Final answer:
Bullock likely likened the Old Testament concept of Satan to a being within a divine order where the deity does not possess the absolute characteristics of being all-knowing, all-good, or all-powerful. Thus, the problem of evil as understood in later Christian theology does not arise in the same way within the early Jewish narrative where Satan's role and the deity's power are more ambiguous.
Step-by-step explanation:
To understand what Bullock likens the concept of Satan in the Old Testament (OT) to, we must consider the broader context of Judeo-Christian beliefs and the evolution of the concept of evil and its personification within these religions. In the OT, the figure of Satan is not the all-powerful nemesis of God as portrayed in later Christian theology. Instead, Satan appears as a more ambiguous figure, at times performing the role of an accuser or adversary, without the full embodiment of evil that later interpretations ascribe to him.
In early Jewish tradition, as reflected in the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, the representation of deity appears as one that is not all-knowing, all-good, or all-powerful. This contrasts with later theological developments where the deity is seen as omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. The Hebrew deity's inability to prevent the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, or to foresee or stop the rebellion of Lucifer, suggests a more limited power than what is attributed to God in later Christian thought.
Consequently, it can be inferred that Bullock might analogize the OT concept of Satan to a lesser being, one who is part of a divine order where the deity itself does not possess the absolute characteristics commonly ascribed in later theodicies. Therefore, the early biblical stories do not grapple with the problem of evil in the same way as later Christian theology does, because the divine attributes and the role of Satan in the Hebrew narrative do not necessitate the same contradictions encountered in later interpretations.