JOB: Two Questions

1) I've encountered a few different resources that make the following statement:

"We first read that the “heavenly beings” (“sons of God” in Hebrew) come before the Lord God, and Satan is among them. (Here Satan is not the demon of later Judaism, but rather one of God’s heavenly councilors.)"

Robert A. Kugler and Patrick J. Hartin, An Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 190.

This little nugget of supposed wisdom is plopped in the text without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It is rather common from more recent scholars to hear this perspective, but it usually (as here) is put forward as a pronouncement from on high...almost as if the writer is passing himself off as part of the "heavenly council" with inside knowledge.

Does anyone know of any Logos resources that do more than just "speak from on high" on this topic? Looking for a rationale for this assertion that is at least a couple of ticks above pure opinion.

2) Also, I'm looking for info on the two perspectives of when the book was written. Some say it is the oldest book in the Bible, and as usual there are those who say it wasn't written until the time of the supposed Deuteronomic redaction. If anyone knows of resources that support either view, I'd like to know. An evidentiary passage would help if you're up to it. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ben

For one thing, satan there has the definite article, meaning it's not a proper name. Check out the entry in Dictionary of Deities and Dictionaries in the Bible and other reference works like ABD.

Dan Francis

Logically speaking if God is the creator of everything God created Satan, indeed theology of Christianity has labeled satan as a fallen angel. As the act of murder broke fellowship in the first family but Cain was still a child of Adam, so Satan may be seen as a disobedient child of God. But as was said above in Job satan is not a person per say but a function. Ie satan= Accuser in Hebrew hence satan in job is the prosecution in legal parlance.

Dan

Francis

For questions of the kind, I would, in addition to scholarly dictionary entries, check technical commentaries and journals. Commentaries may offer discussion on the role of the Satan (and his identity) in the introduction to the commentary, in the commentary proper or in excursus. If you have access to these check WBC, NICOT, AYBC, Hermeneia, etc.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749781#Comment_749781

Thanks, guys. I always like to hear opinions because it helps me to comprehend and understand how others perceive the stuff that's on the page. But I'm really not looking for that so much. Again, I'm interested in whether anyone has knowledge of Logos resources where 1) the author(s) explains WHY they say hassaataan (yes, the adversary) in Job has no relation to the thematically similar character(s) found in Genesis, 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Gospels, Peter, Revelation, etc., or 2) discusses reasons for dating the book as either early or late. I will check out DDD and various reference works, but I was wondering if there were specific commentaries that anyone knew of that talked about these two issues.

Regarding the presence or absence of the grammatic article, the underlying assumption of those who make an issue of it seems to be the notion that "Adversary" and "the adversary" are somehow inherently incompatible epithets incapable of describing the same figure. That ought to be viewed as silly and ridiculous, but scholars crawl all over themselves trying to make this point with knowing earnestness and a straight face. Go figure. Also, it really isn't the presence or absence of the article that establishes the word as a name. It is the fact of direct address, which is seen in both OT & NT. If The Rock (WWE version) is being interviewed, the interviewer isn't going to say, "So tell us, The Rock, when will you be wrestling next?" He will drop the article when addressing him directly, even though The Rock calls himself The Rock.

Regarding the also increasingly common notion that the character from Job is a sort of legal functionary, this idea is predicated upon invoking an amnesiac form of in medias res. Adopting this idea entirely overlooks WHAT REASON COULD POSSIBLY ACCOUNT FOR THE NEED OF SUCH A FUNCTIONARY??? If there is no sin, then everything clicks and hums along just as Design dictates. Accuse? Accusation? Adversary? What do those things mean? They only take on meaning in view of the introduction of those forces at some point in time. The functionary (if the character in Job can even credibly be perceived in such a role), as an accuser THE accuser, would virtually HAVE to have relation to the SOURCE of those forces (i.e. the serpent). But here's the kicker...this adversary, or rather, this "THE adversary", is portrayed by scholars as part of the HEAVENLY RETINUE, but when YHWH asks him what he's been up to, he replies that he's been roaming around the EARTH. Picture exile enacted in a bolt of lightning if you care to.

Again, any help on the two questions would be appreciated.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749793#Comment_749793

WHY they say hassaataan (yes, the adversary) in Job has no relation to the thematically similar character(s) found in Genesis

They do not say there is NO relation - they say it is not the same as .... there is this little thing called time over which ideas develop, understanding develops etc. They are essentially implying that this is an earlier concept of the adversary. I don't know of a resource within Logos on the history of the concept of Satan. I can tell you that the cover of one which recently got packed for moving is red and black ... and that I own it in hardcover ... all of which is true but singularly unhelpful. [8-|]

Gordon Jones

Hi David,

I was intrigued by your questions and so did a little digging. I found that The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings has an article on Satan which includes a sub-article entitled 'The Profile of Satan in Job'. The conclusion of the sub-article, which I think touches on your first question, is as follows:

“The result of this profile is that we are not in a position to claim that the satan in the book of Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the NT on the premise that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew satan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the NT. The pictures are not contradictory, and they may even be complementary, but we could not consider them homogeneous.”

J. H. Walton, “Satan,” ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 716.

If you feel that this appropriately addresses the area of your first question you may wish to read more of the sub-article.

I wish you every blessing in your quest to better understand God's Word!

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749801#Comment_749801

Does this get at what you are looking for?

The Challenger (haśśaṭan). Because the Challenger comes among the sons of God, there has been some discussion as to whether he comes as a full-fledged member or as an interlocutor crashing the meeting.27 The former would be supported by the casual way in which Yahweh engages him in conversation, asking from where he has come; God’s question is an invitation to report, which suggests the Challenger has come to give just such a report. The verb that communicates the reason for his presence is also applied to the sons of God (“present themselves,” Heb. hityaṣṣeb), which suggests that he is there in an official capacity, as courtier. We need p 65 not infer from Yahweh’s question that he is ignorant of what the Challenger’s activities have been; it is simply a prompt to report.
So what can be said about this Challenger? The Hebrew word śaṭan has traditionally been transliterated with capitalization as the proper name “Satan”; most translations follow tradition. This decision, in turn, leads casual readers to associate this Challenger with the devil, named as Satan in the New Testament. This conclusion is not necessarily valid and must be investigated closely.
The most important initial observation is that every time this word occurs in Job, it is preceded by the definite article (haśśaṭan). This is strong evidence that śaṭan is not a personal name, because Hebrew does not put a definite article in front of personal names. We might alternatively understand the word to indicate the office or function of the individual so designated. Therefore, we must conclude that the individual in Job 1–2 (and Zech. 3:1–2, where the article is also used) should be identified as “the Challenger” (description of function) rather than as “Satan” (proper name). P. L. Day has demonstrated that the clear shift to using Satan as a proper name does not occur until the second century BC.
Consequently, we must next consider what this designation conveys about the role of the Challenger. In the Old Testament, the word is used both as a verb and a noun. As a verb, it means generally “to oppose as an adversary” or “to accuse.” As a noun, it can be applied to a human being, thus designating him a challenger.31 Finally, in the category of most interest to this study, the noun is applied to celestial beings. This should lead us to revisit an assumption that is often carried blindly into the Old Testament, namely, that the technical term always applies to the same supernatural being, a single śaṭan. Such an assumption is easily refuted by the fact that Numbers 22:22 and 32 refer to the angel of the Lord serving as a śaṭan. So unless we posit that the Challenger in Job is the angel of the Lord, we must conclude that a variety of beings can serve this function. This means p 66 that the appearance of an individual with this function does not give us a specific identification of the individual.
Job 1:6 would lead us to understand that a certain divine being whose precise identity is unimportant and who has the current and perhaps temporary status of Challenger is being introduced into the narrative. This interpretation is preferable because it is consistent with known Israelite (and Mesopotamian) legal practice, in that “Challenger” was a legal status that various people temporarily acquired in the appropriate circumstances, as opposed to a post or office.
I conclude from the above description of this function that śaṭan refers to one who challenges. He might challenge someone by accusing them of a perceived wrongdoing. Alternatively, he might challenge as an adversary in court, in politics, or on the field of battle; he could challenge someone’s status or someone’s policies. Such a challenge could be made legitimately or presumptuously, with positive or negative intent, and it could be designed to preserve a system through accountability or to destabilize a kingdom.
Consequently, not only must we identify śaṭan here as a functional designation, we must now consider the possibility that, as a function, it is not intrinsically evil. If we had no name for this individual (which, of course, we do not) and had to build his profile from the text of Job alone, what conclusions could we draw? It should be noted that the Challenger does not initiate the discussion about Job; he merely offers an alternative explanation of Job’s righteous behavior. Though interpreters commonly portray the Challenger as one who seeks out human failings,36 God’s policies are the true focus of the challenge. Job’s character is only the test case. In this case, the Challenger serves as a “watchdog agency,” meant to raise questions of accountability. The challenges issued are intended to promote the general good by putting potentially questionable policies and decisions under scrutiny.
The Challenger, therefore, does not necessarily imply some flaw in God or in Job. Some infer that the Challenger relishes the opportunity to strike p 67 at Job. The text does not attribute to God or to the Challenger any personal emotional response to Job’s tragedy; God carries more responsibility for striking Job than the Challenger (implied in 1:12 and 2:3), and both lack any sympathetic response. It is arbitrary, therefore, to assume that the Challenger enjoys Job’s suffering, while God sadly endures it. There is no expression of glee; there is no diabolical chuckle. Nothing personal, Job … there is a major philosophical issue on the line that supersedes individual circumstances.
Weiss concludes that nothing intrinsically evil emerges in the author’s portrayal of the Challenger in Job. Certainly what he does has negative consequences for Job, a righteous man, but the text makes it clear that God is at least equally responsible for what happens to Job, thus freeing the actions from implicit evil. There is no tempting, corrupting, depraving, or possessing.
The result of this profile is that we are not in a position to claim that the Challenger in Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the New Testament. One cannot make the claim that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew śaṭan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the New Testament. While the pictures are not contradictory, and they may even be complementary, we cannot consider them homogeneous.

Walton, J. H., & Vizcaino, K. L. (2012). The NIV Application Commentary: Job. (T. Muck, T. Longman III, R. Hubbard, J. H. Walton, A. Dearman, S. N. Gundry, … V. Verbrugge, Eds.) (pp. 64–67). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Paul Strickert

From the New Interpreters Bible:

Excursus: The Role of Satan in the Old Testament

Elsewhere in the OT the word satan is used to describe both human (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kgs 5:4 [18]; Ps 109:6) and heavenly beings (Num 22:22; Zech 3:1), who act as adversaries or accusers. The context may be personal, legal, or political, but in each case the noun simply defines a function. It is likely that by the early post-exilic period, when the book of Job was probably written, the expression “the satan” had come to designate a particular divine being in the heavenly court, one whose specialized function was to seek out and accuse persons disloyal to God. The chief evidence for this is Zech 3:1, which describes the heavenly trial of the high priest Joshua, who is “standing before the angel of Yahweh, with the accuser [ha-satan] standing at his right hand to accuse [satan] him” (author’s trans.). Some scholars have speculated that the figure of the accuser in Zechariah and Job may be modeled on officials in the Persian court who served as informers (“the eyes and ears of the king” [cf. Zech 4:2, 10b]) and even as agents provocateurs,³⁸ although this is less certain.

There is an ambivalence in the relation between Yahweh and the accusing angel that is important for understanding the development of this figure. The accusing angel is a subordinate of God, a member of the divine court who defends God’s honor by exposing those who pose a threat to it. In that sense he is not God’s adversary but the adversary of sinful or corrupt human beings. Yet in Zech 3:2, Yahweh rejects the accuser’s indictment of the high priest and rebukes the accuser instead. In Job 1–2, Yahweh and the accuser take opposing views of the character of Job. As one who embodies and perfects the function of opposition, the satan is depicted in these texts as one who accuses precisely those whom God is inclined to favor. In this way the ostensible defender of God subtly becomes God’s adversary.

Many scholars have seen in the development of the satan a process whereby ambivalent characteristics of God are externalized as a subordinate divine character. The satan’s actions are therefore not directly attributable to God and may even be rejected. The story of David’s census of Israel is often cited as evidence of this process. In 2 Sam 24:1, the narrative says that “the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel” (author’s trans.) and that Yahweh incited David to sinful behavior in conducting the census. In the later, parallel story in 1 Chr 21:1, however, the verse says, “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel” (NRSV). In 1 Chronicles 21 the term satan is apparently used as a proper name for the first time,³⁹ and Satan represents an externalization, or hypostasis, of divine anger. In Zech 3:1, the accusing angel is the externalizing of the divine function of strict judgment in contrast to divine graciousness, which is then exercised by God (Zech 3:2).⁴⁰ In Job 1–2, the accuser is the externalizing of divine doubt about the human heart, which allows God to voice confident approval of Job’s character.

In later centuries the figure of Satan develops into the dualistic opponent of God.⁴¹ This hostile image of Satan is presumed by the New Testament (see, e.g., Mark 3:22–30; Luke 22:31; John 13:27; Rev 20:1–10). In the story of Job, however, that later development has not yet taken place. The accuser is simply the wily spirit who embodies his given function to perfection. In Goethe’s famous phrase, he is der Geist der stets verneint, “the spirit who always negates.”

³⁸ N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1957) 41; Pope, Job, 9–11.

NRSV New Revised Standard Verion

³⁹ But cf. P. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 141–42.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 117.

⁴¹ V. P. Hamilton, “Satan,” ABD, 5:985–89.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749795#Comment_749795

They do not say there is NO relation - they say it is not the same as .... there is this little thing called time over which ideas develop, understanding develops etc.

I am familiar with the notion of time progression resulting in the development of ideas and understanding in the Bible. This, it seems, is based on the idea that humans are responsible for the content of Scripture. A similar concept is what many call "progressive revelation", which puts the ball in YHWH's court. I find flaws in both theories. The first primarily because the exact same prophecies occur in all 66 books of the Bible, including prophecies that have gone generally unrecognized. Humans don't see and go unaware of these, so they aren't responsible for creating them even if they were used to inscribe them. Progressive revelation is inevitable, but it is interpreted as "meaning something" (dispensations) when it is actually just a result of the fact that some things must come before other things since everything can't happen at once in this world of actuality that YHWH created.

My point is that what is described in Rev. 12:9's identity (oneness) of identities (personas) is not something that was "figured out" or a hunch or an insight derived from the slow progression of revelation prior to Revelation. It is a fact that existed prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. And prophecy DICTATES that those who have the whole Book take it as a whole and purposefully apply the whole Book to the interpretive process of understanding the whole Book. Scholars (who seem to dismiss prophecy as a matter of course; the word "prophecy" doesn't appear once in the Wikipedia article on hermeneutics) chafe at this idea, calling it anachronistic. What they forget is that chronistic concerns have zero meaning to the real Author of the Book. And as I have mentioned a few times over the years, YHWH hasn't written the Book to be understood from our perspective; He has written it to be understood from His. So, MJ, your observation that...

They are essentially implying that this is an earlier concept of the adversary.

...is the equivalent of "them" denying YHWH by denying His role of Authorship. There's no such thing as an "earlier concept" to YHWH. Not "allowing" oneself to use Rev. 12:9 to interpret and understand Gen. 3 is something the Bible itself (i.e. YHWH) would consider to be foolishness.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749801#Comment_749801

“The result of this profile is that we are not in a position to claim that the satan in the book of Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the NT on the premise that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew satan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the NT. The pictures are not contradictory, and they may even be complementary, but we could not consider them homogeneous.”

J. H. Walton, “Satan,” ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 716.

Thanks, Gordon. This is pretty much what I was looking for and expecting. There is no evidence AGAINST these passages being related. I think that "the missing piece", prophetic understanding, provides the linkages that allow for a "homogeneous" interpretation and understanding. I don't think I picked up this K'tthuubhiym volume when it came out (I do have some of the other volumes), but I may go ahead and get it at some point in the future. Thanks again.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749851#Comment_749851

Joseph, Paul...thanks for your posts. They add more of the same, which is great as far as establishing a sense of consensus.

This all reminds me of Isa. 29:11. All of these scholars repeating the same impossible shtick under the guise of "reason". The problem is that their reasoning is so focused on the text, they seem incapable of actually hearing what the text is saying. It doesn't help that their hermeneutic templates prevent them from acknowledging or applying the core methodology by which YHWH communicates.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749848#Comment_749848

I am familiar with the notion of time progression resulting in the development of ideas and understanding in the Bible. This, it seems, is based on the idea that humans are responsible for the content of Scripture.

I disagree strongly with your second statement but this is not the place for such a discussion. Others have provided quotations from materials in Logos which my search did not find so your question has been answered at least to the extent that I was trying to do so.

All of these scholars repeating the same impossible shtick under the guise of "reason". . . .

Please remember that there are lines in the forums that we generally try not to cross.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749856#Comment_749856

In rereading this thread, it occurs to me that scholars are ardently saying one thing (this adversary/accuser/challenger is nothing more than a legal functionary...a heavenly district attorney) while the facts as they lay describe a character who is decidedly NOT functioning in such a role. DAs don't COMPLAIN when people aren't committing crimes (hassaataan does); DAs don't actively ADVOCATE for criminal activity (hassaataan does); DAs don't ENTICE subjects into committing crimes (hassaataan does). The concept that this "functionary" is just "doing his job" and his job is nothing more than prosecuting the guilty is nonsense. This individual is ENCOURAGING BLASPHEMY, not merely prosecuting it. He is FOSTERING DISOBEDIENCE as though it is a natural end. He is the farthest thing there is from a dispassionate, disinterested functionary. He is literally INCITING SIN. In other words, THIS CHARACTER IS NOTHING AT ALL LIKE WHAT THE SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS KEEPS CLAIMING. Behaviorally, this character is virtually identical to the serpent, advocating open rebellion toward YHWH. Since behavior is everything to YHWH, my conclusion is that the behavior tells the tale. This supposed "heavenly prosecutor" isn't running his office out of heaven for a reason; he was evicted.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981171#Comment_981171

Mr Paul, you do confuse.

Presuming YHWH's sourcing, I'd assume that your answer didn't require a question (from the deity). You got what you got. A talking serpent. And an arguing not-human. Your logic is the logic of the scholars that you dismiss. If donkeys can talk (complete with archaeological evidence), then serpents are what the text calls for. Plus, both speak the appropriate language.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981188#Comment_981188

Hi David,

A couple thoughts on the topic if I may:

Scholarly theories on the role of Satan and its relationship to the serpent depend largely on assumptions about (a) when individual books of the OT were written and (b) an evolutionary approach to "Israelite religion." Both of these have considerable endorsement and are staples of much of scholarship on the OT, but remain very speculative. They cannot quite qualify as knowledge.

This being said, at the other end of the spectrum, there are commentators, preachers and teachers who, in effect, advocate zeal without knowledge. They recycle the same set of traditional interpretations, some of which rest of equally flawed assumptions and lack of scholarly engagement. As a result, "liberal" scholarship, while it dishes out lots of garbage, is in fact more inquisitive. While the way they present their views upsets some of the ways conservative doctrines may have been formulated (notably the nature of Scripture and inspiration), we are faced on the other side with ostrich head in the sand type of doctrinal entrenchments that are closer to superstition than to a credible demonstration that faith should be based on truth. Truth is not tradition proclaimed louder than dissenting voices. Truth is following the evidence where it leads while humbly wanting to be led by the Spirit however mysteriously this may work.

Coming to the subject of Satan then, there is analogy of role in Job 1, Gen 3, but also Zech 3:1-2 and 1 Chr 21:1. The OT, however, is an old compendium of writings whose production is shrouded in mystery and loss of knowledge. We don't know how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton or what happened to the Ark of the Covenant. The canonisation process is obscure to say the least. Nevertheless, it is true that a trajectory can be observed from few, discrete references to hostile supernatural creatures such as the serpent or the goats of the wilderness to the much more detailed demonology and ideas of Satan in the late OT, intertestamental Jewish writings and the NT (cf., Tobit). So we end up with exorcisms a major category in the gospels while it is practically nonexistent in the OT. A similar dynamic applies to angelology and the arising of names for archangels some of which feature in the NT (Gabriel and Michael).

The idea that this may have happened as Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism in Persia is possible. It does not need to mean that what we read in Scripture is only a human product of adoption of ideas from cultures around. It is better, imo, to keep in mind that God used human beings with their styles, their education levels, and even their interests, to communicate to His people. Inspiration leaves more latitude to human contributors, than conservative theories would have us believe (against the facts). Scholarly inquiry, for instance, has shown a much greater role for craftmanship in literary composition, collection, and arrangement than most people in church are aware of (and for the most part actually, and regrettably, don't care to know).

So, I object to the excessive confidence and associated assumptions of much of OT scholarship, including that which bears on the nature and identity of Satan in Job. But I also object to approaches to Scriptures that are simply not sustainable outside of an interpretative bubble church tradition has created. One of these would be the idea that Satan was evicted from heaven based on Ezekiel 28 which might but certainly cannot be affirmed to reflect such an event. Yet this is affirmed and taught based on reasoning that violate basic notions of how the prophets used imagery and poetry to couch their oracles.

I submit this recognising I too am prone to error.

Jack Hairston

At the risk of running afoul of forum rules, may I refer you to Dr. Michael Heiser of Faithlife?
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-218-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-job/

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749824#Comment_749824

The result of this profile is that we are not in a position to claim that the Challenger in Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the New Testament. One cannot make the claim that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew śaṭan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the New Testament. While the pictures are not contradictory, and they may even be complementary, we cannot consider them homogeneous.

Walton, J. H., & Vizcaino, K. L. (2012). The NIV Application Commentary: Job. (T. Muck, T. Longman III, R. Hubbard, J. H. Walton, A. Dearman, S. N. Gundry, … V. Verbrugge, Eds.) (pp. 64–67). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I know it is the same author (J.H. Walton), but see how it is word-for-word with the entry on the IVP Dictionary quoted in the comment above? Not making a big deal of it, but just pointing out an observation. These things really pop out in light of all the recent plagiarisms.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981228#Comment_981228

At the risk of running afoul of forum rules, may I refer you to Dr. Michael Heiser of Faithlife?
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-218-authorship-and-date-of-the-book-of-job/

[Y] Also if I remember correctly Heiser had a section in the Unseen Realm on Satan in Job as well... I could be mistaken though

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981249#Comment_981249

michael,

are you suggesting Walton plaglarized himself? Many authors use previous material

and incorporate it into a new work, often reworking or expanding it.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981188#Comment_981188

Mr Paul, you do confuse.

I don't know if this will help, Denise, but as I've stated before, prophecy (which saturates the Book) requires that the Author is the sort for whom context, as folks generally like to imagine it, is a non-issue. For the Author, the Bible's context is the Bible...that is, the WHOLE Bible, starting with "B'rei'shiytth...(In the beginning...)". As the Author says, He knows the end from the beginning. While the current fascination with a supposed "contemporary audience" is perceived as a practically obvious concern for those who seek to understand Scripture's sitz im leben, it is wholly misguided. Prophecy is the trump card that inherently nullifies diachronic slavishness. The Bible is written to be understood as a synchronic unit. While MAYBE Abraham, Moses, and David didn't have any clue that the serpent was a prophetic type of YHWH's angelic adversary (a concession I personally doubt), WE are told in Rev. 12 with clarity that these various descriptors (devil, serpent, dragon) are a thematic unity pointing to a specific individual. At any point, if humans choose to insist upon a sola diachrony understanding of Scripture, they are effectively denying the Author's omniscience, and thus are denying the Author. Asking what Bible characters "knew" or what a supposed ancient audience understood is not our concern, because they are not those "upon whom the end of the age has come"; we are.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981555#Comment_981555

David, I appreciate your answer. And it explains your perspective, which is good.

I guess I'm too much into the text itself. The participant in Genesis was a lizard. Legs. Talked. Only after, what we'd assign as a snake (no legs). I only point that out, because the source (the diety) pointed it out. Again, my own perspective, I admit.

I'm looking forward to yort tryst with Libby and her notes.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981222#Comment_981222

Scholarly inquiry, for instance, has shown a much greater role for craftmanship in literary composition, collection, and arrangement than most people in church are aware of (and for the most part actually, and regrettably, don't care to know).

Francis, I accept the majority of what you have said with full agreement. Having just finished Alter's Art of Biblical Narrative about an hour ago, I accept wholeheartedly that there is amazing literary artistry in the Book. It is worth noting that much of what scholars have stridently attributed to differing documentary traditions (repetitions being the most often singled-out), are instead deftly identified by Alter as deliberate, holistic narrative devices. Good for him.

But Alter's book does not have an entry in the index for the word "prophecy", and it is on this massive point that his presentation goes off the track. Prophecy, like Kitty Pryde in the Marvel comics universe, cohesively travels through the books of the Bible and its supposedly divergent documentary traditions as though the "walls" don't even exist. Yes, some things do occur before others do in the Book, but that diachronous appearance is more deceptive than illustrative. Humans are not star-sized AI quantum computers capable of processing all events simultaneously, and we don't live in a singularity where everything is effectively "the present". But the Author of the Book surpasses such attributes; knowing the end from the beginning, He may indeed present some events in this time-bound world of His before others are presented, but they DO NOT have any inherent "progression" in His reality. Regardless of what humans may think they see when they look at the Bible, the prophecy throughout the Bible (which is virtually unrecognized in its ubiquity) eviscerates the usual human perceptions of what the Book is and how it conveys its message. Humans, and in this case, those who acknowledge Biblical credibility, being time-bound, understandably think in time-bound terms by nature. But the Bible is not written by a time-bound Author, and so insisting that the Book is a diachronic document rather than a synchronic one is to butcher its meaning and purpose. Yeishuua` was a slain lamb before 'Aadhaam & Hhawaah were ever created. For us, the Book's "story" is apparently time-bound, but for Him, it's all done even before it starts. The "unfolding" occurs for our benefit, not His.

My primary point from a couple of days ago is that in the first two chapters of Job, the character who is bothered by the "hedge" around Job is not by any stretch of imagination a simple prosecutor of sin. He is one who yearns for the chance to hear YHWH get "cursed to His face". That is "serpentine" behavior, the kind of behavior which once elicited a curse. Revelation (<---note the title) explicitly identifies the "two" as "one". Saying they aren't and never were and shouldn't be is contradicting the Author.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981560#Comment_981560

The concepts of prophecy and of miracle are major problems in biblical studies today. Christian scholars believe in both although some have Jekyll and Hyde positions when it comes to that. Many others believe that any prophecy is ex eventu, miracles are legend, and if there is a God, it is naive to believe that Yahwism represents Him. This is a constant ideological battle and it is a problem in our discipline inasmuch as biblical studies is considered a discipline that does not require belief.

If you enjoyed Alter, you may enjoy even better (I did) Bar-Efrat and Berlin on Hebrew Narrative. Both are available through Logos.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981574#Comment_981574

Not too long from now, prophetic revelation will reach the point where YHWH's existence isn't in dispute any longer--it will just be a question of individual submission or rejection.

If you enjoyed Alter, you may enjoy even better (I did) Bar-Efrat and Berlin on Hebrew Narrative. Both are available through Logos.

I have those...I have Berlin's two in both solid and digital. Going to work through Alter's book on poetry first. I have soooo many books and not nearly enough days left to get through them all.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/981317#Comment_981317

Mr. Terhune, no, obviously that would be foolish. But one can see where authors "cut corners" often, in this case using his other work in a new work...which when the subject matter overlaps, this is understandable. But when this is practiced- a copy and paste mentality, it is easy to see how that could happen with other works not the author's own.

Kiyah

Just some additional info, there is an archived podcast that I happened upon a while ago called "Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean" by Philip A. Harland. He has a whole series of podcasts on the development of the concept of personified evil (i.e. Satan) throughout the bible. It doesn't prove anything per say but it walks you from the old testament (and other ancient near eastern sources) through the second temple literature into the new testament (and beyond) to follow the development of thought regarding Satan. It goes beyond the NT into the medieval period and later, but I wasn't interested beyond the NT so I didn't listen that far since it started getting kind of creepy (Dante's Inferno and all that).

http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/religions-of-the-ancient-mediterannean-podcast-collection-page-series-1-6/

The Satan series is Series #8.

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/988470#Comment_988470

I realize, David, that you do not find this 'development' approach credible but I posted it for any other folks who were interested as an additional resource. (Plus I hadn't read all the comments prior to posting this.) lol

I'm curious though, you mentioned Job being prophecy? Is there a reason you designate Job specifically as prophecy or do you read the whole bible as prophecy? And if you read the entire bible as prophecy, what's your reasoning or basis for doing that? There is definitely prophecy in the bible but to assume the whole bible should be read as prophecy is a major philosophical/epistemological assumption and I'm just curious how you get there.

Not trying to argue just really want to understand your perspective.