Bart B:
There is only one reference to Satan in the OT in 1 Chr 21:1. However there are other various uses of the hebrew word satan which means adversay, resitor, or opposer. The first is in Numbers 22:22, where the "Jehovah's angel" acted "as opposer" the hebrew in the MT shows "as satan".
In addition in Job the refence is to "the satan" as it is in Zechariah 3:1,2. The use of as satan and the satan only show that, and we can assume whoever fills this roll uses this title, and that they are either a single angel or the role of satan could be filled by any of them. However in 1 Chr 21 the use of Satan as a proper noun indicates a specific individual and this is the first use of the term in this way.
Did you mean to imply that the content of the NT is more likely to be Essene in its nature as opposed to Pharisee, Sadducee, or Zealot?
----
Bart B,
I am familiar with your 1 Chronicles reference to David and the census - and the subsequent decision to build a temple - and had forgotten about it when I wrote that the above note. It puzzles me in the sense that every other "satanic" reference I've heard of does not seem to hold much water ( e.g., Ezekiel comparing the King of Tyre or Isaiah speaking of Lucifer or the morning star - they are denouncing earthly kings).
The most compelling argument though is that Genesis, the Penteteuch and whole OT absolutelydrop the subject after chapter 3. It does not come up in conversations between the Lord and Abraham, the Lord and Moses or anyone else. And in comparison to the lucid writing in Wisdom, the incident in Chronicles does not really tell us anything. Why that particular census was out of order or demonic is baffling. But there are hints.
Reading Job, we are confronted not with a serpent but a figure in a celestial court. And the test is a wager. This was written in a time when there were camel caravans, which dates it to some time after the Assyrians introduced them into the Mideast, perhaps the 8th century. It was certainly not Mosaic as the appendices of the NWT insist. The structure fo the book has prose introduction and epilog - and verse in between. Everything is restored to Job in this life after the end of the poem - with interest. I am inclined to think that ha satan means "the opposer" or someone who takes the antagonistic view. This was not someone that was thrown out of heaven for rebellion.
It is odd though, that if this incident is that important, then why does it not figure in Kings as well? After all, David does. When was Chronicles written? During a period of post exile, contemporary with Nehemiah and Ezra. What was a pre-occupation? Re-BUILDING the temple. Who was in control? The Persians. What was their religion? Zoroastrianism, the belief of the Magi.
On the last question, the content of the NT, I at first thought that there might be another group to consider (Persian influences such as the Magi), as indicated by what I said about the incident in Chronicles. After all, the NT with Matthew begins with genealogy in chapter one, and in chapter two we have visiting Magi ( check the Greek) looking for the birthplace of a "leader" who will shepherd the people of Israel. ..
When I read the Zoroastrian texts, to say the least, they resembled the Book of Enoch or Milton's Paradise Lost more than anything I read in the Old Testament. And as far as I know, they are the oldest version of this cosmology. Manicheanism seems to be a re-birth of it centuries later, originating again in the East, but infiltrating into early Christian churches. For example, Augustine of Hippo had to decide whether he would be a Manichean or a more orthodox Christian. He chose the latter, but a lot of his views were probably formed from his earlier life.
But the parsing of Jewish beliefs by Josephus in that early chapter of "The Jewish Wars" does not give any credit to the Persians for anything. He attributes such beliefs as the Essenes had to the Greeks. Still, the Persians ruled Judeaa much longer than the Greeks and without significant revolt. And the Hellenic Empire was a thin veneer of Greeks over regions that simply treated the whole affair of Alexander the Greate as a change of hands, save for improved communications medium their alphabet and language provided. To a certain degree the Greek heirs of Alexander were assimilated just like the Mongols were in China.
So, when Josephus speaks of Essenes resembling Greeks, what was Greek about their beliefs? It wasn't the gods of the Iliad or Olympus, but maybe the notion of Hades. Was it Neo-Platonism? Perhaps, but I don't think the Essenes were all that given to meditate on perfect triangles. I would say that their Greek influence was some sort of adaptation of Zoroastrian, Greek and Judean beliefs. And at the time, that meant seeing a great evil spirit in contest with the Creator.
