Satan in 2nd Temple Judaism: The Testament of Job

[Shermana]

While it's unclear whether the Pseudipigraphic Testament of Job was written in the 1st century B.C. or A.D., or who wrote it, it most likely is not a Christian work.

Who wrote it? Most likely religious Jews. But what sect?

Now it's often said that Judaism has never had a concept of Satan as a renegade Angel (especially by those who deny the account of the Fallen Angels in Genesis 6 that even Josephus explains was pretty much standard belief at the time).

But could the Testament of Job shoot down this notion?

9 The beginning of my trial was thus. 10. Near my house there was the idol of one worshipped by the people; and I saw constantly burnt-offerings brought to him as a god.

10 Then I pondered and said to myself: "Is this he who made heaven and earth, the sea and us all How will I know the truth"

11 And in that night as I lay asleep, a voice came and called: "Jobab! Jobab! rise up, and I will tell thee who is the one whom thou wishest to know. 12 This, however, to whom the people bring burnt-offerings and libations, is not God, but this is the power and work of the Seducer (Satan) by which he beguiles the people".

13 And when I heard this, I fell upon the earth and I prostrated myself saying: 14 "O my Lord who speakest for the salvation of my soul. I pray thee, if this is the idol of Satan, I pray thee, let me go hence and destroy it and purify this spot. 15 For there is none that can forbid me doing this, as I am the king of this land, so that those that live in it will no longer be led astray’’.

16 And the voice that spoke out of the flame answered to me: "Thou canst purify this spot. 17. But behold I announce to thee what the Lord ordered me to tell thee, For I am the archangel of the God". 18 .And I said : "Whatever shall be told to his servant. I shall hear". 19. And the archangel, said to me : "Thus speaketh the Lord: If thou undertakest to destroy and takest away the image of Satan, he will set himself with wrath to wage war against thee, and he will display against thee all his malice. 21 He will bring upon thee many severe plagues, and take from thee all that thou hast. 21 He will take away thine children, and will inflict many evils upon thee. 22 Then thou must wrestle like an athlete and resist pain, sure of thy reward, overcome trials and afflictions.

Considering there's a real lack of literature from the time period to denote whether or not Jews had a Satan character who went around deceiving and harming people, could this piece of literature shed some light on whether there was in fact a fairly similar idea of Satan to what is seen in the NT in at least some strains of Judaism at the time? Is there reason to deny that this idea was widespread enough to make it into such circulated pseudipigraphic accounts?

In other words, does the Testament of Job prove that there was in fact an idea of a renegade Satan within at least a faction of Judaism at the time, despite the common party line that there wasn't?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

While it's unclear whether the Pseudipigraphic Testament of Job was written in the 1st century B.C. or A.D., or who wrote it, it most likely is not a Christian work.

Who wrote it? Most likely religious Jews. But what sect?

Now it's often said that Judaism has never had a concept of Satan as a renegade Angel (especially by those who deny the account of the Fallen Angels in Genesis 6 that even Josephus explains was pretty much standard belief at the time).

But could the Testament of Job shoot down this notion?


Considering there's a real lack of literature from the time period to denote whether or not Jews had a Satan character who went around deceiving and harming people, could this piece of literature shed some light on whether there was in fact a fairly similar idea of Satan to what is seen in the NT in at least some strains of Judaism at the time? Is there reason to deny that this idea was widespread enough to make it into such circulated pseudipigraphic accounts?

In other words, does the Testament of Job prove that there was in fact an idea of a renegade Satan within at least a faction of Judaism at the time, despite the common party line that there wasn't?

I'm not well verses on Jewish history but isn't it around the 2nd temple restoration that the concept of Satan as renegade took hold? Around that time weekend Jews under Persian rule which was following Zoroster? Which has that dual good/evil?

I've read that Satan translates to the opposer Ha Satan to be correct. That it was a duty to accuse people in front of God and test them. But only with Gods permission, that probably draws from Job. Before that though it was a title for anyone who was against you. In the bible for instance one line Jesus calls Peter satan. Without that past context one would presume demonic possession when it could have been using the term to show that Peter was opposing him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now it's often said that Judaism has never had a concept of Satan as a renegade Angel ...

Often said by whom?

But could the Testament of Job shoot down this notion?

Sure - if you're willing to stretch the term Judaism to include the theology found in the testament. The problem is, having done so you've accomplished absolutely nothing.

For what it is worth ...

• I find no reference to the Testament in Flusser's two-volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period, while
• Kirby notes one author suggests the Therapeutae and concludes "the TJob is an essentially Jewish work composed in Greek close to the times of Jesus and Paul, Philo and Josephus. [source]

But, again, much like one can find Christian fringe groups that believe all manner of things, tracing the Testament to some idiosyncratic group of Jews is evidence of nothing other than the existence of 2nd Temple Period sects, something which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been seriously challenged.

 

[Shermana]

Often said by whom?

From my experiences, I've often seen it said that "Judaism has no concept of the Devil" in anything close to the Christian sense by members of the Jewish faith and on numerous websites, particularly Rabbis. I believe Levite is of this opinion as well.

Sure - if you're willing to stretch the term Judaism to include the theology found in the testament. The problem is, having done so you've accomplished absolutely nothing.

The term Judaism is a broad one, and today mainly only means post-Masoretic Rabbinicism, even if Reform is included. The question is how much of "Mainstream" Jewish Theology the authors went by.

For what it is worth ...

• I find no reference to the Testament in Flusser's two-volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period, while
• Kirby notes one author suggests the Therapeutae and concludes "the TJob is an essentially Jewish work composed in Greek close to the times of Jesus and Paul, Philo and Josephus.

• 
  
  I would find that interesting why Flusser doesn't refer to it, but perhaps because we don't know if it's before or after the Temple was destroyed would be guess. I do appreciate the Kirby calls it an "essentially Jewish work", but his assertion that it's "Close to the times of Jesus" or even "Philo and Josephus" doesn't help us establish whether it's before or after the Temple stood.
  
  

  [source]

But, again, much like one can find Christian fringe groups that believe all manner of things, tracing the Testament to some idiosyncratic group of Jews is evidence of nothing other than the existence of 2nd Temple Period sects, something which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been seriously challenged.

[/QUOTE]

The thing is though, we don't know whether it was just a sect who wrote it. And even if so, the question is, did they have some Theology that radically deviated from the mainstream? I would think not. I would even say we can possibly use the NT's narrative as an example of what outsiders believed the Pharisees believed in at the time, in that the idea of Satan as a renegade doer of evil registered with them, and can't just simply be dismissed as "Christian" imposition.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would find that interesting why Flusser doesn't refer to it, but perhaps because we don't know if it's before or after the Temple was destroyed would be guess. I do appreciate the Kirby calls it an "essentially Jewish work", but his assertion that it's "Close to the times of Jesus" or even "Philo and Josephus" doesn't help us establish whether it's before or after the Temple stood.

"Kirby calls it" ... "his assertion" ...

Perhaps you should reread the reference. You might also benefit from Gillman's "The Death of Death"​

 

[Shermana]

Excuse me, Kirby notes that one author, oops.

 

[Levite]

From my experiences, I've often seen it said that "Judaism has no concept of the Devil" in anything close to the Christian sense by members of the Jewish faith and on numerous websites, particularly Rabbis. I believe Levite is of this opinion as well.

I have said, and believe, that neither Rabbinic Judaism nor-- insofar as one can make such an argument-- Biblical Judaism had a concept of a Devil analogous to the Christian diabolos, an essential secondary Power in the world, from which all evil flows, and which personifies all evil.

However there were many sects and experimental proto-midrashic ideas that came and went during the Second Temple Period. There is nothing to say that such a concept might not have existed in one of those. I only contend that it is absent from Rabbinic Judaism, and probably absent from Biblical Judaism.

The thing is though, we don't know whether it was just a sect who wrote it. And even if so, the question is, did they have some Theology that radically deviated from the mainstream? I would think not.

Why would you be sure that a sect did not have radically different theology from the main stream? That's often one of the hallmarks of a sect, especially fringe sects. Indeed, insofar as I can tell, most of the sects we have discovered of the Second Temple and early Rabbinic period were sectarian precisely because of theological differences with Rabbinic, proto-Rabbinic, or Temple Judaism.

I would even say we can possibly use the NT's narrative as an example of what outsiders believed the Pharisees believed in at the time, in that the idea of Satan as a renegade doer of evil registered with them, and can't just simply be dismissed as "Christian" imposition.

I would say no such thing. The depiction of the Pharisees in the NT is simply not reliable. They are characters depicted for the sake of polemic.

 

[Shermana]

Polemic or not, what we can perhaps garner is various aspects of their Theology such as having the idea of Satan register regardless of how they are presented. I wouldn't plate my bets that they'd lie about something they believed in, they may lie about their actions, but I don't think they'd invent the concept of them agreeing about the Devil. Besides, the issue of whether it's "Polemic" or not is up to dispute.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why would you be sure that a sect did not have radically different theology from the main stream? That's often one of the hallmarks of a sect, especially fringe sects.

Yep ... :yes:

And then there's the influence of Persian dualism, Hellenism, and a wealth of mythology sporting various rulers of the underworld.​

And then there's Judaism.