Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Jewish canon we find in the "Old Testament" barely mentions Satan/Belial, but the instances are telling.

One of the most important is the comparison between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.




Here we can see that the earlier account in 2 Samuel expressed the idea found in second Isaiah, that the Lord is the one any only deity, who brings both pain and pleasure, punishment and reward, light and darkness, good and evil.

But the later writer of 1 Chron is uncomfortable with this idea. It would seem unfair if the Lord is the one who incites David and then also later punishes him for doing his bidding. So the later writer introduces Satan as the agent of David's misdeeds. David later apologizes to the Lord for having allowed himself to have been misguided. The later writer was trying to save the Lord from being evil.

The Qumranic literature clearly follows the line of thought that we find in 1 Chronicles. The Qumranic literature identifies Belial as a supreme counterpart to God. It is unclear whether the Qumranic sect viewed Satan as an agent of Belial or if Satan and Belial were truly interchangeable, or if "satans" were not a specific being, but rather a type of angel, etc.

But clearly, in the Qumranic literature Belial was a major heavenly power who required opposition. According to the War Scroll and other Qumranic documents, the Sons of Light were the opposition force.

But in Ascension of Isaiah we find what appears to be the logical extension of a framework in which God and Belial are opposing heavenly forces and in which God is a remote deity who does not directly engage in conflict or interact with the world, as Philo described.

In Ascension of Isaiah we can view Belial as a heavenly power much like God, but of an opposing nature. Like the remote God, Belial is also not directly involved in earthly matters. Belial's agent is Satan, whom he sends to earth to direct his affairs. It is Satan who interacts with Manasseh and converts Manasseh to the worship of Belial.

But what does God do? God also needs an agent? Who is God's agent? The Beloved - the Christ. Christ is sent to combat Satan in the service of God in order to defeat Belial. Just as Belial had a heavenly agent of evil who could be sent to earth, God needed a heavenly agent of good who could be sent to earth on his behalf.

I view Ascension of Isaiah as a progression of Qumranic literature, the core of which preceded the creation of Christian literature and very likely preceded the ministry of Paul or the creation of the Pauline letters. The Gnostic interpretation was secondary to the original Qumranic-derived view that God sent an agent to earth to defeat Satan and/or Belial on his behalf.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:15 pmThe Qumranic literature clearly follows the line of thought that we find in 1 Chronicles. The Qumranic literature identifies Belial as a supreme counterpart to God. It is unclear whether the Qumranic sect viewed Satan as an agent of Belial or if Satan and Belial were truly interchangeable, or if "satans" were not a specific being, but rather a type of angel, etc.

In the OT, the word "Satan" means 'adversary', so it is used more often than is realised. For example:

2 Sam 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries [satan] unto me? ...

Anyone who is an adversary is a "Satan". Perhaps it held that more generic meaning in NT times, i.e. any spirit of opposition to God and God's plan is a 'Satan'. So when Jesus says to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan!", it was in that context.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:15 pmIn Ascension of Isaiah we can view Belial as a heavenly power much like God, but of an opposing nature. Like the remote God, Belial is also not directly involved in earthly matters.

In AoI, Beliar is prophecised to come to earth and become Nero and personally persecute Christians. In AoI, Chapter 4:

2. After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.
3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

Perhaps that is in some context like an "anti-Christ": taking on the likeness of a man and possessing miraculous powers.

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:15 pmBut in Ascension of Isaiah we find what appears to be the logical extension of a framework in which God and Belial are opposing heavenly forces

I don't think that is true, if you mean dualism. In AoI, Beliar is "ruler of this world", which I assume means ruler from the firmament downwards; whereas God is ruler of everything, from the top level of Heaven downwards.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 5:26 pm

rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:15 pmThe Qumranic literature clearly follows the line of thought that we find in 1 Chronicles. The Qumranic literature identifies Belial as a supreme counterpart to God. It is unclear whether the Qumranic sect viewed Satan as an agent of Belial or if Satan and Belial were truly interchangeable, or if "satans" were not a specific being, but rather a type of angel, etc.

In the OT, the word "Satan" means 'adversary', so it is used more often than is realised. For example:

2 Sam 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries [satan] unto me? ...

Anyone who is an adversary is a "Satan". Perhaps it held that more generic meaning in NT times, i.e. any spirit of opposition to God and God's plan is a 'Satan'. So when Jesus says to Peter: "Get behind me, Satan!", it was in that context.

True, but there is a difference between "satans", "the satan" and Satan. And of course in Ascension of Isaiah we find Samael Satan, clearly a named power, not simply an adversary. 1 Chron 24 identifies "Satan" as a being, not simply a generic adversary. It was an evolution from general adversaries to "the ultimate adversary".

In AoI, Beliar is prophecised to come to earth and become Nero and personally persecute Christians. In AoI, Chapter 4:

2. After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.
3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.

Perhaps that is in some context like an "anti-Christ": taking on the likeness of a man and possessing miraculous powers.

True. However, chapter 4 seems to be written by a much later writer, after the death of Nero, and incorporates elements of later Christian traditions.

I don't think that is true, if you mean dualism. In AoI, Beliar is "ruler of this world", which I assume means ruler from the firmament downwards; whereas God is ruler of everything, from the top level of Heaven downwards.

Good point.

Nevertheless, we have a situation where at one point God was viewed in a fully monotheistic sense, as the creator of good and evil, the giver of both rewards and punishments, both a tempter and a protector. This is the vision of the writer of Second Isaiah. Later writers, however, were uncomfortable with this and so assigned some of the negative aspects to a separate being. This evolved into the idea that we find mostly in 2nd and 1st century apocrypha of Satan/Belial being an opposing force to God. By the time we get to the Qumranic literature, Belial has become a very powerful force, the "lord of this world" or "prince of this world".

This then necessitated the need for God to send a "prince of peace" from high heaven to defeat the "lord of this world". The point is that the need for the Beloved that we find in AoI is directly related to the rising role of Belial. In a system in which Belial/Satan does not exist, there is not need for the Beloved to exist. The Beloved is there to fight against evil, but of course if, as second Isaiah states, evil is created by God then there is no such need. It is only when evil is externalized into a separate being that there is need for the remote God to have an agent of good to work on his behalf.

Originally, Jesus is the agent of the Father to defeat the works of YHWH (creation and law) alias Samael alias Saklas.

Only the subsequent Judaizers , who rehabilitated YHWH step by step,. to the extent of finally identifying the Jewish God with the Father, switched the target of Jesus' mission by placing something like Satan, Beliar, Lucifer, ... whatever in the place which YHWH had held previously.

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:09 am Originally, Jesus is the agent of the Father to defeat the works of YHWH (creation and law) alias Samael alias Saklas.

Only the subsequent Judaizers , who rehabilitated YHWH step by step,. to the extent of finally identifying the Jewish God with the Father, switched the target of Jesus' mission by placing something like Satan, Beliar, Lucifer, ... whatever in the place which YHWH had held previously.

My point is I don't think so. In Martyrdom of Isaiah, the role of Jesus is to defeat Belial/Satan.

It was the Gnostics who made the role of Jesus be to overturn the law.

I think the earliest version of the narrative was like Martyrdom of Isaiah, where Jesus is to defeat Belial - "the lord of this world." In this version, Jesus is not historicized.

But the Gnostics considered the God of Moses to be the "lord of this world", so they made Jesus out to be a figure who was to defeat the God of Moses and abolish Jewish law. Jesus was historicized by the Gnostics/Marcionites.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written in reaction to Gnosticism/Marcionism, building on their historicization but countering their view that the God was Moses was Jesus' opponent, instead reinforcing Satan as the correct and original opponent of Jesus.

Mark I still think was a pre-Gnostic allegory that build on Martyrdom of Isaiah and initiated the historicization, but it was the Gnostics who really built upon the historicization. Canonical John is derived from a Gnostic Gospel or Gospels.

So I think the earliest version of the story has Jesus sent to earth to defeat Belial/Satan.

Now, ironically, the Gnostics actually had a "more correct" view of who the Jewish God was. This is because the Gnostics accepted the God of Moses the way he was described in Second Isaiah - as the Creator who creates both good and evil, who brings pain and punishment. But other Jews by this time, such as the Qumranic Jews, had divorced evil, pain and injustice from God, having assigned those traits to Belial/Satan.

Now, both agreed that the "lord of this world" was the one who brings evil and suffering to the world, because the world is full of evil and suffering. So, both were in agreement that the "lord of this world" is evil.

But the Qumranic type Jews had separated evil from the God, having assigned it to Belial/Satan. While the Gnostics maintained the original view, which was that the God of Moses was the purveyor of evil.

We see this issue also in Jubilees. In Jubilees, written in the 1st century BCE, the evil actions originally assigned to the Lord were transferred to Mastêmâ , the evil "lord of this world", who is equated with Belial/Satan.

Notice in Exodus 4:

Now see how the writer of Jubilees changed this:


Like the writer of 1 Chron, this writer has taken an "evil action" that was originally performed by God and attributed it to Satan.

So the Gnostics said, no, that's BS, this is not Satan or Belial or Mastêmâ, this is the God of Moses. The God of Moses is the bringer of evil, just as Isaiah said. Satan/Belial is a scapegoat. The God of Moses is the "lord of this world".

And the same with the Jesus story. The opponent of Jesus was the "lord of this world." But who was the "lord of this world"? According to Qumranic type Jews is was Belial/Satan. According to Gnostics it was the God of Moses. But, I contend, the Jesus story originated among Qumranic type Jews, who viewed Jesus as the one who would defeat Belial/Satan. Yet ironically, Catholic Christianity derives from Gnostic Christianity, and thus evolved from the narratives in which Jesus was sent to defeat the God of Moses. I think the Catholic form was a partially correct response to Gnosticism, but it actually incorporated and built upon many of the Gnostic ideas. The proto-Catholic story split the difference between Gnosticism and Qumranic type Judaism and attempted to harmonize it all with the Jewish canon.

rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:02 amJesus was historicized by the Gnostics/Marcionites.

rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:02 am Mark I still think was a pre-Gnostic allegory that build on Martyrdom of Isaiah and initiated the historicization, but it was the Gnostics who really built upon the historicization.

a clarification, please:
Who fixed Jesus the first time sub Pilato: Mark or the Gnostics/Marcionites?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 9:04 am

rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:02 amJesus was historicized by the Gnostics/Marcionites.

rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:02 am Mark I still think was a pre-Gnostic allegory that build on Martyrdom of Isaiah and initiated the historicization, but it was the Gnostics who really built upon the historicization.

a clarification, please:
Who fixed Jesus the first time sub Pilato: Mark or the Gnostics/Marcionites?

It seems to me that it went like Martyrdom of Isaiah > Paul > proto-Mark > Gnostic derivatives from proto-Mark > orthodox derivatives from Gnostic Gospels (including the four canonical Gospels). Proto-Mark introduced Pilate and allegorically historicized Jesus. The Gnostics sought to literally historicize Jesus. The proto-orthodox built upon the Gnostic's literally historicized Jesus.

Are you still of the view that the author of proto-Mark was not a deliberate deceiver, but a mere allegorist with "pacific intentions" towards his original readers?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 10:34 am Are you still of the view that the author of proto-Mark was not a deliberate deceiver, but a mere allegorist with "pacific intentions" towards his original readers?

Yes, I think proto-Mark was intended as obvious allegory.