ColossiansOne

Side by side, from the sources

Belial vs Satan

These two are identified with one another in the record, which is not the same as being the same figure. Belial is a common noun for worthlessness before it is a person; the equation is Christian. Recorded by Wikidata (P460); not asserted by a text this corpus carries.

Demonic · Goetic Spirit · c. 400 BCE

Belial

also called Beliall, Beliar, Bofi

In the Hebrew Bible beliya'al is not a name but a word meaning worthlessness; by 2 Corinthians it is a person, and by the Goetia a king in a chariot of fire handing out senatorships. The text says he was created next after Lucifer and fell among the first, and will not answer truly without gifts.

Alignment
Infernal
Rank
King
First attested
Hebrew Bible & Deuterocanon · c. 900–100 BCE
Named there as
Belial
Texts naming it
7
Powers attributed
5

Demonic · Infernal Court · c. 400 BCE

Satan

also called ha-Satan, The Adversary, Shaitan, The Devil, Satanas, Shaytan, Sam Hill, Lord of This World

Not originally a name but an office — 'the accuser'. In Job he is a member of the divine court doing his job; only later does he become the enemy.

Alignment
Fallen
Rank
Adversary
First attested
Hebrew Bible & Deuterocanon · c. 900–100 BCE
Named there as
ha-Satan
Texts naming it
5
Powers attributed
5

Where do they actually overlap?

Common questions

Are Belial and Satan the same figure?

These two are identified with one another in the record, which is not the same as being the same figure. Belial is a common noun for worthlessness before it is a person; the equation is Christian. Recorded by Wikidata (P460); not asserted by a text this corpus carries. ColossiansOne records the link rather than asserting the identity: where texts disagree about whether two names denote one figure, the disagreement is what gets shown.

Which is older, Belial or Satan?

Both are first attested in the same period, around c. 400 BCE.

Do any texts name both Belial and Satan?

Yes — 3 texts name both. A single text naming both figures is the strongest evidence available here that its author treated them as distinct, whatever later writers did with the pair.