From "The Encyclopedia of Religion"
----------------------------------------

_SATAN._ Although the name *Satan* sometimes has been connected with
the Hebrew verb *sut*, which means "to roam" (perhaps suggesting that
Satan acts as God's spy), it is more commonly derived from the root
*satan*, which means "to oppose, to plot against." The word thus
basically connotes an adversary. Its use in the Hebrew scriptures
(Old Testament) covers three types of beings as opponents: (1) a human
being, as in 2 *Samuel* 19:22, (2) an angelic being, as in *Numbers*
22:22-35, and (2) a particular adversary, as in *Zechariah* 3:1-2,
where *satan* functions as a common rather than a proper noun and does
not refer to "the Satan," but where the idea of a being having a
distinct personality is still conveyed. This supernatural being not
only acts as an adversary: his name itself means "an obstructor"
(Russell, 1977, p. 190). In the New Testament, Satan as the Devil is
called the "great dragon" and "ancient serpent" (*Rv.* 12:9).
However, while echoes of a Canaanite myth of God's conflict with the
dragon and the sea may be found in the Old Testament, Satan is not
associated with these references but is clearly mentioned in three
contexts (except for *Psalms* 109:6), in which he is inferred). The
first of these contexts is in the *Book of Job*, where Satan belongs
to the court of God and, with God's permission, tests Job. By
contrast, in a second occurence (*Zec.* 3), Satan, on his own
initiative, opposes Joshua. The third passage in the Old Testament
in which Satan figures (*1 Chr.* 21:1) is, according to George A.
Barton (1911),

	a further witness to the fact that Satan is now held to be
	responsible for evil. The chapter gives an account of
	David's census and the punishment for it, and is dependent
	on 2 Samuel 24; but whereas it is said in Samuel that
	Jahweh said to David, "Go, number Israel" because he was
	angry with the people, it is said in Chronicles that Satan
	"moved David to number Israel." Satan is clearly a
	development out of the group of spirits which were in
	earlier days thought to be from Jahweh's court, members
	of which were sent upon errands of disaster to men. (p. 598)

Scholars seem somewhat divided on the question of the extent to which
evil may be associated with Satan in the Old Testament. It has been
argued that Satan "was not evil but became evil by identification with
his functions" in the course of time (Robbins, 1966, p. 130). One
might distinguish here between two approaches toward Satan in the Old
Testament. According to one approach, represented by Giovanni Papini,
Jeffrey Burton Russell, John Noel Schofield, Gustav Davidson, and
others, Satan is still not quite God's adversary, only his minion.
Other scholars, such as Edward Langton and Ronald S. Wallace, see a
more definite movement toward an association of evil with Satan. But
the transition from the *satan* of the Old Testament, which prefigures
the Devil in some way, to the *Satanas* of the New Testament, who *is*
the Devil, is clear enough.

The figure of Satan in noncanonical Hebrew literature emerges as an
adversary of God, but, as such apocalyptic works as *Jubilees*, the
*Testament of Reuben*, the *Book of the Secrets of Enoch (2 Enoch)*,
and the Qumran documents sho, he is also the leader of the fallen
angels. It should be noted, however, that although Satan comes to
stand for evil, in 

	Hebrew thought in the Old Testament there is no suggestion
	of any dualism, whether temporal, spatial or ethical... any
	philosophy of evil culled from the Bible must find room for
	evil within the concept of God and within his purpose.

This also holds true for much apocalyptic literature; signs of temporal,
spatial, and ethical dualism began to emerge only in later Judaism. At
the temporal level, the view is developed that history consists of two
ages. The present age is marked by the Devil's power, which will be
nullified at the end of the present age when the divine age is ushered
in. At the spatial level, the kingdoms of the Lord and Satan are
contrasted as being in cosmic opposition; at the ethical level, man is
seen as being affected by sin, which will be overcome in a divine
denouement. Persian influence has been traced in this movement toward
dualism. But Hebrew and Christian thought stopped short of specifying
that the Devil is entirely evil in essence. This tension between
explicit monotheism and implicit dualism became characteristic of
Judaism and Christianity, as contrasted with Zoroastrianism,
Manichaeism, and gnosticism. "The Devil," as Luther said, "is God's
Devil."

Christianity synthesized Greek and Jewish concepts of the Devil. The
word *devil* is actually derived from the Greek *diabolos*, which has
the dual sense of "accuser" and "obstructor." If the Old Testament,
according to later tradition, implicates Satan in the fall of man, the
New Testament refers clearly to the fall of Satan himself in 
*2 Peter* 2:4 and in *Revelation* 12:7-9. Again, in contrast with the
Old Testament, the power of the Devil is often mentioned (e.g., 
*Lk.* 4:6). He is also identified with other names: *Beelzebul* ("lord
of flies"), *Beelzebub* ("lord of dung"), and, with somewhat less
critical certainty, *Lucifer*.

In the ministry of Jesus Christ, 

	there is a constant campaign against Satan from the temptation
	after Jesus' Baptism until his death on the cross, and, in
	each act of healing or exorcism, there is anticipated the
	ultimate defeat of Satan and the manifestation of the power
	of the new age,

as is the case in Mark's gospel, the central par of which calls upon
Jesus' disciples

	to participate through suffering in his own confrontation
	with the power of Satan 		(Davis, 1984, p. 952).

Indeed, Mark and Paul are more inclined to use the name *Satan*; other
New Testament writers prefer other forms. Nevertheless, the motif of
both the original (*Rom.* 16:20) and the ultimate and eschatological
fall of Satan (*Rv.* 20:2, 7-10) undergirds the New Testament, though
the latter is more prominent. The Devil is the lord of both *aion*
and *kosmos*, words used in the context of sinful human society and
probably suggestive of the dichotomy of spirit and matter in Greek
thought. Russell summarized the chief characteristics of the Devil in
the New Testament as follows (1977, p. 256): (1) he is the personifi-
cation of evil; (2) he physically attacks or possesses humans; (3) he
tempts people to sin in order to destroy them or recruit them in his
struggle against God; (4) he accuses and punishes sinners; (5) he
leads a host of evil spirits, fallen angels, or demons; (6) he has
assimilated many evil qualities of ancient destructive nature spirits
or ghosts; (7) he will rule this world until the coming of the kingdom
of God, and in the meantime will be engaged in constant warfare against
Christ; (8) he will be defeated by Christ at the end of the world.
Above all, he is identified with temptation and death, like his
counterpart Mara in Buddhism.

In early Christianity it was believed that the death of Jesus redeemed
mankind from the Devil, who had been overcome in his own house by
Christ's descent in hell (*Mt.* 12:29). Thus, although the idea of
the final conquest of evil or the Devil is not unique to Christianity
but is also present in Zoroastrianism and Judaism,

	the unique note in the Christian message is the announcement
	that Satan is already being defeated in Christ
				(Ling, 1961, p. 102).

Despite this general picture, however, Russell notes that the position
of the Devil remains anomalous in the New Testament, and the

	elements of cosmic dualism in the synoptic gospels are
	much stronger in Luke than in Mark and Matthew and stronger
	in John than in any of the synoptics
				(1977, p. 232).


Satan's name appears as *Shaytan* in the Qur'an, although it is not
clear whether the name is Arabic or not. Shaytan shares certain
functions of the Judeo-Christian Satan, such as leading people astray
(4:83), but there is a significant extension of this view in that
Satan is accused of tampering with divine verbal revelation (22:52).
However, it is in his role as Iblis (2:34, etc.) that al-Shaytan is
most striking (Watt, 1970), p. 155). He is deposed for refusing to
bow before man as the other angels had done, but is allowed, after his
refusal, to tempt mortals. According to an established tradition,
"Satan sits in the blood of Adam's children" and thus "could be equated 
with *nafs*, the lower principle, the flesh" (Schimmel, 1975, p. 193).

In Islam, the figure of Satan achieves a mystical dimension not found
in Judaism and Christianity, where the Devil is more or less exclusively
assocated with evil and the underworld. This association may help

	account for the Western tradition that Satan is not only
	Lord of evil and of death but is also associated with
	fertility and sexuality, a trait evident in the witches'
	orgy and in the horns the Devil often wears
				(Russell, 1977, p. 64).

Satan plays an important role in the folklore of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. Already by the end of the apocalyptic period he had been
identified with the following mythological themes in Jewish demonology
and folklore: darkness, the underworld, and the air, sexual temptation
and molestation, the goat, the lion, the frog or toad, and the serpent
or dragon. In rabbinic folklore, Satan is not linked with the legend
of Lilith, but he appears to Eve as a beautiful angel, and tempts Rabbi
'Aqiva' ('Aqiva' ben Yosef, first-second century CE) in the form of a
woman. According to the Talmud he was created on the sixth day of
creation. His great rival was Michael, the leader of the angels. Satan
was deemed capable of assuming any form, and there are accounts in
hagiographic literature of his grappling physically with Christian 
saints. 

Both similarities and differences may be noted between Christian and
Islamic perceptions regarding Satan. One difference, according to
A.J. Wensinck (1971, p. 669) lies in the fact that

	Muslim thought remains undecided as to whether he was an
	angel or a *djinn* and does not pronounce an opinion on
	the possibility of his being 'a fallen angel.'

A similarity is found in Satan's characteristic ability of assuming
any shape, or none at all. His ability to appear as an angel, the
dreaded "mid-day Devil" of the *Psalms*, was what made Mary fearful
at the Annunciation. As a *hatif* (one who is heard but not seen),
Satan similarly almost beguiled 'Ali into not washign the body of
the Prophet, until 'Ali was corrected by another *hatif*. Thus the
imperative of distinguishing between good and bad spirits due to
Satan's operations is common to both Christianity and Islam.

The serpent or snake is perhaps the best-known symbol associated
with Satan. *Genesis* (3:1ff.) mentions the serpent but not Satan;
in *Romans* (16:20), however, Paul suggests that the serpent was
Satan, an association already made in apocalyptic literature. This
would imply that Satan tempted Adam, but the consensus of early
Christian tradition was that Satan fell after Adam (Russell, 1977,
p. 232). There may be good reason for believing that not until
Origen in the third century CE was it clearly established that Satan's
sin was pride, that he fell before Adam's creation, and that he was
the serpent in the garden of Eden. Agobard of Lyons (ninth century)
saw Satan as seducing Eve through the serpent, and Peter Lombard
(eleventh century) saw him as becoming the serpent. In a Jewish text,
the *Apocalypse of Moses*, it is written that the serpent who tempted
Eve was merely the tool of Satan, who, as a shining angel, tempted
the serpent to share his envy of Adam and Eve. In later Jewish
literature, the identities of Satan and the serpent coalesce, or are
closely associated with one another.

Satan is referred to by two different names in the Qur'anic account
of creation: he is called Iblis when he refuses to bow down before
Adam, and *al-Shaytan* ("the demon") when he is the tempter (Wensinck,
1971, p. 669). Though there is no allusion to the serpent in the
creation account in the Qur'an, the term *shaytan* was probably applied
by the Arabs to serpents (Langton, 1969, p. 9). Once Satan had been
identified with *nafs*, or man's lower appetites, according to
Annemarie Schimmel, the *nafs* was seen as taking the form of a snake.

	This serpent can be turned into a useful rod, just as Moses
	transformed serpents into rods. More frequent, however, is
	the idea that the power of the spiritual master can blind
	the snake; according to folk belief, the snake is blinded
	by the sight of an emerald (the connection of the pir's
	spiritual power with the green color of the emerald is
	significant). Thus, his influence renders the *nafs*-
	snake harmless 			(Schimmel, 1975, p. 113).

The contrast with the *kundalini* in some forms of yoga is very
striking.

Satan is persistently, if not consistently, associated with the
serpent. Leaving aside the question of the actual nature of Satan
as formulated by the Council of Toledo (447), or the tendency to
consider him an imaginative personification of evil, the association
with the serpent needs to be accounted for. Several views have been
advanced. At the homiletic level, the serpent has been taken to
represent cunning. At a psychoanalytic level, the serpent has been
associated with emergent sexuality. From a broader, history of
religions approach,

	the serpent is the symbol of the Gods of vegetation;
	without being the representative of sex as such, he
	represents the temptations of the divinities that
	sacralize sex			(Ricoeur, 1967, p. 249).

But perhaps in the end one inclines toward the hermeneutic
suggested by Ricoeur that the serpent

	represents the aspect of evil that could not be absorbed
	into the responsible freedom of man, which is perhaps
	also the aspect that Greek tragedy tried to purify by
	spectacle, song, and choral invocation. The Jews
	themselves although they were well armed against
	demonology by their intransigent monotheism, were
	constrained by truth, as Aristotle would say, to concede
	something, to concede as much as they culd without
	destroying the monotheistic basis of their faith, to the
	the great dualisms which they were to discover after the
	Exile. The theme of the serpent represents the first
	landmark along the road of the Satanic theme which, in
	the Persian epoch, permitted the inclusion of near-dualism
	in the faith of Israel. Of course, Satan will never be
	another god; the Jews will always remember that the
	serpent is a part of the creation; but at least the symbol
	of Satan allowed them to balance the movement toward the
	concentration of evil in man by a second movement which
	attributed its origin to a prehuman, demonic reality.
				(ibid. pp. 258-259).


Although Satan has come to symbolize evil so closely as to become
synonymous with it, he has also been associated with some positive
concepts. He was worshiped in certain gnostic circles for enabling
knowledge to be brought forth. The Sufi tradition has tended at
times to see in him the ultimate monotheist who would bow down
before naught but God, even in defiance of God's own command. It
is also worth noting that there is no such fixed focus of moral
evil as Satan in Hinduism (but see O'Flaherty, 1976), notwithstanding
its shared cultural matrix with Buddhism, which did produce the figure
of Mara. Despite the nuances of difference in Jewish, Christian,
Greek, and Islamic conceptualizations of Satan, they may all share a
common heritage....

"The Encyclopedia of Religion", ed. by Eliade/Adams, 1987; pp. 81-4.
____________________________________________________________________


_DEVILS._

...

_Debate on Origins._ Speculation regarding the origin of belief in
devils has proceeded along several routes. According to one view,
belief in devilish beings may have its roots in the experience of
prehistoric man. At this time wild animals of strange shapes and
sizes roamed the earth, and it would have been easy for early
human beings to assume that nonhuman evil spirits abounded and
assumed animal forms. Alongside this explanation may be placed the
anthropological view, according to which beliefs in all classes of
spiritual beings -- benign or malign -- are derived from belief in
the disembodied spirits of the dead. Considerable controversy
surrounds this view, but it may be safe to affirm that among many
peoples the hostile spirits of the dead would be identified as devils.
Psychological explanations for the origins of devils include the
ideas of hallucinations and projection with various degrees of
sophistication. As early as 1218, Gervase of Tilbury suggested that
belief in lamia or nightmare was simply nocturnal hallucination, and
some modern scholars would argue that man manufactures his devils out
of his fears. It is often considered self-evident that the 

	conception of such beings doubtless stems from man's
	instinctive fear of the unknown, the strange and
	horrific. It is significant that belief in evil
	spirits or Devils can exist without the idea of the
	Devil, i.e. the personification of the principle of
	evil in a single being  (Brandon, 1970, p. 229).

...

In addition to the historical (i.e., prehistorical); anthropological
(i.e., animistic); and psychological (i.e., psychoanalytical)
explanations, one must consider also the theological aspect, for
what is really involved is an explanation of the problem of evil.
How is its existence to be reconciled with belief in a benevolent
God?... Evil creatures that defy God, despite his potential
supremacy, may offer the scaffolding for some kind of theological
explanation. Given the existence of evil, one can offer a certain
range of justifications: (1) what is perceived as evil is necessary
for greater good; (2) evil exists as a necessary part of a good
creation; (3) the universe is not perfect but is being perfected,
hence the existence of evil; and (4) evil is necessary to retain
free will. The existence of devils, as of the Devil, can be
reconciled in varoius ways, as representing the principle of evil
either singly or collectively and emerging out of an attempt to
come to existential grips with the fact that evil exists. Since
most events are caused by an agent, one might assume that evil is
also caused by an agent, which may itself be either intrinsically
or instrumentally evil....

Ibid., p. 321.
______________

EOF