Dean Anderson

In another thread I have been talking about the development of the 'Satan' character in the OT.

Apart from a few mentions from some of the later prophets (and one of the psalms), there are four main places in the OT where 'Satan' is mentioned.

1) In Genesis 2-3 people often claim that the talking snake is Satan - although the Bible itself makes no such claim.

2) Job mentions Satan a lot, although Satan is referred to more as a Fool/Puck type character - a servant of Yahweh using his 'Fool's Perogative' to point out Yahweh's arrogance.

3) Isiah 14:12 refers to the King of Babylon as the 'shining one' or 'bringer of light' in an ironic fashion and this is often interpreted as a comparison with a 'Lucifer' figure who has fallen from heaven and who is also Satan (although the Lucifer figure appears nowhere else in the Bible).

4) 1 Chronicles 21 refers to Satan as inspiring David to take his ill-fated census in a retelling of the 2 Samual 24 story.

It is this last reference that I am curious about.

The KJV translates vyjmd s+n jl-ysr`l vy$t `t-dvyd lmnvt `t-ysr`l as And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. This would seem to indicate that it is the anthropomorphised 'Satan' that inspires him - and introduces the character of Satan the Adversary as the opponent of both man and of Yahweh.

However, Young's literal translation translates the same Hebrew as And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel which introduces no extra 'Satan' character at all into the narrative - simply saying that David was provoked by the presence/actions of Isreal's mundane enemies into counting his army (a realistic statement to make).

Both these translations would seem to serve the purpose of rewriting the Samuel story to make it not look as if Yahweh was the one who made David do the census, but is it sensible to assume that the author(s) of Chronicles would have introduced the (theologically rather important) 'Satan' character in order to do this when the character has no scriptural precedent - and further not elaborating on that character by giving anything other than a single name-check? Or is it more sensible for the author(s) to simply claim that David had the idea himself after seeing Israel's enemies (still getting Yahweh off the hook but without having to introduce extra characters into the narrative)?

Which is the better translation of the Hebrew here? 'The Adversary' or 'an adversary'?

Is the character of 'Satan' introduced in 1 Chronicles? or not introduced into Israelite/Hebrew mythology until Job?

spin

Chronicles was written after Job. One of the reasons incidentally is that while in Job the noun $+N has a definite article, H-$+N, "the adversary" pr "the accuser", wherever it is used ($ = shin). In Chronicles there is no article, giving it the appearance of a name, "Satan". Using "Satan" in Job seems to me to be an inappropriate translation.


spin

spin

Just another example of the use of "the adversary", H-$+N, in the Hebrew bible at, you guessed it, Zechariah 3:1-2.


spin

The Evil One

Does the absence of the definite article necessarily indicate a proper noun? Or might it indicate an indefinite noun? ie

H-$+N == the adversary
$+N == an adversary or "Mr Adversary"

I know that this is how the articles work in Arabic, but I'm not sure about Hebrew.

spin

It works the same in Hebrew as well.

However, as we already know that the religion sees only one such figure -- it's always "the adversary" with no need to express which one or introduce the figure in an indefinite manner --, suddenly to come out with "an adversary" is quite unexpected in the religion, while the move from noun to name is an understandable development.


spin

The Evil One

Ah right. I see. Thank you.

So what, in your opinion, is to be made of the translation "And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel " mentioned in the OP?

It seems, from reading the thread so far, that there are two ways to look at "adversary" in this verse that different translations have used.

One, that the use of "adversary" is here non-religious and just means some human being or other (an enemy of David's), entirely separate from "THE adversary" as mentioned in Job. (Do we have any evidence that $+N was ever used in such a non-religious way?)

Two, that it has indeed evolved into a proper name for a particular supernatural being in Chronicles.

Can we rule either of these out on any criteria?

(thanks for humouring someone very new to the intricacies of biblical Hebrew, spin!)

spin

A read of 2 Sam 24 should give a clear backgrounder to understanding the Chronicles reference to Satan. God incites David to take the census in 2 Sam 24:1, but eventually relents from his mischief (v16), whereas Chron has Satan doing the incitement, taking the heat of God morally. This use of Satan is far from "non-religious". This is a cosmic event, not one performed by some mere mortal, but by a supernatural being. Make sense?


spin

The Evil One

Got it... and Sam's earlier than Chron IIRC?

In any case, I'm now convinced that the article-less "Satan" in Chron refers to "Mr Adversary".

Dean Anderson

Cool - I start a thread and when I come back to it a day later, The Evil One has asked pretty much the exact same questions that I was going to. Oh well, it saves me the bother...

I'm not sure I agree with you 100% here, though. I can still see ambiguity.

The account in Chronicles could be keeping the event as a 'cosmic' event, but changing the perpetrator from Yahweh to Satan - in order to get Yahweh off the hook morally. I.e. David is persuaded by Satan to take the census - but Yahweh punishes David instead of Satan.

On the other hand it could be downplaying the event, turning it from a 'cosmic' event to a 'mundane' event in order to get Yahweh off the hook morally. I.e. David decides on his own (based on mundane actions of Israel's enemies) to do the census - and this is what Yahweh punishes him for (taking his own initiative rather than having blind trust in Yahweh).

Why do you think that the first of these is so obviously the case?

Secondly, you mention that using 'Satan' in Job seems to be an inappropriate translation because the Hebrew uses h-s+n rather than s+n. However, if you look at the context - the h-s+n reference is clearly talking about a single character who is one of the Bene-Elohim and who has a conversation with Yahweh.

What would you translate the Job references as?

spin

Look at the parallel text in 2 Sam already mentioned and see what it has for Satan.

The "h-" is the definite article, the "the" of Hebrew. Job should read "the adversary", which comes across as a title.

Without an article you have, as The Evil One already mentioned, either an indefinite noun or a name. I have argued in the previous posts for preferring the name.


spin