from Henry Ansgar Kelly's "The Devil, Demonology and Witchcraft"
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Rise of Satan

	In the early stages of the development of monotheism
among the Israelites, the alien gods encountered in Israel's
contacts with other peoples were as a rule not denied
existence. But they were reinterpreted as "sons of God" on
an angelic level, that is, members of the divine council of
Yahweh, who from their subordinate position assisted him
in ruling the universe. It is in this context that "the satan"
of Job must be understood; he is no fallen spirit but a being
with the same standing as the other sons of God who present
themselves before Yahweh (Job 1, 6). The word *satan* is
a common noun here; it has the fundamental meaning of
"adversary," and is used of human beings as well as of
spirits, usually to refer to an opposition arranged or
sanctioned by God against men. The earliest application of
the word to a spiritual -- that is, nonhuman or supernatural
-- agency occurs in the book of Numbers. Here we read
in the Hebrew text that the *malak* (in Greek, *angelos*
or messenger) of Yahweh, that is, Yahweh himself, tells
Balaam that because he has proceeded against his will, he
has come as a satan against him. (Num 22, 22. 32).

	In the second book of Samuel it is recorded that the
anger of Yahweh became kindled against Israel and caused
David to number his subjects, thereby laying the nation
open to divine punishment (2 Sam. 24, 1). But when the
episode is retold in the first book of Chronicles, the author
falls in with a tendency observed elsewhere in Jewish
thought, namely, to stress God's transcendence above
mundance activity, especially if it involved deeds that
could be construed as not meeting the highest moral
standards. He therefore says that it was "a satan" or even
"Satan" (that is, he may mean it as a proper name) who
urged David to take the census (1 Chr. 21, 1). It is not
possible to determine whether the satan is considered
evil here -- that is, as unjustly opposed to David (or to
God). There is no reason to suppose that such is the
case, but it is easy to see how a figure of this sort could
come to be regarded as evil. Already in the book of Job
the satan is portrayed as cynical and skeptical of the
virtue of men and almost unethical in his efforts to expose
what he considers to be the fair-weather quality of Job's
uprightness.

	In the pre-Christian Alexandrian rendition of the Old
Testament into Greek (the Septuagint), the satans of Job
and Chronicles, as well as the one who appears in Zechariah
as a prosecuting attorney against the just priest Joshua
(Zech. 3, 1-2), are translated as *ho diabolus*, "the devil"
(from the verb *diabalein*, "to oppose"), a word that can
mean "slanderer" as well as "adversary." In the book of
Wisdom, a late work appearing only in the Septuagint, we
read that a *diabolos* or adversary who was motivated by
envy first brought death into the world (Wis. 2, 24). The
*diabolos* referred to here may be the serpent in the
garden of Eden or the envious Cain, who commited the first
murder. The latter interpretation was hte one adopted by
Clement of rome in the first century in his letter to the
Corinthians (3-4). But it may also refer to a suprahuman
being whose ill-will brought mankind to grief. The text
was certainly interpreted this way, eventually, at least,
when it was caught up in the movement to attribute all
evils to the instigation of a "satanic" spirit. Illustrations
of the process can be found not only in the bible but also
and more especially in apocryphal and rabbinical literature.

	It became common to suppose that such a spirit
entered into the garden of Eden, not on a divine commission,
but for his own purposes, and made use of the serpent, or
even took on the form of a serpent, in order to tempt Eve.
And the same spirit, or one similar to him, figures in many
accounts of subsequent Old Testament episodes, including
the story of Cain and Abel. The New Testament seems to
reflect some of these notions when it speaks of the devil as
a sinner, a liar, and a murderer from the beginning, and of
Cain and other sinners as children of the devil (Jn. 8, 44;
1 Jn. 3, 8-12). But more precisely these passages seem to
refer to the rabbinical interpretation of the Genesis account
of the birth of Cain (Gen. 4, 1), where the name Cain (*Qayin*)
is explained by Eve, who says she has acquired (*qanah*) a
man with (the help of Yahweh). The rabbis substituted Satan
for Yahweh {NOTE: See Nils Alstrup Dahl, "Der Erstgeborene
Satans und der Vater des Teufels," *Apophoreta* (Festchrift
fur Ernst Haenchen, Berlin 1964) 70-84.}, just as the
chronicler did in the matter of David's impulse to take a
census. In this view, therefore, Satan was regarded as the
natural father of Cain. As we shall see, there was another
much more prominent tradition that considered it possible
for angels to beget children upon human females.

	In his appearances as tempter, the satan just as often
fails as succeeds. Job, of course, is the prime scriptural
example of the upright man whose faith remains unshaken
when tested by the satan, but in para-biblical literature
Abraham is constantly portrayed as enduring the same
process. According to Genesis it was God who tempted
Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his son (Gen. 22, 1),
but the later interpretations usually attribute the idea for
the trial to the suggestion of a satanic assistant.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"The Devil, Demonology, and Witchcraft: The Development
 of Christian Beliefs in Evil Spirits", by Henry Ansgar Kelly,
 Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968; pp. 5-7.
______________________________________________________________


3. The Temptation of Jesus

	In a particularly interesting work of the later first
century A.D. known as "The Apocalypse of Abraham" there
is a tempation of Abraham near the beginning of his "public
life" which resembles Mark's account of Christ's temptation
in the desert. {NOTE: "The Apocalypse of Abraham", (ed.
G.H. Box, London 1919) 43-55; cf. Mk. 1. 9-13.} There are
other striking literary parallels to all three synoptic versions
of Christ's temptation by the devil, even apart from the
obvious analogy to the Old Testament accounts of the trials
of the Israelites in the desert. For instance, Satan is
sometimes portayed as engaging Abraham in a scriptural
dispute in his effort to dissuade him from sacrificing Isaac.
This argumentative feature is also observable in stories of
Moses and the angel of death (whose role is sometimes
played by the devil). In one account, the angel of death
quotes the psalms, and Moses answers each of his three
attempts by citing Deuteronomy {NOTE: "Deuteronomy
Rabbah" 11, 5 ("Midrash Rabbah" 7, tr. J. Rabbinowitz,
London, 1961) 176.}, a pattern followed by the devil and
Christ in the temptations described in Matthew and Luke
{NOTE: In Mt. 4, 1-11 and Lk. 4, 1-13 the devil quotes
Ps. 91, 11-12, and Christ responds to the temptations by
citing Deut. 8, 3; 6, 16; and 6, 13.}. We might note that one
version of the devil's disputatious attempt to secure the
body of Moses is recorded in the New Testament (Jude 9).
Here the author commends the archangel Michael for not
insulting the devil; instead he asks God to pass judgement
in the matter and rebuke his opponent, just as the angel
of Yahweh did in Zechariah (Zech. 3, 2). This passage in
Jude is a borrowing from an apocryphal work called "The
Assumption of Moses" {NOTE: See R.H. Charles, "The
Assumption of Moses" (London 1897) 105-10.}.

	Some commentators have remarked that aside from
the temptations in the desert the opposition that Christ
meets with in his public life is due to the direct activity
of human adversaries, even through these persons are
often linked to the devil in some way. And it has been
suggested that since the temptation in the desert was not
a witnessed event, as the gospel episodes purport to be,
the accounts of Matthew and Luke are a dramatic
theological expansion of events recorded elsewhere in the
gospels, especially three closely related episodes in John
(Jn. 6-7). We read there that Jesus fled an offered kingship,
that on the next day he rebuked the people's implicit desire
for more bread, and that his relatives urged him to go to
Judea for the feast of tabernacles to manifest his works.
This hypothesis of the non-historical, or metahistorical,
character of the temptation in the desert is further
strengthened by the presence of formal elements and
literary conventions in the account, some of which we have
just seen.


4. Other New Testament Themes

	In our history of satan we saw that after he had
become involved in unsavory employments, he began to be
considered reprehensible for them. And once wickedness
or guilt was ascribed to him, the next logical step would be
to assign him a reckoning and punishment. Furthermore,
it became a chracteristic of the coming messianic age and of
times of peace that the satan was put out of the way. This
last point is illustrated several times in the early apocryphon
of "Jubilees" where on one occasion Mastema (another form
of the word *satan*) may be referring to his own future
judgement (10, 8). These developments are perhaps best
shown in the New Testament itself, where we see that Jesus
has come to cast out "the ruler of this world" (Jn. 12, 31; cf.
Rev. 12, 10); and according to the Apocalypse the devil will
be bound for a time in the abyss of fire and then eventually
cast forever into the lake of fire and brimstone. (Rev. 20, 2-10).

	By the time of the Christian era, stories about fallen
angels had evolved, but the only account of such a fall in the
New Testament is in the epistles of Jude and 2 Peter.
According to this version, which is taken from the pseud-
epigraphous "Book of Enoch" {NOTE: I Enoch, 10, 4-5 and
*passim* (Charles, "Apoc and Pseud" II 193 etc.).}, a number
of the angels lusted after daughters of men before the flood
and sinned with them. As a punishment they were chained
in dark caves, to be kept in this state of imprisonment until
judgement day, when they were to be consigned to the abyss
of fire (Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2, 4). Thus they were not allowed to
commit further evil among men. The earliest appearance of
this story, which is a commentary on an obscure episode in
Genesis (Gen 6, 1-4), seems to have been in an ancient "Book
of Noah" (dated before 166 B.C.), fragments of which have
been preserved in the "Book of Enoch". It has a number of
striking similarities to Greek mythology, to which it may be
indebted {NOTE: Cf. T.F. Glasson, "Greek Influence in Jewish
Eschatology, with Special Reference to the Apocalypses and
Pseudepigraphs" (London 1961) 62ff. For these and other
possible foreign influences on the development of Jewish
angelology and demonology, see D.S. Russell, "The Method and
Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 B.C. - A.D. 100" (London
1964) 257-62. An Iranian impetus seems especially likely.}.
Almost all the early Fathers of the Church accepted this view
of the angels' fall through lust, though they believed the devil
first fell (sinned) in tempting Eve. Origen appears to be the
first to suggest a fall before man came onto the scene.

	In the New Testament, there is no indication as to the
origin of Satan; his fall "like lightning" in Luke (10, 18) and
the fall of "the dragon and his angels" in the Apocalypse (12,
7-9) refer, as appears from their contexts, to the messianic
or eschatological overthrow of Satan and not to any promordial
sin and punishment of the angels. The reference that Christ
makes to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels in
Matthew 25, 41 may of course be read as referring to the
punishment to be undergone by the devil for his crimes
against mankind; but it may also be interpreted to mean that
the devil and his angels are placed in charge of the fiery
torments and will act as the executors of the punishments of
wicked men, which is the meaning suggested in other texts
{NOTE: Cf. 1 Cor. 5, 5; 1 Tim. 1, 20; 3, 6; 1 *Enoch* 53, 3;
"Damascus Document A" 8, 2, in A. Dupont-Summer, "The
Essene Writings from Qumran" (tr. G. Vermes, Cleveland 1962).}.

	In spite of the fact that the devil is mentioned in the
Matthew passage and in the Apocalypse together with "his
angels," he is always portrayed as a unique being in the New
Testament, and he does not seem to be regarded simply as
"first among equals." Moreover, he is not depicted as a fallen
and punished angel, but as the ruler of the world, whose
reign must give way to that of Christ. In the Apocalypse, Satan
appears in his Old Testament position in heaven, where he
brings accusations night and day against the Christians (Rev. 12,
10) until his eventual expulsion by Michael and his angels. Here
too Satan is described with attributes of such primitive chaos-
monsters as Rahab and Leviathan, which were not doubt
associated with him because of their role in Job {NOTE: See Job.
3, 8; 9, 13; 41, 1 ff.}, and perhaps also because of their prophetic
connection with the world powers opposed to Israel. We saw
above that Isaiah compared Egypt to Leviathan and the dragon,
and in the book of Daniel four great beasts that came out of the
sea represent successive reigning empires; in the Apocalypse
the same kind of imagery is applied to the Roman dominion.

	There is, then, only one devil in the New Testament, and
he is looked upon as the author or instigator of evil for mankind,
both moral and physical. He not only entices men to do wrong,
but also seems to have control over diseases (Acts 10, 38) and
to direct the unclean spirits or demons {NOTE: Lk. 10, 17-19;
13, 11-17; Mt. 12, 22-29; Mk. 3, 22-27.}.

	These unclean possessing spirits, which receive treatment
only from the synoptic writers, are mysterious beings. They are
difficult to connect with any of the Jewish traditions, except in
some stray details. Their origin is never hinted at; they show no
affinity to the evil spirits that issued from the bodies of the
giants, who themselves were the offspring of the union between
the angels and the daughters of men. However, the accounts of
the Gerasene demoniac manifest a belief, at least on the part of
the demoniac (or "Legion"), that the possessing demons are to
suffer a fate similar to that of the spirits of of the giants, by
being cast into "the abyss" (Mt. 8, 29; Lk. 8, 31).

	The gospel demons have none of the characteristics of the
devil himself, except perhaps for their knowledge of or the
interest in the Messiah. Unlike the devil and unlike the giant-
ghosts, they are not tempters; they have no moral direction,
but simply cause physical and mental disturbances by
indwelling. This latter function in turn is not a characteristic 
of the devil. English bibles that speak of "driving out devils" 
are faultily translated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 7-11.
________________


	The fall of man did, of course, eventually find a place in
the ideology of baptism. In the earliest baptistery yet
discovered, that of Dura-Europos in East Syria (second quarter
of the third century), there is a picture of Adam and Eve and
the serpent by the tree of knowledge {NOTE: See P.V.C. Baur,
"Paintings in the Christian Chapel," "The Excavations at Dura-
Europus 5" (ed. M.I. Rostovtzeff, New Haven 1934) 257-58.}.
There is no indication that the serpent is regarded as Satan,
but by that time the identification had become virtually
universal. Two centuries later, in the baptismal rituals of
East Syria and nearby Cilicia, as described in the homilies of
Narsai and Theodore of Mopsuestia, respectively, Satan is
envisaged as having received the right to tyrannize mankind
because of Adam's sin. Accordingly, the baptismal ceremony
is preceded by a trial in which Satan is pictured as coming to
demand justice, only to be reminded each time by the
candidates' "lawyers" that in unjustly condemning Christ to
death he lost control over the whole of humanity.{NOTE: "The
Liturgical Homilies of Narsai" (tr. R.H. Connolly, Texts and
Studies 8, 1, Cambridge 1909) 39; "Les homelies catechetiques
de Theodore de Mopsueste 12, 18-26 (tr. R. Tonneau with
R. Devreesse, Vatican City 1949).}

	We see here a variant of the "rights of the devil" theory
first hinted at by Irenaeus in the second century and
developed by later Fathers, notably Origen and Augistine.
According to this fanciful conception of Christ exercised pious
fraud upon Satan whereby he nullified the conditions that gave
him authority to rule over the world of men. He either induced
him to exceed his authority, as in the rituals just described, or
he managed to deliver to him a ransom of sufficient worth to
effect the release of his captives.

	Although the ministers who act as lawyers in Theodore's
rite are called exorcists, they do not perform a real exorcism
but simply explain the rights of the candidates in the light of
the redemption and ask God as judge to agree with them and
deny the devil's petition. The candidates are then enrolled
and proceed to "renounce Satan, all his angels, all his cult, 
all his illusion, and all his pomp."
------------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 37-8.
________________


V DEMONIC TEMPTATION

	Later theologians have assumed that the devil and his
demons persecute mankind in two radically different ways.
One of these ways, demonic possession and the corporal
affliction of individuals, is assumed to make extraordinary
demands upon a demon's resources, apart from the fact
that it is only very rarely permitted by God. The other way,
temptation, is, we are assured, the demon's ordinary mode
of operation; here they are supposedly able to function with
a great deal of freedom. It is on this premise that
F.X. Maquart, for instance, bases his study of possession and
exorcism in [from prev. NOTE: F.X. Maquart, "Exorcism and
Diabolical Manifestation," "Satan" (New York 1952) 178.}. He
believes that possession is preternatural -- that it involves
diabolical marvels -- whereas temptation can be caused by
the evil spirits without resorting to the miraculous.

	This distinction, however, has little or no basis in
patristic or scholastic theology. Specifically, as we shall see,
it is not found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, upon
whom Maquart professes to rely philosophically and theolo-
gically.

	The distinction may have originated partially as a
result of the Protestant reevaluation of the function of evil
spirits. We saw that Reginald Scot completely denied the
ability of evil spirits to act upon the bodies of men, since
it would be a kind of miracle surpassing the capabilities of
the spiritual nature of demons. He did, however, admit that
they could act upon men spiritually by the invisible and
imperceptible communication of evil suggestions, in the way,
for instance, that Satan tempted Eve by "creeping into her
consciousness."


1. Early Theories

	The New Testament also provides a very clear
distinction between possession and temptation, since, as we
have had occasion to emphasize before, the demons or
unclean spirits that possess men's bodies in the gospels do
not operate as tempters; the latter function is reserved
for the devil himself, who took this characteristic directly
from the satan of the Old Testament, in the book of Job and
first book of Chronicles. When he emerges as the anti-
messianic ruler of the world in the gospels and is portrayed
as coming to tempt Christ, he is specifically designated as
"the Tempter" (Mt. 4, 3).

	The Temptation of Christ, we saw, follows the
standard Jewish literary pattern of the just man who
remains faithful to the divine mission in the face of
temptation. For the purposes of dramatization the devil
seemingly appears in visible form -- the only time he does
so in the New Testament. In the more historical episodes,
as we pointed out, Christ is directly tempted or thwarted
by human adversaries and not by the devil. But occasionally
the influence of the devil is suggested. A particularly
striking example occurs in the narrative of the Last Supper,
when Satan is said to put the idea of betraying Jesus into
Judas' heart. (Jn. 13, 2).

	Once the devil and the demons had been united in
patristic thought in terms of mythical fallen angels, the
distinction between the demons as possessing spirits and
the devil as tempter was no longer clear. The Jewish-
Christian theory of vice-demons added a moral dimension
to the disturbances caused by the unclean spirits of the
gospels; and Origen specifically stated that the passions
caused by the demons in charge of the various vices could
result in madness, that is, in demonic possession of the
fullest corporal sense ("De princ." 3, 2, 2). Furthermore,
Origen adopted the Qumran theme of two angels as used
by the Jewish-Christian "Shepherd" of Hermas, according
to which each individual is attended by two angels:
"whenever good thoughts arise in our hearts, they are
suggested by the good angel; but when of a contrary kind,
they are the instigation of the evil angel" (*ibid*. 3, 2, 4).
This tradition of a "guardian demon" for each man lived on
for centuries after, and is found, for example, in Peter
Lombard in the Middle Ages and Francis Suarez in the
Renaissance {NOTE: See Sebastion Weber, "De singulorum
hominum daemone impugnatore" (Rome 1938).}.
---------------------------------------------------------
Ibid., pp. 97-99.
_________________

EOF