#11: The Demon in Charge? Mastema in the Book of Jubilees

In this episode, we will continue our exploration of satanic figures in Second Temple texts. After recapping our last episode, we will discuss the varied role of Mastema in the Book of Jubilees, both as the head of the Watchers and as the “Satan stand-in” for most of the book.

Why did the author of Jubilees bring Mastema into the story? What problems does he “solve”? And how powerful is he supposed to be?

Along the way, we discuss the nature of ancient literature and the concept of the “new generation,” both in the ancient world and today. To learn more, just press “play”! And as always, please leave me your questions and comments below.

17 Responses to "#11: The Demon in Charge? Mastema in the Book of Jubilees"

Joost says:

May 7, 2016 at 12:03 am

Hi Miryam,

Great work.

I`ve got a tricky question.

What is the difference between someone claiming to have religious authority and someone who states he or she is Jewish?

It`s a delicate topic. Sure.

To me it`s the Creator above all, even the birds have authority.

Authority has to be worked out I guess but it`s not easy, no authority would be best. Agreement.

Regards,
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  May 9, 2016 at 11:03 pm
  
  Hi Joost,
  
  First of all, thank you! In answer to your question: while you may feel that birds have authority because they are God’s creations, that’s not the way most people use the word “authority.” I am Jewish, and I hold certain beliefs, but I am not a rabbi and do not claim to be one. I am neither priest nor preacher. I am therefore not what most people would consider a “religious authority” and I do not, in fact, claim to be a “religious authority.” On the contrary – I sometimes discuss specific academic approaches that are not religious in order to explore a certain point or issue.
  
  I hope that this clarifies this issue somewhat. I look forward to your future comments!
  1. Joost says:
    
    June 17, 2016 at 10:27 pm
    
    Miryam,
    
    Maybe I can get away with killing a bird for no reason but if everything is connected then the impact of my actions are absolute. This means that birds have some authority. Could be very little but if I kill the last “Dodo” it could become a problem for me. If we consider this “Dodo” to be the result of evolution going on from the beginning of time then… Who knows. I`m not the Creator. If the last was very passionate about Dodo`s I could possibly be in trouble.
    
    Words and their interpretation, especially Hebrew, can be a challenge. I`m not opposed to Academics at all.
    
    Regarding the topic of religious authority… I`m not going into that here. I have my views. Not that there`s any secret or anything. It`s not really a topic for the comment section. It`s like sending a text message, too little time, too little characters. I leave it to the Academics and I enjoy the sincere interest people can have.
    
    Regards.
Chris says:

May 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm

My pleasure!

The most glaring thing I saw this time is that Jubilees claims that God specifically sent Mastema and his crew to turn away the other nations from serving Him. As far as everything else he does, all is clearly explained by convenience to the author. But what’s convenient about saying God specifically wanted the other nations to turn away? Doesn’t that defeat one of the main purposes of the satan figure to begin with, namely to explain why we still have desire to sin when God is benevolent?

Looking forward to the Belial episode.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 8:34 am
  
  Hi Chris,
  
  Yes, that is a particularly troubling passage. My explanation (and not only mine) is that the author of Jubilees had a very “anti-Gentile nations” stance, particularly regarding foreign rule over the land of Israel and Jerusalem. Because of this, the author exaggerated the un-chosenness of Gentiles in this way, even though it creates theological problems.
  
  Note that for certain authors during this period (and, one assumes, readers as well), the concern is why the speaker/reader/audience, who is righteous, wants to sin. That other guy? He’s evil! (And of course this is even clearer once we talk about Belial.) Unpleasant, but there you have it.
  
  I always enjoy your comments — keep ’em coming!
  
  All the best,
  Miryam
Rocky Jackson says:

May 8, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Oh Goody Can’t wait …..
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 4:53 pm
  
  I hope it lived up to your expectations… 😉
Stephen Fredregill says:

May 11, 2016 at 3:18 pm

Hi, Dr. Brand
First let me say how much I enjoy your talks on second temple literature. I find this subject very fascinating. I wonder when you say that a book , like Enoch, was preserved by the Ethiopian “Church” does that mean that they were Christian. I always associate the word “church” with the Christian tradition. If so, what would a book like Enoch add to their belief system, as opposed to the Jewish system?
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  May 11, 2016 at 11:52 pm
  
  Hi Stephen,
  Thank you! And yes, the question of why the Ethiopian Church, specifically, found Enoch (and Jubilees) so appealing while these books were not considered scriptural in other church traditions is an interesting one. (I may come back to this question in another episode if I have enough to say about it.) The degree to which these two books are incongruous or even incompatible with what became mainstream Judaism ensured that they were not kept within the Jewish tradition.
t langer says:

May 16, 2016 at 1:14 am

Miryam

Thanks for analyzing this word about the figure Satan. As you point out it isnt very precise in the old testament that it is a central figure but many smaller ones who are leading people astray in those biblical stories .

When I listened to other hebrew / jewish sources they also indicate that there was no central Satan character.

You seem to mention that the essenes did have this central character?

However I have read and studied a little on subject from modern day chrsitianity and the Gospels which seem to say that Yeshua( Jesus) stated the term Satan in the dessert at beginning of his minstry and also in other gospels and then speaks about satan in the Revelation book.

I guess as Yeshua was studying in the temple for 30 years with rabbis, teachers of that day and Paul( Rabbi Saul) they must have had some understanding of this central character Satan? or did it get changed for them somehow , since it seems that in the new covenant, new testsimony and modern day Chrsitanity equates Satan with the snake, lucifier, an the older testament references to the evil one or adversary as you called out in your presentation is not necessarily so.

So from the texts you have studied is it Yeshua who is the one who made Satan equated with the old and new testimony or was it the church translators/ interpretors that later on made this equated or equivalent about Satan ?

I also have read the ,I think its called Masoretic bible ,that i was given 50 years ago when i was bar mitzvahed and in this bible in the book of Job the word Satan is used. If this is not a true statement as the central figure as you seem to point out that it isnt the same “being” Satan as used by Christanity then it must surely be a wrong translation and very confusing to try and study the new testimony from the old whch christianity is saying.

My understanding is that Jehovah / Yahweh is not a God of confusion so whatever is different there must be a resolution of the truth, I guess if someone is a believer in the new testsimony and doesnt want to be shaken, loose faith in it that it isnt really true,as Gods truth must be consistent in both testsimonies

I am following you closely to be able to understand how the words used in the old days have the same meaning as today and if the old and new testimonies who speak about the One God have the same truth since i am seeking truth more than trying to seek tradition or mankinds undesrstanding

If after your series of stiudies and oresentaions I hope you will have cleared up for me any ambiguities differences about this subject

Thanks
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 9:12 am
  
  I appreciate your careful listening! I agree that the concept of Satan as it is developed in the New Testament is not found in the Hebrew Bible, at least not to that extent. We do see the seeds of it already in Second Temple literature, though, as you will hear more as we continue in the series. The Satan in Job is actually pretty satanic to my mind, but he is a heavenly adversary with a specific job. He is the closest thing to a New Testament Satan that you will find in the Hebrew Bible, so the translation as “Satan” is not wrong per se. “The Adversary” may have been better, but it also is a little misleading, since the sātān in Job is so clearly the precursor of the later Satan.
  
  I look forward to your future questions!
Charles says:

May 16, 2016 at 4:52 pm

I want to clarify something I see when reading Samuel’s narrative of David’s temptation to number the people. When I read the passage I do not find that it was God (the Lord) who tempted David, but specifically, “the anger of the Lord”. Comparing this narrative with the one from Chronicles, it appears that “the anger of the Lord” is personified.

Who is “the anger”? Chronicles clarifies, that it is a/the Satan.

Now…did you mention that the name Shemecaza(sp) itself means fury? Could we say that a comparable synonym for “the anger” is “the fury”?
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 9:23 am
  
  Hi Charles!
  
  You make an excellent point. We can read Chronicles as interpreting the “anger of God” as the sātān. If we were going to interpret the verse in its “simple meaning,” we would probably translate it as “the anger of God continued to kindle against Israel,” so the verse itself is not a personification. But you are absolutely right that the author Chronicles could read it that way.
  
  Shemihaza doesn’t mean fury – it means “my name has seen” or “he (God) has seen my name/fame.” I guess it would be cool if it did. 😉
Jimspace says:

May 18, 2016 at 10:49 pm

Hi Dr. Miryam Brand,
Thank you for making your audience feel comfortable sharing their responses.
I had three observations thus far I want to share:

(1) Israelites borrowed?
At Exodus 12:35, the Hebrew word sha’al means “ask, beg, borrow,” not just “borrow” which does not read as well as “ask.” Thus, one translation has: “The Israelites did what Moses had told them and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and of gold as well as clothing.”

So is the inclusion of Mastema a response to the one shade of meaning of “borrow” to the exclusion of the other meaning of “ask”?

(2) Zechariah 3:1, 2: I think the LORD or YHWH of verse 2 is the angel of verse 1 representing the LORD. As the NET Bible footnote says: “The juxtaposition of the messenger of the LORD in v. 1 and the LORD in v. 2 shows that here, at least, they are one and the same. See Zech 1:11, 12 where they are distinguished from each other.” This point only makes the verse read smoother, so that God is not invoking himself but rather the angel representing Him is.

(3) 2 Samuel 24:1 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:1:
The NET Bible has a footnote for 2 Samuel 24:1 that says, after referring to 1 Chronicles 21:1, “The Samuel version gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective. The adversary in 1 Chr 21:1 is likely a human enemy, probably a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength.”

So aside from the point you are making, it may be that here God is spoken of as doing what he merely permits to be done by another, as that footnote appears to be positing. Another possibility, however remote, is that the 2 Samuel text is corrupt here (similar to the case with 1 Samuel 11:1), missing an account of the “human enemy” who was behind the census. If so, then the “he” in “he incited David” refers not to God but to this undisclosed “human enemy.” But regardless, we must assume that the Chronicler had our text of 2 Samuel 24:1 before him and interpreted “Satan” or at least, a resister.

How Jubilees continues this interpretive model, as in the case with Moses and the flint knife, is really fascinating.
1. Miryam Brand says:
  
  July 4, 2016 at 9:35 am
  
  Thanks for your thoughtful comments!
  (1) The standard meaning of “sha’al” in this context is “borrowed” and that seems to be what they are doing, particularly given the Egyptians willingness to part with expensive items to a nation that is supposedly going to return in three days. You can interpret is as “asked” but in this case that is a long shot — seeing hooves and thinking zebras, essentially.
  General comment regarding your comments #2-3: NET seems to be taking a harmonizing approach, trying to make everything “work together,” so there is considerable interpretation.
  (2) Here I have to disagree with NET. The actual NAME of the Lord is never used alone to designate an angel. There is no such thing as “juxtaposing” the angel of the Lord with the Lord himself. If it’s using God’s name directly, as it does in Zechariah 3:2, it means God, however problematic that might seem to us.
  (3) This is NET’s interpretation, and it is an interesting one. It’s a good attempt at harmonizing the texts, although my approach is different, as you have heard. I don’t like to posit corruption of a text unless there is real linguistic or textual evidence. (Making me uncomfortable doesn’t count. 😉 )
  
  I really appreciate your comment and thoughtful listening — please keep them coming!
  1. Jimspace says:
    
    July 8, 2016 at 9:45 pm
    
    Thank you Dr. Brand, and I appreciate your courtesy.
    
    Regarding #1, שָׁאַל (sha’al) seems like a very convenient word now! With the Egyptians understanding “borrow,” the Israelites could turn around and clarify they meant “ask.” I never would have known that! Also, I wonder if the Egyptians tagged those items with their names so that when they were returned, there would be a greater chance of being returned to their proper owners.
    
    Regarding #2, I’m interested in your thoughts on Exodus 23:21.
    Here, an angel is given the divine name to act as God’s representative. So I think this angel could then arguably go by the divine name. As the NET Bible footnote says in part: “Driver quotes McNeile as saying, “The ‘angel’ is Jehovah Himself ‘in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose.’””
    1. Miryam Brand says:
      
      July 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm
      
      My pleasure.
      
      Regarding #1 — Well, it works for Hebrew, but one assumes they would have asked in Egyptian! But I love the idea of them tagging the items — I guess they could have stuck some papyrus on in its “gooey” stage. 🙂
      
      Regarding #2 — It literally says “My name is within him.” This begs interpretation, of course, but I have always understood it as implying that the angel has been given divine authority. (And according to the following verse, it seems that God does, in fact, speak through him.)

Comments are closed.

Share this:

Related