Talk:Satan

Dating the Books of Job and 1 Samuel

Hello, I have an edit about the mention of the book of Job and 1 Samuel. I don't have the ability to submit an edit, so maybe someone else can.

In the first paragraph under Historical Development, the Hebrew Bible, this is said: "In the earlier biblical books, e.g. 1 Samuel 29:4, it refers to human adversaries, but in the later books, especially Job 1–2..."

The use of the word "later" to describe the Book of Job in relation to the book of 1 Samuel is inconsistent with other sources, including another wikipedia articles. The dating of the book of Job and 1 Samuel are debatable.

I haven't looked much into this debate, I just thought the wording could be done better. It's possible that the books can be contemporary in some parts, as in, having some overlap in the time of composition or the story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

"Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual working in the exilic period (6th century BCE), since then there has been wide recognition that the history appeared in two "editions", the first in the reign of Judah's King Josiah (late 7th century BCE), the second during the exile (6th century BCE). Noth's dating was based on the assumption that the history was completed very soon after its last recorded event, the release of King Jehoiachin in Babylon c. 560 BCE; but some scholars have termed his reasoning inadequate, and the history may have been further extended in the post-exilic period."

"It is generally agreed that Job comes from between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE."

Books of Samuel#Authorship and date of composition

"Modern scholarly thinking posits that the entire Deuteronomistic history was composed circa 630–540 BCE by combining a number of independent texts of various ages."

"The Deuteronomistic view is that an early version of the history was composed in the time of king Hezekiah (8th century BC); the bulk of the first edition dates from his grandson Josiah at the end of the 7th BC, with further sections added during the Babylonian exile (6th century BC) and the work was substantially complete by about 550 BC."

Book of Job

"The language of the Book of Job, combining post-Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540-330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner."

"The language of the Book of Job, combining post-Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner."

It's just one word, but it made me stop as I was reading the wiki page.

Edit: In summary, if some scholars are correct, that both could have been written post-babylonian exile, then the books were written around the same time, and the point about the historical use of "Satan" is not substantial to have under the topic of the historical development."

Edit: Opinion: Maybe the word is just used in the different manners for each to be in accordance to the topic of the respective book. Job has scenes in the spiritual realm. 1 Samuel talks much about human adversaries. This does not mean the word “Satan” developed over time. It just shows different uses of the word. The definitions can exist simulatenously.

12aq11 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If Samuel dates from 630-540 and Job dates from 540-330 then Job is indeed later. Ar2332 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Removal of Russel's source

@Ar2332 greetings, first of all, thanks for some necessary clean-up, many Users have not realized. Especially the claim taht Belial and Satan were synonyms should have been tackled before. I am, however, initiating the discussion because I believe you may have made a mistake by removing Russel. In Russel's "Devil, Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity" (1977) he introduces on page 99 Zorastrianism as a belief-system with strong impact on the concept of the Devil on both Christianity and Judaism. On page 101-102 the details are explained. Page 100 is mostly just an image. That being said, is it possible you confused something? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I definitely saw pages 101-102 and there was nothing relevant there, but I did not see the beginning of the Zoroastrianism discussion as it was paywalled. Could you provide the relevant text from page 99 and we can work from there? And don't you mean 1987a not 1977? (The text said 1977 before I deleted it, but I'm pretty sure this was a mistake, and a comment in the text by someone else noted the same.) Thanks Ar2332 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I have the book at home. I want to reply then back. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Here the relevant quote:

Dualistic religions form a spectrum from the extreme and absolute Zoroastrianism, becoming more and more attenuated through the Zoroastrian heresy Zervanism, GNosticism, and Manichaeism to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, wzhere dualism almost ceases to exist. All these religions, however different from one another, stand together in their distance from monism.

and

But the dualism introduced by Zarathushtra was a revolutionary step in the development of the Devil, for it posited, for the first time, an absolute principle of evil, whose personification, ANgra Maunyu or Ahriman, is the first clearly defined Devil.

regarding the publication date: Published 1977 but printed 1987. Hence the confusion, I suppose. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I'll readd the reference, however I will label it "1987a" so that the links work correctly. Thanks Ar2332 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Viccio and Iblis

Greetings,

I would like to bring to point an inconsistence between a secondary source and the primary text it seems to rely upon. Viccio is referred to in the following passage in the article " al-Baydawi, instead argues that Satan hoped to be an angel,but that his actions made him a jinn". The source states:

"The Secret of Revelation and Interpretation, says taht Iblis belongs to the angels as far as his hopes were concerned, but that his actions placed him among the djinns."

When reading again over this part, it seems to me that the author suggests that Baydawi states that Iblis becomes a jinn as a result of his actions. As I recently wrote through several tafsirs by means of preparing the related Iblis article, I just noticed that this is not what Baydawi said. Gibril Fouad Haddad translates the following passage from Baydawi's tafsir:

and Iblis was one of the angels, otherwise he would not have been included in the order given to them, nor would it have been valid to except him from them. This is not contradicted by saying of Allah Most High, except Iblis - he was of the jinn (al-Kahf 18:50), because it is possible to say he was of the jinn behaviorally and of the angels generically, (...) (pp. 543)

This is the closest I could find in Viccio's source. However, it is not that Iblis "hoped" to be an angel or was an angel through "hope", but he was an angel in essence. Since the translation matches Viccio's statement that Iblis' actions are like that of the jinn, this seems to be what the author was referring to. Next, I would also like to draw attention to the following part, a few pages later:

There might be a type of angels that are no different from devils in their essence but differ from them only in accidents and attributes - like the virtuous and wicked among humans - and the jinn comprise both [aspects], Iblis being of this type, as stated by Ibn Abbas

Here, jinn is a species to whom angels and devils belong, and Iblis is an angel who behaves like the devils. as per (WP:SOURCEWRONG) I would suggest to rewrite that passage in question. The translator offers a comment on Baydaw's interpretation. Would this be eligible for a better summary of Baydawi's opinion? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)