Question for anybody schooled in Aramaic or Greek

by skiz 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  skiz

  I'm looking for info about the Hebrew word 'Satan'

  I'll be specific so that you know what I'm asking for ( bold print added by me )

  Numbers 22:32 NWT, "Then Jehovah's angel said to him: "Why have you beaten your she-ass these three times ? Look ! I - I have come to offer resistance, because your way has been headlong against my will."

  According to the BOrg 'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol 2 pg 866 under Satan it says, "[Resistor]. In many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word sa-tan' appears without the definite article. Used in this way, it applies in its first appearance to the angel that stood in the road to resist Balaam as he set out with the objective of cursing the Israelites. ( Nu 22:22, 32 ) In other instances it refers to individuals as resistors of other men. ( 1Sa 29:4; 2Sa 19:21, 22; 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25 ) But it is used with the definite article ha to refer to Satan the Devil, the chief Adversary of God. ( Job 1:6, ftn; 2:1-7; Zec 3:1, 2 )

  So the BOrg's Hebrew researchers have decided that Satan without a definite article should be translated 'resistor' and refer to the role that a person is filling. And Satan with a definite article should be translated as a proper noun 'Satan' and refer to one specific person

  My question revolves around the Hebrew word 'Satan' with a definite article. Does the accompaniment of the definite article specify only a proper noun or could it specify a more narrowly defined noun, such as 'formost resistor' or 'arch enemy' ?

  If it could be translated 'arch enemy', then Satan may not be one being but rather refer various beings

  According to this line of thought, the archenemy or chief adversary of YHWH could be a different person than the arch enemy of someone else

  To make sure that I'm being clear, let me use an example. When the comic book character Superman is talking to 'Satan', he would be talking to Lex Luther. And when the comic book character Lex Luther is talking to 'Satan', he would be talking to Superman

  Is there anything within the study of the known Aramaic and Greek texts that would answer these questions ?

  David
• 

  Leolaia

  Here, try these webpages, they talk about the difference between satan and ha-satan (with the definite article):

  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/5663/satan.html

  http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/satan.asp

  The use of "Satan" as a name might be a shortened form of the name Satanel ("El's accuser" or "God's accuser") which occurs in pseudepigraphal writings as the name of one of the angels that rebelled.
• 

  Narkissos

  My question revolves around the Hebrew word 'Satan' with a definite article. Does the accompaniment of the definite article specify only a proper noun or could it specify a more narrowly defined noun, such as 'formost resistor' or 'arch enemy' ?

  In Hebrew a personal name is normally not preceded by the article. So the articulate hassatan in Job 1:6ff etc., Zecharia 3:1f should not be transliterated "Satan", but translated "the adversary" (or "the Adversary"). It is a functional noun which can be applied to a man (1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:23; 1 Kings 5:18; 11:14,23,25; Psalm 109:6) -- or an "angel" (basically another functional noun meaning "messenger", Numbers 22:22,32).

  The only place in the OT where the noun satan could be taken as a proper name (without the article) is 1 Chronicles 21:1 (where the "satan" does what Yhwh does in the parallel account, 2 Samuel 24). Even so it may be pleaded that even there it is an anarthrous noun meaning "an adversary" (as Susan Day does quite convincingly in her 1988 essay).

  What can be remarked from the Job and Zecharia articulate occurrences is that the satan in heavenly scenes is a court adversary (prosecutor or witness for the prosecution) of man, not Yhwh. Despite many farfetched arguments to the contrary, this judicial context does not fit all the occurrences. However, we have an echo of this in Revelation 12:10: the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
• 

  skiz

  Thanks Leolaia,

  This paragraph from your first link

  The final appearance of a satan in the Old Testament occurs in chapter 3 of the Book of Zechariah. The prophet has a vision in which he sees an Angel of the LORD, the high priest Joshua, and the Satan. The Accuser is claiming that Joshua is unfit to serve his duties, but the angel steps forward to rebuke the satan. Here the word ha-satan is used, indicating a title rather than a proper name. Here the question of who the satan is takes on the same mystery as in Job: is the satan opposing Joshua a figure like the hypothetical Satanel or is he an angel taking on a specific duty?

  makes me wonder if there is a consensus of opinion about the identity of the Satan resistor of YHWH in Job 1:6 and the identity of the Satan resistor of Jesus in Mark 1:13

  If the arch enemy of YHWH is not the same as the arch enemy of Jesus, then should Satan be translated as a proper noun ?

  You might be able to guess where I'm 'going' with this thought if you've read one other post that I made

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/61649/936189/post.ashx#936189

  Compare YHWH to Jesus' description of his Father ( John 3:16, 15:8-12, Luke 11:11-13 )
  or Peter's description ( Acts 10:34+35 ) of the Father that Jesus showed to him ( John 14:9+10, 1:18 )
  or John's description ( 1John 4:16-18 )

  I'm looking at Jesus words, "I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present." John 16:12. He told them that he was going away, that he was going to die, but there was something even more intense than this heartbreak that would make them 'weep and wail' ( John 16:20 ) that they could not bear

  I'm wondering about the identity of the Hebrew Scripture 'satan' arch enemy of YHWH
  I'm wondering about the identity of the serpent resistor of Genesis 3:1

  I'm trying not to 'let the horse get ahead of the cart' but exploring possibilities and concepts is alot of fun

  David
• 

  TD

  I?ve had a few semesters of Biblical Greek, but know very little of Hebrew and Aramaic.

  In the LXX, Numbers 22:32b reads: "?and look, I came out to withstand you" (kai idou ego exelthon eis diabolen sou) In Greek at least, the absence of a definite article is in no way remarkable here, given that this is a verbal form of the word and therefore wouldn?t have a definite article anyway.

  By way of comparison, Job 1:7a in the LXX reads "And the Lord said to the devil,?." (Kai eipen ho Kyrios to diabolo,?..) The word here is in its noun form and is therefore declined to match its dative masculine singular definite article. Again, nothing remarkable here. This is a definite reference to some sort of spirit character.

  Grammatically, this is neither a name nor a proper noun. Diabolos is a compound word formed by joining the preposition "through" (dia) with the verb "I throw." (ballo) The resultant word is defined as accuser, maligner or slanderer.

  To be perfectly honest, I believe the question you ask is strictly one of context and not really one of grammar at all. Although the word could refer to more than one entity, the question of when and where it does or does not is one of context. Therefore there is little reason the question could not be resolved in English. IMHO

  Tom
• 

  skiz

  Thanks Narcissos,

  I appreciate the input. Your thoughts 'sweeten the pot' for me and the concept that I'm exploring

  You also bring up Revelation which contains the definite discription of 'original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan' ( Rev 12:9 ). But I'm not very excited about looking for answers in a book that was still in dispute for decades after Christendom was established in 325

  Revelation was eventually accepted by the orthodox establishment but, even in orthodox circles ( which represent mans attempt to add a hierarchy to Christianity and Jesus message ), it is the shakiest of all of the New Testament books .....
  according to what I've found in my research

  Thank you both for your responses

  David
• 

  skiz

  Thank you Tom,

  To be perfectly honest, I believe the question you ask is strictly one of context and not really one of grammar at all. Although the word could refer to more than one entity, the question of when and where it does or does not is one of context. Therefore there is little reason the question could not be resolved in English. IMHO

  Your thoughts are one more reason for me to follow up on the path that I'm exploring

  David
• 

  skiz

  Here, "Satan" becomes an official title of a distinct personality, although in the Hebrew, the article before Satan indicates a common rather than a proper noun as "the satan".

  This is a paragraph from Leolaia's second link

  It seems to agree with every other opinion that has been offered

  David
• 

  Narkissos

  Skiz

  makes me wonder if there is a consensus of opinion about the identity of the Satan resistor of YHWH in Job 1:6 and the identity of the Satan resistor of Jesus in Mark 1:13

  IMO the functional noun satan never applies to a resister or opposer of Yhwh in the O.T. In Job and Zecharia the satan is the opposer of men (namely, Job and the high priest Joshua) before Yhwh. He is no more an enemy to the god (God?) than the prosecutor in a court is an enemy to the judge. He is just fulfilling a judicial function.

  However, in the so-called intertestamental literature a character (with names such as Satan, or Belial/Beliar) emerges as a radical enemy of God. He is eventually identified to the "prince of demons", originally a very different character (cf. Mark 3//). This dualistic concept, not the O.T., is the background for the "Satan/Devil" character in the N.T. (including Mark 1:13).