Paul Evans, «Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21. An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology», Vol. 85 (2004) 545-558
This paper challenges current scholarly opinion in regard to
the Chronicler’s belief in divine intermediaries. In 1 Chronicles 21, unlike in
the Chronicler’s Vorlage, the angel is clearly distinguished from Yahweh
himself, communicates Yahweh’s word to Gad, and flies. The Chronicler’s
replacement of Yahweh with N+# also reflects this
belief. Persian Dualism may have been influential but there is no
evidence that the Chronicler felt the need to remove all aspects of evil from
originating in God. Although not representing a complete doctrine of Satan, as
developed in later Jewish writings, 1 Chronicles 21 is an important stage its
development.
Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21 547
a proper name is when the article is first added to a word. Only later,
when the original meaning was surpassed by the new use of the word,
was the article dropped. Therefore, she sees 1 Chr 21,1 as belonging to
the first stage — before the addition of the article — and thus
indicating only the common noun meaning. However, this argument is
inconclusive since the instances in Job and Zechariah where ˆfç
appears with the definite article could easily represent the second stage
where the article is added to indicate it is a proper noun (8). Historical
grammar will not decide the issue.
Other scholars have argued that Chronicles is too early to contain
ˆfç as a proper name because such usage is not common until the 2nd
century B.C.E. and, even at that point, Satan was not the exclusive or
most popular name for the arch fiend (9). However, these arguments are
not decisive. Firstly, the fact that there is a chronological gap between
Chronicles and later extant texts which use Satan as a name is only
problematic if the character they refer to is indeed the same (10). As we
will see below, ˆfç need not be viewed as a fully developed ‘Devil’ in
Chronicles. Therefore, some passage in time should be posited in order
to allow for further development between Ch’s conception of Satan and
(for instance) the conception of Satan in the book of Jubilees.
Secondly, ideas about the Devil developed in many different ways in
(8) This concurs with E. Langton who argued that in Zechariah ‘Satan’
became the title of a distinct personality, Essentials of Demonology. A Study of
Jewish and Christian Doctrine; Its Origin and Development (London 1949) 53.
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, which Japhet cites as the source for her
etymological argument, explains that ˆfç is one of the instances where “original
appellatives have completely assumed the character of real proper names and are
therefore used without the article†(K. GESENIUS, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar
[Oxford 1988] 125-125, 402). JAPHET rejects Gesenius’ conclusion as “yet
another case in which exegetical considerations influence objective linguistic
analysis†(Ideology, 147, n. 427).
(9) So argues P.L. DAY, An Adversary in Heaven. ¢Ët≤Ën in the Hebrew Bible
(Atlanta 1988) 128. An example of another popular name for the Devil is seen in
the book of Jubilees where “Mastema†— not Satan — is the favorite name for
the chief demon (although this “Mastema†is not a different character than Satan
but is actually also called Satan as well (see R.H. CHARLES, The Book of Jubilees:
or the Little Genesis [London 1902] 81). Similarly, at Qumran, a favorite name
for a similar character is Belial although the name Satan is also found frequently
(Cf. 11QPsa Plea 19,15; 4QDibHama 1-2, IV, 12; 4QBera,b. Also 1QH fr.4, line 6
may have ˆfç as a name).
(10) Assuming a date of mid to late 4th century for Chronicles (WILLIAMSON, 1
and 2 Chronicles, 16) and an early 2nd century date for the book of Jubilees. Of
course, arguments based on precise dating of such texts are patently weak.