The Satan of Philosophers

Thais Mamede Soares

A&H 357

Dr. D. Aiken

11-05-2012

Word Count: 7713

2

Abstract

If the God of Christianity is inspired by the God of the Philosophers, then could Satan also be inspired by the Satan of Philosopers? This research paper goes through the genealogy of the concept of Satan, the personification of evil, in order to find out more about this character. A lot of his characteristics seemed not to be present in the Bible, but were added through the inheritance of other cultures and also through philosophy. The demonization of pagan gods, in special of god Pan, seems to be a product of the Jewish tendency to demonize enemies. The Christian cosmology in which Satan has a place is a result of diverse forces, which are sometimes contradictory.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 42. Comparison between evil and devils concepts in the Scriptures 5

2.1 Satan in the Hebrew Bible 5

2.2. Satan in the New Testament 6

2.3. Comparison: New Biography of Satan 7

3. Influences of external traditions to the Christian concept of evil/devil 9

3.1 Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia 9

3.2. Ancient Greek influence 10

3.2.1 Great God Pan 10

3.2.2. Daimon 11

3.2.3. Philosophy 12

3.3 Hellenization and the Early Christians 14

3.3.1 Demonization of Pagans 14

3.3.2. Contrasting world views 15

4. Discussion: The God of Philosophers and Satan 155. Conclusion 17

4

1. Introduction

This paper links the genealogy of the concept of devil in Christianity with philosophy of religion. The inspiration for this paper comes from the works of Picht (1980) and Aiken (2011). They have made the case that the God of Christianity is not Biblical Yahweh, but the God of Philosophers. They have supported this partly through the discrepancies in the anthropomorphic characteristics of Yahweh and the supreme characteristics of the Christian God. God would then have been a philosophical creation of early Christians, most probably inspired by the philosophy of Plato, which in turn was inspired by the God of Xenophanes. This God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all-benevolent. This Ultimate Being- the One- is the order of the Cosmos, and shares the nous, or intellect (Plato’s soul), with human beings. The point made is thus that this One God ended up becoming the Christian God through early Christian philosophers. The question that this paper asks is whether Satan also found such a route into Chrisitianity. If this would be the case, it would support the argument of Picht and Aiken about the God of Philosophers. If it would not be the case, it would be interesting to understand where the concept and character Satan comes from after all.

The general current view of the character Satan, such as is presented in the book of Stanford (1996), describes him as the ruler of evil spirits and the prime adversary of God. Satan is one of the several names of the creature which can also be called Devil or Lucifer. He is the tempter of men, the serpent in the Garden of Eden; he is the accuser and punisher of man’s sins; he roams around the world and may disguise himself as an angel of light; he is portrayed as the horned beast, the goat, the dragon, but also as a Fallen Angel; he commands the evil demons who all roam around the earth tormenting people; he is in a battle for the human souls against God; he is very intelligent and can make ‘diabolical plans’; his Hell is where the sinners will be burned with fired and tortured. The end of Satan is also predicted: he will be defeated and will be punished in eternity. Meanwhile, he is allowed to be the Lord of the Earth.

The aim of this research is to trace where these images and conceptions of Satan come from, and whether they share origins with the God of Philosophers. It is probable that the devil as a character, Satan, is likely to be a philosophical creation of Christianity which reifies the identity of Christians while delegitimizing other religions. There are two outcomes possible: Satan is really a philosophical creation, completely fictional or abstract. This means that just the way that the God of the Philosophers is a result of abstract thinking, so is Satan abstracted from the problem of evil. The second possibility is that Satan represents the pagan gods, delegitimizing their authority and divinity. Satan lives in the occult, the invisible realm. However, it is not another god. It is the anti-god, the anti-world-order. Other religions that also deal with the occult become stigmatized as satanic, through artistic symbols and preaching, so their sacredness turns into an against-the-world, wrongness. These two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.

Picht and Aiken have seen the discrepancies between Yahweh described in the Bible and the God of Christianity. These differences are part of the evidence that confirm that the God of Christians is in fact something other than the one in the Bible. This paper will take the same approach: it will search existing literature on the Biblical concept of evil and devil, first in the Old and then in the New Testament.

5

Secondly, the paper will also look for foreign influences on the concept of the Devil. These influences will be found partly through concepts and partly through artistic and symbolic representations of evil and devil. The Greek influence, in particular, will be extensively dealt with, which will include the philosopher’s influence. The conflict between Christians and Pagans will also be explored. Finally, all results will be discussed and compared to the Christian world view and Devil.

Unfortunately, it is not in the powers of this paper to go in depth in the language of Hebrew and Greek, which makes it necessary to trust competent external academic sources on the subject. All the sources used for this paper that deal specifically with the Bible are from respected and well known researchers in the field. This research paper will sometimes refer to Satan as the Devil, without changing the meaning of the concept under development. It will also refer to the problem of evil or paradox of evil, which both mean the problem of an all-benevolent and all-powerful God coexisting with evil.

2. Comparison between evil and devils concepts in the Scriptures

Before the description of Satan in the Bible starts, one should ask the important question: how does one find traces of Satan in the Bible? Obviously, extensively knowledge of Hebrew and Greek (and perhaps Latin) is necessary. Kelly (2006) makes the important distinction between the Hebrew and Greek use of nouns and names. In Hebrew the use of the article ‘the’, as in ‘the satan’, denotes a common noun, which means ‘an adversary’. The lack of the article ‘the’, as in ‘satan’, sometimes denotes a proper name, as in Satan. In Greek it is the other way around: the article ‘the’ denotes a proper name. This is an important distinction to be made, because there are Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible that have made translation mistakes in the peculiarities of the languages (Kelly, 2006). The Septugiant is an example of such a translation that has been used by Medieval Christians (Kelly, 2006).

2.1 Satan in the Hebrew Bible

Kellly (2006) has made a research and detailed analysis of the Bible in search of Satan. The findings described in this and the following sub-chapter come all from his research, unless stated otherwise. His research is compatible with Pagels’ (1995) and Russell’s (1977). In the Old Testament, the proper name Satan has never appeared to denominate a distinct character explicitly. Indeed, the word satan meant largely ‘an adversary’, which could be a human as well as an angel. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden has never had any link with the word satan in the original Hebrew scriptures (only sometimes in later rewritings and translations). The first time that satan appears is when God sent an angel to obstruct the way of … This angel was called a ‘satan’, which could simply mean an obstructer or adversary: someone who stands in the way. This angel was terrifying, but was nonetheless a servant of God. There was also one of the Sons (or angels) of God who was called satan, the one who would be the tester in the book of Job. It seems that the task of this angel is to roam around the Earth, as a spy, and report about human’s sins at the Heavenly Court. This angel is called an ‘adversary’, which indicates that his Divine duty is to be the ‘devil’s advocate’ in the modern sense of the word. Another source in the Hebrew Bible which scholars usually draw from is an anecdote in Isahia 14. However, this piece will be

6

discussed at length under ‘2.3 Comparisons’. Clearly from this study, is that satan was never acting on his own. He was a servant of God, if he was at all the same figure.

2.2 Satan in the New Testament

Kelly finds that in the Gospels of the New Testament, however, Satan really had a proper name, hos diabolos. He was the character that tested Jesus three times, the one who rules over the Worldly Kingdoms, who suborns Judas and tests the disciples of Jesus (all in consultation with God). He seems to be the subject of the prophecy of Jesus, that his power “will fall like lightning” at the end of times, and the blame is on him to have provoked the murder of Cain.

In Paul’s epistles, he becomes much more of a despised character. Paul hopes that “God will crush Satan under his feet”. Satan is indeed the tester of sexuality and an obstructer, but he is also in charge to discipline (with fleshy punishment) those who fail the tests. When people become angry and sinful, they make space for Satan to come in their lives, says Paul. The devil can also disguise himself as an “Angel of Light”, and delude unbelievers, bringing doubts and thoughts of despair. Interestingly, God participates in this delusion, as if it is in God’s plan to cast doubt in believers. Finally Satan is also involved with the legitimate authority in the civil government (of Rome), if not equivalent to it.

In other epistles there are more mythological accounts of Satan. In Hebrews, he has the power over Death, which is what Christ came to destroy. In Jude, the Archangel Michael treats Satan with respect as an equal adversary in the court. In First Peter and James, he is the cowardly lion, who is only terrorizing for those who fear them, not for those who stand up against him. In John’s revelation there are several he is involved with several phenomena: trials, false Jews, civil authority, (allegorical) sea-monster Leviathan, war against Michael, taking the old accuser place in Heaven and finally the Ultimate Punishment. What is clear from these epistles is that Jesus, his disciples and the writers of the New Testament are biased against Satan, says Kelly. What is not clear, however, is that there was no fall of Lucifer before the Creation, no link to the snake and Adam, no link to angles that fall in Noah’s time, no anti-Christ (only human anti-Christs) and only a link to Lucifer being Jesus.

2.3 The Origin of Evil in the Bible

Satan was not present in the Garden of Eden, says Kelly. However, if Satan is the personification of evil, maybe that is how one finds him there? Hammer (1990) has studied and reflected on the origins of evil in the Bible, since it seems to be a never ending problem in the monotheistic Judaism and Christianity. Interestingly enough, in his findings, evil is not present in the creation as presented in Genesis. On the contrary, there is an emphasis on how ‘good’ everything that God created was. The other emphasis is on how God was disappointed on Adam’s action. Sin did not originate with Adam and Eve, nor did the word appear in the Garden of Eden part in Genesis. The first humans could not sin, because they did not have knowledge of good and evil before they ate the apple. There is even reason to doubt that there was evil in the Garden of Eden. The Tree of knowledge of ‘Good and Evil’ can be translated as

7

the Tree of knowledge of everything, good and evil meaning general and basic parts of the whole reality. Rather, this can be seen as the “first step in estrangement from God” (p. 322), since God started to become more and more remote. Evil appears for the first time as an internal inclination in Cain, which God advices to be tempered. However, Cain commits the first sin and corrupts the rest of mankind. God decides to wipe out mankind and start anew with one couple that seems not to be corrupted, but that also does not eliminate sin. It is clear that evil is elementary to humanity. Why did God create humans this way that they would stand up against Him? Is there no other way than to annihilate humanity? According to Hammer, Judaism does come with a solution to the problem of man’s evil nature: Jewish law and commandments.

2.4. Comparison: New Biography of Satan

The first striking difference between the Old and New Testament can be seen in the fact that there is no mention of Satan, as in a proper name, in the Old Testament. However, the Satan of the New Testament does refer to events in the Old Testament (such as the provoking of Cain), which indicates that the figure Satan should already be present there.

Important to keep in mind in this comparison is the process of writing, assembling and translating the Bible. Kelly argues that the Early Church Fathers put together the New Testament and reflected upon the scriptures in a way that they would make a coherent story. The fact that the books in the bible were written by different authors in different places and times is overlooked due to the faith that history is a manifestation of God’s will. What Kelly does not say, but is coherent with Picht’s and Aiken’s studies, is that the assembly and interpretation of the Bible is already directed by the abstract philosophical concept of God. The question here is thus if the interpretation of the Bible already occurred through a philosophical concept of Satan, or a related cosmology.

Kelly (2006) does away with the problem simply by referring to mistranslation and speculation. It seemed very important for the Early Church Fathers to speculate over a specific passage in Isaiah 14, where there could be a Lucifer-like figure. Unfortunately, they had mistaken Lucifer with the King of Babylon that would fall. Nonetheless, theologians were keen to reflect upon the hidden meanings of the Bible. Origen of Alexandria was convicted that “all rational creatures were originally created as equals, with free will that allowed either progress in imitating God, or failure through negligence” (Kelly, 2006, p. 195). This lead to his belief that Lucifer, or Satan (Origen used the bad translation), was originally an Angel of Light, but fell from Heaven before the creation. Herewith he went against the traditional view of his time, which is that Satan was an evil principle that opposed God by nature. Kelly regrets what would happen next very much. After Origen’s contrary statement, a Light-to-Dark synthesis was made, which would state that the Principle of Good created the Principle of Evil. Unlike the Zoroastrian Dualism, Christianity is now for ever burdened with the problem of evil.

Kelly (2006) shows that these early speculations lead to more speculations which would associate the devil either with the Serpent who, after having fallen from Heaven to Earth, would be envy of Adam, or with the Angel that has fallen through pride. The product of these speculations was the

8

interchangeability of terms in the next translations of the Bible. In the Latin Vulgate Bible, for instance, the name ‘serpent’ is replaced by Satan, and there is an explicit mention of the fall of Satan. This was the time of St. Augustine, who was still skeptical about the nature of Satan, but did accept his existence.

The creation of the modern notion of the devil did not stop there. The philosopher Thomas of Aquinas was also an important contributor, noted Kelly. Kelly describes that in his time it was common sense that there were angels who sinned, because of their pride, and that the highest of these angels was Lucifer. These Fallen Angels then got to occupy the Middle Air, the Earth and Hell (the realm of Hades). Aquinas was the first to conceive of these Fallen Angels as Pure Spirits with enormous intelligence and force that were plagued by Hellfire. The only sins incorporeal spirits can commit are pride and envy, thought Aquinas. Also, the Highest Angels, like Lucifer, are the cherubim, who are angels of Knowledge, thus Lucifer and his followers must be very intelligent. As this does not matches the image of the decadent and inferior devils, Aquinas had to conceptualize that when fallen, the knowledge of devils which produces love and wisdom goes lost, retaining intelligence of brilliant plots and conspiracies.

Concluding from this chapter, although there has been some mention of ‘a satan’ and ‘the Satan’ in the Bible, the modern conception of Satan is largely a result of speculation, philosophy and random translation errors. It is not clear though, whether these random errors were truly random- that is to say, whether they did not come from pre-existing assumptions. These assumptions could very well be grounded in the philosophy of the time, but does the philosophy behind Satan match the philosophy of Xenophanes’ God? It is clear that there is an assumption of an all-mighty and benevolent God. However, this is exactly a problem, since this God supposedly created the Principle of Evil. The following chapter will trace influences that could possibly contribute to a world view and social situation in which Satan had a place. Hopefully, the study will make clear whether this world view is compatible with the God of the Philosophers.

9

3. Influences of external traditions to the Christian concept of evil/devil

Evil spirits and demons, as personifications of evil, were abundantly present in the civilizations of Antiquity. This chapter will serve to provide both the conception of evil and its personifications of these civilizations, in the hope of bringing clarity to the general idea of evil that medieval Church Fathers held.

3.1 Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia

The influence of Egypt on the Western civilization is still unimaginable. It seems that the image of Satan as half-man and half-beast with tail and horns is directly transferred from Anpu or Anubis, the Egyptian god of the underworld (Stanford, 2006). This god was even associated with Fire, but also with Bliss (Stanford, 2006). The Egyptians had another god called Seth, which was believed to be evil, and his colour was red (Stanford, 2006). See figure 1 (Agapegeek, 2010). Clearly, the imagery is highly compatible with the devil, although there was no one personification of evil in monism of Egypt.

Figure 1 The Red Devil.

In Mesopotamia there was a never ending battleground between demons and gods (Stanford, 2006). Although the demons were weaker and always lost, they kept trying (Stanford, 2006). This idea seems to be strong, because it is still present to popular narratives of today: in the end, the good always wins. In Persia there was a similar battle, where Ahriman fought for the soul of mankind (Stanford, 2006). Moreover, he was associated with a serpent, seven evils (which relates to seven deadly sins) and people of the lie (Stanford, 2006). Indeed, scholars suspect that Zoroastrianism has influenced Judaism greatly with their concept of Satan. This would have happened through the exile of the Jews in Babylon (Stanford, 2006). This influence is quite possible, although Zoroastrian dualism is not the only dualism to have reached the Judeo-Christian tradition. Moreover, Christianity is more complex than a simple dualism. Its great problem is the paradox of monotheism with a dualism between good and evil.

10

3.2 Ancient Greek influence

3.2.1 Greek gods and the Great God Pan

It seems that even the aspects of Satan which are pronounced to be in the Hebrew Bible, that is, before the Hellenisation period, are compatible with Greek mythology. Although Hades was the god of the underworld, which became associated with suffering and fire later on, it was demonstrated above that the Egyptians already had such a deity (Stanford, 1996). Hermes and his son, however, have striking ‘satanic’ features. Hermes was the messenger of the Heavenly Court, in the same way that Satan used to be. He was also the god of thieves and the one who lead the dead into the underworld (Stanford, 1996). His son Pan, half-beast half-man, was the god of sexuality (Stanford, 1996). When sex had been marked by St. Augustine as bad, Christians had looked at Pan as the ultimate image of evil (Stanford, 1996). This demonization of Pan had its own evolution, which will be described below.

Figure 2 The pan pipes is whatdistinguishes Pan from Satan (Russell, 1977).

11

Literally, Pan means ‘everything’ in Greek (Roe, 1999). It seems that every new generation of gods is called Pan (Roe, 1999). However, one specific character, which collected more and more traits over time, became associated with this name. Dionysus, the god of ecstasy and wine which was depicted as a goat, was quite fond of him (Roe, 1999). Pan was a seducer of women and symbolized the love of nature and freedom of instinct and spirit (Roe, 1999). This was of course not acceptable to Christians, and as was described above, he was demonized (Roe, 1999). Under the influence of Neoplatonists and Christian philosophers, Pan came to personify paganism in general and also a state of being that was fundamentally “anti-divinity” (Roe, 1999). This state of being had to do with panolepsy, a state of intense ecstasy that would happen to people (including Socrates) in the woods (Stanford, 1996). The expansion of consciousness, perhaps in such an ecstasy, is a becoming one with the universe, of becoming a Pan (One and Everything; Roe, 1999). In the Divine Pymander of the Thrice-Hermes, father of Pan1, it is clear that one should become one with God and the entirety of the Cosmos in order to know God (Roe, 1999). This Dionysian idea is compatible with the Oneness of the God of the Philosophers and Plato’s unification of the soul with divinity. Curiously, this state of being, associated with the demonized Pan, has made Pan the anti-Christ2 (Roe, 1999). Even though the God of Philosophers is presumably compatible with the God of Christianity, the actual way to understand God, through this pagan ecstasy, is prohibited. It seems that Chrsitianity adopted the concept of the God of the philosophers only partly. It did not accept the forces that went along with God, such as the daimon, at least not in the surface (that is, with the same names and imagery).

3.2.2. Daimon

The word demon stems from the Greek Daimon, but originally daimon does not mean an evil spirit (Diamond, 1999). The daimonic, says May in Diamond’s book, “is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person” (Diamond, 1999).This natural function can be sex, anger, rage, euphoria, etc (Diamond, 1999). The daimon can thus also be a good power. The word can be synonym to theos or even to an impersonal and unknown manifestation of the divine (Diamond, 1999). The latter meaning is more plausible, since this kind of spirits or forces, a “nameless collectivity”, is more ancient

1 "After this manner, therefore, contemplate God, as having within himself the entire Cosmos - all thoughts or intellections. If thou dost not make thyself God-like, thou canst not know God; for like is intelligible only to like. Expand thyself unto the immeasurable greatest, passing beyond all body, and transcending time, enter Eternity, thus thou shalt know God. Conceive that nothing is impossible unto thee; think thyself immortal and able to know all - all sciences, all arts, the nature and way of life of every creature. Become higher than all height, lower than all depth; comprehend in thyself the qualities of all creatures, of fire and water, the dry and moist; and likewise conceive thyself to be in every place - in earth, in sea, in heaven, in the unbegotten, in the womb, in the young, in the old, in the dead, and in the after-death state. And if thou canst know all these things simultaneously - all times, places, deeds, qualities, and quantities - thou canst then know God."

2 It seems that Nietzsche wanted to bring the nature loving Pan and the ecstasic Dionysus back to life. Interestingly, Nietzche as announced that “God is dead!”, which is very similar to the “Great Pan is dead!” announcement in a neoplatonic myth (actually announcing the end of Paganism).

12

than Greek philosophy and religion (also present in the Old Testament; Diamond, 1999). This collectivity was supposed to be omnipresent and omnipotent (Diamond, 1999). It seems that this description is perfectly fitting the God of the Philosophers, or the unknown God. It is impossible for both Ultimate Being and the daimones to possess these characteristics and not be the same. Could it be that this is a piece of the puzzle of a particular world view? This view of the daimon is strikingly compatible with the undifferentiated and impersonal Ultimate divine reality of hinduism, the Brahman.

The Daimon meant something more for the philosophers, perhaps it was even essential to Plato’s philosophy. It meant something like a soul that would drive humans towards good and evil, which was their destiny (Diamond, 1999). This spiritual power was “inborn and immortal, embodying all innate talents, tendencies (both positive and negative), and natural abilities” (Diamond, 1999). In the Symposium, Plato referred to Eros as a daimon, and Diotima spoke about the daimonic:

All that is daemonic lies between the mortal and the immortal. Its functions are to interpret to men communications from the gods--commandments and favours from the gods in return for men's attentions--and to convey prayers and offerings from men to the gods. Being thus between men and gods the daemon fills up the gap and so acts as a link joining up the whole. Through it as intermediary pass all forms of divination and sorcery God does not mix with man; the daemonic is the agency through which intercourse and converse take place between men and gods, whether in waking visions or in dreams (Diamond, 1999).

In short, the concept of the daimon is incredibly close to the concept of Pan and the concept of the God of the Philosophers. It will then be no surprise when one finds out that the Minoan and Mycenian imagery portrayed daimons as half-animals and half-humans (Diamond, 1999). Morover, the daimon inside Socrates was one who resisted some conduct of action (for the good), a function that is also attributed to Satan the obstructor (Diamond, 1999). However, the actual demonization of daimons occurred through Xenocrates, who managed to separate the good in the side of the gods and the evil in the side of the daimones (Russell, 1977). In the Septugiant, the word daimonium was already used to denominate evil spirits in the Bible (Russell, 1977). The latter information might explain why Christianity has adopted the God of the Philosophers, but not its counterpart the daimon or Pan. It might not be a complete rejection of the world view, but more a rejection based on connotations of words and associations with Pagan religion.

3.2.3. Philosophy

In an indirect way, demons and Pan have been linked to the God of Philosophers and the Platonic unification with the divine. This link would place philosophy in a strange light. Apparently, this daimon was necessary to reach this One Ultimate Good Being, with all its obstructions and guidance. However, the daimon has been cast as evil, and in so doing there is no intermediation between humans and God.

Philosophy has also contributed to the concept of evil and devil that has been passed on to Christianity. Although there was no personification of evil in Ancient Greece, there were many ideas on the origin of evil (Russell, 1977). The main findings of Russel (1977) on the influence of philosophy will

13

be laid out in this subchapter. He saw that, generally, philosophers before Plato thought that evil consisted of a human lack of balance or knowledge. This idea is coherent with the idea of a balanced cosmos that in its plurality was one. In Orphism one could also find the idea that evil is a cosmic flaw, a disorder in the midst of the orderly cosmos. These ideas together still pertained to the monism of Ancient Greece.

Plato, however, was not satisfied with those answers and struggled with the question himself. It seems that at the end of his life he started to see the world as less absolute and more as a mixture. He started to shift between different degrees of monism and dualism. Although he saw that everything is an emanation from the One, he could not help but to undervalue the lowest form of emanation: matter. From Orphism, he inherited the tradition of the division between the spirit and its prison, the body. The spiritual world was better and opposed to the material. From these ideas he proposed that evil, as matter, was the greatest lack of the One, who was perfect, real and good. Therefore, the least good, the evil, was also not real. This connection of the body with evil has had its echo’s all throughout Christianity. The dualistic world view would also lead later to the characteristic of the devil as the Lord of this world (the eminent world). St. Augustine and Aquinas, under the influence of Platonism, continued to look into this logic. The idea that evil has no real being, leads to the conclusion that there is not real being behind evil. Thus, the devil cannot be the principle of evil. Instead, he is fit to be the fallen Angel who, although being very powerful, simply lacks perfection. This logic also takes away God’s responsibility for evil. However, this was still not enough for Plato. It could be that apart from the orderly created cosmos there is a Chaos, random irrationality, which existed before or simultaneously with the cosmos. Another possibility is that evil started to exist when the soul was mixed or contaminated with matter. This would be more plausible, since he saw that the soul and not matter was the cause of motion. However, these ideas would still create the doubt that God has created evil in one way or another. In each case, he did not think that evil could be in God (both the creator and the One), but in other things. Therefore, he proposed, as a side note, that there was either an erratic creator or a spirit which brought disorder.

Plato’s side notes were carefully analyzed by his successors and were later also mythologized in the syncretism of Hellenism. Plotinus adopted Plato’s emanation idea to come to the conclusion that ontologically, there is no evil, for it cannot have any being. However, the scale between the Ultimate Good and the Ultimate Lack of Good ended up in the Ultimate Evil. These two aspects of the philosophy are still problematic today, because Christianity is monotheistic but also dualistic. Philo was one of the philosophers to combine the ideas of evil with the Hebrew Bible. In the end a certain idea seemed to settle down: there was no evil, but moral evil. The personification of moral evil was the devil, as in the Fallen Angel figure, who failed to comply with the divine Laws.

These findings have made it very clear that the modern idea of the devil is inherently philosophical. How did the Devil get all his mythological traits though? A clue that Russell gives is that the demons were the figures that inspired the characteristic of the assembled devil figure later on. The characteristics of the demons were in turn inspired by Greek and other Supernatural creatures of the Antiquity, such as the god Pan and Anpu. These mythical creatures were not exempt from a world view though, one that would be commonly merged into one name: paganism. The next subchapter will go a bit more into the question of paganism and the devil.

14

3.3. Conflicts with Sectarian and Hellenized Christians

3.3.1 Demonization of Jew and then Pagans

The idea that the Jews have a tradition of demonizing enemies from within their group can be whole attributed to Pagels (1995). This subchapter will then also be completely informed by her findings and line of reasoning (except for a few connections with the God of Philosophers).

The Hebrew Bible is symptomatic of a project of unification of tribes into one national identity. From the start there was already way of thinking about “us” and “them”. The whole story of Moses was in fact about Israel against Egypt. Jews were sympathetic with solitary alien individuals, but were very hostile to alien nations. The police of not worshipping any foreign gods was also much enforced in the Bible. From anthropology it is known that the most basic binary oppositions present in almost every culture are the human/non-human and we/they contrasts. As people also tend to dehumanize enemies through these oppositions, it would require only a small step to demonize them. Judaism was special as it was the only one to have taken this step so far: it mythologized its enemies, as monsters of Canaanite mythology, who became a sort of cosmic power.

Following this way of thinking, Pagels found that, as satan only meant the nouns ‘adversary’ and ‘obstructer’ in the Hebrew Bible, satan would mean intelligent adversaries within Judaism. Divisions within Israel would cause mass destruction and misfortunes. Otherwise this adversary would represent the ‘spies’ or secret police and intelligent officers of Persia. In each case, the conclusion that Pagels makes is that satan did not originate as an outsider of Israel.

The New Testament was also full with language of spiritual battles and how satan was the power of the Roman government. The same way that Satan meant the Sectarian opposition within the Israelian tradition, Satan would come to mean the opposition within the Gentile People by the Gentile Christians of 70-100 C.E. This opposition consisted of pagans, who persecuted Christians at that time. New Christians of that time, such as Justin, saw the god’s powers not as divine or human, but demonic. This came from the line of reasoning that the gods had no morality and thus could not be identified either with divinity or humanity. Therefore this immorality, which is equal to evil, became associated with the spiritual energies that are forces of nature, the daimones. Daimones were then immediately associated with evil, and that is where the name demon comes from. In fact, these new Christians saw that all pagan life, with all its prostitutions and slave markets, was demonized. Because pagans simply worshipped the gods that belonged to a specific area, and thus did not make that choice themselves, they lend themselves to be an easy prey for the demons. Demons can only be conquered by choice. This was a revolution coming from Christianity, where people would be able to break family and tradition ties and choose which god to worship on their own. However, only those who were baptized were illuminated and had the freedom to break their traditional ties. This created a larger conflict. Christians were charged of Atheism, just the way

15

that Socrates was, because of their skepticism against the anthropomorphic gods. Here is a clear connection between the God of Philosophers which became the Christian God.

3.3.2. Contrasting world views

In the same period there were people who thought differently, continues Pagels (1995). Marcus Aurelius was somebody that opposed to Christianity, for he thought his philosophy to be more advanced. He saw that a nature, destiny and cosmic order resulted from all deities or forces of nature. There was this oneness in plurality that was at equilibrium and was ultimately one single power. The art of living is to accept it, instead of rebelling against it like the Christians do. Interestingly, this point of view is more compatible with the God of Philosophers and Pan than with the Christian God. Could it then be that the God of Philosophers is ultimately something other than the Christian God, and that Picht and Aiken were wrong? This question will be further addressed in the discussion.

Christians saw destiny as a conspiracy of clever demons, a superstition. It was through Christianity that secularization of earthly accidents was possible (they were not connected to God), since people of God break their bonds with nature and stood above it. Origen, as already mentioned above, “resolved to be a warrior on God’s side against the forces of Satan” (Pagels, 1995, p.135). Celsus thought that the idea of the devil makes Christians more dangerous than any other people, because it results in ultimate rebellion: “decide for oneself which family and civic obligation [own emphasis] to accept, and which to reject” (Pagels, 1995, p. 143). For him, Christians are to blame for “inventing a rebellion” (p. 143) and by doing so being more impious than pious to the One God. It seems here that secularization meant more of a problem of war and social conflicts than a metaphysical revolution.

4. Discussion: God of the Philosophers and Satan

Evil is a never ending problem for monotheistic Judaism, but not for paganism and dualist world views. It seems sensible to say that Christianity is meandering between a dualistic and monistic religion. In the same way that an accepted plurality of gods is the sign of one unified reality, one single God is the sign of distinction or separation, and even opposition to other gods and realities. Or is this meandering caused by forces that are pulling Christianity in different directions? This research has indeed found some of these different forces.

The various findings need to be taken into consideration in the discussion of Satan’s philosophical creation. Firstly, it was clear that there was a difference between the notion of Satan in the Old and New Testament, and that early church fathers looked back at the Bible already with pre-conceived ideas in mind. It was also clear that Thomas of Aquinas’s philosophy of Satan was influential in later interpretations of the Bible. This tradition of early Christian philosophers is compatible with Picht’s and Aiken’s studies. The next question to be answered is where these pre-conceived notions of evil and personification of evil came from.

16

The answer can be partly found in the Ancient concepts and depictions of evil and of gods which related to Satan’s most known characteristics. These concepts, widely shared in the civilizations of Antiquity, were probably influential in the imagination of people and their readings of the Holy Scriptures. This leads to the first hypothesis related to Pan’s relation to Satan, which is that Pan simply had attributes (such as sexuality) that were seen as evil and identified him with the Devil.

However, the relation of Pan with Satan seems to be a more complex one, which will be discussed here at length as the second hypothesis. The findings of this research have pointed towards a connection between Pan, daimones and the God of the philosophers. While the daimones are the spirits who seem to guide the talents and souls of people into their gradual unification with divinity and perfection, the god Pan seems to be the personification of the highest point of union with the Cosmos in ecstasy. Pan brings people in direct union with the One God. However, Pan has been demarcated as the anti-Christ, and his state of being the ‘anti-divinity’ state of being. The daimones, which formed the seemingly collectively undifferentiated and impersonal aspect of the Ultimate Being, a sort of Brahman, were also demonized. The question asked then was, if the God of Christians and the God of Philosophers are the same, then why was Pan and the daimones demonized?

There are two major ways to answer this question. First, there was Xenocrates, who divided the demons and gods into evil and good spirits. He and the neoplatonic philosophers have elaborated upon Plato’s dualism (although Plato himself was meandering between different degrees of monism and dualism), making the distinction between good and evil stronger. Second, Pagels has identified the demonization of pagans and pagan beliefs as a Jewish tendency to demonize opposition. This Jewish conflict occurred also in a deeper level as an opposition in world views that involved morality. The mixed morality, or a-morality, of the pagan gods and daimones has been unabashedly labeled as evil. Interestingly, Plato also criticized the lack of morality of the Olympian gods, however he did not demonize them; demonization seems to be specifically Jewish. The world views of the early Christians and pagans diverged further, as the Christians separated themselves from the earth and earthly ties. Therefore the whole world view of the One God and His manifestations in an orderly plurality has been demonized. This seems to explain why Pan and the daimons were demonized: firstly, they were pagan beliefs; and secondly, they were mixed with good and evil characteristics, which already demarcates them as pure evil in the eyes of Christians.

From this reflection it appears that the Christians rejected the world view of pagans that in part stemmed from the ideas of the One God. However, this rejection has to be more an effect of the Jewish tradition of demonizing opponents than an effect of really contrasting world views. The fact that their views are not too contrasted will be explained through the Holy Spirit and the Natural Law. The Holy Spirit is “the third person of the Trinity; God as spiritually active in the Cosmos” (Google Dictionary). The Holy Spirit is the undifferentiated and impersonal aspect of God that is omnipresent and omnipotent. Have these same characteristics not been attributed to the Daimones before? Yes, they have, and the similarities with the God of the Philosophers world view do not stop there. Pan, the personification of these spirits, is the one who directly mediates between humans and the One God. However, was it not Jesus himself that said that only through him humans could reach God? Was he not the mediator between humans and the Godhead? Why was Pan called the anti-Christ? Possibly this was necessary, because he was secretly identical to Christ. These striking similarities have to remain speculation for now, and be a matter for future research. However, this idea does bring a new light to the concept of Satan.

17

The Pagan world view of necessity and orderly destiny provided by the forces of nature was contrasted by the Christian view of choice and secularization from natural destiny. Although the idea of choice can be questioned on its own (it is only a choice if one chooses to be baptized), the freedom from destiny and nature is not always present in Christianity. The idea of Natural Law, endorsed by St. Augustine, is exactly the idea that what is natural, created by divine good and orderly intents, is good. This proves clear that the early Christians were not being strictly opposed to the world view of pagans, but were in fact creating false antagonisms because of their social conflicts. This puts a new light on Satan, making him the exact mirror image of Christ, mirroring the Other upon which Christians have built their group identity and world view. The demonization of others, which is more than the dehumanization of enemies, is the original contribution of Judaism. The other most important factor of the demonization of the world comes through Plato and Orphism. For the rest, the cosmology of Christianity seems to be structurally compatible with the Pagan one, although there needs to be more exact research on the analogy between Pan/Christ and Daimon/Holy Spirit.

The Christian project has started the process of secularizing evil, along with superstition, from nature. Christians would exorcize demons from people, which would make them Christians. Their world view, which was virtually the same as the Pagan, only differed in the sense that it separated the evil from the good, whereby the evil was no longer real or relevant. This secularization continued through Descartes and the Enlightenment, where all superstitions were left behind. Although the moral was still an element of life, evil did not seem to exist. Stephen Diamond asks, “but at what spiritual or psychological cost was the daimonic done away with during the Enlightenment?” (Diamond, 1999). Evil is still present, but largely repressed. Diamond also argues that Pagans knew how to deal with evil, not through their expulsion, but through confrontations and assimilations into the daily lives. The Christian and later secularized world view made nature inanimate, whereby only reason or the soul is animate, and thus largely impoverished the understanding of the world and humans. Satan is thus the reminiscent of a world that exists and is present, but is constantly covered, silenced and delegitimized.

5. Conclusion

The origin of Satan is a complex result of different factors influencing each other. The results of this paper indicate that the structures of Christian and Pagan cosmologies are compatible, if not the same. The Platonic and Orphic division between good spirit and evil flesh has been merged in the Jewish tendency to demonize their social conflicts. It can only be concluded that Satan is both a philosophical product and a result of social conflicts, whereby the evil and material are repressed. It is exactly through Satan, the one that people are supposed to reject, that one can find the hidden similarities between Pagan philosophy, including the God of Philosophers, and Christianity.

18

References

Agapegeek. (2010). Understanding the concepts of Deception Used by Satan [Image]. Retrieved

May 1, 2012, from http://agapegeek.com/2010/08/14/understanding-the-concepts-of-

deception-used-by-satan/

Aiken, D. (2011). On the Death of God. Reflections on His Life and Post-mortem Future.

Submitted to the Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

Diamond, S. A. (1999). The Psychology of Evil. In Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The

Psychological Genesis of Violence, Evil, and Creativity. New York: State University of

New York Press.

Hammer, R. (1990). The Biblical Perception of the Origin of Evil. Judaism, 39(3), pp. 318-324.

Kelly, H. A. (2006). Satan: A Biography. (pp. 1-171;191-215; 242-249). New York: Cambridge

Universtiy Press.

Pagels, E. (1995). The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House.

Picht, G. (1980). The God of the Philosophers. Journal of the American Academy of Religion,

48(1), pp. 61-79.

Roe, A. (1999). The Great God Pan. White Dragon (Published at Beltane). Retrieved May 1,

2012, from http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/pan.htm

Russell, J. B. (1977). The Devil: Perceptions from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. (pp. 55-

173). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

19

Stanford, P. (1996). The Family Tree. In The Devil: a Biography. (pp. 1-32). London:

Heinemann.