What the devil is the Devil "up to"?

[Jeffrey Gibson]

I'm revising some older work on what commentators have said with respect to the question of what the Devil is "up to" in the Matthean and Lukan versions of the story of Jesus Wilderness "temptation" (Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13). So far as I can see, there are five positions.

In the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Wilderness "temptation" story the devil is trying to discover:

(1) if Jesus would act to his own advantage, and independently of God, with respect to his physical needs, particularly his need for sustenance, and thus fall prey to such forbidden things as "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life";

(2) if Jesus would act to his own advantage with respect to his psychological needs, particularly the need to be certain that he was "the Son of God", and thus show a profound mistrust in God;

(3) if Jesus would be willing to compel others through Schauwunderen, and more particularly ones that would instantly be recognizable and accepted as a phenomenon authenticating a claim to Messiahship, to accept him as "the Son of God/Messiah", and thus not only make concessions to unbelief, but render unlikely, if not impossible, the response of radical faith which later in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Jesus demands from all who are confronted by what he says and does.

(4) if, in the interest of securing what God wishes him to secure, Jesus would be willing to chose a way of being God's Son that is not God's way and would attempt to use means of obtaining what God has determined he would obtain that are not, according to Matthew and Luke, God's means.

(5) how resolved Jesus is to hold on to a particular costly and seemingly foolish pattern of sonship -- that of the εἰρηνοποιός -- with which he is already familiar and to which he is presented at the time of his Wilderness "temptation" as having already been called.


I'd be glad to hear from List Members if there are any other scholarly positions I haven't listed.

I'd also like to be as complete as possible about who stands where. So I'd be grateful as well if List members would give me the names of those you know to be advocates of one or the other (or of several) of the listed (and unlisted) stances.

With thanks in advance for help with this.

Yours,

Jeffrey

[spin]

In a film I once saw, called "Van Helsing", there was a character called -- naturally enough -- Igor and Igor in one scene was torturing a monster loudly. Dracula, disturbed by the racket, says, "do you haaave to dooo thaaat?", to which Igor responds innocently, "but master, that's what I do!" And that is sufficient in this comedy horror film to justify the motivation of the character to the audience. (The monster that Igor is torturing is instrumental to the film.)

In short, why Igor was torturing the monster is fundamentally irrelevant to the story, as why the old witch preferred to eat Hansel and Gretel rather than other sources of nutrition or why Antonio was so down in the dumps at the start of Merchant of Venice was irrelevant to their stories. One could point out from Greek tragedies through to some of Becket characters via the Towneley and York dramatic cycles where it is normal to present acts whose interest lies in the effects they have on the central figure or issue rather than the reasons for them.

This is not answering the OP's question regarding other scholarly positions as to the motivation of the devil, but I'm not sure that the basic question of the devil's motivation need have been considered in the original writing. We've seen the adversary in Job put the central figure to testing and the motivation is not provided: it seems more like Igor and "that's what I do!" We're more interested in Job -- just as, in the case at hand, we are more interested in Jesus and his strength of will in the face of temptations that mere sons of man would certainly have succumbed to.


spin

[Jeffrey Gibson]

In a film I once saw, called "Van Helsing", there was a character called -- naturally enough -- Igor and Igor in one scene was torturing a monster loudly. Dracula, disturbed by the racket, says, "do you haaave to dooo thaaat?", to which Igor responds innocently, "but master, that's what I do!" And that is sufficient in this comedy horror film to justify the motivation of the character to the audience. (The monster that Igor is torturing is instrumental to the film.)

In short, why Igor was torturing the monster is fundamentally irrelevant to the story, as why the old witch preferred to eat Hansel and Gretel rather than other sources of nutrition or why Antonio was so down in the dumps at the start of Merchant of Venice was irrelevant to their stories. One could point out from Greek tragedies through to some of Becket characters via the Towneley and York dramatic cycles where it is normal to present acts whose interest lies in the effects they have on the central figure or issue rather than the reasons for them.

This is not answering the OP's question regarding other scholarly positions as to the motivation of the devil, but I'm not sure that the basic question of the devil's motivation need have been considered in the original writing. We've seen the adversary in Job put the central figure to testing and the motivation is not provided:

Umm ... it isn't??

it seems more like Igor and "that's what I do!" We're more interested in Job -- just as, in the case at hand, we are more interested in Jesus and his strength of will in the face of temptations that mere sons of man would certainly have succumbed to.


spin

And these "temptations that mere sons of man (a term not used in the story) would have succumbed to" were what exactly?

Jeffrey

[spin]

If you don't like the response, don't worry about it. I was merely providing you another alternative. (The answers to your questions, if necessary, are 1) no and 2) all power from all the kingdoms of the world.) Hopefully someone else can give you what you want.


spin

[djrafikie]

erm.. the devil is the god of all of the earth, according to the bible.
I guess he's busy being that.

[dog-on]

Is this a good translation of Matthew?

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.

This one, from Luke, as well?

1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil.


If so, God has sent JC to be tested. The devil is simply reading from the script. Personal motivations from good ol' Lucifer are unnecessary and, in fact, irrelevant, imo. These are infact, God's questions and Luci is simply the mouthpiece, like in Job (as Spin already pointed out).

[2-J]

I'm sure this isn't very scholarly but it'll be enjoyable to get my thoughts in order about this one. This is what I have always thought. It's actually a combination of the options mentioned.

With the first temptation, the possibility of having bread, this seems a temptation of the first kind " to see if Jesus would act to his own advantage, and independently of God, with respect to his physical needs". Jesus was wholly human as well as being wholly divine, so he would have presumably been feeling great hunger and deprivation. But the fasting had a holy spiritual purpose so to give in to temptation wouldn't have been right. It was an achievement not to give in because of his human nature.

Then he is offered power. Lust for power to a greater or lesser degree is present in most people. This would come under the second heading (psychological needs) but also physiological in that those in power can gratify their physiological desires as well. But Jesus would have had to worship the devil to gain the power, which is obviously wrong as you should only worship God.

Finally the Devil tries to get him to throw himself off the temple, which would have been a frivolous display of his / God's power and protection - rather vulgar, pointless and thus immoral, the wrong thing to do.

So I suppose I always saw it as part of the Cosmic Battle motiff. Jesus is God's son and has a mission. But he's human and can be tempted with human-like temptations (physiological, psychological, complacency / arrogance). The Devil acts on his own initiative. (Remember, Judas is usually held to have acted on his own accord, even though Jesus knew it was time to go to Jerusalem and that his death was imminent. Individuals acting on their own initiative is compatible with God's plan being carried out. So even if we interpret the Spirit leading Jesus literally, doesn't mean the Devil didn't choose of his own accord to go and tempt Jesus, by his own chosen methods). Presumably if the Devil had succeeded in tempting Jesus into a life of sin, God's / Jesus' plan for the salvation of humanity would have been dashed.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

I'm sure this isn't very scholarly but it'll be enjoyable to get my thoughts in order about this one. This is what I have always thought. It's actually a combination of the options mentioned.

With the first temptation, the possibility of having bread, this seems a temptation of the first kind " to see if Jesus would act to his own advantage, and independently of God, with respect to his physical needs". Jesus was wholly human as well as being wholly divine, so he would have presumably been feeling great hunger and deprivation. But the fasting had a holy spiritual purpose so to give in to temptation wouldn't have been right. It was an achievement not to give in because of his human nature.

Then he is offered power. Lust for power to a greater or lesser degree is present in most people. This would come under the second heading (psychological needs) but also physiological in that those in power can gratify their physiological desires as well. But Jesus would have had to worship the devil to gain the power, which is obviously wrong as you should only worship God.

Finally the Devil tries to get him to throw himself off the temple, which would have been a frivolous display of his / God's power and protection - rather vulgar, pointless and thus immoral, the wrong thing to do.

So I suppose I always saw it as part of the Cosmic Battle motiff. Jesus is God's son and has a mission. But he's human and can be tempted with human-like temptations (physiological, psychological, complacency / arrogance). The Devil acts on his own initiative. (Remember, Judas is usually held to have acted on his own accord, even though Jesus knew it was time to go to Jerusalem and that his death was imminent. Individuals acting on their own initiative is compatible with God's plan being carried out. So even if we interpret the Spirit leading Jesus literally, doesn't mean the Devil didn't choose of his own accord to go and tempt Jesus, by his own chosen methods). Presumably if the Devil had succeeded in tempting Jesus into a life of sin, God's / Jesus' plan for the salvation of humanity would have been dashed.

The problem with all of this is that you labor under the unfounded and linguistically unsupported assumptions that the verb peirazw means "enticement" and especially "enticement into sin", and that it was thought in the ancient world that those who engaging in subjecting others to the experience denoted by this verb did so to get those they subject to do something.

For a refutation of this, see my article on "testing" in the Dictionary of New Testament Background as well as the seminal study on the topic by J.H. Korn entitled PEIRASMOS: Die Versuchung des Glaubigen in der greischischen Bible (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937),.

Jeffrey

[Toto]

Jeffrey Gibson on B-Greek (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-September/007528.html)

I'd say that to understand the meaning the noun bears here we need to understand what, within the presupposition pool in which Paul operates, the experience denoted by the term PEIRASMOS was thought TO DO with respect to the one subjected to it. And this, whether the one tested is God or human beings, always seems to be the revelation of how much integrity one really has or how reliable and/or faithful one really is. So I would argue, much as Carl has done, that in Gal 6:1 PEIRASMOS means "a test or trial of one's faithfulness"

I'm not sure I understand the difference between tempting and testing in this case. I understand Satan as testing Jesus by tempting him with wordly goods and power, etc. I don't know of an interpretation where Satan was a marketer trying to get Jesus to consume a product.

[Toto]

More on this issue from Jeffrey Gibson online here (http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-l/gibson.htm)

[Jeffrey Gibson]

More on this issue from Jeffrey Gibson online here (http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-l/gibson.htm)

Strictly speaking, this "more" is on a slightly different issue -- the meaning of the noun peirasmos, not the verb peirazw, and more specifically what the noun's referent in Matt. 6:13//Lk. 11:4 is.

And the article you refer to is only a draft. But thanks for pointing it out. If nothing else, it goes to show that the "standard wisdom" put forward by many here, that scholars don't challenge established views, is nonsense and that those who do get the boot from the academy.

Jeffrey

[Jeffrey Gibson]

Jeffrey Gibson on B-Greek (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-September/007528.html)

I'd say that to understand the meaning the noun bears here we need to understand what, within the presupposition pool in which Paul operates, the experience denoted by the term PEIRASMOS was thought TO DO with respect to the one subjected to it. And this, whether the one tested is God or human beings, always seems to be the revelation of how much integrity one really has or how reliable and/or faithful one really is. So I would argue, much as Carl has done, that in Gal 6:1 PEIRASMOS means "a test or trial of one's faithfulness"

I'm not sure I understand the difference between tempting and testing in this case. I understand Satan as testing Jesus by tempting him with wordly goods and power, etc.

No, . You assume that that's what the devil is up to -- and I dare say on the basis of several unquestioned presuppositions, namely,


1. that the verb used by the evangelists to describe or denote what Satan/the devil is up to – the verb peirazw – bore the meaning "to entice, to draw someone through the prospect of pleasure or advantage, to do evil";

2, that Satan/the devil is depicted within the story as hostile toward Jesus and approaches him with the desire to corrupt him and to bring about his demise, since to draw people into doing evil, to get them to commit sin -- that is to say, to "tempt" them – is what, according to Jewish tradition, Satan/the Devil does;

3. that the story, at least in its Matthean and Lukan forms, not only depicts Jesus as initially beset either with doubts about the truth of the divine declaration of his identity given at his baptism or with a fundamental uncertainty about the way in which he was to accomplish a mission that, in the light of his baptismal experience of being named uios, he felt or suspected was his. It also presents these doubts and this uncertainty as providing Satan/ the Devil with both the occasion and opportunity for "tempting" Jesus as well as the method and the means to do so; and

4. that it is presumed within the Lukan and Matthean versions of the "temptation" story that the title by which the Devil addresses Jesus within the story (i.e., Son of God) is used there as an equivalent to swthr or christos (= [Final or Last] Deliverer/[King] Messiah), and therefore that the Devils's petitions are to be read against, and as alluding to, the expectations about the [Last] deliverer/[King] Messiah that are found in rabbinical and other Jewish texts which speak of the (Final or Last) Deliverer/(King) Messiah acting as the 'first Deliverer', Moses, did and dispensing 'manna' and of the King Messiah manifesting himself spectacularly in the Temple at his parousia to Israel.

5. that it is also presumed within the story that Jesus is, knows himself, and is assumed by the devil, to be endowed with the power to work miracles.

But it's my claim that the text doesn't actually bear any of this out. Moreover, it seems self evident that your view is not what the Devil is up to if, as seems abundantly clear (and as I've noted in another thread) what the evangelists are doing with their framing and imbuing of the story with allusions to, and citations of texts from, Deut. 6-8 and other OT accounts of the story of Israel's wilderness testing, is presenting Jesus' testing as a recapitulation of that to which the wilderness generation was subjected

No seduction or enticement there, let alone with worldly goods and power.

I don't know of an interpretation where Satan was a marketer trying to get Jesus to consume a product.

Nor do I. But who says he was?

Jeffrey

[Toto]

Just trying to understand this:



No, . You assume that that's what the devil is up to -- and I dare say on the basis of several unquestioned presuppositions, namely,


1. that the verb used by the evangelists to describe or denote what Satan/the devil is up to – the verb peirazw – bore the meaning "to entice, to draw someone through the prospect of pleasure or advantage, to do evil";

I see no need to assume that Satan was tempting Jesus with evil. (Think of the Last Temptation of Christ - Jesus was tempted with living an ordinary life that would have been upright for any mere mortal.

Strongs:

3985 peirazw pi-rad'-zo
from peira - peira 3984; to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline:--assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.

. . .

3. that the story, at least in its Matthean and Lukan forms, not only depicts Jesus as initially beset either with doubts about the truth of the divine declaration of his identity given at his baptism or with a fundamental uncertainty about the way in which he was to accomplish a mission that, in the light of his baptismal experience of being named uios, he felt or suspected was his. It also presents these doubts and this uncertainty as providing Satan/ the Devil with both the occasion and opportunity for "tempting" Jesus as well as the method and the means to do so; and

4. that it is presumed within the Lukan and Matthean versions of the "temptation" story that the title by which the Devil addresses Jesus within the story (i.e., Son of God) is used there as an equivalent to swthr or christos (= [Final or Last] Deliverer/[King] Messiah), and therefore that the Devils's petitions are to be read against, and as alluding to, the expectations about the [Last] deliverer/[King] Messiah that are found in rabbinical and other Jewish texts which speak of the (Final or Last) Deliverer/(King) Messiah acting as the 'first Deliverer', Moses, did and dispensing 'manna' and of the King Messiah manifesting himself spectacularly in the Temple at his parousia to Israel.

I don't make these assumptions - they are much more complicated than the fairly simple story in the gospels.

5. that it is also presumed within the story that Jesus is, knows himself, and is assumed by the devil, to be endowed with the power to work miracles.

This does appear to be implied by the text. Why else would Satan ask Jesus to throw himself down and put God to the test of saving him, and Jesus not just respond that would be stupid?

But it's my claim that the text doesn't actually bear any of this out. Moreover, it seems self evident that your view is not what the Devil is up to if, as seems abundantly clear (and as I've noted in another thread) what the evangelists are doing with their framing and imbuing of the story with allusions to, and citations of texts from, Deut. 6-8 and other OT accounts of the story of Israel's wilderness testing, is presenting Jesus' testing as a recapitulation of that to which the wilderness generation was subjected

No seduction or enticement there, let alone with worldly goods and power.

Do you have a link to that other thread?

So you think that this is just a drama that recapitulates the Exodus and the gospel writers never intended to portray Satan as at all evil? (just doing his job?)

In Psalm 95:9 (cf Heb 3:9 quoting the Septuagint Psalm 94, which uses the word peirasmos) it says that the Hebrew people tested God in the wilderness. How does this work?

[Solo]

Jeffrey Gibson on B-Greek (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-September/007528.html)

I'm not sure I understand the difference between tempting and testing in this case. I understand Satan as testing Jesus by tempting him with wordly goods and power, etc.

No, . You assume that that's what the devil is up to -- and I dare say on the basis of several unquestioned presuppositions, namely,

1. that the verb used by the evangelists to describe or denote what Satan/the devil is up to – the verb peirazw – bore the meaning "to entice, to draw someone through the prospect of pleasure or advantage, to do evil";


...that looks like pretty much what it was, Jeffrey, although the verb does not - I am told - imply in and of itself "bad" or "evil" things. It could be ethically neutral testing of one's character or two-way testing of fidelity. Be that as it may, the temptation of Satan appears to be meant as malicious, if only by the identity of the tempter. Don't see where the objection to that could be.


2, that Satan/the devil is depicted within the story as hostile toward Jesus and approaches him with the desire to corrupt him and to bring about his demise, since to draw people into doing evil, to get them to commit sin -- that is to say, to "tempt" them – is what, according to Jewish tradition, Satan/the Devil does;


This only intensifies 1., and I would say, unnecessarily so. The devil evidently does not doubt Jesus "sonship". He tests its qualities on the rule of "single master".


3. that the story, at least in its Matthean and Lukan forms, not only depicts Jesus as initially beset either with doubts about the truth of the divine declaration of his identity given at his baptism or with a fundamental uncertainty about the way in which he was to accomplish a mission that, in the light of his baptismal experience of being named uios, he felt or suspected was his. It also presents these doubts and this uncertainty as providing Satan/ the Devil with both the occasion and opportunity for "tempting" Jesus as well as the method and the means to do so; and


But it could be that the "doubt" itself invites (or even , is) the devil. This would be absolutely borne out by reference to "similar cases" e.g. in Buddha, Mohammed and Paul, who after the encounter with the Divine Essence undergo a test of "authenticity". You can throw in YHWH's sudden assault on Moses (Exodus 4:24) on his way to Pharaoh.



4. that it is presumed within the Lukan and Matthean versions of the "temptation" story that the title by which the Devil addresses Jesus within the story (i.e., Son of God) is used there as an equivalent to swthr or christos (= [Final or Last] Deliverer/[King] Messiah), and therefore that the Devils's petitions are to be read against, and as alluding to, the expectations about the [Last] deliverer/[King] Messiah that are found in rabbinical and other Jewish texts which speak of the (Final or Last) Deliverer/(King) Messiah acting as the 'first Deliverer', Moses, did and dispensing 'manna' and of the King Messiah manifesting himself spectacularly in the Temple at his parousia to Israel.


The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson views the turning of stones into bread as enticement to Jesus to repeat Moses' mistake in testing God to draw water out of stones (Num 20:1-13). The opinion that Mt considers then Jesus superior to Moses and the final fulfilment of God's commitment to Israel seems reasonable as it confirms Paul's two-Adam anthropology (cf. 1 Cr 10:3-4). I am surprised that you would reject the eschatological interpretation of the Matthean wilderness testing of Jesus implied in that.


5. that it is also presumed within the story that Jesus is, knows himself, and is assumed by the devil, to be endowed with the power to work miracles.


I am not sure who sees it that way but I assume it would be only within the context of the devil attempting of to induce Jesus to test God, i.e. in converting stones into bread and in confirming the power to levitate.


But it's my claim that the text doesn't actually bear any of this out.
Moreover, it seems self evident that your view is not what the Devil is up to if, as seems abundantly clear (and as I've noted in another thread) what the evangelists are doing with their framing and imbuing of the story with allusions to, and citations of texts from, Deut. 6-8 and other OT accounts of the story of Israel's wilderness testing, is presenting Jesus' testing as a recapitulation of that to which the wilderness generation was subjected

No seduction or enticement there, let alone with worldly goods and power.



What is your "claim", Jeffrey ? What the devil are you up to ?

Jiri

P.S.: Fitzmyer`s analysis of the Temptation petitions (http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl84/Ani05.html)

[Jeffrey Gibson]

No, . You assume that that's what the devil is up to -- and I dare say on the basis of several unquestioned presuppositions, namely,

1. that the verb used by the evangelists to describe or denote what Satan/the devil is up to – the verb peirazw – bore the meaning "to entice, to draw someone through the prospect of pleasure or advantage, to do evil";


...that looks like pretty much what it was, Jeffrey, although the verb does not - I am told - imply in and of itself "bad" or "evil" things.

Could you tell me on the basis of what study of the use of peirazw you base your claim?

It could be ethically neutral testing of one's character or two-way testing of fidelity. Be that as it may, the temptation of Satan appears to be meant as malicious, if only by the identity of the tempter. Don't see where the objection to that could be.


Please show me where Satan/the devil is said to be malicious - let alone entices people to sin -- in the Judaism of the time. (And please make sure you are not confusing this figure with Belial who, as the DSS indicate, was a separate figure altogether). The sectarians of Qumran do not profess this belief. Nor do those who produced the pseudepigraphical testamentary and apocalyptic literature in which Satan/the Devil is mentioned or makes an appearance. Nor is the belief ever vented or given expression in Pharisaic circles where, as Bamberger and others have noted, such titles as "The Enemy" or "The Evil One", familiar to us from the New Testament, in which the impression that Satan acts out of hostility are grounded, never appear. On the contrary, what we find here is the belief that the motive behind this figure' actions toward humankind is zeal for divine justice and a desire to see the wrongdoer, whom he is divinely commissioned to reveal and stand against, acknowledged as such. If he displays any attitude at all towards human beings it not hostility, but cynicism over their motives for being obedient to God.

And while it is true that we find references to Satan/the devil acting as a seducer in the literature of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, these references are actually few and far between. More prominently emphasized, notably even when he is spoken of as a one who attempts to lead the elect astray, is the view that he is a dedicated servant of God who is entrusted with, and who out of piety carries out, the thankless but necessary task of "sifting" the faithful from the faithless among God's people. (cf Baba Bathra)

Moreover, it is precisely this view, and not any understanding of Satan/the Devil as seducer, that is highlighted in the Synoptic stories of Jesus wilderness "temptation". This is clear not only from the fact that he is designated therein as "the one who tests" but that the testing that he undertakes is expressly noted as something that is divinely and initiated and directed by, as well as in concert with, the plan and purposes of, God.


And please show me where in the "temptation" story he is portrayed as acting maliciously or out of hostility. To my eyes, there is actually very little evidence that supports the view that he is, especially when we set the Wilderness "temptation" narratives over against the themes and atmosphere of conflict that pervades the other Synoptic stories of Jesus in "temptation" that we find in Mk. 8:11-13 and pars., Mk. 10:13-17//Matt pars., Mk. 12:13-17 and pars, where it is clear, given both the form and wording of those stories, that those who "tempt" Jesus do indeed do so with hostile intent. Notably, nothing of what the evangelists use in those stories - including the form employed in the recounting of them -- to signal or state that Jesus' "tempters" approach him with bad intent, can be found anywhere in any version of the Wilderness "temptation" story. Nor, when evaluated soberly, do any of the constituent elements of these narratives -- including the extended dialogue between the Devil and Jesus that appears in Matthew's and Luke's versions of the story -- indicate any hostility on the Devil's part toward Jesus.

The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson views the turning of stones into bread as enticement to Jesus to repeat Moses' mistake in testing God to draw water out of stones (Num 20:1-13). The opinion that Mt considers then Jesus superior to Moses and the final fulfilment of God's commitment to Israel seems reasonable as it confirms Paul's two-Adam anthropology (cf. 1 Cr 10:3-4). I am surprised that you would reject the eschatological interpretation of the Matthean wilderness testing of Jesus implied in that.

Does Moses perform the miracle or does God do it for him?

I am not sure who sees it that way but I assume it would be only within the context of the devil attempting of to induce Jesus to test God, i.e. in converting stones into bread and in confirming the power to levitate.

Is it Jesus himself whom the devil says will levitate Jesus or God?

And as to Jesus being the one the devil asks to turn stones to bread, see my "A turn on turning stones to bread. A new understanding of the Devil's intention in Q 4.3" in Biblical Research 1996, vol. 41, pp. 37-57, the abstract of which is here (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2883526).


But it's my claim that the text doesn't actually bear any of this out.
Moreover, it seems self evident that your view is not what the Devil is up to if, as seems abundantly clear (and as I've noted in another thread) what the evangelists are doing with their framing and imbuing of the story with allusions to, and citations of texts from, Deut. 6-8 and other OT accounts of the story of Israel's wilderness testing, is presenting Jesus' testing as a recapitulation of that to which the wilderness generation was subjected

No seduction or enticement there, let alone with worldly goods and power.



What is your "claim", Jeffrey ? What the devil are you up to ?

You'll see shortly when my entry on the "Temptations" of Jesus for the Brill Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus is completed.

Jeffrey

[Jeffrey Gibson]

[P.S.: Fitzmyer`s analysis of the Temptation petitions (http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl84/Ani05.html)

This is his analysis of the "lead us not into 'temptation' clause/petition of the LP (Mtt. 6:13//Lk. 11:2), not the Devil's petitions in Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13.

Jeffrey

[Solo]

...that looks like pretty much what it was, Jeffrey, although the verb does not - I am told - imply in and of itself "bad" or "evil" things.

Could you tell me on the basis of what study of the use of peirazw you base your claim?


Don't want to go into the weeds with you on that. The statement was made after a quick check with my on-line lexical tools.


Please show me where Satan/the devil is said to be malicious - let alone entices people to sin -- in the Judaism of the time. (And please make sure you are not confusing this figure with Belial who, as the DSS indicate, was a separate figure altogether). The sectarians of Qumran do not profess this belief.


CURSES OF SATAN AND HIS LOT

Blessings and Curses (4Q286-7)

...Council of the Community shall say together, Amen, amen. Afterwards [they] shall damn Satan. They shall answer and say, Cursed be [S]atan in his hostile design, and damned in his guilty dominion. Cursed be all the spirits of his [lot] in their wicked design, and damned in their thoughts of unclean purity. For they are the lot of darkness and their visitation is for eternal destruction.
Cursed be the Wicke[d One in all...] of his dominions and may all the sons of Satan be damned in all their service until their annihilation [for ever, Amen, amen.]

in Geza Vermes, The Dead See Scrolls in English, Penguin 1987, p 160



Nor do those who produced the pseudepigraphical testamentary and apocalyptic literature in which Satan/the Devil is mentioned or makes an appearance.


Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24 : For God created man for incorruption and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil's envy, death entered the world, and those who belong to his party, experience it.

Check again Testament of Job (6-8) in Charlesworth's OTP V II. Beautiful illustrations of Satan's malevolence.



Nor is the belief ever vented or given expression in Pharisaic circles where, as Bamberger and others have noted, such titles as "The Enemy" or "The Evil One", familiar to us from the New Testament, in which the impression that Satan acts out of hostility are grounded, never appear.


I can't speak to that specifically, though it makes me wonder where Paul got the idea that Satan was pain in the butt (or idiomatic thereabouts). I am aware that in mainstream Judaism, the issue of Satan has been mainly a non-issue. No sharply defined demonology, or war of good on evil ever described the middle ground of Jewish traditions, probably ever. In so far as I know, in the rabbinic teachings (checked Haggadah's creation account), Satan is an adversary but one controlled by God.


On the contrary, what we find here is the belief that the motive behind this figure' actions toward humankind is zeal for divine justice and a desire to see the wrongdoer, whom he is divinely commissioned to reveal and stand against, acknowledged as such.


Well, that's news to me and frankly sounds flakey given what you claimed earlier in the paragraph. But as Ben says, all things are possible with God.



If he displays any attitude at all towards human beings it not hostility, but cynicism over their motives for being obedient to God.


Have you got any idea how twisted this sounds ?

It makes me think of - of a scene from Voelker Schlondorff's film "Der Neunte Tag", where a SS-officer at Mauthausen screams fanatically at a Polish Catholic priest prisoner, just as he adorns his head with a barbed-wire crown and before he orders him hoisted on a makeshift cross: "Wo ist er [dein Gott] ? Siehst du ihn hier irgendwo ?" (Where is your God ? Do you see him here some place ?) The movie is a very good Catholic propaganda (truthfully dealing with the issue of Vatican acquiescence to Hitler) and obviously its vision of "evil" is Christian. Yet, something tells me that Elie Wiesel watching the movie would be instantly converted to the reality of that kind of Satan.



And while it is true that we find references to Satan/the devil acting as a seducer in the literature of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, these references are actually few and far between. More prominently emphasized, notably even when he is spoken of as a one who attempts to lead the elect astray, is the view that he is a dedicated servant of God who is entrusted with, and who out of piety carries out, the thankless but necessary task of "sifting" the faithful from the faithless among God's people. (cf Baba Bathra)


Any kind of "rebellion" or "falling out with God" or "banishment into adversity" that you re aware of ?


Moreover, it is precisely this view, and not any understanding of Satan/the Devil as seducer, that is highlighted in the Synoptic stories of Jesus wilderness "temptation". This is clear not only from the fact that he is designated therein as "the one who tests" but that the testing that he undertakes is expressly noted as something that is divinely and initiated and directed by, as well as in concert with, the plan and purposes of, God.


Interesting: why do you think then that Satan was an "offence" to Matthew's Jesus (in rebuke to Peter) ? He did not buy that from Mark, so far as I can see. Actually, Jesus seems to be pretty worked up in Mark too.


And please show me where in the "temptation" story he is portrayed as acting maliciously or out of hostility.


In suggesting that Jesus hurls himself off the temple's pinnacle. Not enough malevolence in that ? Or are you going to tell us that the devil knew Jesus was not going to do that ?

FYI, I have been collecting data on a well known phenomenon of psychotics hurling themselves of the roofs and windows of psychiatric hospitals. It's quite amazing actually, because this phenom seems to be almost archetypal. These are not suicides but instances where the patient experiences euphoria in which he/she believes in they have acquired levitational license. There is another subclass of these incidents and it concerns post-euphoric, agitated subjects, who - if they survive - recount that they wanted to test their flying ability which they believe they had previously but which they began to doubt. Make of it what you will, but if there is a devil who tells them to jump he is hostile and malicious, by my reckoning



To my eyes, there is actually very little evidence that supports the view that he is, especially when we set the Wilderness "temptation" narratives over against the themes and atmosphere of conflict that pervades the other Synoptic stories of Jesus in "temptation" that we find in Mk. 8:11-13 and pars., Mk. 10:13-17//Matt pars., Mk. 12:13-17 and pars, where it is clear, given both the form and wording of those stories, that those who "tempt" Jesus do indeed do so with hostile intent. Notably, nothing of what the evangelists use in those stories - including the form employed in the recounting of them -- to signal or state that Jesus' "tempters" approach him with bad intent, can be found anywhere in any version of the Wilderness "temptation" story. Nor, when evaluated soberly, do any of the constituent elements of these narratives -- including the extended dialogue between the Devil and Jesus that appears in Matthew's and Luke's versions of the story -- indicate any hostility on the Devil's part toward Jesus.


Of course not, he is a professional tester, like the Mauthausen kommandant. :rolleyes:



What is your "claim", Jeffrey ? What the devil are you up to ?

You'll see shortly when my entry on the "Temptations" of Jesus for the Brill Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus is completed.

Jeffrey

Looking forward to reading it, Jeffrey.

Jiri

[2-J]

Doesn't Luke's reference to Satan in this passage (from Luke 22) imply he is an evildoer?

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

Doesn't Luke's reference to Satan in this passage (from Luke 22) imply he is an evildoer?

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Could be. But then again he is referred to explicitly as the one who "sifts" the steadfastness of the nominally faithful in Lk. 22:32.

Jeffrey

[dog-on]

Doesn't Luke's reference to Satan in this passage (from Luke 22) imply he is an evildoer?

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Isn't Satan's entry into Judas part of God's plan? Why is this necessarily evil? Satan may just be God's puppeteer...

[2-J]

Isn't Satan's entry into Judas part of God's plan? Why is this necessarily evil? Satan may just be God's puppeteer...

My understanding in this area may not be that robust but naively it does seem that usually the devil or Judas or both are acting of their own free will when they betray Jesus. So that Jesus' death isn't a complete setup (though the philosophical argument about how free will is preserved here (and elsewhere) could no doubt run till the cows come home).

[Solo]

Doesn't Luke's reference to Satan in this passage (from Luke 22) imply he is an evildoer?

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Isn't Satan's entry into Judas part of God's plan? Why is this necessarily evil? Satan may just be God's puppeteer...

We do not know whether it is evil "necessarily" but Satan's entry into Judas "explains" in Luke Judas treachery and falsehood. To say that Satan acts on God's behalf, simply testing faith in God, or even out of 'zeal for divine justice', as Jeffrey claims, empties the gospels of their most basic and quintessential message - the intervention of God through his Son on the side of good. (Mk 10:18, Lk 18:19). This is an argument - whether conscious or not - for ethical relativism which IMO is completely alien, and anitithetical to Jewish apocalyptism, and early Christianity.

Jiri

[dog-on]

Isn't Satan's entry into Judas part of God's plan? Why is this necessarily evil? Satan may just be God's puppeteer...

We do not know whether it is evil "necessarily" but Satan's entry into Judas "explains" in Luke Judas treachery and falsehood. To say that Satan acts on God's behalf, simply testing faith in God, or even out of 'zeal for divine justice', as Jeffrey claims, empties the gospels of their most basic and quintessential message - the intervention of God through his Son on the side of good. (Mk 10:18, Lk 18:19). This is an argument - whether conscious or not - for ethical relativism which IMO is completely alien, and anitithetical to Jewish apocalyptism, and early Christianity.

Jiri


So how did the Romans feel about ethical relativism? Seems much more apropos, regarding Christianity at least, imo...

[Solo]

We do not know whether it is evil "necessarily" but Satan's entry into Judas "explains" in Luke Judas treachery and falsehood. To say that Satan acts on God's behalf, simply testing faith in God, or even out of 'zeal for divine justice', as Jeffrey claims, empties the gospels of their most basic and quintessential message - the intervention of God through his Son on the side of good. (Mk 10:18, Lk 18:19). This is an argument - whether conscious or not - for ethical relativism which IMO is completely alien, and anitithetical to Jewish apocalyptism, and early Christianity.

Jiri

So how did the Romans feel about ethical relativism? Seems much more apropos, regarding Christianity at least, imo...

Whoaa....a big can of worms ! What kind of Romans ? Patricians, the plebs ?
Epicureans, Platonists, Cynics, Sceptics, Stoics ?

Bertrand Russell recounted (in A History of Western Philosophy ) an amusing story of one of the leading sceptics of his time and the head of the Academy, Carneades, on a lecture tour in Rome (156 BCE). To illustrate the principles of Scepticism he conducted two lectures. In the first, he expounded the views of Plato and Aristotle that to inflict injustice was a greater evil to the perpetrator than to the one who has suffered it. This was apparently loudly acclaimed by the young men eager for major league philosophy. In the second lecture, Carneades heaped scorn on this ethical theory, not to establish an opposing set of principles but to take it apart as internally inconsistent, and offensive to reason. Great States like Rome become great by unjust aggression against smaller states. This could not be denied in Rome just about ready to crush Carthage for good. But one would be a fool if one did not take advantage of someone weaker to protect one's patrimony. In the same way, if you were fleeing from a victorious enemy on foot and saw a wounded comrade on a horse you would, if you are sensible drag him off the horse, whatever higher ethical principles might apply. One life saved is better than two lives lost. Russell comments sardonically that while this was not an edifying way to argue for a nominal Platonist, it had a great success with "modern-minded" Roman youths.

So, I would say yes, ethical relativism and situational ethics were well-established in the place by the time Paul sent his greetings.

Jiri

[squiz]

More on this issue from Jeffrey Gibson online here (http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-l/gibson.htm)

Strictly speaking, this "more" is on a slightly different issue -- the meaning of the noun peirasmos, not the verb peirazw, and more specifically what the noun's referent in Matt. 6:13//Lk. 11:4 is.

And the article you refer to is only a draft. But thanks for pointing it out. If nothing else, it goes to show that the "standard wisdom" put forward by many here, that scholars don't challenge established views, is nonsense and that those who do get the boot from the academy.

Jeffrey

I fail to see anything in this paper that is so radical that it could get even a rap on the knuckles, let alone booted from the academy, but then maybe I just didn't understand it fully. Which specific dogmas is it supposed to be challenging?

[Toto]

Chili's contribution has been split off

Kelly's post on the origins of the Devil has been split to its own thread here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=244088).

[squiz]

Strictly speaking, this "more" is on a slightly different issue -- the meaning of the noun peirasmos, not the verb peirazw, and more specifically what the noun's referent in Matt. 6:13//Lk. 11:4 is.

And the article you refer to is only a draft. But thanks for pointing it out. If nothing else, it goes to show that the "standard wisdom" put forward by many here, that scholars don't challenge established views, is nonsense and that those who do get the boot from the academy.

Jeffrey

I fail to see anything in this paper that is so radical that it could get even a rap on the knuckles, let alone booted from the academy, but then maybe I just didn't understand it fully. Which specific dogmas is it supposed to be challenging?

Jeffrey seems to be back from his holiday, so I'll give this question a bump.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

I fail to see anything in this paper that is so radical that it could get even a rap on the knuckles, let alone booted from the academy, but then maybe I just didn't understand it fully. Which specific dogmas is it supposed to be challenging?

Jeffrey seems to be back from his holiday, so I'll give this question a bump.

Did I say it challenged "dogmas"?

In any case, to see if you do understand what I'm arguing and how I adopt a view that opposes and contradicts and challenges the validity of what is (and seems to almost always have been) the scholarly consensus on the meaning of, and the intent behind, Mt. 6:13//Lk. 11:2, why don't you tell me what you presently understand me to be saying/claiming vis a vis (1) what the standard interpretation of Mt. 6:13//Lk. 11:2 is and (2) how the intent of the petition should be understood.

Jeffrey

[squiz]

Jeffrey seems to be back from his holiday, so I'll give this question a bump.

Did I say it challenged "dogmas"?

No you didn't explicitely. Here's what you said:
If nothing else, it goes to show that the "standard wisdom" put forward by many here, that scholars don't challenge established views, is nonsense and that those who do get the boot from the academy.
Noone of course puts forward the idea that scholars don't challenge established views. The accusation put forward by some, is that scholars only challenge established views within certain safe boundaries. For this article to be demonstrating this, it would have to be crossing those safe boundaries: ie. challenging dogma.

Having said this, your idea that "lead us not into temptation" might mean something like "keep us from putting God to the test" (please correct me if I misunderstood this) is an interesting interpretation, which I guess could have all sorts of implications. This is just the sort of discussion, however, that one would expect from theologians and seems perfectly safe to me. Unless, however, there are some sort of implications that I hadn't thought of.

[Jeffrey Gibson]

Did I say it challenged "dogmas"?

No you didn't explicitely.

I didn't even say it implicity

Here's what you said:
If nothing else, it goes to show that the "standard wisdom" put forward by many here, that scholars don't challenge established views, is nonsense and that those who do get the boot from the academy.

Noone of course puts forward the idea that scholars don't challenge established views. The accusation put forward by some, is that scholars only challenge established views within certain safe boundaries.

And just who might the members of this purported "some" be? More importantly, what reason do we have to think, even if members of this "some" actually exist, that they have any direct acquantaince not only with the nature and the kinds of challenges that scholars have made, but with the "academy" itself and what does and does not go on within it, so that we have there any reason to think that what they say about the type of challenges that scholars issue is well informed, let alone true??

For this article to be demonstrating this, it would have to be crossing those safe boundaries: ie. challenging dogma.


Leaving aside the question of what my article does and does not challenge or what "borders" it does and does not cross, it certainly appears that you are confusing the "academy" with such institutions as the Magisterium and steering committees of church denominations, since "dogma" is usually defined as something church officials within a church pronounce, and relates to those beliefs deemed by officials within church bodies to be those whose affirmation are necessary for salvation and which must be affirmed to obtain salvation.

Slap me silly if I ever heard anything like that being bandied about in the academy when it came to noting that a scholarly proposals had gone beyond what most scholars held to be true about the historical critical questions of what Jesus and/or the authors of Biblical books actually said.

And while we're asking things, what is the nature and extent of your acquaintance with "the academy" that leads you to be as confident as you appear to be in asserting that the academy gets riled when someone challenges "dogma"?

Having said this, your idea that "lead us not into temptation" might mean something like "keep us from putting God to the test" (please correct me if I misunderstood this) is an interesting interpretation, which I guess could have all sorts of implications. This is just the sort of discussion, however, that one would expect from theologians and seems perfectly safe to me.

Yep, I'm sure, even assuming that your direct acquaintance with "theologians" and exegetes is as vast and as comprehensive as you imply above it is, that what I argue is exactly what you'd expect from "theologians". But then there's that puzzling little bit of data that I think I've demonstrated in what I wrote demonstrate that very few "theologians" (is that what I am?) have lived up to your expectations and said what I said.

Unless, however, there are some sort of implications that I hadn't thought of.

Nah -- except for the implication that people who think they know what Jesus was asking them to pray for when they say "lead us not into "temptation" is wrong and not at all what Jesus had in mind, and that their pastors and priests who told them that the intent of the petition is to be protected from being seduced into sin don't know what they are talking about, you seem to have grasped all the really important ones..

Jeffrey