Angelology

1. The OT doctrine of angels.— There was throughout the East a general belief in angels as inhabitants of the spirit-world. In the OT these are recognized as spirits intermediate between God and man, and acting as the mes- sengers and servants of Providence. Their nature, while superior to that of man, is not purely spiritual ; their main function is that of executing the Divine behests. They are poetically conceived as forming the host of heaven (1 K 22'°), who praise God in the sanctuary above (Ps 148? 1501), act as the ministers of His will (Ps 103+), attend Him when He manifests Himself in His kingly glory (Dt 3327; see Driver, ad loc.), and form His retinue when He appears for judgment (J! 34, Zec 14°). The mention of the captain of the Lord’s host in Jos 5% is too slender a basis for the conclusion that the ancient Hebrew regarded the angels as an organized celestial hierarchy in which the cherubim and seraphim hold their respective ranks, Nowhere are the cherubim endowed with independ- ent personality; they are only ideal representa- tions, varying according to the conception of the writers who make mention of them. In like man- ner the seraphim of Is 6 seem to be only symbolic appearances. There is, however, a very perceptible development of angelology in the ot itself. At first the LorD God speaks directly to man (Gn 3°) ; then He appears to men through His messengers, who are called ‘sons of God’ (Job 1%, Ps 29! 898), We have further the conception of the Angel of the LorD, who is in some passages identified with J” (Gn 18”, ef. with 191°), and in others hypostatically distinguished from Him (Gn 247, Zec 114). Whether this name is to be applied specifically to one angel who represents God’s presence, or is to be extended to any angel with a special commission, remains therefore a moot point. The doctrine that Israel was led by the angel of J” paved the way for the belief in angelic guardianship of individuals, which some would find in Ps34791", although it is doubt- ful whether these passages contain more than a oetical expression of trust in a beneficent Provi- Faster On the other hand, angels were regarded as the instruments of judgment (2 8 24', 2 K 19%, Ps 78%), and even the forces of nature came to be personified as God’s messengers (Ps 104+). Prior to the Exile, with rare exceptions such as Is 676, the prophets do not introduce angels, but already in the visions of Ezekiel and Zechariah they play a prominent part, and the mystic number of seven (Ezk 97, Zee 41°) possibly points to the hierarchical idea which certainly afterwards gained ground (To 12%, Rev 82). Kzekiel calls 286 DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE them men; Zechariah calls them both men and messengers. By these prophets special prominence is also given to one angel who acts as Instructor or Interpreter. This is the fruitful germ from which has sprung the widespread invocation of angels and spirits in the worship of the Christian Church. Then, as in modern monastic piety, it appears to have arisen from a false conception of God as reign- ing in the remote heaven ; angels were employed to bridge the gulf that separated Him from men. Zechariah is the first prophet to recognize different orders and ranks among the angels (2% 4 31-4), 2. Post-exilic development of angelology on Persian lines.—In the post-exilic period, chiefly under the Parsi influences brought to bear upon the Jews of the Dispersion, the OT doctrine of angels underwent a curious and interesting de- velopment. Not that the Jews adopted wholesale the doctrine of Zoroaster either on this or on other points; but the inevitable social and religious in- fluences amid which many of them lived in con- tentment and peace, could not but tell on their theology. All the more was this the case that Zoroastrianism was in the zenith of its prosperit as a religious system, and in many respects indeed, as we have seen, was allied to Judaism. In no direction did it influence Jewish thought more than in the department of angelology. Men’s minds were strongly attracted to the superhuman, and angels were multiplied until God was con- ceived as governing the world by hosts of these ‘intermediary beings who concerned themselves with the affairs of men with very variousends.’ The belief in a regularly graded hierarchy of good and evil spirits, which characterized the religion of Zoroaster, began to be distinctly reflected, at least as to its main features, in the Jewish theology of the period. The position reached with popards to this whole doctrine in the later Judaism was apparently the result of the Persian conception of pure beings who surrounded Ormazd as his servants, acting upon the ancient Jewish belief that the angels were the messengers of Jehovah’s will. Development of the doctrine on Iranian lines was facilitated by the general and undefined nature of the Heb. angelology. The latter offered no bar to the acceptance of an ideal structure based upon a common principle; and the religious character of the Mazdean doctrine of pure spirits gave it the appearance of being the complete form of their own more rudimentary belief. In the later Jewish literature, accordingly, the angels are viewed as a well-organized host, whose recognized chiefs (Dn 1018) are admitted into God’s immediate resence, and form His secret council (Enoch 1422), hey are seven in number (To 125), Three are named in Daniel and Tobit, viz. GABRIEL, 7.e. ‘man of God,’ whose special function seems to have been to communicate Divine revelations (Dn 8! 921, Lk 1°); MICHAEL, 2.e. ‘ who is like God?’ the guardian of Israel (Dn 10: 2! 12!, Bar 67, ef. 1 Th 4%, Jude®, Rev 127); and RAPHAEL, t.e. ‘God heals,’ whose mission it was to cure disease’ (To 3”), and to present the prayers of the saints before God’s throne (To 1235, ef. Zec 12). Three more are men- tioned in 2 (4) Esdras: URIEL, 7.c. ‘God is light’ (41); JEREMIEL, #.e. ‘God hurls’ (48%); and PHAL- TIEL (the Syriac has Psaltiel, 5'). Who was the seventh? Is the silence of the pre-Christian Jewish literature on this point merely accidental, or was J” Himself reckoned the first of the seven arch- angels, as Ormazd was the chief of the seven amshaspands?+ On the latter supposition the analogy would be complete, but it would have paen oie 207 (Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, abriel), t These are called (1) Vohu-Mané = ‘the good mind’; (2) Asha-vahista=‘the highest holiness’; (3) Khshathra-vairya= been alien to all Jewish tradition to compare Ormazd or any of the archangels with J”. To them He was far above, and of another nature than, angels or archangels, who were only His servants. They borrowed the idea of the seven amshaspands, and made them the chiefs of the heavenly host; but they regarded them, their chief included, as beings entirely subordinate to J”. The Persian influence is seen so far in the pro- nounced angelology of the Book of Daniel. hat is new here is that angels, who are designated ‘watchers’ (77. In LXX ‘vy is Grecized into efp, but Aq. and Symm. render éypiyopos), have recog- nized princes with particular names, whereas in ancient Israel none of the angels were known by proper names. The angel in Jg 13% refuses to tell his name. That the names of the angels ascenderunt in manu Israelis ex Babylone is expressly acknowledged by the Rabbins them- selves. It is also taught in Daniel that the nations have their own special tutelary spirits, who fight actively in their behalf (10% This identification of particular angels with different nations carries us a step further than the inter- cession of the angels in Zechariah’s first vision. There is also in Daniel a further development of the former prophet’s vision of a hierarchy among the angels; they are classified in categories, of which each has particular functions. But it is in the Apocryphal writings that we discern the full strength of the Persian influence. The great Books of Sirach and Wisdom have little or nothing to say about angels. Judith speaks of none, and 1 Mace. refers only once to the destroy- ing angel (7"). In Baruch also there is but a single reference to the subject (67). The other books, and mainly 2 (4) Esdras, Tobit, and 2 Mac., are our sources. The most important passage, and one which formed the groundwork, so to speak, of many subsequent delineations of man’s relation to the spirit-world, is To 12}? (ef. Rev 84): ‘When thou didst pray, and Sarah thy daughter-in-law, I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One: and when thou didst bury the dead, I was with thee likewise. ... And now God did send me to heal thee and Sarah thy daughter-in-law. I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One.’ This Veacs teaches still more clearly than the Books of Zechariah and Daniel that there is a distinction of rank among the angels. Raphael is one of seven who stand in the immediate presence of God; from Lk 1” and Rev 8? we learn that Gabriel was also a member of Tobit’s heptarchy. This idea, which was prob- ably taken from the customs of Oriental palaces, where dignitaries were wont to gather round the throne, and which at all events had been embodied in the religion of Zoroaster, attains great promi- nence in the Jewish Apocalyptic literature. In spite of the weighty authority of A. B. Davidson, who observes, ‘The number seven already appears in Ezk 92, and there is noneed to refer it to Persian influence’ (art. ANGELS in vol. i.), it is difficult to resist the conviction that the seven amshas- pandas or princes of light suggested the seven Jewish archangels. So Winer, RWB, art. ‘ Engel’; Ewald, HI vy. p. 185; Nicolas, Des Doctrines Religiewses des Juifs; Cheyne, OP p. 335. At the same time there is no reason to suppose that the entire scheme of the supersensible world elaborated in the Avesta became part of the creed of Judaism. While the Persian influence is traceable, and while there are general points of resemblance in the angelology of ‘good government’; (4) Spenta-armaiti = ‘meek piety’; @ Haurvatat = ‘perfection’; (6) Ameretét = ‘immortality’; (7 Ahura-mazda=‘ the supreme god himself.’ Jerus. Talmud, Résh-hashand, p. 56. —— ss wey ‘ae ge aay gh ae ee a ee ee eee DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE the two systems, there is nothing like absolute identity. It is further implied in the passage under review, that according to their position in this hierarchy particular functions are performed by particular angels. The great business of ‘the seven’ is to ‘present the prayers of the saints.’ It seems to follow from this that the prayers of the pious are directed to the angels for this purpose; compare, on the other hand, Rev 22%. Another belief, clearly reflected in Tobit, is that some angels are charged with the protection of individual men : ‘A good angel shall go with him, and his journey shall be prospered, and he shall return safe and sound’ (51). ‘Good’ is here evidently not descrip- tive of the angel’s character as opposed to evil angels, but to his office of guardianship, in keeping with the statement of v.1® ‘God . . . shall prosper oe journey ; and may his angel go with you.’ he Israelites thought of the superhuman powers, not as good and evil but as benevolent or anta- onistic. If the idea of angelic guardianship of individual men appears at all in the OT (Ps 34’ 911), it does so in a far less definite shape than here. In NT times, on the other hand, this belief seems to have been quite current (Ac 12"). An interesting example of its recurrence in modern literature is found in Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, where Recha, Nathan’s adopted daughter, is made to say— ‘Ich also, ich hab’ einen Engel Von Angesicht zu Angesicht gesehn ; Und meinen Engel.’ The same idea was extended to nations and armies (Dn 121, 2 Mac 116 15). Indeed we find in 2 Mac. almost a repetition of the old Roman legend of Castor and Pollux mounted on white steeds and appearing at the head of the Jewish armies (37-), A somewhat similar tale is told in 102%, where five such ‘men’ appear, ‘two of them leading on the Jews.’ In 15% Judas Maccabeus is represented as praying for ‘a good angel’ to terrify the enemy, and in v. the Jews are described as having been ‘made exceeding glad by the manifestation of God.’ This idea as applied to nations seems to underlie the Heb. text followed by the LXX trans- lator of Dt 32° ‘The Most High set the bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God’ (bx 3a) instead of ‘sons of Israel’ (Ox? 33). Perhaps also Ben Sira may have had the angels in view when he wrote: ‘For every nation he appointed a ruler’ (Sir 171”), 3. Conception of elemental angels in post-can- onical Jewish literature. — Allusion has already been made to the personification of the forces of nature in the OT. The same tendency showed itself later in the conception of the elemental angels. Sir 39% speaks of ‘fire and hail, and famine and death; teeth of wild beasts, and scorpions and adders’ as ‘spirits (rvevara) that are created for vengeance.’ Although these are not angels, they are said to rejoice in executing God’s conmandment, and the language used by the writer certainly prepared the way for the intro- duction into Palestine of the Gr. idea of attributing to every separate thing its daluwy or angel. In the Book of Enoch, the sea, the hoar frost, the snow, the mist, the dew, and the rain,—each has its special spirit (60). This idea is still further developed in the Book of Jubilees (B.c. 135-105) ; the different elements are represented as each con- taining a spirit, and this again its angel, so that it becomes possible to speak of the angels of the fire- spirit, the wind-spirit, etc. The fullest de- velopment, however, of the tendency in question is found in the Targums. Thus in that of Jonathan the pestilence of Hab 3° becomes the angel of death. That even abstract conceptions had their angels bound up with them appears, ¢.g., from the state- DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 287 ment of the Testament of Benjamin that the souls of the virtuous are led by the angel of peace (dyyedos THs elphvns). To sum up. The Jewish people, under the in- fluence of what they saw in the religion of Zoro- aster, formulated their doctrine of angels with more precision than they had done previously. Especially was this the case with regard to these points: (1) the angels as a whole were conceived as forming a celestial hierarchy with seven princes; (2) those angels who acted as intermediaries be- tween heaven and earth were designated by proper names; (3) the Jews began to follow the custom (which, however, was no less Greek than Persian) of peopling the whole world with angels, and of giving to every man his own protecting spirit or baluwy ; (4) they formed the conception of the elemental angels. 4. Doctrine of angels as held by the Essenes and by Philo.—That the Jewish angelology had not reached its full development even at the beginning of the Christian era is evident from the fact that a cardinal point in it, viz. the doctrine propounded in the Talmud and the Targums regarding the creation of angels on the second day of the creation of the world, is entirely absent from the NT as well as from the later pre-Christian Jewish writ- ings.. The same conclusion is pointed to by the vagueness in several respects (e.g. in the exact division of angelic tasks, and in the varying names given to the last three archangels) of the angel- ology of the two centuries before Christ, which seems to have been a product of popular imagina- tion rather than the deliberate teaching of the Rabbis. The Palestinian and Babylonian Jew was, however, quite satisfied with an angelology which not only supplied some tangible link between him and the Deity, but also afforded the comfort- able assurance that in heaven his destinies were watched over by the accredited commissioners of J”. It was otherwise with the Jews of Alex- andria and the Essenes, who were concerned with the speculative rather than the practical, and with whom the doctrine of angels took the form of a theory of cosmic powers. By the latter sect the popular belief in angels was spiritualized into an esoteric system, in which the angels were only metaphorically the servants and messengers of God; in reality they were descending grades of being, differing in purity and in power in propor- tion to their distance from the First Cause, of which they were all emanations. It was the privilege of the initiated to be informed as to the distinctive names of this graduated series of spirits, and of the relations in which they stood to the whole and to one another. Any one admitted to their sect had to take an oath that he would ‘equally preserve’ their peculiar books and the names of the angels (Jos. BJ I. viii. 7). In all this we see the allegorizing and Gnostic tendency already at work. Philo’s doctrine of angels, although much akin to that of the Essenes, bore the peculiar stamp of its birthplace. It was a Platonized version of the ancient Hebrew beliefs. The latter formed, indeed, the common basis of both the Palestinian and the Alexandrian angelology ; the differences in the developed products were due to the fact that in the one case Zoroastrian, and in the other Platonic, influences were at work. According to Philo, the angels are incorporeal beings who in- habit the air, and are in number equal to the stars. They are comprehended in two main divisions— the inferior angels, who dwell nearest to the earth and are capable of descending into human bodies ; and the higher and purer intelligences (Aéya= Ideas), whose habitat is the upper regions of the air. It is through the latter that God, who as the 288 DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE perfect Being cannot enter into relations with corruptible matter, communicates with the uni- verse. These intermediaries, whose action is purely spiritual, Philo identifies not only with the Pla- tonic Ideas and Stoic Forces, but with the Demons of the Greeks and the Angels of the Jews. Their function is to execute the commands of the Most High, and to protect and direct the souls of good men. Among the infinite variety of the powers two are supreme—goodness and might. It must be said, however, that Philo has no clear-cut con- ception of these mediating forces. At times he speaks as if they were mere abstractions, at other times as if they were persons. But this is the necessary result of the premises from which he starts. As the media by which He works in the world His Ideas must be inseparable from God ; while at the same time, on the assumption of His aloofness from the world, they must rank as independent entities. 5. Denial of angels by the Sadducees.—In certain quarters, however, during the post-exilic period the doctrine of angels seems to have met with entire rejection. The position of the Samaritans is not quite clear, but at all events they had a doctrine of angels, and in this respect differed from the Sadducees, who maintained that ‘ there is no re- surrection, neither angel, nor spirit’ (Ac 23°). This is so far supported by Josephus, who says that according to the teaching of the Sadducees the soul dies with the body (Ant. Xvitl. i. 4). How much does this denial of angels by the Sadducees imply ? It is possible that they only rejected the oral Pharisaic tradition and the developed angelology of their day, while accepting the written Scrip- tures and a rationalistic interpretation of the old angelophanies. Yet they were evidently pure materialists, and repudiated the idea of a future life. It does seem strange that they should never- theless have believed in God ; but their God was, like the deities of Epicureanism, entirely separated from the world. In their view the present life was complete in itself, and man had no future judg- ment to face. As adherents of the Epicurean philosophy, they could not accept either the doc- trine of a future life, or the Jewish angelology which postulated a spirit-world created by God, and judged by Him. B. DEMONOLOGY.—1. The position as reflected in the earlier OT iterabune ootee development in demonology is still more marked than that of angelology. Among the ancient Hebrews the belief in evil spirits seems to have been of the most rudimentary description, hardly amounting to more than a vague popular superstition. The data furnished by the earlier OT literature is ex- tremely meagre. Ruins and waste places were peopled with weird spectres (sé‘érim), including a night-monster, Lilith, who was specially danger- ous to infants (Is 13% 3414). Mental disease was attributed to the malign influence of evil spirits, but in such cases the evil spirit is said to have proceeded from the LorpD (18 16). As His Pro- vidence comprehended alike the evil and the good (1S 2%, Ps 78%), there was really no place for demons viewed as the source of evil. The shédim of Dt 32” and Ps 106%, though illegitimate objects of worship, are not in OT the noxious spirits which they became in the later Judaism, and the story of the serpent in Gn 3'7 is not elsewhere alluded to in any pre-exilic writing. If the belief in evil spirits can be said to have existed in Israel before the Exile, it certainly was not in the widespread Although these passages are probably exilic, and coloured by Babylonian influence, the mention of jackals and other animals in connexion with the sétrim warrants the conclusion that demons were supposed to dwell in all those animals which haunt the solitary waste. form which it afterwards assumed. Although those interpreters who have detected a personal being in Azazel (=(?) ‘God strengthens,’ Ly 16°) are probably right, in view of the fact that Jehovah receives the one goat and Azazel the other, it does not follow that the conception of the latter arose at an early date in Heb. history. It is probable that the Priestly Code is not of Mosaic origin, and that this allusion to the ritual of the scapegoat belongs to post-exilic times. There is no su quent mention of Azazel in OT, although he re- appears in the Book of Enoch as a leader of the (fallen) angels. Cheyne (‘ AzAzel’ in Encyc. Bibl.) thinks he was ‘a personal angel substituted for the crowd of sé‘%rim (or earth-demons) to whom the people sacrificed ; just as the scapegoat was the sub- stitute for the sacrificial victims.’ However this may be, it is clear that he was regarded as in some sense antagonistic to J”; and that the conception of him, if not identical with that of Satan, as Origen (c. Cels. vi. 305) and others have supposed, was at least a step in the direction of that of the devil. 2. The Satan of Job, Zechariah, the Chronicler, and the Similitudes of Enoch.—In the Prologue to Job we have the first trace of the Satan or Adver- sary, t.¢. the angel whose function it is to act as Accuser and to execute God’s pees of judg: ment. As a member of God’s council (18) he stands in contrast to those angels whose ministry is con- cerned with errands of mercy, but while an angel of evil he is not in his own nature an evil angel. Although showing a strong disinclination to be- lieve in human virtue, he does not in Job, as in Jude, contend with God; he is content to act by His permission. But while he is not here repre- sented as an evil spirit, he is yet on the way which led later to his being so conceived. He performs his task with a too evident relish, and instigates God against Job (2°). It is still a question amon critics whether the Book of Job is pre-exilic, bu the other OT writings in which the word Satan is used to denote this minister of God undoubt- edly belong to the Jewish period. In Zec 3%? he appears as the pitiless accuser whom J” re The cruel and malicious way in which he exercises his office against the broken-down Church of the Restoration calls forth the rebuke of Divine grace. Here there is an approach to the conception of him as an evil spirit, without his being regarded, how- ever, as an embodiment of all evil ; he is still God’s servant. In 1 Ch 21) Satan is used without the article as the distinctive designation of the spirit who stands up against Israel as theirenemy. It is at his instigation that David numbers the people, an act ascribed in earlier times to J”(2S 241). The ossibility of such an interchange is owing to the act that in either case the angel who tempts David is the minister of J”. Angels are but the ministers of His will. Even to the ‘lying spirit ’ mentioned in 2 Ch 18?! we are not to ascribe an evil character. That passage does not prove that at this stage evil spirits were not only believed in, but viewed as having power to ‘ possess’ individual men. The spirit who misled the infatuated Ahab is Jehovah’s messenger, and goes forth from His immediate presence. In the Satan of Zechariah and the Chronicler, then, even more than in that of Job, there seems to be some approach to the conception of an evil spirit. At the same time he has not yet become an actual demon. The period was one of transition : foreign influences were at work among the Pal. and Bab. Jews, and primitive Semitic beliefs were undergoing a process of transforma- tion. Thus in the earlier post-exilic age Satan was neither a Heb. angel pure and simple, nor a Jewish demon of the developed type familiar to us in NT. Later, in the Similitudes of the Book of t | 7 : j | | 1 E ~ : DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 288 Enoch, written, according to Charles, B.c. 95-80, he appears as ruler of the angels whom he has made subject to him (545, cf. Mt 1274f-), These, who are designated Satans, have access to heaven, but are subject to the Lord of spirits (40’), Like those of Satan in NT, their functions are tempting (69 6, cf. Mt 41-, Lk 223), accusing (407, cf. Rev 121°), and punishing (53° 561, cf. 1 Co 55). It was long before Satan came to be conceived in Pales- tine as Beelzebub, or prince of devils. There is, in fact, a strange reticence regarding the existence and nature of Satan in the literature of the period between the Testaments. He is not mentioned in the Apocrypha (Satan being most probably used in Sir 217 merely in the general sense of adversary) or by Josephus. There is not, however, the same silence with regard to demons. Under the influ- ence of Mazdeism a more concrete form was given to floating Semitic superstitions about evil spirits. Not that this influence went very ree for Persian pore could not seriously affect Hebrew mono- theism. It is a moot point whether the conception of Satan may not have been taken over from the Persians. This is denied by many scholars, e.g. Oehler, who maintains that ‘the Satan of the OT is devoid of essential characteristics which must be pres- ent to justify a comparison with Ahriman’ (OT Theol. ii. p. 291, Eng. tr.), So alao Renan. Cheyne thinks it ‘a matter for argu- ment. But who can fail to see that the Satan of the Book of Revelation is the fellow of Ahriman?’ (OP, p. 282) G. A. Smith, while admitting the difficulty of the question, ranges himself on the negative side (The T'welve Prophets, ii. p. 319). According to Wellhausen, however,—who thinks that ‘the influence of Parsism upon Judaism was not so great as is usually assumed ,’—‘ Satan has some relation to old Hebrew con- ceptions (1 K xxii.), but nevertheless is essentially the product of Zoroastrian dualism’ (art. ‘Israel’ in Encye. Brit.). Bruce suggests that the divergence of 1 Ch 211 from 28 241, referred to above, may have been due to a feeling on the part of the Chronicler, begotten of Iranian influence, that temptation was no fit work of God (The Moral Order of the Worid, p. 63). The influence of the Persian dualism, which represents Ahriman as the antagonist of Ormazd, may also possibly be reflected in Zec 8. Here Satan appears as accuser of Joshua the high priest, standing, as was customary upon such occasions, at his right hand (Ps 1096). The rebuke administered to him exactly coin- cides with that of Jude%, where Michael the archangel is said to have disputed with him about the burial of Moses. It is, however, doubtful whether in Zec. Satan is not used merely in the general sense of the Adversary; the occurrence of the article seems to preclude the view that we have here a regular proper name as in 1Ch 211, In the art. ZoroasTRIANIsM in vol. iv., J. H. Moulton, while characterizing as ‘absurd’ the idea that Satan was borrowed from Angra Mainyu, is ready to concede that ‘the ranking of demons and the elevation of one spirit to their head may have been stimulated by Parsism.’ This writer also allows that ‘the abandonment of earlier ideas, like Azazel and the serpent’ ‘in favour of the Satan,’ is to be ascribed to Persian influence. See, further, art. Satan in vol. iv. 3. The doctrine of evil irits in the Apocrypha and in the writings of osephus.—Although the Apocrypha say nothing of Satan (unless Wis 2%, on which see below, refers to him), they clearly teach the doctrine of dauéma or evil spirits. These are not angels, nor, spperenily, fallen angels. They have power to plague and even slay men, but can be driven away by fumigation, and bound by the angels. Asmodeus is repre- sented in To 6 as being in love with Sarah, daughter of Raguel, and as having killed in succes- sion seven unfortunate men to whom she had been married (3°). The angel Raphael advises Tobias the son of Tobit to marry her, and provides him with a charm, in the shape of the heart and liver of a fish thrown upon the ashes of incense, to drive away the demon. The smell causes the evil spirit to flee into Egypt, where he is bound by Raphael (8'8). If all the other spirits were like this one, they must have had bodies, and must have been inferior in power to the angels. The writer of the Book of Tobit was evidently acquainted with Mesopotamia, and therefore with the Per- sian (lemonology, which is reflected in his work, altnough not to the extent of representing the demon as a rival power to that of God. He stops