An objection
to the historicity of the Book of Mormon is that its demonology is
anachronistic. We are told by some critics that, as belief in demons and Satan
is unknown in the pre-exilic era among the Israelites, and was only adopted by
the Israelites during the exilic period. A number of scholars hold to this
view, as do some denominations who reject entirely belief in a supernatural
Satan (e.g., the Christadelphians; Church of God, Abrahamic Faith).
It is true
that the Old Testament is not very explicit about supernatural evil having
ontological existence. However, there are strong hints when one examines some
of the original language texts of the OT.
In Lev 17:7,
we read in the KJV:
And they shall no more offer their sacrifice unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
The 1985 JPS
Tanakh renders this verse as follows:
And that they may offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.
The word
translated as "devil" or "goat-demon" is the Hebrew term שָׂעִיר. It refers to a demon in the shape of a
he-goat (e.g., Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament).
Dustin
Smith, an Unitarian scholar (see his blog here) presented a paper on the identity and nature of Satan and Demons in the biblical texts. In a section
discussing the demonology of the Old Testament, we read the following:
Examining the nature of demons, at least within the
Hebrew Bible, is not quite as simple as searching for the word and reading the
passage. There are quite a few ways in which various demonic entities are
described in Hebrew.
1. To start, many of the
demons are referred to by name shed or the plural shedim.
These instances are as follows:
Deuteronomy 32:17
They sacrificed to demons
who were not God, to gods whom they have not known, new gods who came lately,
whom your fathers did not dread.
Demons here are paired synonymously with false gods
who were sacrificed to. They were considered objects of worship and therefore a
legitimate threat to the Israelite community.
Psalm 106:37-38
They even sacrificed their
sons and their daughters to the demons, and shed innocent blood, the blood of
their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
and the land was polluted with the blood.
Demons again are equated with the false idols of
the nations, this time directly in the Hebrew text. Since offering a sacrifice
is considered an act of worship, the psalmist is feeling remorse for this
disobedient act of prostration on behalf of Israel.
2. In the Hebrew Bible one
finds the goat-demons20 in four occurrences, coming from the Hebrew sairim.
Leviticus 17:7
They shall no longer
sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot.
This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations.
The sairim here
are depicted as prohibited objects of worship for the children of Israel.
2 Chronicles 11:15
He set up priests of his
own for the high places, for the goat-demons and for the calves which he had
made.
King Jeroboam installed
priests and built high places towards both the sairim and the
calves.
Isaiah 13:21
But desert creatures will
lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live
there, and goat-demons will frolic there.
Isaiah 34:14
The desert creatures will
meet with the wolves, the goat-demons also will cry to its kind; yes, the
Lilith will settle there and will find herself a resting place.
In the Isaiah passages the sairim are
spoken together with the ostriches, howling creatures, and wild animals as a
part of apocalyptic texts located in the desert. Some even think that the
Lilith figure here is another name for a desert-dwelling female demon.
3. Leviticus 16 speaks of azazel,
a Hebrew word that has divided readers as to its meaning. Four times it is
mentioned as a goat-demon that lived in the wilderness in reference to the Day
of Atonement.21 It is unlikely that the meaning of azazelhere
refers to what many translations call a “scapegoat”, a guess based on the
assumption that the name derives from ez (“goat”) and azav (“go
away”). The problem with this interpretation is that in Lev. 16:8 the goat is
said to be forazazel. In 16:10 the goat is sent but it goes to azazel in
16:26. One of the more telling aspects is that 16:8 places “for Yahweh” and
“for azazel” in parallel, suggesting that there is best understood as an actual
divine being opposed to God.
4. Sometimes the translators of the LXX interpreted
the idols as ‘demons.’
Psalm 96:5 MT (95:5 LXX)
For all the gods of the
people are idols (LXX
δαιμόνια).
This text shows that there were some who understood
the false gods (idols) as demons.22
Notes for the Above
20 NRSV translation.
21 Lev 16:8, 10 (twice), 26.
22 This also occurs in LXX Lev 17:7; 2 Chr. 11:15;
Isa 13:21, 34:14, 65:3.
Dr. David Bokovoy discussed the question of Satan in the Book of
Mormon in a thread on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum:
One of the
criticisms raised by critics of the Book of Mormon against its authenticity
includes the detailed view of Satan witnessed throughout the work. I believe,
however, a careful analysis of the use of Satan in the account actually
provides evidence for the book's authenticity. I maintain that we can trace
historically how the Book of Mormon authors came to understand the Satan
concept. The view derives from Lehi's careful analysis of the book of Isaiah.
This analysis set the foundation for the way subsequent Book of Mormon authors
understood the doctrine of the Lord's Adversary.
And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. (2 Nephi 2:17).
This use of suppose in Lehi's commentary is really quite intriguing. Note the 1828 definition of the English word provided in Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. In Joseph’s day, the term suppose meant to lay down or state as a proposition or fact that may exist or be true, though not known or believed to be true or exist; or to imagine or admit to exist for the sake of argument or illustration.
Lehi’s use of caution when expounding this doctrine concerning a fallen angel as a concept that was not explicitly known or believed to be true via the information Lehi had read makes perfect sense historically. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is the later theological view of Satan explicitly attested.
So how did Lehi come to this theological supposition through the things he had read?
The first text which seems to have led Lehi to an understanding of this doctrine is Isaiah 14 which appears cited in 2 Nephi 24. This text includes the following account:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit (Isaiah 14:12-14).
Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed to the king of Babylon. As I have already shared in this thread, verses 12-15 derive from an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity; see the evidence provided in Mark R. Shipp's Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Biblical scholar Michael Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser, The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the Ugaritic material, Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 354-369.
So for Lehi to take this specific taunt as evidence to "suppose" that a member of the divine council, termed an angel in the sermon, fell from heaven for having sought that which was evil before God represents a completely logical deduction on the part of the Book of Mormon prophet. Yet the adaptation of earlier Canaanite mythology is in no way a technique unique to Isaiah 14: 12-15. In the Apocalypse of Isaiah (chapters 24-27), for example, Isaiah adopts the Ugaritic image of Lotan, the twisting serpent as a symbol for God’s eventual apocalyptic victory over chaos. The account reads:
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea (Isaiah 27:1)
Through this statement, Isaiah adapted the North West Semitic mythic symbol of Leviathan, the Great Dragon, that Ancient Serpent, to refer to Yahweh’s eventual eschatological victory over a great and dreadful foe.
If Lehi had access to this passage, it would have been natural for the Book of Mormon prophet to combine the image of God’s enemy in Isaiah 14, who fell from heaven, with the serpent whom Yahweh will eventually defeat and punish in the "last day." A careful reading of Lehi’s continued sermon reveals that this analysis appears to be correct:
And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil (2 Nephi 1:18)
The Old Testament never discusses the doctrine of Satan in any detail, which of course explains the reason for Lehi’s caution concerning the thing he supposes via the information he had read. Moreover, the Old Testament never explicitly makes a link between Satan and serpent. The connection appears only later in biblical thought as witnessed, for example, in the book of Revelation:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him (Rev. 12:9).
Therefore, it appears from my perspective that Lehi deduced the doctrine of the Devil much like the later New Testament authors, namely through a careful analysis of Isaiah 14 and 27. I find the fact that the account states that Lehi merely "supposed" this concept as evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.
And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. (2 Nephi 2:17).
This use of suppose in Lehi's commentary is really quite intriguing. Note the 1828 definition of the English word provided in Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. In Joseph’s day, the term suppose meant to lay down or state as a proposition or fact that may exist or be true, though not known or believed to be true or exist; or to imagine or admit to exist for the sake of argument or illustration.
Lehi’s use of caution when expounding this doctrine concerning a fallen angel as a concept that was not explicitly known or believed to be true via the information Lehi had read makes perfect sense historically. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is the later theological view of Satan explicitly attested.
So how did Lehi come to this theological supposition through the things he had read?
The first text which seems to have led Lehi to an understanding of this doctrine is Isaiah 14 which appears cited in 2 Nephi 24. This text includes the following account:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit (Isaiah 14:12-14).
Isaiah 14 presents a taunt directed to the king of Babylon. As I have already shared in this thread, verses 12-15 derive from an early North West Semitic tradition of a god in the divine council who attempts to usurp the throne of the high deity; see the evidence provided in Mark R. Shipp's Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b-21 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). Biblical scholar Michael Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser, The mythological provenance of Isa. xiv 12-15: a reconsideration of the Ugaritic material, Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 354-369.
So for Lehi to take this specific taunt as evidence to "suppose" that a member of the divine council, termed an angel in the sermon, fell from heaven for having sought that which was evil before God represents a completely logical deduction on the part of the Book of Mormon prophet. Yet the adaptation of earlier Canaanite mythology is in no way a technique unique to Isaiah 14: 12-15. In the Apocalypse of Isaiah (chapters 24-27), for example, Isaiah adopts the Ugaritic image of Lotan, the twisting serpent as a symbol for God’s eventual apocalyptic victory over chaos. The account reads:
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea (Isaiah 27:1)
Through this statement, Isaiah adapted the North West Semitic mythic symbol of Leviathan, the Great Dragon, that Ancient Serpent, to refer to Yahweh’s eventual eschatological victory over a great and dreadful foe.
If Lehi had access to this passage, it would have been natural for the Book of Mormon prophet to combine the image of God’s enemy in Isaiah 14, who fell from heaven, with the serpent whom Yahweh will eventually defeat and punish in the "last day." A careful reading of Lehi’s continued sermon reveals that this analysis appears to be correct:
And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil (2 Nephi 1:18)
The Old Testament never discusses the doctrine of Satan in any detail, which of course explains the reason for Lehi’s caution concerning the thing he supposes via the information he had read. Moreover, the Old Testament never explicitly makes a link between Satan and serpent. The connection appears only later in biblical thought as witnessed, for example, in the book of Revelation:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him (Rev. 12:9).
Therefore, it appears from my perspective that Lehi deduced the doctrine of the Devil much like the later New Testament authors, namely through a careful analysis of Isaiah 14 and 27. I find the fact that the account states that Lehi merely "supposed" this concept as evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.
