament, names are not ‘sound and fume,’ but they have magic power; they are . . . substantial and therefore, in effect, identical with the nature of their bearers.¹ This looks to be the case with the Hebrew terms שטן‎/השטן (satan/hasatan). Peggy Day examines the etymology, meaning, and use of the noun satan in the HB/LXX, focusing on Numbers 22:22–35; Job 1–2; Zechariah 3:1–7; and 1 Chronicles 21:1–22:1. She concludes that there is not one celestial satan in the Hebrew Bible, but rather the potential for many.² Others (scholars and laypeople alike) have argued that its use in the HB is that of a proper name, connecting it to the later Christian Satan figure,³ a semiautonomous evil being who apparently opposes everything that is the will of God.⁴ However, as will be argued below, that does not appear to be the case; the latter portrayal differs from that found in the HB or LXX.⁵

In addition to the well-rehearsed passages, we will examine three other texts in which early church interpreters identified the satan figure, even though the term, or any of its cognates, does not appear in the episodes in question. These texts include Genesis 3:1–15, the story of the serpent in the Garden; Isaiah 14:12–17, in which early Church Fathers identify the Lucifer figure as the satan in what they describe as the story of the satan’s fall from heaven; and finally, Ezekiel 28:11–19, which, again, early church theologians understood as describing the fall of the satan figure.

Prior to a close examination of these passages, we will determine the various definitions and uses of the term the satan in the HB and the corresponding Greek translations in the LXX.

The Term Satan

It is suggested that the term originates from the Hebrew root שטן, to persecute, oppose, or be hostile toward, or more specifically, to accuse.⁶ שטן or a cognate form appears twenty-eight times in the Hebrew Bible. It first is used in Genesis 26:21, in the story of Isaac reclaiming the wells of his father, Abraham, in the Valley of Gerar, ruled by Abimelech, king of the Philistines. The Philistines had filled in these wells, and when discovered, Isaac’s servants redug them and found the spring water. However, the herders of Gerar fought with Isaac’s men, claiming the water was theirs. Because of the opposition, Isaac called the well Sitnah (שטנה; the first well he called Esek [עשק], contend with) from the root שטן. Though here used as a proper noun, it likely suggests accusation or opposition in the context of the passage.

The root is used in a similar way, to act as an adversary, in 1 Samuel 29:4, which identifies David as a possible adversary of the Philistines; here, they are leery of David fighting alongside them against Israel. They fear that David may be an adversary to them (ולא יהיה לנוּ לשטן) if he is allowed to enter the battle. The commanders of the Philistine armies question the presence of the Hebrews; here it is used in a disparaging sense for the Israelites, David and his men, as foreigners.⁷

Similarly, in 2 Samuel 19:23 (Masoretic Text; hereafter, MT), David calls the sons of Tseruyah his adversaries (for you will be to me this day an adversary [כי תהיוּ לי היום לשטן]) when they ask for the death of Shimei, who has accused David of killing Saul. In particular, Abishai is labeled a satan (שטן)—an adversary—for calling for the death of Shimei. Day argues that in this case, satan should be understood as a legal accuser.⁸ Abishai subsequently assumes the role of royal court accuser although he is only identified as a commander of David’s armies; thus the term should be considered a function rather than an office in the court. It should also be understood that the term satan here, based on the narrative in 2 Samuel 16:5–7, has no slanderous connotations, as Abishai is correct in his accusation against Shimei.

In 1 Kings 5:16–20, at the end of military campaigns of Israel, we are told that Solomon has no satans (i.e., military foes) and is able to live in peace and build the temple. In 5:18, God grants rest to Solomon and removes the adversary (MT, שטן; LXX, ἐπίβουλος, plotter) from the land. This period of peace ends for Solomon in 1 Kings 11, in which YHWH raises up military satans against him. The two occasions of a human adversary occur in 1 Kings 11:14–25. The first is Hadad the Edomite, in verse 14: The Lord raised up a satan (שטן; LXX, σαταν) against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite, the king’s offspring who was in Edom. Hadad had fled Edom to Egypt at the time in which David slew every male in Edom. He was granted favor by Pharaoh until the time that David died, along with Joab, the commander of David’s army. The second occasion is in verse 23 (MT), in which God raises up Rezon, son of Eliada, king of Damascus.⁹ In verse 25 (MT), we are told he is an adversary (שטן) to Israel all the days of Solomon.¹⁰

שטן occurs in verb form in the book of Psalms five times: Psalms 38:21 (MT, ישטנוּני, yestenuni; LXX [37:21], ἐνδιέβαλλόν, to falsely accuse); 71:13 (שטני, sotenay; LXX [70:13], ἐνδιαβάλλοντες, ones falsely accusing); and 109:4–6 (ישטנוּני and שטן; LXX [108:4–6], ἐνδιέβαλλόν, διάβολος). In these instances, cognates of satan appear as personal foes or accusers of the speakers in the biblical text. In Psalm 109:1–6, the psalmist complains to YHWH of being attacked by slanderous enemies who are identified in 109:4 as the ones accusing me (ישטנוּני; LXX [108:4], ἐνδιέβαλλόν). Leslie Allen suggests that the setting for the psalm should be reconstructed as a religious court where the psalmist claimed his innocence before priestly judges as representatives of Yahweh.¹¹ In verse 6, the author of the psalm asks the Lord to set an accuser (satan; διάβολος in LXX 108:6¹²) against his enemy (note the shift to singular) that would stand at the right hand of his enemy to accuse him.¹³ Finally, Psalm 109:20 and 29 use the terms שטני‎/שוטני (sotenai; LXX [108:20, 29], ἐνδιαβαλλόντων με, ἐνδιαβάλλοντές με), the ones opposing me / the ones falsely accusing me. The psalmist is asking the Lord to act on his behalf to protect the Lord’s name from slander and to show his love is steadfast and good.

A further instance of שטן occurs as an infinitive verb in Numbers 22:22, in the story of Balaam’s ass, describing the actions of the שטן. Because of Balaam’s disobedience, God sends a שטן (an adversary) to stand in his way as he journeys toward Moab. The satan in this case is מלאך יהוה (malach Yahweh), the/an angel/messenger of YHWH. This heavenly figure is to act as an adversary toward Balaam on his journey to Moab; thus, in this case, a שטן can be understood as a messenger of God who has been