Saturday, February 27, 2021

"The evil one" (ο πονηρος) in Pre-Christian Texts Being Used for Satan

In Matt 6:13b, there is mention of “evil.” Many believe that “the evil [one]” (Greek: ο πονηρος) is a reference to the person of Satan. However, some Christadelphian apologists dispute this as the claim “the evil one” is never applied to Satan in the pre-Christian literature (e.g., Jonathan Burke).

 

Some may appeal to “the evil one” being used of Satan in the Testament of Job 7:1 for Satan, but many scholars believe that the original was not “the evil one” but Σατανας, and that these manuscripts reflect a Christian interpolation to the text. Notwithstanding, in Rabbinical sources . . .

 

Sammael, the Tempter, Accuser and angel of death, is described as ‘the most evil’ (רשע) of the satans, and that R. Joshua ben Hananias can apply the same adjective to the Serpent. He also noted the gloss on Aram רשע in the Targum of Isa. 11.4 where ‘the Evil/Ungodly One’ is identified with Armilos (Romulus?), a kind of Antichrist. (Matthew Black, “The Doxology to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6.13B,” in Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White, eds., Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 327-38, here, p. 333)

 

In Targum Jonathan on Isaiah (11:4) we read:

 

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with faithfulness the needy of the earth; and he shall smite the sinners of the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the speech of His lips he shall slay Armillus the wicked.

 

Black also notes that in

 

Hebrew liturgical comminations for recital at ‘Assemblies of the Community’ and similar to those at 1QS 2.4bf., designated 4Q280.2 and 4Q286.10 ii 1-13 (with an overlap in certain verses with 4Q287). It is at 4Q286 5 that we find the Hebrew הרשע used as a proper name to describe Satan or Belial, in a text that is closely related to the 4Q Melchireša’ texts at 4Q Amram, and 4Q280 2. These texts not only supply an exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek for the devil, but they also illustrate and fill out the Aramaic and Hebrew background of this classical New Testament term. (Ibid., 334)

 

And that

 

Melchireša’ reappears at 4Q280.2 in a Hebrew liturgical commination of Belial-Melchireša’, side by side with which Kobelski publishes the extended parallel Berakhah from the Manual of Discipline, 1QS 2.4b-9, 15-17, 25b-26. Thus 4Q280.2221 begins ‘Accursed be thou, Melchireša’, etc.’, parallel to ‘Accursed be thou (lot of Belial), etc,’ at 1QS 2.5. Here it is abundantly clear that Melchireša’ is simply another designation for Belial or Satan.

 

It is in the second lot of fragments at 4Q286(287) 10 ii 1-13, also a commination of Belial (line 2 ‘Accursed be Belial . . . ‘), that at line 5 we read:

 

Accursed be the Evil/Ungodly one (הרש[ע])
[in all the times of his] dominion,
and maligned be all the sons of Belial in all the iniquities of their
offices, until their extermination for ever. Amen, Amen. (Black, The Doxology in the Pater Noster, 335)

 

Black concludes his essay thusly:

 

So far as our knowledge goes, these two sets of texts, 4Q Amramb, 4280, 286(287) and the Targum of Isa. 11.4 are the only passages in Jewish literature where the designations רשיעא/הרשע are used for Satan or a manifestation of Satan. The designation, however, seems almost an inevitable one for the Prince of Darkness, so that it may well have been in more frequent use in Judaism than its extremely rare occurrence suggests. Was it perhaps dropped by the Synagogue when it was adopted by the early Church, in its almost literal Greek equivalent ο πονηρος? Such a term would no doubt commend itself widely as a general concepts, immediately intelligible in the Hellenistic world, whereas the Hebrew/Aramaic terminology for Satan must have sounded strange and foreign in Greek ears. (Ibid., 336, emphasis added)

 

While not voluminous, there are instances of "the evil one" being used for Satan in the pre-Christian literature. Such is very problematic for Christadelphian apologetics vis-a-vis their Satanaology. For more, see:


Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues