What the Hell is a Demon?

Speaker 10:12

Are you interested in angels, demons, ghosts, spirits, and monsters? Are you curious about their origins, tales, <span data-t="22.

1">and influence upon history and on the present day? If so, then sit back, relax, and welcome to <span data-t="30.

8">Seven Demonology, the podcast that explores all of this and more.

Advertisement omitted · 0:40

Speaker 13:06

Welcome to Southern Demonology. As always, I am your friendly neighborhood, ancient demonologist JJ. And for <span data-t="195.

8">today, I want to do something that is probably long overdue considering that I have somehow managed <span data-t="202.

1">to host a podcast called Southern Demonology for almost a decade. I want to figure out what the <span data-t="210.

2">hell a demon actually is. And you would think that would be a fairly easy question to answer. <span data-t="216.

9">After all, we use the word constantly. I obviously use it constantly. You can pull up any <span data-t="222.

8">number of websites, books, TikTok videos, YouTube channels, podcasts, and I'm certainly including myself in that last <span data-t="231.

1">category where someone will happily tell you about this demon or that demon. We create enormous lists <span data-t="238.

7">of them. We divide them into hierarchies. We give them names, appearances, jobs, personalities, astrological correspondences, <span data-t="249.

8">favorite brands of toothpaste. Okay, maybe not that last one, though I'm sure if I look hard <span data-t="257.

2">enough, someone has done it. But underneath all of that is a problem that I don't think we <span data-t="264.

1">acknowledge nearly enough. What do we mean when we call something a demon? Is a demon a fallen <span data-t="272.

0">angel? Well, sometimes is it an evil spirit? That's getting closer. But what exactly is a spirit <span data-t="279.

4">and is a ghost a demon? What about the spirit of a dead giant? What about a foreign god?

What about a spirit that causes disease? What about a supernatural entity that kills people but <span data-t="293.

7">does so because God sends it to accomplish a particular task? Is that a demon? And that last <span data-t="301.

3">question is going to become incredibly important. Because one of the biggest mistakes we can make when <span data-t="308.

5">studying ancient demonology is to take the fully developed idea of the demon that we have inherited <span data-t="316.

1">from much later traditions, carry it backward several thousand years, slap it onto every supernatural being that <span data-t="324.

2">happens to do something unpleasant, and then congratulate ourselves for having solved the mystery. We haven't solved <span data-t="331.

9">anything, we have just changed the labels on the boxes. And I think this problem becomes obvious <span data-t="338.

7">when you look at the entry for demon in the dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, <span data-t="344.

7">which is going to serve as one of the primary sources for this episode. The entry makes what <span data-t="351.

6">I think is a fantastic observation. The word and more importantly, the concept of a demon changed <span data-t="360.

5">dramatically in antiquity. And the thing that helped drive that change was dualism. That is where we're <span data-t="368.

6">eventually going today. But before we get to ancient Persia, the Second Temple period, first Enoch, and <span data-t="377.

1">the ghosts of dead giants, and yes, I promise you there will eventually be ghosts of dead giants.

We need to go much farther back. Because if we want to understand what a demon became, <span data-t="390.

6">we first need to understand what a demon was before there was a devil for it to work for.

Let's travel to Mesopotamia. And right off the bat, I need to throw up one enormous warning <span data-t="404.

6">sign. Mesopotamian religion existed for thousands of years. Thousands. That's easy to say and incredibly difficult to <span data-t="413.

2">internalize. We have this nasty habit of taking ancient civilizations and compressing them into a single moment. <span data-t="422.

2">We'll say the Mesopotamians believed or the Egyptians believed, as if someone living in Uruk in 3000 <span data-t="430.

9">BCE necessarily thought exactly the same thing as someone living in Babylon 2,000 years later. That's roughly <span data-t="439.

2">the equivalent of finding something written by Marcus Aurelius and using it to explain what your neighbor <span data-t="446.

2">believes today. Things change, religions change, words change, supernatural beings change. And sometimes an old name <span data-t="456.

8">remains while almost everything around that name has shifted. Thorkill Jacobson actually spends time warning about exactly <span data-t="467.

5">this problem in the treasures of darkness. Ancient Mesopotamian material can preserve traditions for enormous stretches of <span data-t="477.

1">time while the meaning attached to those traditions changes underneath them. And that is something we're going <span data-t="484.

0">to have to keep in mind throughout this entire series. But Jacobson gives us a useful starting point.

He argues that one characteristic of early Mesopotamian religion was the tendency to experience supernatural, or <span data-t="499.

9">to use his terminology, numinous power as a mainent. In other words, the power wasn't necessarily standing <span data-t="508.

6">somewhere outside of the thing you encountered. It could be the power in the thing. The sun, <span data-t="515.

2">the storm, the grain, the river. The fertility that caused crops to grow, the terrifying wind that <span data-t="523.

8">came screaming across the landscape. And this is where things get really interesting for demonology. Because if <span data-t="532.

8">the supernatural world is encountered through all of these different phenomena, then the immediate question isn't <span data-t="540.

2">necessarily is this being morally good or morally evil? The question is, what does this power do <span data-t="549.

5">to me? Is this something I want close, or is this something I very desperately want to go <span data-t="557.

4">away? Jacobson describes that distinction beautifully. A beneficial supernatural power was something you sought, something whose <span data-t="567.

4">continued presence you wanted to ensure. A harmful power was something you defended yourself against. And those <span data-t="575.

4">harmful powers could be associated with sudden illness, pain, storms, winds, ghosts who could not find rest <span data-t="584.

2">in the underworld, or even particular diseases. That is already a world populated by beings that we <span data-t="592.

6">would very comfortably call demons. But there's a catch. Demon is our category. The ancient system is <span data-t="600.

9">much messier. You can have an evil spirit, a harmful god, a ghost, a disease that possesses <span data-t="608.

6">supernatural agency, or even a wind that isn't merely meteorological, but carries a numinous power of its own.

And what unites these things is not necessarily that they have signed enlistment papers with the <span data-t="624.

1">cosmic forces of evil, they hurt people. That's enough. They are hostile powers. You ward them off, <span data-t="632.

5">you use incantations against them, you seek divine assistance against them. But, and this is absolutely critical, <span data-t="640.

9">they still exist inside the same supernatural system as the gods. There isn't necessarily a separate infernal <span data-t="649.

3">government running in opposition to the divine world. And I think one of the best examples of <span data-t="655.

6">this comes from the Atrahasis epic. I've talked about Atrahasis before because it is one of those <span data-t="663.

4">texts that you simply cannot avoid when dealing with the ancient Near East. It is also one of <span data-t="670.

4">those texts where every time you think things can't get stranger, the ancient writer politely asks you <span data-t="677.

1">to hold his beer. Toward the end of the flood story, the gods have a problem. Humanity had <span data-t="685.

0">become too numerous and too noisy. The flood had been an absolutely catastrophic attempt to solve that <span data-t="692.

3">problem, and afterward a different mechanism is established to keep the human population under control. One of <span data-t="699.

9">those mechanisms is Pashitu, and Pashitu kills children at birth. Let that sink in for a second. <span data-t="708.

4">By almost any modern popular definition, if I tell you there is a supernatural being whose job <span data-t="715.

4">involves killing infants, you're probably going to place that entity under the heading demon in letters large <span data-t="722.

6">enough to see from space. And Jacobson himself uses that term for Pashitu. But within the narrative, <span data-t="730.

6">Pashitu isn't rebelling against the gods. She is part of the solution devised by them. The horror <span data-t="739.

1">is real, the destructive function is real. But the cosmic rebellion isn't, and that distinction is the <span data-t="747.

4">first major key to this entire episode. Harmful does not automatically mean opposed to God or the gods.

I want to say that again, because we're going to watch that distinction change. A supernatural <span data-t="762.

8">entity can be destructive without belonging to some independent kingdom of evil. And there is another Mesopotamian <span data-t="771.

4">example that I absolutely love, because it demonstrates how different this worldview can be from ours. Jakobsen <span data-t="780.

0">describes incantations against harmful ghosts and demons of illness in which the afflicted person can essentially take <span data-t="787.

7">the spirit to court. I am not being metaphorical here. The victim appeals to the sun god as <span data-t="795.

0">judge or to other judges of the underworld and asks that the offending ghost or demon be <span data-t="801.

6">arrested and returned to where it belongs. Think about what that implies. The demon is not necessarily <span data-t="809.

4">outside cosmic law, it can be sued under cosmic law. And I desperately wish modern legal systems <span data-t="817.

8">work this way, because the court transcripts alone would be amazing. Your Honor, the defendant entered through <span data-t="826.

5">the hinge box like a wind, caused three days of fever, and refuses to vacate the premises. But <span data-t="834.

3">joking aside, that tells us something extremely important. The harmful supernatural being is still part of an <span data-t="842.

5">ordered cosmos. It may violate that order. It may prey upon humans. It may need to be expelled, <span data-t="851.

0">restrained, returned, or punished. But we're still not dealing with the later idea of two supernatural armies <span data-t="858.

7">locked in a war over the fate of creation. And that brings us closer to ancient Israel. Now <span data-t="865.

7">I need to be very careful here, because this is where chronology becomes everything. There is no <span data-t="872.

8">one single biblical demonology. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of texts produced and edited across a <span data-t="882.

2">very long period of time. If we take something from an earlier stratum, something from the Persian <span data-t="889.

7">or Hellenistic period, throw both into a blender, and call the result what the Bible teaches about <span data-t="897.

2">demons, we're going to manufacture a system that the individual texts themselves never actually present. So let's <span data-t="907.

4">start earlier. In 1 Samuel 16, Saul is afflicted by what the text calls a ruach ra'ah, an <span data-t="915.

4">evil or harmful spirit. But here is the problem. If we want to call that thing a demon <span data-t="922.

3">in the later sense, it comes from God. The Dictionary of Deities and Demons points out that the <span data-t="930.

0">Spirit is not really personified in this narrative. It functions as an objectification of God's abandonment of <span data-t="937.

8">Saul after David has been chosen. The spirit torments Saul. David's music temporarily alleviates the suffering. Later, <span data-t="948.

3">as Saul becomes increasingly jealous of David, the spirit returns and Saul becomes violent. Whatever psychological, <span data-t="956.

9">literary, or supernatural layers we want to explore in that story. And there are quite a few. <span data-t="963.

7">The point for today is simply that this harmful spirit does not belong to an opposing kingdom. <span data-t="971.

8">It isn't a soldier of Satan slipping behind enemy lines, it operates within divine sovereignty. And then <span data-t="980.

1">1 Kings 22 gives us something even more fascinating. The prophet Mekaiah sees the heavenly court. God <span data-t="988.

4">asks how Ahab might be enticed into going to Ramath Gilead where he will die. A spirit steps <span data-t="996.

2">forward, it volunteers, and its plan is to become a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets.

Again, stop and think about how strange that sounds if we impose later demonology upon it. <span data-t="1013.

0">Lying, deception, false prophecy. Those are precisely the sorts of activities that later Jewish literature can <span data-t="1021.

4">associate with the forces of cosmic evil. But here the spirit stands in the Heavenly Council and <span data-t="1029.

4">receives permission to carry out the task. The Dictionary of Deities and Demons notes that this spirit <span data-t="1036.

5">is more personified than the harmful spirit afflicting Saul and appears at least partly independent.

Advertisement omitted · 17:25

Speaker 119:21

But it still isn't the devil. It isn't working for the devil. There is no infernal <span data-t="1167.

9">opposition party sitting across the aisle from God. The framework is different. And this is where I <span data-t="1175.

1">want to draw a line in the sand before moving forward. Because longtime listeners may already be <span data-t="1182.

3">thinking, JJ, what about Psalm 91? And yes, Psalm 91 is absolutely loaded with supernatural danger. I've <span data-t="1192.

0">done an entire episode breaking down those dangers. We have the terror of the night, pestilence, <span data-t="1198.

7">destruction, the arrow flying by day. The imagery can be read at the mundane level, but it <span data-t="1206.

2">also opens very naturally into a mythological and demonological reading. But Psalm 91 is not evidence for <span data-t="1215.

0">the same period we have just been discussing. Psalm 91 is a late psalm. I have argued <span data-t="1222.

8">before on this show that it sits solidly within the Second Temple period. And that matters enormously. <span data-t="1231.

0">In fact, it matters so much that I think Psalm 91 works better for us today as <span data-t="1237.

6">evidence for how much the supernatural landscape had changed. So put a bookmark there. We're coming back <span data-t="1245.

0">to it. First, we have to go to Persia. In 539 BCE, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon. <span data-t="1252.

7">And if you're wondering why a podcast episode about demons has suddenly turned into ancient political <span data-t="1259.

8">history, I promise this isn't one of my normal tangents where I somehow start talking about Japanese <span data-t="1266.

7">convenience stores and forget what the original subject was. This matters. Judah had already fallen to Babylon.

The temple had been destroyed. A portion of the population had experienced exile. And then Babylon <span data-t="1283.

9">itself fell to the Persian Empire. That placed Jewish communities within a Persian political and cultural <span data-t="1291.

5">environment for roughly two centuries. And somewhere within that enormous period of contact, we begin to <span data-t="1299.

1">see Jewish supernatural thought developing in ways that are difficult to miss. Now, this is also where <span data-t="1306.

7">I want to pump the brakes slightly. Religious influence is extraordinarily difficult to prove. It is very <span data-t="1314.

2">easy to say religion A has an idea, religion B has a similar Idea. Therefore, B stole <span data-t="1322.

7">it from A. That's garbage methodology. Cultures can develop similar ideas independently. Ideas can travel through intermediaries.

We often don't know the dates of traditions nearly as precisely as we would like. And <span data-t="1338.

7">Zoroastrianism itself has a long and complicated textual history. So I am not going to tell you <span data-t="1346.

1">that Judaism simply copied and pasted Zoroastrian demonology. That would be irresponsible. What I am saying <span data-t="1355.

8">is that the Persian encounter provides a profoundly important historical context for developments that appear with <span data-t="1363.

2">increasing clarity in post-exilic and second temple Jewish literature. And the dictionary of deities and demons <span data-t="1371.

6">makes the argument rather strongly. It describes the older cultures of the Near East as essentially <span data-t="1379.

6">monistic in the sense that the supernatural world forms a unified system. That does not mean there <span data-t="1387.

2">are no conflicts. Good grief read Enuma Elish. The gods can fight. It does not mean there <span data-t="1394.

9">are no destructive spirits. We just spent a significant amount of time discussing them. It does not <span data-t="1402.

0">mean every supernatural being is nice. Quite the opposite. What it means is that there is not <span data-t="1409.

1">yet the later cosmic structure of an archenemy of God commanding a rival camp of evil spirits <span data-t="1416.

4">whose purpose is to oppose the divine order, corrupt humanity, and eventually face eschatological destruction. Zoroastrian <span data-t="1425.

6">dualism offers something much closer to that framework. Two opposed spiritual camps, ranks of benevolent and <span data-t="1434.

7">destructive beings, human behavior entangled in that cosmic struggle, and an eventual resolution in which evil <span data-t="1443.

4">is defeated. The DDD argues that Jewish encounter with this framework helped transform the meaning of the <span data-t="1450.

6">Greek words daemon and daimonian. And this is another place where our modern language trips us up. <span data-t="1458.

8">If I say the Greek word daimon, your brain immediately wants to translate it as demon. Please <span data-t="1467.

1">don't, at least not automatically. A daemon in earlier Greek usage was not necessarily an evil <span data-t="1475.

5">supernatural monster. The related daimonian could refer to divine power or to a lower class of divine <span data-t="1484.

4">beings mediating between gods and humans. The famous daimon of Socrates wasn't Satan whispering into his ear.

Even the verbs built from this root could originally describe being under the influence of a <span data-t="1499.

6">God or divine spirit, and that influence might be beneficial. The word did not inherently carry the <span data-t="1507.

8">freight that our English word demon carries today. But during the Second Temple period, particularly as <span data-t="1515.

5">Jewish literature increasingly appears in Greek, Daemon and Daimonian begin taking on a much more consistently <span data-t="1523.

9">negative meaning. And I think this is the moment where our question changes. Earlier, the question could <span data-t="1532.

2">be: what does this spirit do? Does it bring disease? Does it bring good fortune? Does it protect?

Does it destroy? Does it carry out a divine punishment? But under an increasingly dualistic framework, <span data-t="1547.

4">another question becomes possible. Whose side is this spirit on? That is a very different taxonomy. And <span data-t="1556.

3">once you have that question, you can begin reorganizing the entire supernatural world around it. This is <span data-t="1564.

6">where translation becomes absolutely fascinating. And yes, I know that I say translation is fascinating entirely <span data-t="1572.

3">too often, but this time I mean it. Okay, I mean it every time. But stick with me.

Look at Psalm 96.5, and in the Hebrew, the gods of the nations are called Elilim. <span data-t="1583.

8">Depending upon how you want to translate that, you're dealing with something like idols or worthless gods. <span data-t="1591.

4">But when the Septuagint translates the verse into Greek, what do those gods become? Daimonia. Demons. That <span data-t="1600.

6">isn't merely swapping one perfectly equivalent Greek word for one perfectly equivalent Hebrew word. Something has <span data-t="1609.

0">happened conceptually. Or look at Deuteronomy 32.17. The Hebrew refers to Shadim. The DDD describes these <span data-t="1619.

0">here as tutelary spirits, but the Septuagint renders them again as daimonia, demons. Then look at Isaiah <span data-t="1628.

2">65.11. The Hebrew has Gad, the god of fortune. What does the Greek translation do with Gad? Daimon.

The god has become a demon. And this is the process that the DDD rather wonderfully <span data-t="1645.

6">calls demonization in the literal historical sense. Older gods, foreign gods, lesser supernatural powers, spirits of nature.

They can all be reevaluated and moved into a new category. They are no longer simply <span data-t="1663.

4">the supernatural beings worshipped by somebody else. They become members of the wrong side. And that, I <span data-t="1671.

0">think, gets us much closer to answering our original question. A demon isn't necessarily a species, it <span data-t="1679.

1">is increasingly a classification. A supernatural being has been placed within a moral and cosmic taxonomy. <span data-t="1688.

2">And once that happens, the entire map changes. The question isn't merely whether the entity is dangerous. <span data-t="1697.

5">God can be dangerous. Angels can be dangerous. Divine judgment is certainly dangerous. Danger alone cannot <span data-t="1706.

3">define the demon, nor can supernatural agency, nor can invisibility, nor can causing disease. The thing <span data-t="1716.

1">that increasingly defines the demon within the developing Second Temple framework is its alignment with a <span data-t="1723.

4">hostile supernatural order. And now, now we can finally go back to Psalm 91. When I covered <span data-t="1731.

8">Psalm 91 before, I made the point that it is a very late entry into the Psalter <span data-t="1738.

2">and belongs within Second Temple Judaism. That isn't a minor dating note. It changes how we read <span data-t="1746.

3">the supernatural imagery. Psalm 91 talks about the terror of the night, the pestilence that stalks in <span data-t="1754.

4">darkness, the destruction that wastes at noon. And the DDD's entry on the terror of the night <span data-t="1761.

7">points out that later Jewish sources very clearly understood Psalm 91 as protection against demons and <span data-t="1769.

4">harmful spirits. The Greek translation even turns the destruction at midday into the famous noonday demon. <span data-t="1779.

0">Now compare that world to 1 Kings 22. In 1 Kings, a lying spirit can walk into <span data-t="1786.

5">the heavenly court, volunteer a plan, receive authorization, and carry out deception against Ahab. In Psalm <span data-t="1796.

1">91, written much later, we have a protective text increasingly surrounded by a demonological interpretation in <span data-t="1804.

7">which named or personified dangers stalk particular times and spaces and are warded away through divine protection.

Those aren't interchangeable snapshots. There is development between them. And I think this is where I <span data-t="1821.

1">went wrong when I've occasionally talked about these things too broadly in the past. If we simply <span data-t="1827.

9">create a giant category called biblical demons and toss the lying spirit, the harmful spirit afflicting <span data-t="1835.

7">Saul, Deborah, Kiteb, the terror of the night, Lilith, Azazel, and every other unpleasant supernatural entity <span data-t="1844.

3">into it, we've erased the very history we're trying to understand. Psalm 91 belongs much closer to <span data-t="1852.

4">the world we're moving toward, a second temple world, a world increasingly concerned with hostile spirits. <span data-t="1861.

2">A world in which the supernatural opposition to God is becoming more structured. A world that will <span data-t="1868.

9">give us the watchers, mastama, belial, spirits of deceit, spirits of darkness, angelic armies, demonic armies, <span data-t="1878.

3">cosmic lots, final judgment, resurrection, and an increasingly elaborate geography of good and evil. Not all <span data-t="1886.

1">at once, not in every Jewish community, and definitely not in one universally agreed upon system. I <span data-t="1894.

3">cannot stress that last part enough. Second Temple Judaism was spectacularly diverse. There was no demonology <span data-t="1903.

4">committee sitting in Jerusalem issuing quarterly updates to the official org chart. Different texts solve the <span data-t="1911.

4">problem differently. And that is exactly what makes this period so fascinating. Because once demons have <span data-t="1918.

4">increasingly become a coherent category of hostile evil spirits, a rather obvious question appears. Where did <span data-t="1927.

8">they come from? And this is where we finally reach First Enoch. Not because First Enoch invented demons.

It didn't. Not because ancient people had never imagined hostile spirits before. They absolutely had. And <span data-t="1965.

6">longtime listeners know this story. Genesis 6 gives us the incredibly short and frustrating account of the <span data-t="1973.

8">sons of God, the daughters of humanity, and the Nephilim. It does not tell us that demons <span data-t="1981.

3">came from this event. I want to be very clear about that. Genesis does not give us <span data-t="1987.

0">the demon origin story, the Book of the Watchers does. First, Enoch expands the tiny episode from <span data-t="1994.

4">Genesis into an enormous myth of cosmic corruption. The Watchers descend. They cross a boundary between <span data-t="2004.

0">heaven and earth. They take human women. They transmit forbidden knowledge. Their offspring become giants. The <span data-t="2013.

8">giants consume what humanity produces, turn upon humanity, and fill the earth with violence. Eventually judgment <span data-t="2023.

3">comes, the watchers are bound, the giants are killed. And if the story stopped there we would <span data-t="2030.

2">have no demon origin story, but it doesn't. Their bodies die, their spirits remain. The DDD summarizes <span data-t="2050.

5">the tradition by noting that the souls of the giants live on as evil spirits that harm humanity.

And that distinction is incredibly important. The watchers themselves are not the demons in this system. <span data-t="2064.

5">The watchers are rebellious heavenly beings. Their dead children produce the evil spirits. So once again, <span data-t="2072.

3">fallen angel does not automatically equal demon, at least not here. And I think the reason this <span data-t="2078.

3">answer works so well within 1 Enoch is because it solves several problems simultaneously. Why are these <span data-t="2086.

7">spirits evil? Because their very origin lies in the transgression of heavenly boundaries and in the <span data-t="2094.

2">violence of the giants. Why are they on earth? Because their mothers were earthly and their bodies <span data-t="2101.

3">were earthly. Why do they survive physical death? Because their fathers were spirits. Why do they attack <span data-t="2109.

4">humanity? Because violence and corruption were their nature while embodied. And why doesn't the flood eliminate <span data-t="2117.

1">supernatural evil? Because killing the giants only removes their bodies. Their spirits remain behind. That's an <span data-t="2125.

4">incredibly clever theological solution. And it tells us something else about demonology that I think gets <span data-t="2132.

7">lost when we try to create one grand unified theory. There wasn't one origin story. Different cultures <span data-t="2141.

0">and different texts could explain hostile spirits differently. Jacobson describes Mesopotamian demons that might be winds, <span data-t="2150.

6">diseases, restless ghosts, or offspring of gods. Atrahasis gives us Pashitu as a destructive being created <span data-t="2160.

7">as part of the divine solution to human overpopulation. Earlier biblical traditions can place harmful spirits <span data-t="2169.

9">directly under God's authority. Then the increasingly dualistic environment of Second Temple Judaism reorganizes the supernatural <span data-t="2179.

5">landscape into opposing moral camps. And within that new landscape, first Enoch gives one Jewish answer to <span data-t="2188.

2">where at least a major category of evil spirits came from. They are the ghosts of the giants.

That isn't the beginning of demons. It is the beginning of one enormously influential explanation for <span data-t="2202.

7">them. And I think that distinction changes almost everything. So after spending entirely too much time <span data-t="2211.

0">wandering around ancient Mesopotamia, Israel, Persia, Greece, and the Second Temple period, and somehow I managed <span data-t="2220.

0">not to drag Japan into this one, which may be a first. Can we finally answer the <span data-t="2224.

8">question of what the hell is a demon? And unfortunately, the academically responsible answer is the most <span data-t="2232.

6">annoying answer possible. It depends. I know, I'm sorry, but I think we can do better than <span data-t="2239.

6">leaving it there. Demon is not a timeless biological category of supernatural creature. There isn't some <span data-t="2248.

5">ancient supernatural field guide where you can check the number of horns, inspect the wings, and determine <span data-t="2255.

6">that you have found Demon Vulgaris. The category develops historically. In the ancient Near Eastern world, <span data-t="2264.

2">human beings encountered or conceptualized a huge range of supernatural powers. Some were gods, some were <span data-t="2273.

1">spirits, some were ghosts, some manifested disease, some inhabited winds, some protected, some destroyed, some were <span data-t="2284.

0">actively hostile to humanity. But hostility toward humanity did not necessarily make a supernatural being part <span data-t="2293.

5">of a cosmic rebellion against the divine order. Sometimes the destructive spirit actually served that order. <span data-t="2302.

2">That is the peace we have to understand first. Then, during the post-exilic and second temple periods, <span data-t="2309.

7">Jewish thought encounters and develops within a world where radical dualism provides a different conceptual possibility. <span data-t="2318.

6">Good and evil can become opposing supernatural camps. Human morality can become participation in that cosmic struggle.

Older gods and spirits can be reassigned to the evil side, and the word daemon itself <span data-t="2335.

8">can move from the broad idea of a divine or intermediary spirit toward the much narrower idea <span data-t="2343.

3">that we recognize as a demon. So if I had to give you a working definition for <span data-t="2349.

1">the rest of this series, I would say this. A demon in the form that emerges most <span data-t="2355.

6">clearly during Second Temple Judaism is a hostile supernatural spirit increasingly understood not merely as dangerous <span data-t="2364.

6">to human beings, but as belonging to or participating in the cosmic sphere opposed to God's order. <span data-t="2372.

2">And even that definition is going to have exceptions. Because ancient religion apparently exists specifically to <span data-t="2380.

4">punish anyone foolish enough to demand perfectly clean categories. But it gives us somewhere to start. <span data-t="2388.

6">More importantly, it prevents us from doing something I think is far worse. It prevents us from <span data-t="2394.

6">reading backward. The lying spirit of 1 Kings is not automatically a demon because later demons lie. <span data-t="2403.

8">Pashitu is not a satanic rebel because she kills children. The destructive powers in Psalm 91 should <span data-t="2412.

6">not simply be pulled backward several centuries and used to define earlier Israelite religion. And the <span data-t="2420.

2">watchers are not demons simply because later traditions collapse fallen angels and demons together. Chronology matters, <span data-t="2428.

6">context matters, words matter. And sometimes the most important thing we can learn about an ancient <span data-t="2435.

0">supernatural being is not its name. It's what category the people describing it thought it belonged to. <span data-t="2443.

3">Because categories tell us how a culture understood the universe. And during the Second Temple period, <span data-t="2450.

2">that universe was changing, the supernatural world was dividing, lines were being drawn, spirits were being <span data-t="2458.

3">sorted, and evil was beginning to look less like an isolated danger encountered in the darkness and <span data-t="2465.

6">more like a kingdom. Which raises the obvious next question. In our next episode, we're going to <span data-t="2483.

8">turn to the Book of Jubilees, and one of my absolute favorite figures from Second Temple Demonology, <span data-t="2491.

6">Mastima. Because Jubilees takes the Enochic spirits of the dead giants and does something fascinating with them.

It gives them a prince. And even more strangely, that prince negotiates with God for permission <span data-t="2509.

0">to keep some of them. Which means that just when you thought we had finally created a <span data-t="2514.

9">nice clean division between good and evil, Second Temple Judaism is going to come along and ruin <span data-t="2522.

1">it for us. I absolutely love ancient demonology. Until next time, my friends, stay safe out there. <span data-t="2538.

0">Thank you for listening to Seven Demonology. Find us online at 7Demonology.com where you can find all <span data-t="2546.

6">of our social links, including YouTube, TikTok, and Patreon. In addition to listen to episodes and read <span data-t="2555.

8">their transcripts. Also, if you have a moment, please rate this podcast and share it with friends, <span data-t="2563.

4">as nothing can help us grow more.

Advertisement omitted · 42:56

Speaker 243:32

Home is for relaxing, whether you're hosting friends for dinner or enjoying a quiet afternoon by <span data-t="2617.

0">yourself with a tasty treat. But it's hard to relax when a couple of flying insects always <span data-t="2621.

7">seem to show up uninvited. Then those one or two fruit flies suddenly become hundreds, and that <span data-t="2627.

0">can make it even harder to relax. Next thing you know, you're spending time swatting them away. <span data-t="2631.

8">Thankfully, the Zevo Flying Insect Trap takes care of flying insects for you. Just plug it in <span data-t="2637.

4">and it gets to work 24-7. It's specifically designed blue and UV light attracts flying insects like <span data-t="2643.

7">houseflies, fruit flies, and gets, trapping them on a sticky backing without any odors or mess. The <span data-t="2649.

7">Zevo trap also features a sleek curved design that keeps captured bugs out of sight, so it <span data-t="2655.

4">blends seamlessly into your home. When the cartridge is full, you just grab the no mess tab, <span data-t="2660.

2">throw it in the trash, pop in a new cartridge, and then you're done. It's quick, easy, <span data-t="2665.

0">and you never have to touch a single bug. Plug in a Zevo flying insect trap so <span data-t="2669.

8">you can work smarter, not harder, and enjoy your time at home with 24-7 bug protection.

Advertisement omitted · 44:36