The figure of Satan is deeply ingrained in modern religious thought, particularly in Christianity, where Satan is often seen as the embodiment of evil, opposed to God and humanity. However, the development of the Satan figure in the Bible was not immediate, and scholars have long debated the origins of Satan and how he came to be viewed as a primary antagonist in the divine narrative. Some scholars suggest that the figure of Satan, as we understand it today, was introduced or significantly developed under the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism or Hellenistic Greek philosophy. This post will critically explore these theories, evaluating the earliest biblical manuscripts and academic critiques surrounding the evolution of Satan.
Satan in Early Hebrew Texts
The earliest depictions of Satan in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) reveal a very different figure than the one many people think of today. Rather than being the ultimate embodiment of evil, Satan was initially portrayed more as an adversary or accuser working within God’s plan.
In the Book of Job (circa 6th–4th century BCE), Satan appears as a member of God’s divine council, tasked with testing Job’s faithfulness. Far from being an independent agent of evil, Satan in Job acts as a “heavenly prosecutor” who seeks to challenge human righteousness under God’s permission. This depiction emphasizes that Satan is not opposed to God but rather serves as an instrument in divine judgment.
Similarly, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2, Satan’s role remains largely adversarial, but again, he is not seen as an autonomous, rebellious force against God. Instead, he functions as an accuser or challenger within the divine framework. These early representations of Satan suggest that, at this stage in the biblical tradition, Satan was far from being an independent, evil entity. The later conception of Satan as the arch-enemy of God is absent.
Zoroastrianism and Dualism
A major theory put forth by scholars is that the more fully developed concept of Satan emerged under the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism, which flourished in the Persian Empire, is characterized by a dualistic worldview in which the supreme god, Ahura Mazda, is opposed by the evil spirit, Angra Mainyu (Ahriman). This cosmological dualism between good and evil, where two opposing forces battle for control over the world, shares many similarities with the later concept of Satan as the embodiment of evil, opposed to a benevolent God.
The Persian Empire’s dominance over Babylon and its subsequent influence on Jewish thought during the time of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE) is often seen as a key period in the development of dualistic themes in Jewish religion. The Jewish people, exiled in Babylon, may have encountered Zoroastrian ideas, particularly the belief in an ultimate battle between good and evil. This period saw the beginning of significant theological shifts in Jewish thought, as seen in the apocalyptic literature of the time, including the Book of Daniel, which explores cosmic battles between the forces of good and evil.
Greek Philosophy and Evil
After Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in the 4th century BCE, Greek thought began to influence the cultures of the Near East, including Jewish religious thinking. Greek philosophy, particularly the metaphysical and dualistic ideas of thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, often framed the battle between good and evil in cosmic terms. Hellenistic philosophy’s exploration of the nature of good and evil likely played a role in shaping Jewish ideas about Satan and evil.
By the time of the Hellenistic period, when Jewish thought interacted with Greek philosophy, evil had begun to be understood less as a temporary condition allowed by God and more as a force or power in itself. This shift was likely influenced by Greek notions of cosmic forces and evil. Apocalyptic Jewish writings from this period, such as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch, The Book of Jubilees), began to incorporate these dualistic elements and personify evil forces in ways that would eventually lead to the development of a more personified Satan figure.
For instance, in the Book of 1 Enoch, we find references to fallen angels, who are sometimes associated with the concept of evil and rebellion. This development paved the way for the later characterization of Satan as a powerful, malevolent being who opposes God’s will.
Evidence from Ancient Texts
When analyzing ancient texts from the relevant period, it becomes apparent that the figure of Satan as a fully formed embodiment of evil does not emerge right away. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, offer a diverse range of beliefs, yet Satan is still largely portrayed in his role as an accuser or adversary in God’s court. In the War Scroll (1st century BCE), which describes the apocalyptic battle between the “sons of light” and the “sons of darkness,” references are made to evil forces, but Satan does not appear as a singular, personified figure of ultimate evil as we see later in Christian theology.
Similarly, in the Book of Daniel, written in the 2nd century BCE, there are references to cosmic battles between forces of good and evil, but the evil forces are not distinctly embodied in a single entity like Satan. In Daniel 7, the “little horn” is often interpreted symbolically as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with no clear identification of Satan as the chief antagonist.
It is only in later texts, such as the Gospels, that Satan is depicted not merely as an accuser but as a rebellious figure opposing God’s will, the leader of demonic forces and a central figure in the New Testament’s theology of evil. This shift marks a clear evolution in the way Satan is understood.
Persian and Hellenistic Influence
The argument for Persian or Hellenistic influence on the development of Satan is not universally accepted. Some scholars, such as John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, suggest that while external influences may have played a role, the development of the Satan figure can also be seen as part of an internal Jewish theological evolution. According to this view, the transformation of Satan from an adversarial figure to a personified force of evil was influenced by the growing theological interest in eschatology, the problem of evil, and the hope for a final cosmic battle between good and evil.
Scholars like Daniel Boyarin and Matthew J. Goff also argue that Jewish apocalypticism naturally evolved into a dualistic worldview without the need for direct Persian or Greek influence. They see the development of Satan as a theological response to historical circumstances, particularly the oppression of Jews under foreign rulers, which prompted a need for a more defined antagonist.
A Later Introduction Under Persian or Hellenistic Influence
The idea that the figure of Satan was introduced or significantly shaped by Persian or Hellenistic influences is persuasive, particularly in light of the dualistic cosmologies of both Zoroastrianism and Greek thought. While the earliest depictions of Satan in the Hebrew Bible portray him as a divine prosecutor or adversary, it is clear that his role evolved over time, becoming a more personified and independent figure of evil, particularly during the Second Temple period and into the New Testament. The Persian and Hellenistic periods likely provided the intellectual environment in which such an evolution was possible, although internal theological shifts within Judaism also played a crucial role in the development of Satan.
The figure of Satan, as a fully realized opponent to God and humanity, is thus a relatively late development in Jewish thought, emerging clearly in the apocalyptic literature of the Hellenistic period and reaching its fullest expression in early Christian texts.
Sources
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans, 1998.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A New Translation and Introduction. Yale University Press, 2001.
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. 3rd ed., Eerdmans, 2010.
Drazin, Isadore, and Seymour Gitin. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Schocken Books, 2004.
Cook, Stephen L. The Apocalyptic Literature. Cambridge University Press, 2000.