DEMON, DEMONIAC, DEMONOLOGY. The Eng. word “demon” is derived from the Gr. δαίμων, G1230, which was used of rather anonymous influences whether of a good or bad variety. When the concept of a supernatural spirit or intelligence subsequently developed in Gr. circles, the word gradually acquired a malign connotation, and was used as a general designation of malevolent powers which were commonly assigned individuality and characteristic functions.

Outline

1. Use in Greek thought. The most common occurrence of daímōn in Homer was in connection with the idea of divinity, deity or divine power, as contrasted with θεός, G2536, which denoted a god in person. A daímōn was thus treated as a personification of the vague powers which were associated in the Gr. mind with the activities of the major deities, and which in consequence exerted some influence upon human life. The term was also employed of an individual’s genius, and thus of one’s lot or fortune in life. In Hesiod the daímōn was sometimes regarded as one of the souls of men from the golden age who formed a connecting link between the gods and mortals. One result of this was that when δαίμονες and θεοί were mentioned in association with one another, the former were thought of as gods of inferior rank. Because the general fortunes of human life appeared to incline to a preponderance of evil, the term daímōn in the sense of one’s lot acquired an increasingly malign connotation, esp. at the hands of the Attic poets. Despite this however, the term never completely lost its associations with the rather ill-defined powers which were believed to govern the circumstances of life, and for this reason the Greeks could think consistently of good as well as evil spirits. The latter were often thought of as ghosts, and it is interesting to note that the ghosts of heroes were commonly believed to be particularly dangerous, since for some unexplained reason they were capable only of working evil. The Greeks gave consistent credence to the idea of a guardian spirit which watched over an individual from his birth, and which could be either friendly or malign in character. Quite independently of this, evil demons were represented as attaching themselves to an individual in order to insure his untimely end. A demon which was given the title of ἀλάστωρ was credited with special powers of vengeance for the punishment of specific transgressions. Among the Gr. philosophers Thales maintained that “all things are full of gods,” and the Pythagoreans made this animism more specific by teaching that all the air was filled with souls, which they described in terms of demons and heroes. These disembodied entities were responsible for sending health and disease alike to both animals and men. Beneficial relations could be established with them through rituals of purification and expiation as well as by divinatory acts and omens. Heraclitus refined the popular concept of an indwelling, controlling deity by the remark that “character is each man’s demon,” while to Empedocles was credited the dubious distinction of describing the rehabilitation of wicked demons by means of various phases of reincarnation. Socrates gave the impression that he was not infrequently dissuaded from following a particular course of action through receiving a divine sign or warning, and this must have suggested to his hearers the operation of that kind of fate or destiny by which individual lives were popularly supposed to be controlled. Plato held that demons, which he identified with the souls of the dead as did his contemporaries, served as interpreters between the gods and men. Reflecting the thought of Heraclitus he believed that the true guiding genius within each man was the soul, which was the gift of God. Aristotle had a rather less exalted view of the demonic situation, however, merely assenting to the popular theory that all men had demons which accompanied them consistently through life. The most convinced exponents of demonism in ancient Greece were the Stoics, whose pantheism and fatalism enabled demons to be represented as experiencing human passions and emotions, pains and pleasures. Being composed of the same substance as the human soul they enjoyed a permanent existence, and we re located in an area beneath the moon. Epicurus went to the other extreme in denying the very existence of demons, and maintained that even if they did exist they could not possibly communicate with human beings in any way.

2. Mesopotamian demons. From their beginnings the Mesopotamian peoples were highly superstitious in character, due in no small measure to the influence of their natural environment and conditions of living upon their religious projections. Whereas in Egypt the quiet, regular inundations of the Nile gave a sense of order and stability to life, in Babylonia the formulation of an ordered civilization was only the result of a prolonged struggle against the unpredictable and devastating floods to which the Tigris and Euphrates were subject. The Sumerians gave definition to the religious traditions of Mesopotamia, and in formulating the concepts which were to become normative for many centuries they took a low view of the significance of human life, regarding man as constituting little more than an afterthought of divine creativity. Sumerian mythology contained numerous allusions to the underworld gods or anunnaki and the seven evil asakki or demons, which also inhabited the nether regions. The demons were popularly held to be responsible for all the misfortunes which overtook men, and were esp. credited with causing the onset of disease. In Mesopotamian thought sickness occurred when demons entered the apertures of the head and penetrated the internal organs. To forestall this activity it was necessary to resort to magical incantations, amulets, jeweled ornamentation and the like. The modern earrings and necklaces are survivals of an age when such adornments were endowed with magical power as a means of guarding the ears, nostrils and mouth against invasion by disease demons. Thus Ea, the god of the waters, was esp. invoked in incantations and spells, being venerated as the ally of humanity in its conflict with the malevolent forces of existence. Ea thus became the patron deity of those priestly orders which were trained in exorcism, the knowledge of spells, the formulating of incantations and the interpreting of dreams and omens. The spirits most dreaded by the Sumerians and their religious successors were the wraiths of those defunct persons who had not had the appropriate burial rites performed over them, or who had died under mysterious or violent circumstances. Such ghosts were popularly known as etimmu, and a special kind of exorcist-priest, the ashipu, was required to recite the proper incantations for dispelling their attacks. Such priestly activities involved a substitute for the sufferer, and the appropriate object, whether an animal, a clay image, or some other inanimate substitute, was regarded as being dead and already in the underworld. The offerings and rituals were made to the malign powers suspected of occasioning the disease, and when an incantation invoking such life-giving gods as Ea or Marduk had been pronounced, the sick person was regarded, often in an act of faith, as having risen from the dead, and by this means liberated from the malevolent power of the demon, ghost or evil deity.

The Mesopotamians gave names to the demons which they feared, some of the designations being those of actual diseases while others were the names of hostile natural powers. One demon was known as Rabiṩu or “the croucher,” because he was thought to lie in wait secretly for his enemies (cf. Gen 4:7). Apparently the reason why demons and evil spirits were given names was that the Sumerians and the Semites of Babylonia generally laid great stress on the belief in the magical power of names. If a demon was to be expelled properly it was necessary for the exorcist-priest to know its name and use it properly in a conjuration or spell (cf. Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30). While the incidence of sickness was widely attributed to demons, almost any other kind of human activity could also be threatened by malign supernatural forces. For example, the laying of a foundation provided an occasion when demons could infiltrate the planned structure and bring about the subsequent collapse of the fabric. The Sumer. practice of making foundation deposits in all public and sacred buildings was marked by rituals which were designed to forestall the activities of the malevolent underworld powers and insure the stability of the structure against internal or external onslaught. Among the Babylonians, Assyrians and later Sem. peoples, there existed a great many non-human demons for whose creation mankind had no responsibility. The asakki of the Sumerians were known to the Babylonians as utukku, and were frequently mentioned in exorcism texts. Over the centuries the demons were accorded a realistic form, so that by the time of Ashurbanipal (669-627 b.c.) it was common for pictures or figurines of these evil powers to be made and employed for protective purposes. The utukku seem to have originated in the concept of ghosts, but in a developed form they were regarded as devils who lur ked in the desert areas, ready to pounce upon the unwary or solitary traveler. A female demon named Lamashtu was an object of particular dread. The daughter of Anu, the Sumer. high god of heaven, she frequented mountainous regions or marshy areas looking for unprotected or straying children. Equally feared was the deity Namtar, the herald of death, who controlled sixty diseases which he was able to inflict at will upon mankind. Another deadly enemy of mankind who was associated with Namtar was Irra, the god of plagues, against whom many incantations were formulated. Another spirit of pestilence was named Ura, who was prominent in Babylonian apotropaic or protective tablets. These contained a representation of the deity in human form on one side, while on the other was inscribed an exorcist ritual or formula designed to discourage the attentions of the demon. Well known among Sem. peoples of a later age was the Babylonian female demon Lilitu, who was in effect a succuba, a ghostly lecher who tempted men by means of sexual dreams. The Assyrian ardat lili, for whom there was also a male counterpart, was supposed to roam at night until she found an unmarried man with whom to mate.

3. Egyptian demons. As with other peoples of the ancient Near E, the Egyptians believed in the presence of a multiplicity of demons against which the powers of magic had to be marshaled if everything was not to be blotted out by their malign influences. Despite a belief in demonic forces, the ancient Egyptians did not catalog their devils and evil spirits in the same way as so many other peoples did. Furthermore, such celestial phenomena as floods and storms which elsewhere were regarded as the work of demons, were attributed by the Egyptians to the gods themselves. As in Mesopotamia the incidence of disease was generally ascribed to demons, who would steal at night into the inert form of the sleeper to bring pain, fever, and perhaps even death. Powerful magical agencies in the form of charms and incantations were needed to combat such dreaded demonic influences. Demons were also thought to inhabit the air itself, hence the need for periodic fumigation of temples and palaces, esp. on the occasion of a funeral. More than any other demons the Egyptians feared the disembodied dead, who in ghostly form could devise all sorts of malicious deeds against humanity. They could only be held in check by powerful magical spells, and in the Book of the Dead they were depicted as ready even to harm souls which had newly arrived in the nether world. Insofar as demons were named in Egyp. lit. they were described functionally by such epithets as “the cutter,” “the archer,” “the ripper,” and so on, while specifically female demons were spoken of as “the lady of the sword thrusts,” “she who is violent,” and the like. Because of the difficulty of distinguishing clearly in ancient Egyp. thought between a god and a demon, there is some ground for the view that the possession of a proper name served to identify a god as such. The situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that anonymous groups of demons were accorded superstitious veneration by sections of the populace from time to time, as well as by the process of development through which it was imagined that demons could become gods. Popular demonology in Egypt, however, manifested many of the characteristics found in the demonism of other nations, including the superstitious influence of days and horoscopes, the response of demons to chants, and the ability to control demons by the use of their correct names. Egyptian lit. never mentioned demons which attacked children or who were wantonly bloodthirsty, unlike the writings of the Babylonians.

4. Demonism in the OT and Apocrypha. In the earliest Heb. sources there was no specific term equivalent to “demon,” and in those cases where supernatural phenomena needed to be described, the words אֵל׀, H446, or אֱלֹהִים, H466, commonly tr. “god,” were employed in the narrative. Thus an inspired man was a “man of ’^elōhîm,” i.e., a godly man, an expression which found its counterpart in the Hitt. phrase “man of the gods,” i.e., a seer ’^elōhîm was frequently used in a descriptive sense of a formidable power, as in Genesis 30:8 (“mighty wrestlings”) or Jonah 3:3 (“a ‘divine’ city”). In the same neutral sense the idea of a divine spirit (rûaḥ ’^elōhîm) possessing a person was employed to account for extraordinary phenomena such as the prophetic activities of Balaam (Num 24:2) or Saul (1 Sam 10:11; 19:20-23). The adjectival use of ’^elōhîm in connection with an evil spirit occurred in 2 Samuel 16:15, 16, 23, but the Eng. VSS wrongly ascribed the provenance of the phenomenon to God. In actual fact, the use of the generic term for “god” was merely intended by the author to describe the evil spirit as “powerful” or “mighty” without any inherent demonism being conveyed. In the same way the outpouring of a positive spiritual endowment was described in Exodus 31:3; 35:31 by the expression rûaḥ ’^elōhîm or “impressive gifts,” again incorrectly rendered in the Eng. VSS by the expression “the spirit of God.” Possession by a powerful extraneous spirit was described by the same phrase in relation to the ecstatic activities of Saul (1 Sam 10:6; 11:6). The exploits of Samson in the vineyards of Timnah (Judg 14:6) were attributed to the inspiration of the Lord where the proper name YHWH was substituted for ’^elōhîm as an adjective (cf. Judg 13:25). In view of the common Near Eastern attribution of sickness to demons, it is important to notice that the diseases mentioned in the OT were related in their incidence to the activity of the one God, in line with the consistent monism of Heb. thought. The plagues of Egypt came from the divine hand (Exod 9:3), and even the calamities which overtook Job, including a loathsome disease (Job 2:7), were perpetrated by the adversary (הַשָּׂטָ֔ן) with divine permission. Similarly the expression ’^aḥāzanî hassābāṩ (2 Sam 1:9) has been claimed by some scholars to denote seizure or possession by an evil power whereas in actual fact Saul was describing an attack of giddiness due to extreme emotional exhaustion. The occurrence of disease due to the activity of demonic powers has been wrongly inferred from the reference in Isaiah 53:4, where the suffering servant was “powerfully smitten” (Eng. VSS, “smitten of [by] God”) as part of His affliction. A plain reading of the Heb. text makes it clear that this did not result from the activities of malign forces even though his travails included the bearing of sicknesses (ḥ^olî) and pains (mak’ôḇ).

Yet the OT does contain some allusions to the popular demonology of pagan nations, particularly in the context of cultic worship. The term שֵׁדִימ׃֙ (Deut 32:17) rendered in the LXX by δαιμόνια referred to foreign gods (cf. Ps 106:37), which need not have been specifically demonic in nature. In post-Biblical Heb. the word sēḏ became the common designation of a malign spirit, and the reference in Deuteronomy may imply only the Assyrian shêdu or “guardian spirit.” Another allusion to pagan gods occurred in Leviticus 17:7, where the term שְׂעִירִ֕ם, or “hairy ones” has been taken by some commentators as a reference to “satyrs.” The literal meaning of the word is “goats,” but in pagan thought the “hairy ones” were deemed to be sylvan gods or demons which inhabited waste places (cf. Isa 13:21; 34:14). Goat worship, accompanied by depraved rituals, was prevalent in Lower Egypt, and was familiar to the Israelites of pre-exodus times. This was one form of worship from which God desired to attract His people (cf. Josh 24:14; Ezek 20:7), hence the prohibition of offerings to satyrs. Whereas in Leviticus 17:7 the LXX reads daimónia and the Vulgate daemones for שְׂעִירִ֕ם, in a similar reference (2 Chron 11:15) the LXX reads μάταια or “vain things” for שְׂעִירִ֑ים. In attempting to understand these terms it is important not to regard late interpretations as necessarily identical in meaning with the original usage. While Arab. popular thought could envision a whole class of hirsute demons, all the OT references to “hairy ones” make it quite possible that the writers were speaking merely of wild goats or he-goats as objects of pagan veneration, not as spirits of the wilderness. While sēd could be given a demonic interpretation, the concrete use of the term suggests a heathen deity rather than an indeterminate afflatus. Since both Heb. terms are specific rather than generic in nature, an appropriate interpretation would seem to be required in the various passages.

A number of demons referred to either by name or title in lit. from the ancient Near E are also mentioned in certain OT passages. There is a problem of interpretation, since the fact that all such allusions occur in poetic sections raises the question as to whether they are actually anything more than mere figures of speech. (Isaiah referred to the familiar Akkad. female demon Lilitu by the Heb. name of לִילִ֔ית, LXX ὀνοκένταυρος; Vulg. Lamia; Isa 34:14.) In Mesopotamian lit. Lilitu appeared as an alluring female wraith who tempted men in sexual dreams, but by the 8th cent. b.c. she had tended to become confused in Pal. with the child-stealing hag Lamashtu. In popular thought Lilith was believed to be a night demon who prowled among ruins and lurked in desolate places, but despite this the name is not derived from the root for “night,” as was once imagined. Instead it comes from the Sumer. term lil meaning “wind.”

Another demon familiar to Near Eastern mythology was Resheph, who was mentioned in documents from such widely separated places as Mari, Ugarit, Egypt, Cyprus and Carthage between the 19th and 4th centuries b.c. Resheph was the Canaanite deity of pestilence, and in both Ugaritic and Egyptian texts was associated with violent death. The pestilence as an agent of divine power was mentioned in Habakkuk 3:5, although there was no personification, despite the poetic nature of the passage. The term occurred also in Song of Solomon 8:6 where it was used in the sense of “sparks” or “flames” (RSV “flashes”) rather than pestilence. In Psalm 76:3 it was employed to describe “flashing arrows,” while in Psalm 78:48 it alluded to the destruction of herds by means of thunderbolts. What appears to be the threat of a febrile condition of high mortality was mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:24, where resep̱ carries overtones similar to those found in connection with Resheph in the Ugaritic texts. The idea of Resheph as a “searing flame” may have originated in Babylonia, where Girra was the god of fire as well as pestilence. Since the foregoing references occur in poetic passages it is difficult to imagine that they are anything more than thoroughly demythologized forms of literary allusion. The mention of Rahab (Job 9:13; 26:12; Ps 89:10; Isa 30:7; 51:9, 10) has been interpreted as referring to a mythological dragon slain in primordial combat by God, although this explanation is doubtful if only because the meaning of the name Rahab is uncertain. The LXX trs. were quite dubious about the allusion, omitting the word altogether in Isaiah 51:9 and refusing to recognize it as a proper name in Isaiah 30:7. In Job 9:13 and 26:12 it was tr. by κῆτος, G3063, or “sea monster,” and was simply transliterated in Psalm 87:4. In this latter passage, as also in Isaiah 30:9, the name was used fig. of Egypt with the implication that the proud nation would be humbled.

Some interpreters have seen further allusions to demonic influences in references to “the destruction that wastes at noonday” (Ps 91:6). The affliction in question may have been sunstroke, or possibly acute spinal meningitis, but the description is of a general nature, and although the LXX rendered קֶ֗טֶב by daimónion, there is no obvious personification in the Heb. While it is true that many ancient Near Eastern peoples regarded the onset of dizziness in the heat of the day as the result of demonic activity, the nature of the Heb. expression makes it more probable that an empirical medical description, and not a demonic one, was being contemplated. Of a rather more substantial nature is the allusion in Psalm 91:5 to a phenomenon described as the “terror of the night” (פַּ֣חַד לָ֑יְלָה; LXX φόβος νυκτερινός), which may reflect the universal dread of “things that go bump in the night.” It is uncertain, however, from a straightforward reading of the v., whether the terror is of an external order which produces fright or of a purely internal kind due to the mild state of shock which accompanies an unexpected disturbance of sleeping patterns. Certainly there is insufficient evidence, particularly against a poetic background, for the assumption that the author had in mind one of the many malign spirits which in ancient Near Eastern demonology were popularly supposed to perpetrate their assaults under cover of darkness.

Yet another allusion to demonic powers has been seen in the reference to the “leech” (ASV “horseleach,” Prov 30:15). The Heb. term עֲלוּקָ֨ה׃׀֒, LXX Βδελλή, has generally been thought of as the Heb. equivalent of the late Arab. word ilgitu or “leech.” More romantic interpretations have argued from the late Arab. word ’Aulaq or “vampire,” “ghoul,” to the view that the Biblical reference was to a greedy demonic creature which fed with an insatiable appetite upon its victims. Again, it seems quite clear that poetic imagery alone is involved, and that the Heb. sage was using metaphorical language to describe the relentless pressures exerted upon humanity by certain well attested phenomena of nature and life. To regard the “leech” as an allusion to a vampire or some other demonic creature is to proceed far in advance of the available evidence. A similar criticism can be entertained regarding the supposed “seven evil spirits” (Deut 28:22), for the children of Israel were warned that disobedience of the divine commands would cause God to smite them with “consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.” Had this list originated from Mesopotamian sources it could be argued that such terms as “consumption” and “fever” were the official names given to the demons thought to have occasioned such diseases, as with the celebrated Babylonian “Headache” series, where a specific disease was personified and addressed as though it were a spiritual being. The fact that the Biblical utterance emerged from a specifically wilderness milieu prior to the entrance into Canaan emphatically repudiates any suggestion of either the presence or the infl uence of magic. Instead, Moses was promising the recalcitrant Israelites a variety of punishments which would affect their persons and their livelihood, and whose nature was already well known to them. To interpret these phenomena in demonic terms as though they were the Israelite counterparts of the agents of Irra, the Mesopotamian god of disease, is entirely fanciful and unwarranted by the evidence of the Heb. text. The poisonous “pestilence” (קֶ֣טֶב, LXX ὀπισθότων, Deut 32:24) comes into the same category of afflictions which are described in empirical, non-demonic terms. The fact that in Psalm 91:6 the LXX read συμπτώματος, and κέντρον, G3034, in Hosea 13:14 for qeṭeḇ would imply that something other than a specific demon was being contemplated, otherwise the same term would have been used with a personified force. Another passage which has been wrongly interpreted in demonic terms is Job 18:14, where the wicked man is spoken of as being brought to the “king of terrors” (מֶ֣לֶכְ בַּלָּהֹֽות). Since this occurs in a poetic section it is best seen as a euphemism for death rather than as an allusion to Nergal, lord of the Babylonian underworld, or to Osiris, the ruler of the Egyp. dead. As a general observation it should be noted that such references to pagan mythology as do occur in the OT have themselves been thoroughly stripped of their pagan associations, and appear largely as figures of popular thought or speech rather than as serious metaphysical concepts. Native to the OT Scriptures, however, was the idea of an “adversary” who was opposed to the outworking of the divine will. While OT references to his activities are few in number, they certainly depict them as being against the best interests of humanity. This character was most evident in the temptation and fall of man (Gen 3:1-19), and illustrated further in the opposition presented to David (1 Chron 21:1) and Joshua the high priest (Zech 3:1f.). The Book of Job described the adversary (הַשָּׂטָ֔ן) as presenting himself before the Lord among the “sons of God,” and showed that despite the inimical nature of his intentions he was unable to carry out his plans without the permission of God. In this sense the book describes an experiment by Satan into the nature of distinterested virtue, and while it indicates that the evil which overtook Job was to some extent the responsibility of God it also makes clear the fact that the operations of the adversary have never been free from all restraint.

During the period of the Apoc. and Pseudep., popular thought gave fuller expression to the concepts concerning good and evil spirits which had appeared in the canonical lit. This development was not uniform, for there are books such as Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees which contained almost no allusions at all to spiritual beings (cf. Ecclus 48:21; 1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 11:6; 15:22, 23). The Wisdom of Solomon made no reference to demons or angels except in the description of the Exodus (Wisd Sol 18:15), in which the divine word was spoken of as an active vengeful angel. Some of the Apocalypses carried the belief in good and evil spirits to great extremes, though a more moderate estimate appeared in works such as Tobit, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 2 Esdras and the Book of Jubilees. The author of the latter composition tended to attribute a spirit to the various natural forces (cf. Jub 2:2; 10:5), while in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs it was the immoral tendencies of human nature which were given demonic status. Seven “spirits of deceit” were enumerated, and to these wicked elements were subsequently added sleep and the human senses. These evil forces led men into sin and then exacted retribution from them. In popular thought the demons became a distinct order of malign spirits operating under the control of Belial or Satan, the former term indicating an extremely wicked person (cf. Ps 18:4). The Apocalyptists generally thought of Satan and his allies as being overthrown by God and the powers of goodness before the new creation was ushered in (cf. Test. XII Pat; Test. Asher 1:9; 6:2; Test. Dan 1:6, 7; Test. Judah 13:3; 14:2; Test. Levi 19:1, etc.). This idea was also clearly formulated in the DSS, one section of the Manual of Discipline attributing all mortal plagues and difficulties to the “spirit of perversity” (1QS III, 22-24), whose control of evil forces was a continual embarrassment to the spirituality of the sons of light and righteousness (cf. 1QS IV, 12, 13), but who would be vanquished at the dawn of the Messianic age. This perverse spirit and his allies depicted in the Qumran writings have a great deal in common with the Iranian druj and the daevas, whose malign influences were greatly feared in Persia and elsewhere in the ancient orient.

Despite the impact of pagan thought, orthodox Jewish beliefs consistently challenged any dualistic tendencies which would cast doubt on the complete sovereignty and supremacy of God. In order to explain the ills which afflicted human beings some writers thought of Satan as the archdemon who tempted man and led him astray (cf. Wisd Sol 2:4; Slavonic Enoch 3:31). Such writers called Satan by his Gr. name diábolos or devil and identified him with the serpent of Eden. In the Book of Enoch another view of the origin of evil involved a presentation of a theory of demonic beginnings. Devils, it was assumed, had at one time been angels who had rebelled against God and had caused mischief on earth by mating with human wives (cf. Gen 6:1-4; Ezek 28:13-17). Because matter was thought to be evil, following Iranian dualism, these spiritual beings had thereby corrupted themselves, and could only look forward to ultimate destruction by fire. Further Pers. influence is seen in the Book of Tobit, where a specific demon named Asmodeus was regarded as a male counterpart of the Babylonian succuba. It is uncertain, however, whether the name is a variation of the demonic Shamedon, found in Palestinian Jewish midrashim, or whether it was actually a representation of the familiar Pers. demon Aeshma. In any event other aspects of the work exhibit clear traces of Pers. demonology. Perhaps the most rational demonology in pre-Christian times occurred in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and The Ascension of Isaiah, where the evil propensities of man were personified and placed under the control of Beliar (a variant form of Belial). This avoided the fanciful practice of associating “fallen angels” with human mating procedures, and related most of the evil in the world to aberrant behavior.

During the intertestamental period most people, including the Jews of Pal., believed that the world was full of supernatural agencies working for good or ill. Just as angels were able to accomplish beneficent deeds, so demons or devils were always at hand to perpetrate calamity, sickness or misfortune. So pervasive had Near Eastern superstitions become that Jews and Gentiles alike regarded the onset of disease as the work of demonic powers. In Israel, in particular, the physician was of comparatively low repute, since God was regarded as the dispenser of sickness and health alike. When superstitious beliefs in demons arose, the best the physician could do was to treat the patient by means of charms, incantations, and the like, which was a far cry from the non-magical, empirical therapy of the Mosaic law.

5. Demonism in the NT. Whereas the subject of devils and demonism was not of particular interest to OT writers, there are many references to devils in the earliest Christian lit., and particularly in the gospels. They were generally referred to by the term daimónion, a diminutive form of daimōn but employed without any significant difference. In addition the term διάβολος, G1333, was used to describe a “devil.” As distinct from Classical Gr. thought, where daimōn was not infrequently employed in a good sense, the NT writers always thought of devils or demons as spiritual beings which were hostile to both God and men. The “prince” of these malign beings was accorded the name of Beelzebub (perhaps more accurately Beezebul), so that demons generally were regarded as his agents in human society (Mark 3:22). There were, however, a few instances (Acts 17:18; 1 Cor 10:20; Rev 9:20) where daimónia simply meant “pagan deities” rather than “demons.” This was particularly the case when sacrificial meats offered to pagan gods were concerned, and where Paul gave special application (1 Cor 10:20) to the teachings of Christ about the impossibility of serving God and mammon (cf. Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). Aside from this instance, there are few references to either demonism or demon-possession in the epistles. In the gospels the outbursts of demonic opposition to the work of God in Christ are most evident, and the evangelists depict Christ in continual conflict with evil forces. To expel demons was no easy matter, as the disciples discovered (Matt 17:19; Mark 9:28), and the recognition that Christ was able to accomplish this with apparent ease led His enemies to link Him perversely with demonic forces instead of recognizing His divine origin (cf. Luke 11:15; John 7:20; 10:20). This association was quickly dispelled by Christ with the comment that a house thus divided against itself would soon fall (Luke 11:17, 18). This, in turn, led to the observation that if He by the “finger of God,” was able to expel demons, then indeed the kingdom of God was already present in contemporary society. Reporting the same incident Matthew attributed the power of Christ in this area to the spirit of God (Matt 12:28). Jesus shared His gifts of exorcism with His followers at the time of the mission of the Twelve (Luke 9:1), where the disciples were given power and authority over all demons, and subsequently when the Seventy were sent out (10:17) and on their return reported that even the demons were subject to them through His name. In NT times there was apparently no significant difference between demons, evil spirits (ponēra), and unclean spirits (akatharta), since in the case of the Gadarene demoniac the terms “unclean spirits” and “devils” were used interchangeably (8:27-29). In Luke 11:24 the “unclean spirit” which went out of a man returned with seven other spirits of a more wicked though still kindred nature. Demons and evil spirits were regarded in the NT as one cause of disease (Mark 1:23; 7:25), but it is interesting to note that such possession did not defile the sufferers either morally or spiritually, since they were not specifically excluded from the synagogue or the Temple precincts. The possessing spirits were uniformly regarded as evil, and had to be expelled on all possible occasions, for they were allies of Satan and thus hostile to God and man alike.

The nature of these references makes it clear that the evangelists did not treat evil as impersonal, a fact which is further substantiated by the intensely personal character of the temptations experienced by Christ (Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1-13). Here as elsewhere the identity of the demonic force was revealed (cf. Legion, Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30), and this was done to make evident its metaphysical reality as well as to confront it by an even more powerful force which also partook of a personal character. This latter, expressed in the divine name, enabled the demons to be expelled (cf. Matt 7:22).

The concept of the “power of the name” was widespread in antiquity, and was based on the assumption that the “name” was not only a personal designation but also represented an integral part of the personality of the bearer. The superior power inherent in the name of God was reflected by the psalmist (Pss 20:7; 118:12), who entertained the defeat of pagan armies through divine intervention. In the time of Christ it was the custom in Jewish circles to commence a magical incantation against a demon with the words “I conjure you by the name.” This was reflected in Acts 19:13, where certain itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to pronounce over those who were possessed with evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, using with entirely unexpected results the formula, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” In the NT the only names of demons mentioned are Legion and the various designations of the “prince of the devils,” namely Satan, Belial and Beelzebub (Beezebul). The name “Legion” presents certain problems because while it is given as the designation of the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:9, 15; Luke 8:30), it is clear that it is the large number of demons who are speaking, and not the man himself. Perhaps the demons were unwilling to identify themselves and gave instead a collective name indicative of a large number, which would accord with the tradition of Matthew 12:45; Luke 8:2, that demons preferred to go about in groups. The “destroying one” (ὁ ὀλοθρευτής) (1 Cor 10:10) is not so much an evil demon as an avenging angel of God (cf. 2 Sam 24:16), while the prince of the abyss (Rev 9:11) named Apollyon or Abaddon was an angel also, not a devil in revolt against divine power.

In the gospels the term δαιμόνια was used to designate unclean spirits, although in the Lukan writings the expression πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα was preferred (cf. Luke 8:29; Acts 5:16, etc.). They were described as entering and “troubling” ὀχλεῖν, Acts 5:16) or “overtaking” (καταλαμβάνειν, Mark 9:18) a man. Sometimes a person “possessed” them (ἔχειν, Luke 4:33), the result of which was the incidence of physical disorders (Matt 4:24; 9:32; Mark 9:18; Luke 11:14, etc.) or mental pathology (Matt 11:18; John 10:19-21, etc). Although the descriptions of disease are framed for the most part in untechnical or popular language, there does seem to have been some attempt in the NT to differentiate between demon possession and other forms of pathology. Neurasthenic conditions were allotted to the same general classification as demon possession, and these were viewed in a somewhat different light from epilepsy and lunacy. Despite this, however, the thought of the day tended to attribute the same demonic etiological factors to both varieties of mental affliction. What is significant, however, is that in certain passages (Matt 4:24; Mark 1:32; Acts 5:16; 10:38) demon possession was referred to as additional to the other kinds of diseases mentioned, which would imply that it had certain recognizable features of its own. The ancient beliefs concerning the influence of the moon over certain types of mental conditions was reflected in the case of the epileptic boy (Matt 17:14-18; Mark 9:14-27; Luke 9:37-42), whom Matthew described as “moon-struck” (σεληνιάζεται). The RSV tr. of “epileptic,” apart from describing one of the symptoms, fu rnished no greater understanding of the pathological situation than did Matthew’s popular terminology, and serves to illustrate some of the difficulties involved in understanding the recorded case histories in the gospels. In this instance, for example, it is virtually impossible to say whether the boy was suffering from a true congenital epilepsy, from infantile idiopathic epilepsy, or from some deep emotional disturbance in the subconscious mind which resulted in epileptoid attacks. For this reason it is obviously quite arbitrary to assume that demon possession was actually nothing more than a popular designation for epilepsy. In any event, modern scientific medicine has its own difficulties with epilepsy, since very little is actually known concerning the etiology of the clinical form. As a result it becomes extremely difficult on occasions for doctors to distinguish between the classical convulsive disease and glandular or emotional disturbances which may simulate it. Numerous forms of epilepsy have been described to date including hereditary types and those which may have resulted from a cerebral tumor, an apoplectic stroke, or some injury to the brain tissue. Single convulsive attacks which give the appearance of genuine epilepsy can also be precipitated by deep emotional conflicts, to which the ancients were no less liable than their modern counterparts. If such attacks are brought into focus by means of a sudden shock which produces cerebral vasoconstriction with a rapid reduction in the oxygen content of the brain, an epileptiform seizure would take place. When speaking of emotional conflicts one is attempting to designate certain processes of an ill-defined nature which operate deep within the uncharted recesses of the subconscious mind, and which are thus not readily amenable to detailed clinical delineation. It is known, however, that the vital forces of the human personality function within this area of the mind, and that there is always a significant emotional or psychic element in most diseases, and not least in idiopathic mental afflictions. If such states are to be seen in terms of the evil, destructive powers found in the subconscious mind gaining the ascendancy over the positive forces for good in the human personality, it is possible to think of all mental disorders as being to some limited extent at least the result of temporary possession of the human mind by demonic influences, a situation which could conceivably become permanent. Indeed, in so far as specific clinical conditions can be identified as emotogenic, the same considerations could apply to a significantly wider range of human afflictions. Because modern psychosomatic medical research has shown that attestable clinical disease can result from such metaphysical entities as suggestion, emotional conflicts, fear, and the like, it is no longer possible to dismiss as implausible the noxious effects which the various forms of evil, working through the personality of fallen man, can have upon individual and mental well-being. Indeed, Jesus viewed all disease in these general terms, and re-emphasized the OT concept of the individual as a nepes hayyāh (Gen 2:7), i.e., a personality manifesting an essential unity of body and mind. He frequently saw the incidence of disease as the result of evil producing an imbalance within the individual personality, and His healings stressed that the will of the Father was for humanity to enjoy wholeness and salvation (John 3:16; 10:10). So important was the human mind to Jesus that many of His teachings were formulated in a way which would help His followers to achieve inward peace (Matt 11:29), as illustrated by the Sermon on the Mount.

Prominent NT cases of demon possession included the Syrophoenician’s daughter (Matt 15:22; Mark 7:25), the Gerasene demoniac (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27), the Capernaum madman (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33), the blind and dumb demoniac (Matt 12:22; Luke 11:14) and the young woman with divinatory insights (Acts 16:16). In the case of the little Canaanite girl, her mother described her acute condition as being “seriously possessed by a demon” (Matt 15:22) or an “unclean spirit” (Mark 7:25), but aside from this there are no other clinical indications which would assist in determining precisely what constituted demon possession. The Gerasene (Gadarene) demoniac(s) behaved as though a separate personality was speaking through the man’s mouth and using his physical strength to destructive ends. His psychosis was deeply entrenched, and it has been suggested that his self-imposed name of Legion furnishes a hint as to the origin of the shock which precipitated his illness, namely some atrocity committed in the area by the Rom. legion, possibly the massacre of children. Whether this is actually the case or not, the sufferer spoke as though possessed in the most literal sense, and the phenomena which accompanied his cure did nothing to dispel this notion in the minds of those who witnessed it. The Capernaum madman spoke as though he was a victim of multiple personality, and his convulsive interlude during the healing might have resulted from the discharging of long repressed emotion in the subconscious mind. The narratives concerning the blind and dumb demoniac are too vague to admit of pronouncements concerning the nature of the affliction, unlike those of the young woman with divinatory gifts, who seems in point of fact to have been little more than a fortune teller or soothsayer. While such indiv iduals were popularly supposed to be “possessed,” they certainly came into a different category from the mentally afflicted, since they were not diseased in any clinical sense. One interesting form of possession (Matt 12:43-45) showed that the spirits were sometimes concerned with moral evil. Quite obviously a man cannot effect his own moral reformation merely by expelling the “demons” within and leaving a spiritual vacuum. What is needed to sustain human efforts at reformation is the entrance of the spirit of God.

Evidences of contemporary survivals of the Biblical type of demon possession have been described from oriental countries by medical and other missionaries. Generally the phenomenon assumed the form of characteristic personality possession, and when the individuals concerned had been exorcized they subsequently led normal healthy lives. A modern psychiatrist would describe many cases of “possession” by quite different terms, which, however, prove to be no more meaningful than those of the Bible. The soundest approach to the situation is ultimately a theological one, which recognizes that because of the depravity of human nature the mind is peculiarly liable to the influence of evil. In imbalance this constitutes a form of possession, however mild, since the personality is then at the disposal of the powers of darkness to some extent.

Bibliography R. C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia (1903); Semitic Magic (1908); H. Kaupel, Die Dämonen im AT (1930); J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (1939); L. D. Weatherhead, Psychology, Religion and Healing (1951), 62-70; T. H. Gaster, IDB, I, 817-824; R. K. Harrison, IDB, I, 853, 854.