Heresy of Wikipedia

I was reading the Wikipedia article about the word, Satan, which is mostly correct, until you get to the bottom of the section on Judaism, and the subsection about Job. The Judaism section is completely correct, that satan is always written as “ha-satan” in the Tanakh, which means “the adversary”, or an adversary, and not some devil or anti-God. The word, satan, is Hebrew after all. However, you will finally come to the book of Job, and below is what is written, which is completely debunked by what is written in the rest of the section on Judaism, just above it.

At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person “who revered God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the angels present themselves to God, Satan comes as well. God informs Satan about Job’s blameless, morally upright character. Between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5, Satan points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; Satan suggests that Job’s faith would collapse if all he has been given (even his health) were to be taken away from him. God therefore gives Satan permission to test Job. In the end, Job remains faithful and righteous, and there is the implication that Satan is shamed in his defeat.

One can laugh at the absurdity of this, as this just points out the idiocy of quoting Wikipedia, unless one absolutely has to, and has no other source, especially on the topics of Biblical theology and history, as the fanatical and fundamentalist Christians will not leave scholarly written articles alone. The entire article, about Job, is made incorrect, by stating that “Satan comes as well. God informs Satan about Job’s blameless, morally upright character”. Since satan is an unknown angel, satan did not come as well, it was all the angels who came, where one unknown angel became “ha-satan”, or “the adversary”, that God used.  The rest of the paragraph, about Job, gives the same incorrect spiel, using the word, satan, as a proper name.

Under the section on Judaism, it states what is written below, plainly, before you reach the subsection about Job at the bottom:

Hebrew Bible

The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily “to obstruct, oppose”, as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as “the accuser” or “the adversary”. The definite article ha- (English: “the”) is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as “the satan”.

Thirteen occurrences

Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible: Job ch.1–2 (10x) and Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x).

Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos [slanderer for adversary] in the Septuagint and “Satan” in the King James Version:

  • 1 Chronicles 21:1, “Satan stood up against Israel” (KJV) or “And there standeth up an adversary against Israel” (Young’s Literal Translation)
  • Psalm 109:6b “and let Satan stand at his right hand” (KJV) or “let an accuser stand at his right hand.” (ESV, etc.)

The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as “an adversary”, etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:

  • Numbers 22:22,32 “and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him.”
  • 32 “behold, I went out to withstand thee,”
  • 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: “lest he [David] be an adversary against us”
  • 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: “[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?”
  • 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: “there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.”
  • 1 Kings 11:14 “And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite”
  • 1 Kings 11:23 “And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah”
  • 25 “And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon”

It gets worse, when you take a look at the Talk Page, and see that the author is confronted about this. The author states that since it was what the dictionaries stated, then it was okay. Evidently, they have no idea what a proper dictionary is, nor how to use one, so I will state what Merriam-Webster has on the the word, satan:

  1. :  the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God’s punishment

  2. :  the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil actually has the correct definition, if you scroll on down the page; imagine that! It also has a quote by Elaine Pagels, PhD, who is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, and the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship.



…from Hebrew satan “adversary, one who plots against another,” from satan “to show enmity to, oppose, plot against,” from root s-t-n “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary.”

In Septuagint (Greek) usually translated as diabolos “slanderer,” literally “one who throws (something) across” the path of another (see devil (n.)), though epiboulos “plotter” is used once.

“In biblical sources, the Hebrew term, ‘the satan’, describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers, as early as the sixth century B.C.E., occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called ‘the satan’, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God, for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity”. [Elaine Pagels, PhD, “The Origin of Satan,” 1995]

The word, diabolos , which was used in two instances, is translated as a slanderer, from the Greek: διαβάλλω ‎(diabállō, I slander), from διά ‎(diá, across) and βάλλω ‎(bállō, I throw). Here, in its original form, the definition is not a devil, nor is epiboulos for “plotter”.

No wonder Judaism dislikes Christianity, when the early Hellenist Christians took what the Jews wrote, and bastardized it, changing it into something that Judaism never taught. It seems as though, the biblical education of the Christians, is far from being correct.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s