Toward the end of the Persian period his figure reappears
in 1 Chron. 21.1, where ‘satan’ has become a proper name. The article has been
dropped and he has become Satan with a capital ‘S’. A comparison between the
text as it appears in the Chronicles and its source in the books of Samuel (2
Sam. 24.1) shows us just which problems led some Jews to use this figure. In
the older text, that of the source, we read, ‘Again the anger of Yhwh was
kindled against Israel...’, in a context where no motivation for God’s anger is
given. Apparently the idea that God could get angry with no apparent reason and
put sinful ideas into someone’s heart (in this case David’s) must have been
repugnant to the religious sensibilities of the fourth century BCE. The
Chronicler’s text becomes, ‘Satan stood up against Israel...’
Without the comparison to its source, the text in
Chronicles would seem to refer to the devil. In comparison to the source,
though, we see that it was simply a way of expressing an embarrassing idea, that
God could desire someone’s harm, just as in the most ancient tradition. In any
case, in this book Satan is an ambiguous figure, because it is not clear just
how much freedom of action he has at the heavenly court and up to just what
point he can harm humankind. In this way the satan and the devil (whether Asael
or Semeyaza) grow strangely closer until, as we have seen, Satan becomes
without a doubt the name of the devil in the book of Jubilees. He no
longer belongs to the heavenly court, but is ruler of his own kingdom. (Paolo
Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period [Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, Press, 2000], 350)
To Support this Blog: