First of all, totally different from what is assumed here, both terms in
question, Satan as well as Belial are, among others, used in the DSS to
describe the figurative evil, yet with emphasis on the latter term. But to add
insult to injury, 11Q11 col. 4 (PAM 42.985) mentions both Belial and Satan in
one and the same context.
_Dierk
---------------------------- // -----------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey B. Gibson
To: g-megillot
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: [Megillot] Satan and Belial
As I'm working through discussions of both gospel references to Satan in
commentaries and other literature, as well as dictionary articles on demons,
Satan, Mastema, Belial, etc., I am noticing what appears to be an unargued
(but very prevalent) assumption, namely, that the authors of the DSS think that
Belial and Satan are one and the same. This then leads to commentators
attributing to Satan all of the activities that the DSS attributes to Belial.
Thus, for instance when John Nolland, commenting upon Lk. 10:18, claims that:
The present text has a clear relationship to a Jewish tradition that
anticipated in the eschatological period a final conflict between God and
Satan, which would result in Satan’s defeat
the evidence he appeals to in support of what he says about Satan is, among
other texts, 1QM 15:12–16:1; 17:5–8. But neither of these texts speak of
Satan. They speak of Belial and "his armies" and of "the wicked spirits" and
of the "prince of the dominion of evil".
Now it may very well be that Nolland (and others) are quite correct to do
what they do. But I'm "bedeviled" by a feeling that they are not, and that the
assumption that allows them to make such a transference is grounded (as H.A.
Kelly has been arguing) in an apriori about who Satan is and what he does that
is informed by a retrojection of later views of Satan into the intertestamental
period..
So here's my question:
What, if anything, supports the assumption that Satan and Belial were viewed
in the DSS and elsewhere as one and the same? How is the transference of
attributes of Beliar to Satan justified?
Might it be that the assumption that allows such transference is unwarranted
and illegitimate?
Yours,
Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
