I’m not sure the use of Qohelet in Ecclesiastes is parallel since we are not quite sure of what it is; is it an anagram? an epithet? etc.

What I find interesting is that “STN” does become a personal name in later usage. Perhaps as early as 1Chron 21:1 where it doesn’t have the article.

Putting aside the issue of the definite article, there really are no texts in the Hebrew Bible that clearly talk about a chief bad guy demon. The snake in Genesis is not Satan (at least not according to the Hebrew Bible; that the NT and early Christianity interpreted it in that manner is another issue altogether), nor do Isa 14 or Ezek 28 talk of the Devil. You have to wait until some of the Second Temple literature like Enoch before you get a more developed demonology.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job1.pdf

The provided translation for Job 1:6 appears to contain the following equivalencies:

bni e·aleim = sons-of the·Elohim
e·shtn = the·adversary

Curiously, the given translation capitalizes “Elohim” even with the article: “the·Elohim”.

There also appears to be an extended equivalency in the first chapter of Job. As far as Job was concerned, it seems that “Elohim” (without an article) whom he was “fearing of” in verse 1 is the same as “Yahweh”, who claims Job as “servant-of·me” in verse 8.

The “sons-of the·Elohim” presented themselves before “Yahweh” in verse 6. The article in “sons-of the·Elohim” doesn’t seem necessarily instructive to me. English uses “helper words” to make sentences sound better without necessarily changing the meaning of any of the other words. Are there also “helper words” in written (if not spoken) Hebrew? Is such the case for the article in “sons-of the·Elohim”? If so, might it not similarly be the case in “e·shtn = the·adversary”?

Referring to oneself as “The Tyler” would sound weird to native speakers of English. But so does the “servant-of·me” in a literal translation of Job 1:8.

The same Strong’s number, 430, is used for “Elohim” in Gen 1:1 and for “the·Elohim” in Job 1:6.

Strong _did_ bother to catalog every English helper word, yet apparently made no distinction between “the·Elohim” and “Elohim”. Does this indicate that the presence or lack of an article with a proper name in the Hebrew text may be more stylistic than substantive?

A grammatical search in Accordance verifies what you say, but only because it does not consider our instances in Job to be an example of a personal name. If you want another example, one equally contentious, then how about “the Qoheleth”? Despite the fact that this word is given the definite article in some verses, other verses would appear to be utilising it as a personal name. You can argue that it is definitely not a personal name (as some do) on the basis of the fact that it sometimes has the definite article, but this is circular logic.

Thoughts?

There are things in Scripture which challenge both Jewish and Christian received doctrine and by confronting the Scriptures as what they are and not what we want them to be we can wrestle with God and so BE Israel. Becoming better Jews and Christians respectively.

Shalom from Dunedin, New Zealand