Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:59:48.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Babylonian and Hebrew Demonology with reference to the supposed borrowing of Persian Dualism in Judaism and Christianity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

Dualism is a term introduced into modern theology by the Englishman, Thomas Hyde, in 1700, and was first used to describe sthe fundamental principle of Persian Zoroastrism, namely the independent existence of good and evil. Ormazd the good god and Ahriman the evil god in the theology of the Persians represent an absolute dualism. For them Ahriman, corresponding to Satan of Judaism and Christianity, is entirely independent of the creator god. Good and evil, God and the Devil, are primeval supreme powers. Now I wish to trace the history of Satan or the Devil in Christianity back through Judaism, Hebrew, and Babylonian religion to its origin among the Sumerians. I shall endeavour to prove this Persian dualism, which admits that God did not create the Devil, to be totally foreign to Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew speculation; and I shall then briefly examine the evidence on which modern scholars admit dualism to have been held by the Jews of the Apocalyptic period and by early Christianity as set forth in the New Testament. It is my conviction that Persian religion never had any influence upon Judaism or early Christianity. Satan, the Devil (diabolus), is traceable directly to Babylonian theology; there he is the creation of the gods.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 47 note 1 W. H. Ward, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, No. 579, reproduced and discussed in the writer's Semitic Mythology, p. 131. Mušḫuššū was identified with Hydra, , Semitic Mythology, p. 278Google Scholar. In my edition of the Epic of Creation, p. 87, n. 9, I was in doubt on this point. Bašmu, ibid., 86, n. 8, cannot be Hydra.

page 47 note 2 Semitic Mythology, pp. 278–284.

page 51 note 1 An article on this seal has been unavoidably delayed by the editors of a certain volume of essays since 1927.

page 54 note 2 Gressmann, , Texte und Bilder, fig. 572Google Scholar .