Devil
2 of the 7 encyclopedias on this shelf carry an entry for Devil. Both are reproduced below, so you can see where they agree and where they differ.
An Encyclopaedia of Occultism (1920)
A name derived from the Greek Diabolos, "slanderer." The name for the supreme spirit of evil, the enemy of God and man. In primitive religious systems there is no conception of evil, and the gods are neither good nor bad, as we conceive these terms, but may possess good and bad" attributes at one and the same time. Thus we 66 66 دو have very few traces of beings which are absolutely evil in the older religions, and it may be broadly stated that the conception of Satan as we have it to-day is almost purely Hebrew and Christian. In Egypt and Babylon, figures like Apepi and Tiawath, although clearly in the line of evolution of a Satanic personality, are by no means rulers of the infernal regions. Again the Hades of the Greeks is merely a ruler of the shades of the dead, and not an enemy of Olympus or mankind. It is strange that in Mexico, Mictlantecutli, lord of hell, is a much more directly Satanic figure than any European or Asiatic ruler of the realms of the dead. But in some mythologies, there are frequent allusions to monsters who may quite easily have coloured our conception of Satan. Such is the Hindu serpent Ahi, and the Hebrew Leviathan, the principle of Chaos . In the Teutonic mythology we have the menacing shape of Loki , originally a god of fire, but afterwards the personification of evil. The conception of Satan, too, appears to have some deeply-rooted connection with the ancient serpent-worship, which seems to have penetrated most oriental countries. Thus we find the Tempter in the Old Testament in the guise of a serpent. The serpent or dragon is being generally regarded as the personification of night who swallows the sun and envelopes the world in darkness. The Hebrew conception of Satan it is thought, arose in the post-exilic period, and exhibits traces of Babylonian or Assyrian influence. It is not likely that before the captivity any specific doctrine respecting evil spirits was held by the Hebrews. Writing on this subject, Mr. F. T. Hall in his book The Pedigree of the Devil says:- 6 6 "The term 'Satan' and 'Satans' which occur in the Old Testament, are certainly not applicable to the modern conception of Satan as a spirit of evil; although it is not difficult to detect in the Old Hebrew mind a fruitful soil, in which the idea, afterwards evolved, would readily take root. The original idea of a 'Satan' is that of an adversary,' or agent of 'opposition.' The angel which is said to have withstood Balaam is in the same breath spoken of as 'The angel of the Lord,' and a 'Satan.' When the Philistines under Achish their king were about to commence hostilities against the Israelities under Saul and David and his men were about to march with the Philistines; the latter objected, lest, in the day of battle, David should become a Satan' to them, by deserting to the enemy. When David, in later life, was returning to Jerusalem, after Absalom's rebellion and death; and his lately disaffected subjects were, in turn, making their submission; amongst them came the truculent Shimei: Abishai, David's nephew, one of the fierce sons of Zeruiah, advised that Shimei should be put to death: this grated upon David's feelings, at a time when he was filled with exuberant joy at his own restoration; and he rebuked Abishai as a 'Satan.' Again Satan is said to have provoked David to number Israel, and at the same time, that 'the Lord moved David to number Israel; ' a course strenuously opposed by Joab, another of the sons of Zeruiah. Solomon in his message to Hiram, king of Tyre, congratulated himself on having no 'Satans' and that this peaceful immunity from discord enabled him to build the Temple, which had been Devil forbidden to his warlike father, David. This immunity was not, however, lasting for Hadad, the Edomite, and Regon, of Zobah, became 'Satans' to Solomon, after his profuse luxury had opened the way for curruption and disaffection. In all these cases, the idea is simply identical with the plain meaning of the word: a Satan is an opponent, an adversary. In the elaborate curse embodied in the 109th Psalm, the writer speaks of his enemies as his 'Satans' and prays that the object of his anathema may have 'Satan' standing at his right hand. The Psalmist himself, in the sequel, fairly assumes the office of his enemy's 'Satan,' by enumerating his crimes and failings, and exposing them in their worst light. In the 71st Psalm, enemies (v. 10) are identified with Satans' or adversaries (v. 13). "The only other places in the Old Testament where the word occurs, are in the Book of Job, and the prophecy of Zechariah. In the Book of Job, Satan appears with a distinct personality, and is associated with the sons of God, and in attendance with them before the throne of Jehovah. He is the cynical critic of Job's actions, and in that character he accuses him of insincerity and instability; and receives permission from Jehovah to test the justice of this accusation, by afflicting Job in everything he holds dear. We have here the spy, the informer, the public prosecutor, the executioner; all embodied in Satan, the adversary: these attributes are not amiable ones, but the writer does not suggest the absolute antagonism between Jehovah and Satan, which is a fundamental dogma of modern Christianity. " In the prophecy of Zechariah, Satan again, with an apparent personality, is represented as standing at the right hand of Joshua, the high-priest, to resist him: he seems to be claiming strict justice against one open to accusation; for Joshua is clothed in filthy garments-the type of sin and pollution. Jehovah relents, and mercy triumphs over justice: the filthy garments are taken away, and fair raiment substituted. Even here, the character of Satan, although hard, is not devoid of virtue, for it evinces a sense of justice." The Babylonians, among whom the Hebrews dwelt during the Captivity, believed in the existence of vast multitudes of spirits, both good and bad, but there is nothing to show that the Hebrews took over from them any extensive pantheon, either good or evil. Indeed the Hebrew and Babylonian religions possessed many things in common, and there was no necessity that the captive Jews should borrow an animism which they probably already possessed. At the same time it is likely that they adopted the idea of an evil agency from their captors, and as the genius of their religion was averse to polytheism, the probabilities are that they welded the numerous evil forces of Babylonian into one central figure. Again, it must have occurred to them that if the world contained an evil principle, it could not possibly emanate from God, whom they regarded as all-good, and it was probably with the intention of separating all evil from God that the personality of Satan (having regard to the amount of evil in the universe) was invested with such importance. In later Judaism we find the conception of Satan strongly coloured by Persian dualism, and it has been supposed that Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is the same as Aeshara Daewa of the Ancient Persians. Both "Satan" and "Satans" were mentioned in the Book of Enoch , and in Ecclesiasticus he was identified with the serpent of Genesis, and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch" his revolt against God and expulsion from Heaven are described. In the Jewish Targinn, Samael, highest of the angels, merges with Satan into a single personality. The Satan of the New Testament is merely a reproduction of these later Jewish forms. In Matthew he is alluded to as the "Prince of Demons," and in Ephesians is spoken of as ruling over a world of evil beings who dwell in the lower heavens. Thus he is prince of the powers of the air. In Revelation the war in Heaven between God and Satan is described, and his imprisonment is foreshadowed after the overthrow of the Beast and the Kings of the earth, when he will be chained in the bottomless pit for one thousand years. After another period of freedom he is finally cast into the lake of brimstone for ever. According to the orthodox Christian belief of the present day, Satan has been endowed with great powers for the purpose of tempting man to prove his fortitude. In the middle ages , the belief in Satan and Satanic agencies was overwhelming, and was inherited by Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. This is not the place to enter into a discussion as to the likelihood of the existence of an evil being, but the great consensus of theological opinion is in favour of such a theory.
Collier's New Encyclopedia (1921)
2026 Editor's Note: This page uses language about other peoples, religions, or nationalities that was commonplace when the book was published and is offensive by today's standards. The text has been left exactly as it was printed, rather than cut or softened, so that the historical record — including how ordinary such language once was — is preserved. (Ed: ET 2026-07-22) or SATAN, names applied in the New Testament and in Christian theology to the supreme impersonation of evil, considered as possessing an objective existence outside of man, and placed at the head of a host of inferior evil spirits, whose continual occupation is to thwart the good purpose of God and the progress of of His His kingdom in the hearts of men. It seems certain that this conception was foreign to the early Jewish mind, with its strong grasp of the monotheistic idea in the person of the supreme Jehovah. It is Jehovah Himself who hardens Pharaoh's heart, and sends a lying spirit among the prophets of Ahab, and it is He who is considered as the sole source of all power, the sender of pestilence and death as well as blessings. In the exegesis of later days the serpent that tempted Eve in Eden, and the "Old Serpent" of the Apocalypse, were alike identified with Satan, though this interpretation certainly gains no support from the story in Genesis, where the temp tempter is as yet hardly more than a mere animal, though one of a family almost everywhere specially associated with evil. It is significant that the name Satan occurs but five times in the Old Testament: thrice in Job, where he represents himself among the "sons of God" (Beni Elohim) before the Lord. The Jews had also their demonology like all primitive peoples, as may be seen in the seirim (satyrs, lit. "he-goats") and the shedim, both rendered by "devils" in the authorized version, and perhaps also in the Azazel of Leviticus xvi.; but it was not till later that a special angel became differentiated from his brethren in the heavenly court, with the special function of the accuser of men, like the personification of a guilty conscience. In the vision of Zechariah we find him considered formally as the accuser of Israel. Undoubtedly also this conception had already become greatly modified during the period of exile by contact with Persian dualism. Of course such a conception as Ahriman, the mighty author of evil and the antagonist almost on equal terms of Ormuzd, was completely foreign to Jewish monotheism, yet the Jewish Satan grew greatly both in definiteness and in power under his shadow, and henceforth it is from him d directly that moral and physical harm toward men proceeds. Persian influence appears most plainly in the apocryphal books of Tobit and Baruch, but the growth of the conception of the devil is seen also in the translation of the LXX., which renders his name by diabolos, thus emphasizing and perpetuating his special function as the ac- Now also he becomes located in cuser. his gloomy kingdom of hell, and is attended by troops of inferior fiends. He wages warfare on mankind by inflicting physical and moral evil, and is considered as the agent by whose means man fell from his original state of innocence. In the New Testament the conception of the personality of the devil and of a kingdom of demons holds its ground, but the whole subject is here treated with a kind of spiritual reserve, in a teaching that emphasizes our own hearts and their inward temptations as the source of our evil thoughts and deeds, and connects moral evil inseparably with the earthly nature of man. The passages which speak of a fall of angelic beings (II Peter ii: 4; Jude 6) occur in scriptures of subordinate canonical rank; Jesus nowhere defines concretely the function of the devil; and the few positive statements about him that "he was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth," that "he is a liar" (John viii: 44), and "sinneth from the b beginning" (John iii: 8), scarcely furnish a sufficient foundation for a complete doctrine on this subject. Yet the impressive manner in which it is dwelt on by our Lord and His apostles shows that it is a necessary part of Christian teaching. The early theologians were more literal and less spiritual in their conceptions, and in their horror of heathen institutions came to identify the kingdom of the devil in a particular manner with polytheism and the persecution they suffered under the Roman em empire. Thus the devil again became a kind of rival of God, wholly unequal but yet formidable. The early Christians considered the gods of heathenism as indeed conquered by Christ, but yet not rendered wholly powerless, for as degraded demons and with intent to deceive they uttered oracles, and were present at sacrifices, inhaling the sacrificial incense an idea in perfect harmony with the growing materialistic conception of the devils, and of hell their residence, a place blazing with eternal fire, and filled with every horror the imagination could suggest. Exaggerated ideas of the devil's dangerous power prevailed throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, whose deep, melancholy faith and fantastic theory of the universe generated saints naturally on the one hand and witches and sorcerers as naturally on the other. It was an involuntary exercise of the poetic faculty, through which the thoughts of their own hearts and of their own time became spirits, which they saw around them. Throughout the Middle Ages the devil was an absorbing idea, and the constant familiarity with him often brought with it a penalty of contempt. In the old religious plays a principal pla part was usually assigned to him, and indeed he principally represented the comic element, as may still be seen in the pastorales of the Basques. The decadence of belief in the active external power of the devil was mainly due to the indirect effect of the Reformation and the progress of science. To no man was the devil evermore present than to Luther, but nevertheless it was mainly the movement he inaugurated that has driven the enemy au sphere of the abstract and s back into the the ideal. In later generations the sense of the supernatural has steadily decayed, and with it almost all the terrors of the devil; but it cannot be said that with it has also disappeared a genuine religious spirit. The Christian us weakness of his man in the conscious struggle against indwelling sin feels that he has no need to conjure up for himself an external suggester of temptation-he has devil enough in the treacherous inclinations of his own heart. Kant (in 1793) defined the devil as the personification of "radical evil." Schleiermacher held that symbolic reference to the devil might fitly hav have a place in Christian discourse, but denied the possibility of his real existence, and in this he has been followed by Schenkel, Biedermann, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, and others. On the other hand the orthodox view is maintained more or less definitely by Lücke, Von Hofmann, Luthardt, Rothe, Julius Müller, Martensen, and Dorner, who hold that though the doctrine cannot be completely constructed, it yet forms part of a consistent whole, and is of importance for the Christian as distinguished from the heathen and Jewish conception of evil, as well as for the Christian life.