Talk:Satan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Different main picture?

The first image of Satan on the page is very uncharacteristic of images of Satan (he is portrayed as a handsome, nude human Adonis, as opposed to an ugly, red, horned demon). This article would probably be better if the first image on the page was a more typical portrayal of Satan.

Reverted Edits

Discussing this on the talk page as requested. The stuff that was edited in the Job section was added in 2010 by a random guy citing no sources other than what he said he had heard in Seminary. It cites no sources for what it says. It adds interpretations without sources as well - such as that Satan "is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against his decrees". The revision has no interpretation - it just states that Satan came with the angels, like the text says.

Further, what actually did have a source was just outright deleted in the reversion. I gave a source from a scholarly journal.

I also deleted the entire last paragraph, since its the epitome of Original Research - the guy is just giving his own interpretation based off of the text. An actual source is needed for such things.

Further, saying "ha-Satan" over and over is very odd. Why would you translate the "adversary" part but not the "ha-" part? Either say Satan (the English translation of the entire phrase) or say "the Adversary", but having this weird translation and a half is very poor style.

I believe my edit fixes all of these issues.

Further, as to the edit at the top, its more accurate to say he "brings" rather than "personifies" evil and temptation in the Abrahamic religions. Most followers of these see him as an actual being who is evil, not a personification of the idea of evil. So saying he "brings" it in those religions is a better fit. The "personifies" would only apply maybe to things like LeVeyan Satanism, where he is seen as a character representing an abstraction rather than an actual being. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

the-prince-of-darkness-the-first-star-mercury

Satan is the first star of the night, in the begining he has a perfect diamon, who can the light of god, the sun can light all the universe, but this prince has evil in his hearth and wants take the thone of god. All angles, stars of universe has entered in a battle and satan has turned a piece of plumbum, his piece fall in the earth, plumbum and destroy our planet, leaving diamond.

He wants live in our planet and destroy the human race. He is the prince of evil, buying all gold, the glory of god, turning his piecea, the dark ore, turning images of hell, humans, demons, animal in living, but their are all death like him.

He is corrupted all his way, wanting torture the humans, he is turing facebook in a market of a image of what kids want to turns. The humans are living in darkness, dont want the sun and other humans, all he wants is isolate the humans from other, to kill them.

He buying all humans and the creatures of this planet to him, the princ of market, the prince of bavel, egit.

But he will be destoyed by the King of The Kings, JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginingandend (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources (in this case, academic sources) for your proposed additions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and talk pages are intended for article improvement only. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Yazidis

The reference to Yazidis should be removed as it reinforces the idea that the Yazidis are devil worshippers, an allegation for which they have been persecuted for centuries.

24.23.193.187 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Satan's true legitimate name is Satan Helmut Wolfe and is the Father of God who is known as Samael Freyr Wolfe. 67.218.73.121 (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015

Satan was a angle but then years later he was a fallen angle because god was punishing Satan for going against the heavens laws and pruderies Anonymouskiller27 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please state your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please cite mainstream academic sources for your claims.

And on another note, it's "angel." An angle is how much space there is in a corner. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Original name

Did Satan have an original name, or did God actually name him that bc he knew he would eventually try to make himself equal to God? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that that question cannot be answered conclusively, only responded with legends and faith-based speculation, right? The question actually goes against some of the legends, which treat "ha-Satan" (the adversary) as a title rather than a specific angel. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fictional Character

Can we add this category any time soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.240.211.220 (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary. He's primarily a mythological character. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent & Satan

"Satan is traditionally identified as the serpent who tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, as he was in Judaism", the source link doesn't seem to work for the jewishencyclopedia or it is a subscription page. Still, I'm having a tough time finding a RS that claims mainstream Judaism shares the interpretation that Satan is the serpent. Article Serpents in the Bible states in Hebrew bible that it wasn't Satan, at least in Rabbinical tradition. I've heard that Talmudic legend holds it was Adam's first wife, Lilith, which may account for frequent representations of the serpent as female/part woman. I'm not sure how popular that belief is/was and I'd be uncomfortable going WP:BOLD and throwing up a citation to that if it isn't reliable. I'm just aware that Judaism treats the Satan character differently than Christian mythology and have heard this is among the differing perspectives. Is there maybe a more accessible source for the comment regarding Judaism sharing that interpretation? Thanks. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Source link works now and I got a chance to review the citation. Looks like one line contains the statement "The serpent of Gen. iii. is identified with Satan (see Weber, l.c. pp. 218 et seq.; comp. Adam; Eve; Serpent).". The book referenced is "System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie", German text written in 1880. The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Serpent has no mention of the Satan correlation. The wiki article Devil makes strong statement that Judaism holds that snake isn't Satan, but that isn't sourced. It isn't that I think the Jewish Encyclopedia is an unreliable source or anything, but it does seem awkward that this claim isn't in the Judaism section or more widely documented in other sources. I am having a heck of a time corroborating that statement. There seems to be plenty of unreliable sources that say Jewish belief holds that the snake isn't Satan and plenty of reliable sourced Jewish interpretations of genesis that just never make a connection between the snake & Satan. Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"God and Satan"

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Satan" vs. "the satan" in the book of Job

Rebhaf (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)There is no scholarly justification whatsoever for referring to "the satan" ("the accuser" / "the adversary") as "Satan" in the book of Job. If we were quoting a passage from a mainstream translation, then this might make sense (but even some translations use "the satan" correctly), but it is incorrect to describe the adversary with a proper noun.

Hebrew scholars are in agreement (as demonstrated by the same sources referenced on the Satan Wikipedia page!) that the word includes the definite article. The adversary in the book of Job is the son of a Elohim, who was part of Yahweh's heavenly court. He was like a prosecutor. This is not a disputed point whatsoever in the circles of academia. It's even explained on the Wikipedia page!!

In the book of Job, unless you're quoting a passage (which means clearly citing the translation used), the character should be referred to as "the satan." If you use "Satan" then you are clearly favoring an ideological bias, which goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.

Saying that the name "Satan" is used mostly in common English is a very horrible argument. This may be the case for English-speaking Christians, but a Jew would beg to differ. This is not an issue of common language; it's a problem of bias. By writing "Satan" (outside of a quote) Wikipedia is choosing sides -- doctrine over scholarship.

It is rare to see such bias on wikipedia, and it was shocking enough to push me to create an account. Whoever reads this page, please do not allow ideological bias to win on this point. Thank you.

Rebhaf (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay first please relax with these accusations of bias. Arguments should be based on policy and reliable sources. This is the English Wikipedia so our writings need to conform to grammatical standards. I checked some dictionaries and they all list "Satan" as a proper noun. Maybe in that specific paragraph we might just need to use some other word to refer to that entity. Or do we have any (English) reliable sources that use "the satan" in that context? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Devil

The two article pretty much cover all the same information. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It seems that "Satan" comes from Hebrew, wich was loan-translated to "Diabolos" in Greek Septuagint, leading to English "Devil". Thus, the meaning seems to be the same both conceptually, etymologically and practically (the content of the articles). Merge! –St.nerol (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Satan in terms of a specific judeo-christian form is not the same as devil which may appear in a multitude of religions. They should definitely stay separated - Cadenjs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Devil might be Ahriman (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism), Samael (primarily Judaism, also Gnosticism), Satan (who may be found in any of the Abrahamic religions), Lucifer (who is pretty much found only in Christianity), or Iblis (who is mostly found in Islam). Some sources would toss in Buddhism's Mara. Merging this article with Devil would be like merging Yahweh with God. Assuming God exists (for the purposes of this discussion), yes, Yahweh would have been one of the more notable ways how God was known to people. But the mythology and symbolism of Yahweh differs notably from Ahura Mazda, Shang Di, and so on. Likewise, while the Devil would be known as Ahriman, Satan, etc, those characters are distinct. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Devil, under "Judaism" it specifically says "In mainstream Judaism there is no concept of a devil as in mainstream Christianity or Islam. Texts make no direct link between the serpent that tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis and references to Satan in 1 Chronicles.3. and in Job..4."; which is a direct contradiction to the merging requested here. Satan is a Abrahamic figure specific to its Judeo-Christian origin. There is very little connection to the English modern 'translation', The Devil. The Devil appears in many religions as a force not a figure; and its representation is different across the world. For example, if you examine the pictures from "Satan" vs "Devil" you will notice a clear differentiation of the figure of Satan/Devil. While in Christianity the two names may be interchangeable, there is no acknowledgement of the "Devil" in Talmudic legends; thus as Ian said "Merging this article with Devil would be like merging Yahweh with God". In Satan it mentions "Satan is primarily an accuser and adversary, a decidedly malevolent entity, also called the devil, who possesses demonic qualities." without stating any sources. St. Aquinas (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

With very few responses after several months and no clear consensus to merge, I'm now going to declare this discussion closed and remove the merge notice from the article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120701104244/http://www.churchofsatan.com:80/home.html to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Was Satan titled the "Dark Lord"

I am not referring to that in Star Wars. The Dark Lord term isn't here on religion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.89.89 (talk • contribs)

That sounds like a rather more modern title. Most historical works regarding the character would have not wanted to refer to him as a lord of any sort. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

old pictures is an...

...looks like stong man or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiepiemlp24 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The satan in Job is not the same as the "Satan" described in the rest of the article

I don't have the energy at the moment, but this section needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the Hebrew text does not mention Satan; it mentions a divine prosecutor who serves in God's angelic council. See [1]. The figure described throughout this article is not found in the Hebrew Bible: "The satan is certainly not the devil. There's no such notion in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase, "the satan," occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible, here and in Numbers 22 and in Zechariah3." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

This article needs a 'see also' section to show equivalent figures from other cultures, eras and religions, such as Manannan, Manawyddan, Cernunnos, Hades, Poseidon and Tammuz.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have used the wrong template - apparently 'edit request' is not for merely an edit request, as it displays a message about an "actual or apparent conflict of interest".

I can assure you all that I am not actually Satan and therefore there is no actual or apparent conflict of interest.

If someone can fix this, I'll have one of my minions grant you a wish or something. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, generally "see also" sections are discouraged here - the logic being that if there isn't a link in the article body, the link probably isn't worth having in the tail. in this instance, as its such a large topic, and as the page really could do with some serious work - will look at your links and add on an instance by instance basis. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil. Most articles seem to have a see also section - it was certainly standard a few years ago. I guess I never got the memo about the style change!

Thanks for taking a look. Your wish is granted! --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at MOS:SEEALSO and don't see anything about See also sections being discouraged. Editor2020 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a COI request, so use {{Edit semi-protected}}. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Shucks - I was pondering the philosophical implications of a COI request about Satan - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I didn't get the memo either. Some editors do misinterpret the part where if a subject is mentioned in the article, then it should not be listed in the See also section, a guidance with which I seldom agree. Why make our readers hunt back down a link within article content when it can be placed for ready usage in the SA section? In any event, since the first responder hasn't yet added any of your suggestions within the content, your edit request has been answered as  Done.  Paine  ^u/c 21:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Styx (Hate)by Darodes, c. 1868.]] -> There's a [blank] space missing in line "Styx (Hate)by Darodes, c. 1868." 2003:6B:770:E268:452D:30AB:3811:86C7 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue with islam subject

the part in islam seems to have some issues. at first,b ecause the islamic term for Satan "shaitan" is not equal to the personified satan. Al shaitan, is the particular personified Shaitan Iblis, but refers to all, taht leads astray from God. For example, Satan is not good in Sufism, but the personified Satan Iblis, is sometimes ragarded as a true monotheist. Nevertheless schaitan in general has still a negative depiction. Maybe satan as a tempter should merge with sufi view on satan with the note in there, satan as Iblis is an example selfless worshipping and the other part about the nafs?

Furthermore the following part is distracting. "This is also used to explain why Satan managed to refuse God's order, as angels obey God's orders without questioning or complaining.[50]" The source given here, just say, those who reject iblis angelic origin state, angels do not error, while this is not universally accepted in islam. The opinion about angels and their posssible failures differ. Saying they never question something even contradict the Quran in Surah 2, there angels question the creation of Adam.

The part with "jinn" should maybe translated with it's meaning "invisible" since it contains the "species jinni", but also other invisible creatures, to avoid confusion for the reader. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no one answered, I made some edits, with the follwoing intentions:

-the expanded explanation, Shayateen jinn are divided into different groups of invisible creature, is not longer necesarry, since the article "jinn" now explains the ISlamic usage of this word, in the linked article. -According to other oppinnions, iblis punishment is not "delayed", his punishment was his banishment. We do not need to go into detail, then his punishment occurs in Islamic faith, since there is no consus and it is not important. -edited the cited Quran verse, since this is acutally a more diffucult pssage, that needs explanation (because of the word "jinn" here), this is discussed later in the artcile, and hee is given a reference to the Ayah, but mentioning it, then the article shows simply the prostration of angels, this Ayah would be distracting. -removed Sufi view on Satan, since Satan is not the great lover, but Iblis. Iblis and Satan are interchangeable then it is up for deceiving, but not then it comes up regarding his fall. Satan is more supporting the nafs, than a true lover of God. The notion that Iblis is regarded as a lover of God is now mentioned by explaning the reason behind his refusment according to islamic view (his haughtyness and his love are both mentioned successively)

--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Preparation for GA review

@VenusFeuerFalle: @MagicatthemovieS: I think I am ready to nominate this article for GA, but, first, since Satan is such an important concept for so many world religions, I would like to hold a sort of informal, "preliminary" review of my own. VenusFeuerFalle, could you read over the "Judaism," "Islam," and "Bahá'í Faith" sections? MagicatthemovieS, could you read over the "Satanism," "Allegations of worship," and "In culture" sections? I would like both of you to read the "Historical development" and "Christianity," sections, which I suspect will probably be the core sections of the article and the ones that most people will be the most likely to read. See if there is anything in the article that is inaccurate, anything important that is missing, or any other kinds of problems that might turn up. As far as I am currently aware, I believe the article covers everything and I believe everything in it is accurate, but I want to make sure before I nominate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Do you think that the "In culture" section should mention Satan in music - "Sympathy for the Devil", "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", etc.? I know that you didn't ask me to read the section about Islam, but I do think that that section might benefit from mentioning the Stoning of the Devil.--MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends. Do you think that music has significantly impacted popular beliefs about Satan? If so, then including some information about music ought to be a good idea. For my part, I suspect that music has indeed influenced popular beliefs on the subject, so adding information about it might be a good idea. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Other observations with the article. The "Islam" section of the page should probably mention the Stoning of the Devil. The "Gospels, Acts, and epistles" section makes no mention of parables of Jesus that involve Satan (The Sheep and the Goats, the Parable of the Tares which states that all false religion is derived from the devil). Some equate Satan with Abaddon; I don't know if you want to mention this in the article. Should the info on Ezekiel 28 be under the section titled "Names"?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: The stoning of the Devil should definitely be included. The reason I did not include it before was because I honestly did not know about it and I must have overlooked your mention of it in your last comment. (I am not as knowledgeable about Islam as I am about Judaism and Christianity.) Likewise, I think the parables definitely deserve mention as well. I overlooked them before because the sources I was using must have skipped over them (or the parts that talked about them may have been missing, since I was using the previews on Google Books) and I just happened to not think of them as I was writing.

The reason I put the part about Ezekiel 28 under "Names" was because I thought it kind of went along with the passage from Isaiah 14:12, even though the passage itself does not concern naming per se. You can move it to another section if you think it is necessary. The part about Abaddon is a little more tenuous because, much like Azazel or Samael, there is some dispute about whether or not Abaddon/Apollyon should be equated with Satan. Nonetheless, I suspect a mention at least is probably warranted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I understand your reasoning regarding the Ezekiel 28 information. More concerns of mine: the Raphael painting seen in the "Book of Revelation" section is lovely, but it doesn't depict Satan as a dragon like he Revelation 12:7-8 does. Someone who reviews this page for GA status may see this as a problem. The Revelation section should also mention Revelation 3:9, and the use of the word "angelic" in the first sentence of that section might mislead people into thinking that he book portrays Satan positively. The "Gospels, Acts, and epistles" section says that the Gospel of John deems Satan to be the "Archon of this cosmos" rather matter-of-factly when the text uses no such term. It should be clear that the idea that Satan is an Archon is an interpretation and isn't stated in the gospel itself. You might want to mention the ways in which Pope Francis renewed focus on Beelzebub. The New Testament quotes you discuss don't always match the wording of the King James Version, which is what one is directed to if you click the blue Bible verses; not sure if that's an issue that needs to be addressed. The "Islam" section should also discuss the legend of the Satanic Verses, not to be confused with the novel of the same name. Sorry that this is a lot! Satan is a hugely important theological subject. Kudos to you and your contributions!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

One of Blake's The Great Red Dragon Paintings

Thank you so much for all your help! I really appreciate it. The translations I quote in the article are the ones used in the sources cited. Most of the translations that differ dramatically from the more commonly used ones are quoted from Henry Ansgar Kelly's 2006 Satan: A Biography, which I am pretty sure he uses his own translations for. Regarding the passage from John 12:31 that he translates as "Archon of this cosmos," the Greek New Testament original reads: "ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου," (ho archon tou kosmou) which actually makes "Archon of this cosmos" the most literal translation. The King James Version translates this phrase as "the prince of this world."

I apologize if the use of the word "angelic" makes it sound like the Book of Revelation portrays Satan positively; that sentence is intended in light of the fact that the Book of Revelation portrays the Roman Empire as the original "Evil Empire" so to speak and so its angelic ruler is therefore also evil. For the Book of Revelation section, we could use one of William's Blake manifold The Great Red Dragon Paintings (one of which is already in the article in the "In art and literature" section), but I was hoping to use a painting by someone other than Blake, since his views on Satan are, well... a little unorthodox and we already have a lot of his paintings in the article just because there are so many of them and they are all of such high artistic merit. I think I will leave in the painting by Raphael for now, at least. If anyone complains, we can switch it out for the painting at right, which indubitably shows Satan as a seven-headed dragon as described in the Book of Revelation.

I actually knew about the Satanic Verses and thought about including mention of them, but they were not mentioned in my sources and the article about them mentions that "The majority of Muslim scholars have rejected the historicity of the incident on the basis of their weak isnads (chains of transmission) and the incompatibility of the incident with the theological doctrine of 'isma (Prophetic infallibility, divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes)." This leads me to conclude that the incident is not believed by most Muslims and is only well-known among Westerners because of the novel that takes its name from them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: After some thought, I agree with most of what you said here. It seems that we agree that the article needs mention of Jesus' parables, the stoning of the devil, Satan and music, Abaddon, and more on Pope Francis' views on the devil. The Satanic Verses , I think, still warrant some mention as the story was widely accepted by early Muslims; you could mention how modern Muslims tend to dismiss the narrative as ahistorical. I also wonder if the "allegations" section might warrant mention of the Salem witch trials, which allegedly involved Satan, or worship of Santa Muerte, which has been deemed Satanic by the Catholic Church despite the fact that her devotees do not view her as the devil. If not, we can certainly mention these articles in the "see also" section. By the way - Happy almost New Year! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that the Salem witch trials are worth mentioning in this article. There were hundreds of witch trials across Europe throughout the early modern period and the ones in Salem are only so infamous because they were among the very few witch trials to occur here in the United States. Because of that, the Salem witch trials are frequently discussed at length in US history classes, but the other, much more significant witch trials that happened in Europe are not mentioned at all. The Salem witch trials lasted for sixteen months and resulted in twenty people being executed and five people dying in prison. The North Berwick witch trials in Scotland, by contrast, ran for over two years and resulted in over a hundred people being arrested, over seventy of whom were tortured, tried, or executed. It would be WP:UNDUE to mention the Salem witch trials without mentioning all the others, which we certainly do not have space for. We already have a section devoted to the general concepts of "Demonic possession and witchcraft." Santa Muerte, on the other hand, I think, may be worth mentioning. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is sometimes disconnect within sentences, and overall the context and high level overview could be better structured.

• Eg from the lead: Satan's appearance is never described in the Bible, but, since the ninth century, he has sometimes been shown with horns, cloven hooves, hairy legs, and a tail, often naked and holding a pitchfork, an amalgam of traits derived from various pagan deities including Pan, Poseidon, and Bes. - The "But" here is misleading - should it be "in Christian art"?
• Apologies for butting in, am following the article dev with interest. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I greatly appreciate your feedback and there is no need for you to apologize. Nonetheless, I am a little confused as to what you mean. In what way is the use of the word "but" "misleading"? I have inserted the phrase "in Christian art," as you have suggested. Does that remedy the confusion? Also, I do not mean to barrage you with questions, but what do you mean when you say that "the context and high level overview could be better structured"? What alternative structure would you propose? --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Ceoil means that the sentence begins with the Bible then switches to Christian art, without making this clear. It might read better as two sentences.PiCo (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

yes but is an isolate example of an overall tenancy I wanted to highlight. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that the "Hebrew Bible" section singles out two books when "the satan" is mentioned in so many places. This section would probably work better as a number of paragraphs tracing the development of the satan over time, from the earliest writings (some of the minor prophets, some passages in the Deuteronomistic history, some of the psalms) to the latest (the torah and the wisdom literature). Maybe there's something in general encyclopedias and dictionaries by Eerdmans and so on? PiCo (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As is explained in the first two paragraphs of the section, the only occurrences of the word ha-satan with the definitive article are all in the Book of Job and the Book of Zechariah. All the other occurrences of the word satan are in reference to "a satan," not "the satan." Most of these usages clearly refer to ordinary, human adversaries or accusers unrelated to the supernatural satan who is the subject of this article. In fact, the only occurrences of the word "satan" outside of the Books of Job and Zechariah that indisputably refer to a supernatural satan are Numbers 22:22 (which may not be the same supernatural satan referred to in other verses, given the context) and 1 Chronicles 21:1. Psalm 109:6 may refer to a supernatural satan, but it is ambiguous. There are, of course, the places where the word satan is not directly used, but where the entity known by that name is clearly being referred to. (These instances are dealt with in the last paragraph of the "Hebrew Bible" section.) Almost all of the information about the Old Testament satan comes from Job and Zechariah. This is the reason why these two books are singled out for their own sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now that the article says this. That's interesting - both Job and Zechariah are fairly late books (probably), and even Numbers has some fairly late additions. I'll look around and see if I can find anything else.PiCo (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Henry Ansgar Kelly's book Satan: A Biography (2006; Cambridge University Press) was very helpful in writing the sections on Satan's historical development. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting passage here about the theological reasons for the development of Satan (from "the satan"?) in Second Temple times - also a mention of the development of cohorts of angels and demons.PiCo (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The language is archaic and "in universe" at times; see [2] this edit for an isolated instance, and the article should be combed for further egs. If we are to be detached and speaking pan the various religions, we should be more detached than this original phrasing. Overall I applaud this effort and have confidence in the main editors. Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The archaic language is just my personal writing style. I have accidentally caused confusion by using this overdramatic kind of language before. (For instance, I once called Dyeus the "supreme leader" of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon and, while I was writing the "Second Temple period" section for this article, I caught myself almost calling the fallen angels given to Satan his "minions.") It has nothing do to with the sources I was using. In any case, thanks for pointing out the potentially confusing wording. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Minions. I'll have to remember that one, I mostly edit in art history, and am prone to the same slippage when describing works, so no worries. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The mosaic in question

]]

@Katolophyromai: Now that an "In music" section has been added, any major concern I might have had about this article has been resolved. I think it can now be nominated for GA status. Do you want to do the nominating or should I? I did want to ask you one other, minor question - would you prefer the "Iconography" section to use the image it has now or the ancient mosaic next to these words? The reason I ask is because the beautiful statue now shown in the "Iconography" section doesn't focus on solely on Pan; he only takes up about a fifth of the image. Let me know your preference. --MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Wow! Thanks a lot! That "In music" section you added looks quite excellent. I really appreciate all the help you have given me in working on this article. Regarding the image of Pan, I agree with you that the image should be one of the just Pan, so I have replaced the image of the statue group with the mosaic you found. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Do you a) want me to nominate the article (I would love to do this) b) want to nominate the article yourself or c) want to wait for the article to be nominated?--MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: I just nominated it. I delayed for a moment because I was working on the article Origen. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Glad that I could Help! Thank-you for all of the wonderful, important work you do for Wikipedia!--MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Hi. I was wondering, is there any info out there on the percentage of people who believe in Satan in the Middle East or in Africa? I've been looking for i but I can't find it.--MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked for statistics on that subject also, but I could not find any; the only statistics I could find were for Britain and the United States, which was rather frustrating. Either they have not taken any surveys on the subject in other countries, or, if they have, the data is apparently less widely available. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I prefer the Codex Gigas image as well. Should we convince LittleDipper that it should be used as the first image in this article or should we back off? --MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: @MagicatthemovieS: For Judaism: I wonder, if we should add a "midrash-section" in "Judaism". Are midrashim worthly to be mentioned? Additionally, they often resemble Islamic notions of Satan. (like "Satan tempts Abraham not to sacrifice his son" or "would not bow down before Adam because he is made from fire" or "using the serpent as a vessel to sneak into the garden") For historical development: I guess we should somewhere mention "Samael" in the "second temple period-section" since he, even not as a literal figure, is often the name of Satan in Jewish traditions. (Maybe I find something, so I will add it, if you disagree, just remove it or fix it. For Islam: I am not sure about "On day of Judgement, Satan will be thrown into hell", since the Quran does not explicitly says, when Iblis will be thrown in hell, just that he will be thrown into hell (according to Islam, hell is already existing). In some traditions, Iblis is already in hell, but on day of judgment he will turn back to Gods grace. Even since the concept about Iblis being punished along with the other "sinners" seems logical, it is not that universal, therefore it is mentioned in the "Quran"-section here, but non of these Islamic traditions contradict the Quran (even they may add their own stories to explain certain things), I think we should change this sentence. (maybe, something like "because of his disobidience, Satan was banished to hell" or "Satans followers will be thrown to hell after their judgment" (with a link to "day of resurrection", an article that needs a rewrite too) Another idea: You did not asked me in that matter but, I thought about adding the "cathars" into "allegation for satan worship". That do you think?

Lead

I don't like the current lead structure - 5 paragraphs of differing lengths. In particular the opening para is too short, too blunt, and doesn't draw the reader in. The article would be better served by a more succuent overview not immediately broken into paras distinguishing between his treatment in differing traditions, but more should detail the basics of origin, motivation, as well as the universality of the archetype across cultures, and so forth. PS, great work so far guys. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the paragraphs in the lead are roughly the same length; the first one is the only one that differs considerably from the others. Are you saying that the whole thing should all be one really long paragraph? I think that the first paragraph should be blunt because most readers probably will not read past it anyway and the first paragraph should define and sum up the subject of the article using as few words as possible. I think that information about Satan's role in various specific religious traditions is important and should be included in the lead. You mention the "universality of the archetype," but this article is particularly about the Abrahamic Satan, not the "Devil" archetype, which is covered in the article Devil. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead as stands is dull and academic, and as I say listy. It seems preoccupied with distinctions in various branches, rather than defining any essence. Focus in the first paragraph on the unifying themes, and why the archetype is so widespread. One really long paragraph is a ridiculous idea. I understand about the Abrahamic Satan vs the devil, but is there really so little to be said before we launch into distinctions? The attitude of "most readers probably will not read past it anyway" seems an odd defence. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought the idea of one really long paragraph was ridiculous also, but that was what it sounded to me like you were suggesting when you said that it should "not [be] immediately broken into paras". I apologize for the confusion. I will rewrite the lead and try to make it focus more on things that most groups agree on about Satan (though that will be very difficult, since there is so many diverse viewpoints on the subject). --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be a good idea to be initially succinct for an overview article. The lead seems underdeveloped and undergraduate at present. I have confidence in the main editors ability to develop. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Main image

I thought I would bring this up since we had a slight dispute over a short while ago. I am fine with the current main image, which is the painting by Hans Memling, but I would prefer to use the illustration of Satan from the Codex Gigas as the main images for several reasons:

1. The illustration is focused entirely on Satan; whereas the Memling painting that is currently the main image shows a great deal aside from just Satan himself, including the jaws of Hell and burning sinners beneath him.
2. The Codex Gigas illustration is one of the most famous depictions of Satan ever, due in part to the famous legend claiming that the entire Codex Gigas itself (also known as "The Devil's Bible") was written by Satan himself in one night for a monk who broke his monastic vows and was sentenced to be walled up alive unless he could complete the entire manuscript before morning. The legend claims that the illustration is therefore Satan's signature, his mark on the book to show that it is his. This legend is by no means obscure; National Geographic even did a whole documentary about the illustration called The Truth Behind the Devil's Bible. I doubt any other image possesses such great notoriety. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

suggest an edit in "Islam Quran"-section, for perfection

Based on the statement in Quran "God's curse lies upon Iblis until the Day of Resurection" and the idea, Iblis failure was pre determined by God to create the illusion of duality, some scholars suggested, Iblis will be "restored" to an angel/angelic rank, after the Jdugment Day, unlike those who willingly followed him (or his example of rebellion). In some Islamic mythologies, Iblis is already in hell (on the very bottom, composed of ice) or "being in hell" already started while he was thrown out of God's presence. Therefore I would like to make here a little change.

"Consequently, God expelled him from Paradise.[7][156] Iblis thereafter became a kafir, "an ungrateful disbeliever",[7] whose sole mission is to lead humanity astray.[7][159] God allows Iblis to do this,[7][160] because He knows that the righteous will be able to resist Iblis's attempts to misguide them.[7] On Judgement Day, Satan will be thrown into the fires of Jahannam,[161][156] along with all his followers."

"Consequently, God expelled him from Paradise and condemned him to Jahannam.[7][156] Iblis thereafter became a kafir, "an ungrateful disbeliever",[7] whose sole mission is to lead humanity astray.[7][159] God allows Iblis to do this,[7][160] because He knows that the righteous will be able to resist Iblis's attempts to misguide them.[7] On Judgement Day, while Satan himself may attain forgiveness, those who followed him will be thrown into the fires of Jahannam." --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Two concerns

I have a few concerns I thought I would bring up:

1. The first paragraph: I am not sure about the present wording because I am concerned that it overgeneralizes quite a bit. The last two sentences read: "He is usually seen as a fallen angel, or a jinn, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but rebelled against God out of hubris. God allows Satan temporary power over the fallen world, but, in the end, will condemn him to the Lake of Fire." The first problem is that Jews do not believe any of this; the Jews who believe in Satan believe he is the heavenly accuser described in the Tanakh, not a fallen angel given power over the world. Furthermore, as VenusFeuerFalle recently highlighted, some Muslims do not believe that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire either (and, historically, some groups of Christians, such as, allegedly, Origen, are said to have believed this also). All this basically means is that everything in the first paragraph after the first sentence really only fully applies to Christianity and partially to Islam.
2. @Ceoil: You mentioned something about the YouGov poll being "dubious." What do you mean by that? Are you questioning the poll's methodology, are you saying it is outdated, or are you just saying you do not believe it because the numbers are too outlandish? --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Katolophyromai, I mean outlandish. There has to be questions of methodology, and frankly reliability. See also "this"....extraordinary claims etc. For an articloe of this breath, the source seems weak and given to populist sensationalism. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I will admit it was a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but that is what the poll says, so unless you have another poll saying differently, I think we should stick with the one we have. Even the article you cite here from Golf Monthly states that "YouGov is usually a pretty reliable indicator of public opinion." Having lived my whole life in the (very conservative) state of Indiana, I am actually inclined to believe that the poll is probably fairly accurate. I looked at the history for your userpage and I see you are Irish, so I am assuming you are probably not quite as familiar with the United States as I am. At least here in Indiana, there is a church preaching fire and brimstone on practically every street corner. When I was growing up, one of my friends' parents tore the pages out of a (very tame) book about fantasy magic one of my other friends had given him and ran them through a paper shredder because they were afraid the book might inspire him to practice satanic witchcraft. Since I already know from personal experience that many people here believe in Satan, I am generally inclined to conclude that polling numbers are not so far off. In any case, if we find another poll that has a lower number, we can replace it with that one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Per the Sagan standard extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you really think "Fifty-one percent of Americans believe that Satan has the power to possess people"? Simple demographics contradict your contention. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from here, attempting to defend this, citing, euf, Golf Monthly. If so, I suggest you have a bias. Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I only mentioned that article because you linked to it in your comment above and I was pointing out that even the article you were using said that the source cited in the article was reliable. I do not think that the claim is particularly extraordinary, just mildly surprising. In any case, what are the demographics you are referring to that contradict the source? --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Here is a CBS/New York Times poll ([3]) that says 63 % of Americans believe in demonic possession, suggesting that, if anything, the YouGov poll may actually be low. (Of course, it is worth noting that the actual question that was asked on the CBS/New York Times poll was whether or not demonic possession can "be fully explained by modern medicine or psychiatry.") --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait. The poll found also that 59% of people "believe the mind or body can be taken over by a demon or the Devil." --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The CBS/New York Times poll is also from 1998; whereas the YouGov poll is from 2013, which makes the CBS/New York Times poll more outdated. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Having not looked at the NYT source (its very late here), I lay down and weep is all I can say. G'night Katolophyromai, its at least been an enjoyable conversation with you. Ceoil (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai I agree, that this lead just focus on the "mainstream" interpretation of Satan and miss the Jewish notion of Satan. And I already thought I was nit-picking. Also the part "rebelled against God" just applies to Christianity. FUrthermore, according to Judaism, he has no power over a "fallen world". Maybe we should replace the latter sentence:

He is usually seen as a fallen angel, or a jinn, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but rebelled against God out of hubris. God allows Satan temporary power over the fallen world, but, in the end, will condemn him to the Lake of Fire.

with: Christianity and Islam both teach that Satan originated as an angel, or something of the like, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but fell because of hubris, seducing humanity into the ways of falsehood and sin, and has power in the fallen world.

we would have: Satan[a] is a malevolent figure in the Abrahamic religions who seeks to seduce humans into falsehood and sin. Christianity and Islam both teach that Satan originated as an angel, or something of the like, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but fell because of hubris, seducing humanity into the ways of falsehood and sin, and has power in the fallen world. the part "something of the like" if it does not sounds to "unencyclopedic" would also apply to Satan in this case, since, if we consider Satan to be a jinni, the jinn are also thought to be angelic (but with the possibility to become evil and made from fire).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The statment made by Qazwini, that angels and jinn are created from different parts but both from fire, is according to "Tobias Nünlist Dämonenglaue im Islam page 49" (Demonbelieve in Islam) unfortunately I found it only in german, also made by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibshīhī (I could find no wiki article for him) Should we add him there?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. If we decide it is not notable enough we can always remove it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Satan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 18:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (37.5%, but due to paragraph quote, which is properly cited and done.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links Y [churchofsatan.com], "American Heritage Dictionary: Devil". both dead.

@Iazyges: I cannot find the links. Could you please state where they are located in the article? --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Ref #58, #204. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: I have replaced the URL in reference #58 with a working URL. The URL in reference #204 actually seemed to work perfectly fine on my computer, so I am not sure why it would be labelled as "dead." In any case, that citation was only one of six citations all supporting the same statement, so I went ahead and just removed it. It could perhaps have qualified as WP:OVERCITE anyway. You may continue with the review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed Y

Prose Suggestions

• is a malevolent figure in the Abrahamic religions who add a comma between religions and who.
• When it is used without the definitive article (simply satan), the word can refer to any accuser suggest link to Article (grammar)#Definite article.
• only a talking serpent suggest only the talking serpent, as I don't recall any other talking serpents in the Bible/Qur'an post-garden, and I don't believe any others are mentioned in Judeo-Christo-Islamic theology.
• Thats all my comments, passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Subservient to God?

The first paragraph ends:

"...Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God."

I don't know enough about this, but is subservient the right word? Wouldn't that mean that an evil inclination is obeying God unquestioningly? It doesn't seem right! FillsHerTease (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease: The part about "an agent subservient to God" is talking about a different conception of the satan than the one as the personification of the yetzer hara. Read the "Judaism" section of this article for information about different conceptions of the satan in Judaism. Most Jews regard him as just a metaphor, but some interpret him as a literal agent of God whose purpose is to test people's commitment to God by attempting to lure them into sinning or turning against God. This interpretation is primarily rooted in a literal interpretation of the satan's role in the Book of Job and holds that the satan cannot do anything without God's permission, which would make him "subservient to God." --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

The phrase "In John 8:44, Jesus says that the Jews are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham;" is inaccurate and anti-Semitic, Jesus calls certain Pharisees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees) "children of the devil" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament#Jewish-Christian_conflict_in_the_New_Testament

This phrase should be change from "In John 8:44, Jesus says that the Jews are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham;" to "In John 8:44, Jesus says that the Pharisees are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham;"

"Hilgenfeld’s view, which is adopted by Volkmar: “Ye descend from the father of the devil,” which father is the (Gnostic) God of the Jews, is not only generally unbiblical, but thoroughly un-Johannine" source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/8-44.htm

I'm sorry to say but this is not only unbiblical or un-Johannine but pure anti-Semitic. Sacha-75 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sacha-75: The passage in question is John 8:31–47 in which the people Jesus is talking to are only identified in John 8:31 as "Jews" or "Judeans" ("Ἰουδαίοι" in the original Greek text). The Pharisees are never mentioned anywhere in the entire chapter. The author of the Gospel of John may very well have been intending to refer to Pharisees, but, unfortunately, if that was his intention, he failed to make that clear in any way. It seems more likely that the passage is talking about non-Pharisee Jewish enemies of Jesus. Furthermore, the secondary source that is being used to support this statement is Satan: A Biography by Henry Ansgar Kelly, published in 2006 by Cambridge University Press. Kelly refers to the people Jesus is speaking to in this passage as "his Judean or Jewish enemies" and "Jesus's hostile Jewish audience." He does not identify the Jews in this passage with the Pharisees. I would be willing to change this sentence to read: "In John 8:44, Jesus says that his Jewish or Judean enemies are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham," but I cannot change it to say "Pharisees" because neither the primary source nor the secondary source being used to interpret it mention anything about Pharisees. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to read: "In John 8:44, Jesus says that his Jewish or Judean enemies are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham," thus bringing it more closely in line with what Kelly actually says. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Lead Sentence

The lead sentence of this article in describing Satan as an "entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood", since this is not the position of Judaism, the original Abrahamic religion. As the last sentence of the lead paragraph point out, Jews consider Satan more as metaphor than an entity, which is a big difference, for those that know. The lead sentence and paragraph should be edited accordingly. 82.109.167.190 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a reason why the lead sentence says "entity" rather than "being" or "figure." Unlike those other words, the word "entity" does not imply a literal, personal being. Instead, it may equally refer to a metaphorical entity as well. Jews do believe that the satan is "an entity... that seduces humans into sin or falsehood," but most of them believe that the "entity" in question is metaphorical, rather than literal. Furthermore, some Jews (as the "Judaism" section later in the article explains) do regard the satan as a literal entity, but, in general, most do not. The first sentence is already vague enough to apply to the conception of Satan in any of the Abrahamic religions; I see no reason to make it even vaguer. Besides, if you read the next two sentences, they clearly explain how Satan is conceived in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Figure can also mean literary figure though. Entity is probably more taken like a spirit or something like that. --Thinker78 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

This article states that Satan is seen as a 'jinni', or 'fallen angel', in Islam. 'Jinni' is a female 'jinn', or poltergeist, which by its very definition, is NOT a 'fallen angel', but a poltergeist. In Islam, Satan is considered to be a male 'Jinn', or a male poltergeist, thus, not a female poltergeist, and certainly not a fallen angel. Stusjh (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stusjh: I have corrected the form of the word jinn at your request and revised the wording to make it clear that the sentence is not in any way implying that the terms jinn and "fallen angel" are synonyms. That was never the intended meaning of the statement, but it occurred to me as I reread it that, under the previous wording, it would be very easy for someone to misinterpret it to mean that, especially if the person reading it did not know what one or both of those things are. Regarding the use of the term "fallen angel" here, the sentence is talking about both Christianity and Islam; in Christianity, Satan is almost always considered to be a fallen angel, although there is not really much biblical support for that supposition, and, if you read the "Islam" section of this article, there are actually a number of Islamic sources that do describes Satan as an angel or at least seem to imply that he is one, including the Quran itself at one point, even though it describes himself elsewhere as being "from the jinn." This apparent contradiction has been discussed by quite a few Islamic scholars and a number of different explanations have been given over the centuries to explain it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Moxy: I do not see why you are so opposed to my changes to the hatnote. The hatnote before my edits was just under one line and, after my edits, it was just over one line; I barely made it that much longer, yet you keep insisting that it is "ridiculously" long. The problem is that "the entity that is labelled 'Satan'" is not actually a description of what the article is about, but merely a restatement of the title that tells the reader virtually nothing and "the general concept of devils" is not actually what the article Devil is about, because that article is about personifications of evil in cultures around the world; whereas that description would actually more accurately apply to the article Demon, which is about general conceptions of evil spirits. I am trying to make it clear what it is that each of these articles is about to help the readers know which article they are looking for, but, currently, the hatnotes do very little to actually help clarify what these articles are about. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your adding paragraph notes all over...Not sure how a giant overly detailed and western centric paragraph before articles even starts is helpful for our readers. WP:ONESHORTHAT is pretty clear on adding giant paragraphs like this. We don't add a paragraph before the beginning because most people only read the first paragraph.... we're trying to keep readership not lose them or direct them to 17 different articles before they've even started this article.--Moxy (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: The only hatnote I added that was even remotely that long was for the article Heaven, which I have not restored. The hatnote for this article only contained a link to one other article: the article Devil. The one for the article Devil only contained links to two other articles: the article Satan and the article demon, which are the two things most people are looking for when they search for "Devil." Maybe you should actually read the hatnotes I modified before reverting my changes to them. Your accusation that I am "trying to make us lose readers" is ridiculous; I am trying to clearly and concisely clarify what each of these articles is about so that readers can find the article they are looking for. That is the whole reason why we have hatnotes. Furthermore, we are an encyclopedia; our primary goal is to help people find and access information. Retaining readership is only a secondary goal that should not come at the cost of tricking readers into reading an article that they were never looking for to begin with instead of guiding them to the article they actually were looking for. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The following is the exact opposite of what our protocols say to do. WP:ONESHORTHAT. Best get input from others if you think there should be an exception to the rule. We have this in place because of how readers read see here.

This page is about personifications of evil in various cultures and religious traditions around the world. For the specific figure in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin, see Satan. For conceptions of evil spirits in general around the world, see Demon. For other uses, see Satan/Archive 6 (disambiguation).

--Moxy (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: You clearly have not read the hatnote for this article, because that is not the hatnote for this article that you posted above. That is the hatnote I wrote for the article Devil. That hatnote for this article looked like this:

This page is about the specific figure in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin. For personifications of evil in various cultures and religious traditions around the world, see Devil. For other uses, see Satan/Archive 6 (disambiguation).

It contains a link to only one other article and is as short as I possibly could make it while still keeping it clear what each of these articles is about. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It huge and academically detailed....your assume readers coming to this article know what Abrahamic religions even are. Keep it short and simple.... don't make readers have to scroll just to see the first sentence of the article.--Moxy (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: It is not "huge"; it is barely even longer than the current hatnote. The only difference is that the one I wrote is less ambiguous and more accurate. Considering that what the Abrahamic religions are is commonly taught in fifth grade social studies class, I think it is safe to assume that most of our readers probably know what they are. If we cynically assume that our readers do not even understand the most basic elementary school concepts, we will never be able to explain anything. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

think it's best I explain some more.... the note is there as an afterthought after readers read the first paragraph or even just the first sentence and realize they're at the wrong article....it's a link of convenience. its not designed to draw readers in and lead them to other articles off the bat. We must also assume that readers know nothing about the topic when they arrive here... thus we should have no desire to lead them in a direction until they know what this is about..... again kiss.....don't make readers have to scroll before the article starts - Moxy (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: The hatnote I wrote does not "make readers have to scroll before the article starts"; even on my phone, I still did not have to scroll to get to the first sentence of the article. I was not trying to "draw people in" with the hatnote either. I was using it to clarify the arbitrary distinction that Wikipedia has made between the words "Devil" and "Satan," since they both originally had the exact same meaning and are virtually always used as synonyms in everyday speech. The only reason we even have two separate articles is because of an arbitrary distinction that a scholar named Jeffrey Burton Russell made in a book published in 1987. Wikipedia decided to follow his decision to use the word "Devil" to refer to any Devil-like figure in any culture around the world, while reserving the word "Satan" for specifically the Abrahamic Devil. If there is a problem here, then it is that we are using a highly nuanced and idiosyncratic distinction made by one academic thirty years ago to determine what to call the two articles, which inevitably makes it difficult and complicated to distinguish between what the two words mean under those definitions. My first proposal was to move the article currently titled "Devil" to Devil figure and make "Devil" a disambiguation page between Devil figure, Satan, and Demon, which I still think would be the best solution. The problem is that that proposal faced strong opposition from people who apparently really liked Russell's definition of the word "Devil" and were obstinately opposed to any efforts to clarify what the article "Devil" is really about. Since we cannot clarify with a disambiguation page, we are forced to do it using hatnotes, which means that hatnotes simply have to be as long as the ones I wrote. There is really no way we can make them any shorter without losing clarity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

never assume what you see is what others see

All this Christian POV should be in the article if you believe it's a point of confusion... not a hatnote detailing everything.. that again may cause others to scroll before they even have a chance to read a sentence. Best ask for third opinion.--Moxy (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

47.152.50.202 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Numbers

Katolophyromai, in an edit you made, you said, "Numbers less than 100 are supposed to always be written out in words unless they are part of a date", but that is not according to guidelines in Wikipedia, per MOS:CENTURY and MOS:NUMERAL. --Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotes?

"Look mate, I already leveled with you once;..." Does this make any sense to you? If satan can make the topic more useful than perhaps you didn't read it in the bible. As a matter of fact, such activities for what calls up here, is what I consider lapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1301:86E5:703D:A7B6:45FE:C065 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of Satan and Satans

Greetings, I recently found a book in German about Satan in 1 Enoch. Accordingly, Satan and an entire multitute of satans appear, but not as the fallen angels, rather as "angels of punishment". I wonder if someone regards them as noteworthy and has an idea about integrating them into the text. If it is not noteworthy, we can just keep the article as it is, but I wanted to make this suggestion. The Book is called "Teufel, Tod und Trauer: Der Satan im Johannesevangelium und seine Vorgeschichte" pp.84- --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I believe the First Book of Enoch is already discussed in the "Second Temple period" section. —Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai:, but the section talks about Azazel and Semyaza as fallen angels, not about the term Satan itself. But it seems that the term "Satan" is not used in the sense of "Satan" we use it in Christian and Islam, it seems to refer to an executioner and angels of punishment. But "Satan" in 1 Enoch does not play a significant role either. Since we only have this one source (currently) and it does not explain the link between Azazel and the satans, I am fine with not adding it. I might be rather confusing than contributing.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

- the Book of Enoch is available online in English translation and does not mention "angels of punishment" or Satan - this may be Florian Theobald's interpretation of the text - needs confirmation from other sources - Epinoia (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I now compared two different online translations: One translates them as " impious angels" (https://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-40/) the other as "satans" (https://bookofenochreferences.wordpress.com/category/the-book-of-enoch-with-biblical-references-chapters-31-to-40/chapter-40/). The source translating them as "satans" is a blog, definetly not reliable. I thought however, that Florian Theobald referred to the term "satans" in the text as if they appear directly, as I read frequently that the term "satans" (satan in plural) appeared as reference to 1 Enoch in other works. (https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe043.htm) also speaks of "satans". However, I can not check it myself, since I can not read 1 Enoch in the original language. I am unsure about both the significans and the correctness myself, thats one of the reasons I wanted to discuss this here. (it would be helpful to know which term was used in the original. I remember I read about a year ago, it was "shayatin" or the like, but I do not find it anymore.)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

- the article on the Book of Enoch identifies the leader of the angels as Samyaza or Shemyazaz - the article on Samyaza identifies Azazel as Satan, but does not provide a source for this - the article on Azazel bases the identification of Azazel with Satan on John 12:31, which mentions "the prince of this world", but does not mention Azazel by name - Epinoia (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

In the first paragraph line 11 (2nd sentence from the bottom up) of the coding it says, "In Christianity and Islam, he is usually seen as either a fallen angel or jinn....." This should be corrected to show a difference in the beliefs of the 2 religions: "In Christianity he is seen as a fallen angel and in Islam he is known as a jinn" My source: I am a muslim and would like to clarify the difference, the person who wrote the article obviously does not have clear knowledge of Islam to think that Satan was an angel. In Islam we know that an angel does not have the power to disobey God. If an angel was able to disobey the One All Mighty God, then this would open questions about vulnerabilities in what a god is and the limits of his authority on beings who do not have free will.

Satan, also known as the Devil, is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood. In Christianity and Islam, he is usually seen as either a fallen angel or a genie, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but rebelled against God, who nevertheless allows him temporary power over the fallen world and a host of demons. In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God. 173.77.209.133 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

 Not done. You are not a reliable source (as neither are any of us). In any case, your suggested change would make the rest of the sentence ungrammatical. The body of the article mentions disagreement about interpretation in Islam about the nature of the figure, so it would be inappropriate to change the lead to ignore this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely Untrue Sentence

The very first sentence in the article states...

Satan,[a] also known as the Devil,[b] is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood.

That sentence is entirely untrue. Satan (correctly, "The Satan", meaning "The Adversary") was a holy (good) angel, who had NOT fallen from grace, but served God as his angel who placed adversity in people's lives in order to test their faith and to give them difficulties by which they could strengthen their faith. One only has to read the Book of Job (and I am citing The Book of Job in support of my claim here) to know this is the true concept behind The Satan. Furthermore, The Satan was NOT known as The Devil in the Abrahamic religions.

Thibeinn (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

The Synoptic Gospels identify Satan and his demons as the causes of illness,[68] including fever (Luke 4:39), leprosy (Luke 5:13), and arthritis (Luke 13:11–16),[68] while the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the Devil as "him who holds the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14).[74] The author of Luke-Acts attributes more power to Satan than both Matthew and Mark.[75] In Luke 22:31, Jesus grants Satan the authority to test Peter and the other apostles.[76] Luke 22:3–6 states that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus because "Satan entered" him[75] and, in Acts 5:3, Peter describes Satan as "filling" Ananias's heart and causing him to sin.[77] The Gospel of John only uses the name Satan three times.[78] In John 8:44, Jesus says that his Jewish or Judean enemies are the children of the Devil rather than the children of Abraham.[78] The same verse describes the Devil as "a "man-killer" from the beginning"[78] and "a liar and the father of lying."[78][79] John 13:2 describes the Devil as inspiring Judas to betray Jesus[80] and John 12:31–32 identifies Satan as "the Archon of this Cosmos", who is destined to be overthrown through Jesus's death and resurrection.[81] John 16:7–8 promises that the Holy Spirit will "accuse the World concerning sin, justice, and judgement", a role resembling that of the satan in the Old Testament.[82]

Change "man-killer" to "murderer"

(Reason: The Israelites killed men taking the land of Canaan but were not murderers so there is a difference; lots of people have been man-killers but not murderers. Satan is a murderer.) 167.75.254.253 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a direct quote to a biblical translation, it seems. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

I want to request an edit on the first paragraph because it stated something in the text that was not accurate 50.205.23.98 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation inaccurate on Satan in Judaism

A section in the "Judaism" section states: "Each modern sect of Judaism has its own interpretation of Satan's identity. Conservative Judaism generally rejects the Talmudic interpretation of Satan as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, and regard him as a literal agent of God.[57]" and cites https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/, but there is no mention of Conservative Judaism rejecting the Talmudic understanding of Satan in the article. The article only details the different ways Satan has been viewed in Biblical, Talmudic, and Kabbalistic thought, and comparing these to common Christian understands of Satan. This sentence should cite a different source or be removed.

CaptainElena (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have other sources detailing those differences? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Satan in the Middle Ages

User:Salelder left a citation-needed tag in the lead section, in response to the passage saying Satan played a minimal role in medieval theology, saying, "This is surprising; can an expert give more information?" I removed the tag because the claim is sourced in the article body, but it is the kind of situation where additional sources would be welcome. The quotation from Jeffrey Burton Russell says the medieval version of Satan was "more pathetic and repulsive than terrifying", but that's not quite the same as saying his role was minimal. Instead, the source for most of the relevant paragraph is Poole, who seems to specialize in the culture of the United States and whose book is focused on perceptions of Satan there. Is a there a source more qualified to write about the Middle Ages that can support this claim? A. Parrot (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Satan in Islam

Surab 18:50 DOES NOT refer to Satan as an angel, but merely that he (the chief of the jinns) was in the company of angels. This is false and misleading! Fzjanj (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Surah.. Fzjanj (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fzjanj: Where does the article say that Surah 18:50 refers to Satan as an angel?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's some other false information on the Islam section regarding Satan. There does not exist any Hadith that states that Satan touches new born babies which causes them to sin. This contradicts that actual teaches of the Quran and most Hadith on the matter (that Humans were created with ability to commit both good and evil from the very beginning and that there's no such thing as Original Sin in Islam). Also, the supposed reference to the false claim [207] is dead and doesn't link to any Hadith. I suggest that the paragraph should be erased as an error.

Actually, there is a such a hadith: "Abu Huraira said, "I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her child." Then Abu Huraira recited: "And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan" (3.36)" ( Book 60, Hadith 102 Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 641) see also: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3431; https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84854/satan-enters-children-at-birth; https://questionsonislam.com/question/why-does-newborn-baby-cry-i-have-read-hadith-when-person-born-satan-touches-himher-and --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Belial in the Hebrew Bible

Belial in the Hebrew text is not "clearly" a synonym for Satan. Sure, the writer you quote thinks so, but it is trivial to find a translation of 1 Samuel 2:12 that doesn't even render Belial as a proper name. Here's New King James: "Now the sons of Eli were corrupt [lit. sons of Belial]; they did not know the Lord." The first definitive use of "Belial" as an evil entity in Jewish texts is found in the non-Biblical Dead Sea scrolls. 98.110.22.112 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"the later usage of this word makes it clearly a synonym for "satan"" Isn't it true, what later texts make Belial and Satan synonymous? Of course after a shift of meaning in both words.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

change "while the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the Devil as "him who holds the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14).[76]"

to "while the Epistle to the Hebrews states "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Hebrews 2:14)."

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:25-26)

"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10)

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:18) Jesusislord4 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That is a great deal of unnecessary detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request:

"Although the Book of Genesis does not mention him, he is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden."

I believe this sentence refers specifically to Christianity identifying this as such - if not, please provide citations of this identification in other religions (e.g judaism), as I was unable to find any non-christian sources.

I suggest editing the sentence to: "Although the Book of Genesis does not mention him, he is often identified in Christianity as the serpent in the Garden of Eden." --Xland44 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware of at least Greek Apocalypse of Baruch and Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer identify the serpent with Samael who is often a proper name for Satan. The serpent is also identified with yetzer hara, which is also one of three functions of Satan. In Islam, not the Quran, but exegesis and Tales of the Prophets at least relate Satan to the serpent. It does not seem to be specifically Christian, although only Christianity emphasize this identification the most.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew word Satan extra "dot"

what is purpose of extra central "dot" in right most letter of Hebrew word שָּׂטָן‎ in article Satan. there is no such "dot" in this word Satan (7854) in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance? Gfigs (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

see also wikt:Adversary Gfigs (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've replied to this query at your post in the reference desk and changed things accordingly. bibliomaniac15 06:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

many thanks.. Gfigs (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Sometimes Wiki editors miss the forest for the trees or the trees for the forest, and the final product has slop.

The second paragraph of this article needs fixin':

A figure known as ha-satan ("the satan") first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers.

Not everybody knows what the Tanakh is... a suggested edit would be:

A figure known as ha-satan ("the satan") first appears in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers.

Nothing in the current version of that paragraph suggests we have moved from discussing Christian and Muslim theology to Jewish theology. I assure you, most non-Jews have no idea what "Tanakh" is. Yeah, yeah, Yahweh and Judah are clues, but are not unique to Judaism. There is no crime in specifically notifying the reader that we have shifted our focus to a third religious view.

I usually fix minor screw-ups like this (grammar, spelling, thoughtless text construction), but hey, vandalism lock is on this article, which I totally approve of, hell, can't have the trolls mucking with the demonic, amiright? :)

Please fix this for me. Thank you. 99.40.67.246 (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Birthday of devil

Is on December 2 2402:3A80:E20:56C:2936:B01F:272C:EC1B (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about the Devil's Birthday.Achar Sva (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Satan was not of the "Sons of God."

"The figure known as ha-satan ("the satan") first appears in the Hebrew Bible as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh (God)."

This is incorrect. The source, the Book of Job, states: "On another day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before Him."

This passage does not describe Satan was one of the Sons of God, but identifies him separately. "The Sons of God AND Satan ALSO."

Please correct the statement. Sadena (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The source is not the Book of Job but Henry Ansgar Kelly, (2006), Satan: A Biography, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, not primary ones. Achar Sva (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

So, despite Kelly being factually incorrect, demonstrably so (וַיָּב֤וֹא  גַֽם־ הַשָּׂטָן֙ || way·yā·ḇō·w ḡam- haś·śā·ṭān || and came also Satan), you want to use it as a source? If so, can the statement "The text of the Book of Job reads 'and came also Satan'." be included? What qualifies Kelly as a source if it can be shown to be contradicted by the primary source?

Maybe I can provide some context. The bene Elohim / Sons of God is the Judaic representation of the Sons of El from the Ancient Canaanite Religion, and Satan simply doesn't exist in that pantheon. I wish he was, because it would simplify one of my "God Hunts" (origin tracing the rebel god Helel), but the Ancient Canaanite Religion simply doesn't have any negative deities.

So can a quotation from Job be included, or do I need to find a published commentary that makes the claim "Satan is not one of the bene Elohim"? That seems so weird, like needing to find a source that says "The Constitution begins with the words 'We the People'". It's not a claim, it's just a factual reference.

How about the statement "Every translation of Job 2:1 mentions Satan as separate (also came, came also) from the Sons of God."? Sadena (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Kelly's qulification as a source (in Wikipedia terms) is his academic position, he's distinguished research professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles. That, in fact, is not very impressive - his position is not in the relevant field. I suggest you do some research into biblical scholars and what they say on the subject. But you can't say: "Every translation of Job 2:1 mentions Satan as separate (also came, came also) from the Sons of God", as what we're after is the meaning of the Hebrew (translations are notoriously prone to altering the Hebrew to fit Christian preconceptions). Van der Toorn's Dictionary might be a good place to start (there's a link in the bibliography).

This book is interesting See footnotes 45, 46 and 48 on the page at which the online book opens.

This is also worthwhile. Note that on page 27 bene elohim is translated as "heavenly beings" rather than "sons of God". For what it's worth, my understanding of the phrase "bene elohim" is that it means "beings belonging to the tribe of the god(s)" - i.e., all spiritual beings are bene elohim, simply as a matter of grammar. Achar Sva (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of "benei elohim" can vary. As far as I know the Bible was not written as one coherent book, but is a colelction of different myths, legends and writings over thousand years. When the authors of Genesis, used the term "Benei ELohim", they might refer to something entirely else than the authors of Iob. It is also unlikely, it refers to a pantheon, when they are instructed before God. I think Kelly made an interpretation here by stating "Satan is among the benei elohim". Satan is in most interpretations of the Bible (note: all of translation is an interpretation by such ancient texts. Just look how differently the "benei elohim" are itnerpreted in Genesis, sometimes angels, sometimes aristocrats) of the angels; so this is not a mistake on side of Kelly. It is overexagarating to say Kelly is explicitly wrong here, although one might have another opinnion regarding this matter. However, there isn't anything explicitly saying Satan is not of the "benei elohim".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to find a source to refute the claim that Satan is of the bene Elohim because it's not a claim that is generally made! It's like trying to find a source to refute the claim that the bene Elohim are the Anunnaki or aliens. And you'd be amazed how often that alien claim is made regarding the bene Elohim or the Nephilim.

After reading Kelly's book, I'm not even sure he really meant to make this claim. So lacking any better idea, I contacted him yesterday. He said he'd check and get back to me. It's a pedantic detail from a book he wrote 16 years ago, but we'll see what he says. It was nice that he replied, as usually when I want to contact an author I find that they're dead. I'll post his answer either way. Sadena (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! This is the first time I've seen anyone take this step! Achar Sva (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I never read any work criticizing that Satan is one of the "heavenly beings", but if you think there might be some sense of consens it is a mistake, just go ahead.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Professor Kelly's response:

(Short Version: The designation is not absolute but is reasonable in his view).

Dear David,

Thanks for writing. No, it’s not pedantic at all and is important; I should have spent more time explaining. The interpretation is not new with me. For instance, Marvin Pope in his Anchor Bible commentary explains, “The Satan is but one of the heavenly officials who come to report and receive orders” (p. 10). The Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. 3, says: “The scene shifts to the heavenly court, where the Lord musters out the heavenly beings, among them Satan. His function is to patrol the earth; he is not yet the demonic personification of Later Judaism.” Gam here is taken to signify inclusion, rather than addition. I admit, however, that the latter interpretation is possible, and that the satan may be in a different class of divine attendant or minister. The important point for me is that the satan is on good terms with Yahweh; there is no hint of strained relations, let alone some decisive rift in the past. This is a fairly common view these days. Where I differ from most readers of the New Testament is that I see the same characterization and relationship manifested in Job as carrying over to the Gospels and other books of the NT. He does not become God’s enemy, but is certainly seen as inimical to men. His motivation is to uncover the iniquity he suspects in everyone, and deprive them of God’s favor by exposing their true colors. The common view of the NT Satan as God’s enemy gives him the opposite motivation: to turn good people into bad and thereby deprive them of God’s favor and deprive God of their allegiance.

All Best,

Andy Kelly Sadena (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

God or Yahweh wikilink

I concur with User:Ploni that the change to the God in Judaism wikilink reflects better the content of the article. User:VenusFeuerFalle stated in their revert, "This is about the Bronce Age deity, not about the Rabbinical concept of God", but such assertion in the sense of contradicting the semantical use of a more modern concept does not seem to be supported by the content in the article. The lead currently reads, "In Judaism, Satan is seen as an agent subservient to God, typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination."" If we go to the most relevant section with the heading "Judaism", we can notice that its topic is mostly Satan according to late Iron Age and medieval sources, not Bronze Age. Thinker78 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Medieval Satan

Medieval Satan (as per the introduction) was not trivial and just a part of mystery plays. Please read Aquinas and the Malleus Maleficarum (both count as medieval), it's misinformative. 82.42.161.52 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum is rather late Medieval Age and rather influenced the Modern Age. In earlier Theology, Satan as a figure (in contrast to the concept of the Devil) played rather a marginal role, replacing folkloric monsters, such as giants, and was easily fooled and tricked. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 Add to Bibliography Philip C Almond, 'The Devil: A New Biography.' (London. I.B. Tauris, 2014).

Repalmon (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong word

In the first paragraph, please change "(respectably)" to "(respectively)". Rich (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Angra Manyu isn't Satan.

The note of the article makes it clear already: "This article is about the figure in the Abrahamic religions. For personifications of evil in various cultures, see Devil." The structure of the artcile further supports this: "During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids. Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu, the Zoroastrian spirit of evil, darkness, and ignorance." Angra Manyu (a devil) influenced the figure Satan. Satan isn't the emobidment of evil, Satan turned into one over time and started as an accuser angel. The recent edits were (partly) taken from Devil, which is a separate entry. If Satan an Devil are synonyms, a WP:MERGE should be proposed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Satan" is about Abrahamic religions, while "Devil" is not restricted in this way. However, possible non-Abrahamic influences on Abrahamic religions are within the scope of this article. Note that in some conceptions of Zoroastrianism, Angra Manyu or Ahriman is the dualistic equal and opposite of God (Ahura Mazda), which is far removed from anything Abrahamic, and not actually one of the usual meanings of the English word "Devil". AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Please Get rid of the story of the so called satanic verses from this page because they did not happen and is false and has no authentic sources and is a fabrication. 184.170.166.16 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

184.170.166.16 -- If they were a fabrication, they were a fabrication by Muslim scholars or traditionists in the early centuries of Islam... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

This line is not correct nor cited properly: " In the Quran, Satan is apparently an angel,[185]" It can be found under Islam > Quran > Islamic tradition > affiliation.

Contributor should have cited the actual Quran verse, but they didn't because such verse doesn't exist; Quran never states that Satan is an angel but it clearly states on multiple occasions that he's a jinn.

Therefore the aforementioned line must be removed from this article. Correctcorrections1 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -- Paper9oll (Paper9oll o Contributions/Paper9oll) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, a Qur'an verse should not be cited for this purpose, since that would be primary sourcing. Wikipedia policies prefer citing scriptural interpretations contained in reliable sources, rather than Wikipedia articles attempting to interpret scriptures directly. However, verse 11 in Surah 7 of the Qur'an certainly seems to imply that Ibilis was an angel before his expulsion... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

One of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't encourage use of primary sources. Even Muslim scholars, as the article reveals, have held that "jinn" is a term for all invisible creatures, including angels. (the thing mentioned in hadith contrasted by the angels is actually al-Jann). And it is stated only once, not multiple times that Iblis is "one of the jinn". If you are not an expert on a particular topic, you could mistakenly draw the wrong conclusions because of a lack of deeper insight into the topic. Therefore, Original research is discouraged. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

From ancient Turkic

arab. شيطان‎ шайта́н, šayṭān, and in the сhuvash language shuytan — in ancient Uyghur, shuitan means snake, dragon.

Сhina 蛇 (She) 龍 (Long). Coiled snake (ouroboros) from the Shang era - “Zhulong”. R. Robertson and A. Combs note that in Ancient China the ouroboros was called “Zhulong” and was depicted as a creature combining a pig and a dragon, biting its own tail. .(Robertson, Robin; Combs, Allan. The Uroboros // Indra's Net: Alchemy and Chaos Theory as Models for Transformation. — Quest Books, 2009. — ISBN 9780835608626.)

Šaytan > Šuytan > Šuylan > Şĕlan > 蛇龍 (SheLong) > Zhulong > Snake.

UXM Chuvash Mistery 176.52.107.163 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Before 500 B.C., Turkic speakers were in the greater Mongolia area (east of Lake Balkhash), over 2000 miles away from Canaan, which would not favor any cultural interaction. In the days before what William McNeill called "the closure of the ecumene", there were no regular trade routes connecting China and the Middle East, and at most a small number of precious objects could slowly diffuse between them by being exchanged repeatedly by neighboring tribes. Also, the Hebrew word "satan" has a highly-specific "s" sound (written with a left-dotted letter shin, and often considered to have been a fricative lateral in earlier Semitic) and a highly-specific "t" sound (probably an ejective consonant in earlier Semitic), while Hebrew etymologies are usually based on consonantal roots. I'm afraid the probabilities are very much against your idea -- unless you could find reliable sources backed up by concrete evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Excessively Repeated Same Source.

The first paragraph under New Testament, starting with "The three Synoptic Gospels all describe the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert (Matthew 4:1–11, Mark 1:12–13, and Luke 4:1–13)." All refers to one book. It ends with a claim that Satan controls the earth, something highly contestable, which probably needs more than one source. 2001:8003:2C01:FD00:917E:61BC:A338:6EC7 (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that those three cites refer to one book. The Bible is a compilation of multiple books; Matthew, Mark, and Luke are each individual books that are commonly included in Christian bibles. I see, you're referring to the actual citation. I don't know why citing a single source that summarizes the events is a problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Shaitan is reference to Jinn that follow Iblis, not another name for him

Like the description says Shaitan is a descriptor for Jinn that are committed to evil acts in following of the devil known by name as Iblis. The wiki article on Shaitan corroborates this 24.193.49.192 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.

The article explains that the term describes both invisible beings (jinn), as well as visible beings (ins) who have gone astray: "The Arabic equivalent of the word Satan is Shaitan (شيطان, from the triliteral root š-ṭ-n شطن). The word itself is an adjective (meaning "astray" or "distant", sometimes translated as "devil") that can be applied to both man ("al-ins", الإنس) and al-jinn (الجن), but it is also used in reference to Satan in particular. In the Quran, Satan's name is Iblis (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈibliːs]), probably a derivative of the Greek word diabolos". THe introduction might give an impression that "Shaitan" is some sort of name: " In the Quran, Shaitan, also known as Iblis, is an entity made of fire who was cast out of Heaven ". However, it is rather a reference to Ibli's designation as "the Devil" or "the Satan" with the Arabic definite article Al. I hoped this help. If questions remain or I was mistaken somewhere, I appreciate further input. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

About Fringe theories and their place on wikipedia;

User:VenusFeuerFalle,

I reviewed the relevant policy and examples given on Wikipedia and did not come across a statement stating that fringe theories should never be included. It only focuses on issues such as not shaping the main axis of the article according to these theories, verifiable secondary sources, neutrality, lack of original research, and not showing the theory as more valuable than it is in the general article. Any statement that points to these theories can be criticized in these contexts.

As for what is fringe and what is not fringe; In the scientific world, many theories and even objective knowledge were initially considered fringe, and their developers and owners were even lynched. Perhaps hundreds of examples can be listed in this context, such as cosmos, biological evolution, and the theory of general relativity.

If we talk specifically about my contributions, almost all of them consist of references or summaries of informations on the pages of Wikipedia that have not been objected to by any user.NGC 628 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE covers a lot of this. We do not include everything, because that would give too much weight to minority viewpoints. Having citations does not mean they must be included in our articles.

Your statement As for what is fringe and what is not fringe is irrelevant. If Wikipedia existed in the time of Galileo, he would be a Fringe voice against the scientific consensus, and treated as such. The fact he was proven right later doesn't change that fact, and it doesn't change how we treat fringe views now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia focuses on what is already established, not on things which might gain more popularity later. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's talk specifically about my contribution to the Satan article. There is no reference in the introduction part of the article and the article is discussed entirely in a religious context, not a cultural one. My contribution gives 4 references and gives an explanation of the word and concept from a social science perspective. Even though I did not violate any of Wikipedia's policies, including the ones just listed, my contribution is being withdrawn accompanied by an accusation. My contribution is this;

"Satan is considered by some to be the Hebrew version of Set, who was expelled by Horus in Egyptian mythology and exiled to the desert, turning into an evil and dark figure."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NGC 628 (talk • contribs) 02:51, January 11, 2024 (UTC)

That's because source 1 & 4 are personal web sites, which does not comply with WP:RS; and 3 is a century out of date (way too old to represent modern scholarly consensus). That leaves source 2 as the only valid cite for this. But that source makes the assertion with nothing else to back it up, which strikes me as incredibly dubious and not appropriate for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution and information. This information will definitely guide my future contributions. What I want to know is, is such a clear evaluation made for every contribution? I also understand from the following sentence "That's because source 1 & 4 are personal web sites, which does not comply with WP:RS; and 3 is a century out of date (way too old to represent modern scholarly consensus)." that in order for a source to be used, it must provide scientific consensus. Such a thing is never possible, no source can provide this. NGC 628 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Such a thing is never possible

Wikipedia takes a different stance. When the vast majority of research endorses a view, that is considered scientific consensus for our purposes. Consensus does not equal unanimity.

In situations like this, when dealing with historic religious material, the general view on Wikipedia is to follow the consensus of more modern scholarly works. Older historic texts tend to be working from limited resources or may have more inherent biases regarding the material, and should only be cited as "this is what was believed at the time, but now we know more."

In this case, we have a concept that may have been popular belief at one time, but has fallen out of favor among religious and historic scholars. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the consensus may not be understood by everyone as you describe. From my point of view, it is possible for the participants of a meeting to agree on a subject, but in science, consensus is against the nature of science. In addition to the different understandings of different sects when it comes to matters related to religion, religious philosophers never say the same things as the ulema who rely on traditional knowledge.NGC 628 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your beliefs, that view is incompatible with Wikipedia's policy's and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't understand which of my views was incompatible with which Wikipedia policy. If the statement I use in the text is "this is the general acceptance" or "this is the opinion of the majority", I must use an appropriate source, or this must be clearly stated in the source I give. Apart from this, there cannot be such an obligation for any statement, for example when I say "this issue has been understood by some as follows", general citing rules are sufficient.Therefore, when I look back, your evaluation of the sources I used may be correct for sources 1 and 4, but I cannot say the same for sources 2 and 3.NGC 628 (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't reply to the paragraphs below, so I am gopign to answer here: Please don't see this as a personal attack when I say, I see besides valuable contributations, such as about the explanation for the coins you added, there have been a lot edits about adding "the alledged original meaning of mythological figures", including your edits on the archangel Maalik in the Jahannam article. The problem is, that it was a popular theory in the 19th century, that all types of deities and spirits could be traced back to a common origin. The theory even expands to non-Biblical religions, such as the claim that the Norse Loki would be Lucifer in origin. However, such theories don't receive much support since recent academia. They are consdiered reductionistic and Euro-centric. They are not shared by scholars anymore. This is why you may find a lot of source from 19th Century and early 20th Century saying stuff like "Jesus is Horus" or "Taghut is Toth", but not in modern ones. If you think, the authors were on something back then, I would recommand to publish your own works in the fields of academia. Doing this on Wikipedia would be original research, and even if you provide a secondary source, it will be just a fringe theory. Individual people might still be convinced in that, just as many people still follow the Gnostic tradtion of Samael n Weor, despite Nag Hamadi disproving a lot of assumptions regarding early Gnostic beliefs.

Regarding your claim that "no source has scientific consensus". There is a critical approach to science (Philosophy of science), including the limits of science and academic research. Look if you find another independent source, from another author, accepting the view. For example, if you see that a large amount of scholars argue that Maalik is Moloch, you can expect this to be true. Something like this is the case with Iblis. Arabic sources often say his name derives from ablisa. A lot of Wesern sources and some Arab and Turkish source say, it derives from Greek diabolous. Then, further research was done, and new findings closed the gap between diabolous and Iblis, in the Kitab Magall. So, this theory found a lot of support. In the case of Maalik, it could also be the case that the name derives from "Malak" or simply "malik" as in "king" (malak). Further, we have no link confirming that Muslims believed Moloch to be the guardian of hell or a servant of God. If such evidence is found, it would be more popular and appear throughout different sources, thus reaching a consensus. I hope this helps. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I am grateful for your valuable time and explanations. The most important issue for me is to offer understandable explanations for myself and others to the religious-cultural phenomena and concepts we frequently encounter. I do this without making any insinuation that these are the only or most valid and unanimous views of the scientific community, and without attempting to destroy or devalue other explanations. Please note that the sentence I made begins with “Satan is considered by some”. Please avoid commenting on Wikipedia rules in a way that exceeds its purpose. If you see anything in my contributions that exceeds the framework I mentioned above or Wikipedia guidelines, frame the problem clearly and do not hesitate to contact me.NGC 628 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Lucifer and Satan

Lucifer and Satan are not the same. They are here for our free will. You might want to check that out for your descriptions. Lucifer is said to bring light or the light bearer. Satan is the evil one. 2601:600:4380:99B0:753F:5185:E09C:1752 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence description includes the key word "sometimes" though. There is also an article for Lucifer. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Devil in European folklore

I think it would be interesting to mention how the Devil is depicted in European folklore and fairytales. I believe there are multiple stories about some plucky protagonist besting the Devil in some way, or about how the Devil is the reason a certain natural landmark looks the way it does. 2600:1700:8720:1050:3926:A0A1:8DF8:CD13 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There are Devil in the arts and popular culture and Deals with the Devil in popular culture... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

Theistic Satanism section, caption of the first photo: "The inverted pentagram, along with the Baphomet, is the most notable and widespread symbol of Satanism." Saying "the Baphomet" is like saying "the Satan". I think it should be "the inverted pentagram, along with Baphomet, is the most notable..."

Thank you! 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:D85C:BEB0:FF9F:5FA6 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of worship

Are Atheistic Satanists also accused of worshipping Satan? 70.27.84.88 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic, believing in neither a personal god nor a personal devil. Moxy🍁 01:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

Jithin 2409:4073:2116:2D96:A959:2340:9820:993B (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Satan had minimal role in medieval Christian theology"

This is demonstrably false, and conflicts with the numerous medieval portraits of Satan displayed on the page. Every medieval commentary on the Gospels, the Epistles, Revelation, Job and Genesis at least would mention Satan (or, the "devil").

St. Thomas Aquinas mentions of Satan:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Job.C1.L2.n11 (the commentary on the Book of Job alone has 50 mentions)

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q112.A3

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I.Q114.A4

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q98.A2.SC

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q10.A2.C

Other Medievals:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm (St. Augustine)

https://franciscan-archive.org/lombardus/II-Sent.html (Peter of Lombard, and thus, all the medievalists and academics of the time who were required to write a commentary on the Sentences, would mention Satan; think of St. Bonaventure, William of Ockham, Bl. Duns Scotus, etc)

https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans117.htm https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans118.htm (St. Anselm)

There are of course many more, since Satan is a pivotal point to the entirety of Christian theology, and wasn't magically forgotten in the Medieval Era. Further, the source listed (https://books.google.com/books?id=pWYqgsRLXykC&q=Satan+and+Puritanism&pg=PA15#v=snippet&q=Satan%20and%20Puritanism&f=false) does not say or even imply that Satan had a minimal role in Medieval Christian theology, but rather his role was diverse. Further, the source is clearly incredibly bias against traditional Christianity, using classic polemics to attack Christianity, and as such I am not even sure why it is accepted as authoritative. LambdaLover (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Greetins,

I first wanted to explain that sources need to be read precisely, but since the sourc eitself has been discredited entirely as "attack on traditional Christianity", you first need to demonstrate that, as you are the one making the proposal. If this is not of any importance, when why mentioning it? If the source is misrepresented, as you said before attacking the source itself, when please continue to explain how the source is misinterpreted. Now, there is just a bunch of links when Medieval scholars mention Satan, and noone is surprised that this happened to be the case in a story focuing on Satan. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)