Adevil is themythicalpersonification ofevil as it is conceived in various cultures and religious traditions.[1] It is seen as the objectification of a hostile and destructive force.[2]Jeffrey Burton Russell states that the different conceptions of the devil can be summed up as 1) a principle of evil independent fromGod, 2) an aspect of God, 3) a created being turning evil (afallen angel) or 4) a symbol of human evil.[3]: 23
Each tradition, culture, and religion with a devil in its mythos offers a different lens on manifestations of evil.[4] The history of these perspectives intertwines with theology, mythology, psychiatry, art, and literature, developing independently within each of the traditions.[5] It occurs historically in many contexts and cultures, and is given many different names—Satan (Judaism),Lucifer (Christianity),Beelzebub (Judeo-Christian),Mephistopheles (German),Iblis (Islam)—and attributes: it is portrayed as blue, black, or red; it is portrayed as having horns on its head, and without horns, and so on.[6][7]
In his bookThe Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity,Jeffrey Burton Russell discusses various meanings and difficulties that are encountered when using the termdevil. He does not claim to define the word in a general sense, but he describes the limited use that he intends for the word in his book—limited in order to "minimize this difficulty" and "for the sake of clarity". In this book Russell uses the worddevil as "thepersonification ofevil found in a variety of cultures", as opposed to the wordSatan, which he reserves specifically for the figure in theAbrahamic religions.[9]
Yvonne Bonnetain describes the Devil as a mythic explanation model, in form of a personified supernatural power, for death, disease, and everything hostile to humanity.[10]
In the Introduction to his bookSatan: A Biography, Henry Ansgar Kelly discusses various considerations and meanings that he has encountered in using terms such asdevil andSatan, etc. While not offering a general definition, he describes that in his book "wheneverdiabolos is used as the proper name of Satan", he signals it by using "small caps".[11]
TheOxford English Dictionary has a variety of definitions for the meaning of "devil", supported by a range of citations: "Devil" may refer to Satan, the supreme spirit of evil, or one of Satan's emissaries ordemons that populate Hell, or to one of the spirits that possess a demoniac person; "devil" may refer to one of the "malignant deities" feared and worshiped by "heathen people", a demon, a malignant being of superhuman powers; figuratively "devil" may be applied to a wicked person, or playfully to a rogue or rascal, or in empathy often accompanied by the word "poor" to a person—"poor devil".[12]
Most early belief-systems had no unifying concept of evil.[13] In the oldest available records,evil is part of nature. InMesopotamia, evil is sometimes said to derive fromprimordial chaos, but there are no inherently evil demons or devils. Various spirits and deities could do both good and evil depending on whim.[14] The oldest known Egyptian beliefs had no evil deities; the gods were morally ambivalent and required to submit to the divine order of the cosmos, evil being an action violating said harmony.[15] Inold Hindu beliefs, deities, reflecting the supreme reality, are both benevolent and fierce.[16] Even in theOld Testament, the evil, and hence devilish characteristics, are an expression of Yahweh's wrath.[10] Among ancient Middle Eastern beliefs,Zorastrianism was the first institutionized belief-system which developed a clear demonology headed by asupreme spirit of Evil (Angra Mainyu), i.e. Devil.[17][14]
Around 600 BC,Zarathustra urged his followers to turn away from the devas, in favor of dedicating worship toAhura Mazda alone.[18] Unique to Zarathustra's revelation was that he claimed that evil is not part of the Godhead (or ultimate reality), but a separate principle independent from God.[18] For the formulation ofGood and Evil as entirely separate principles, Zarathustra argued that God (Ahura Mazda) freely chooses goodness, while Angra Mainyu freely chooses evil.[19][10] By doing so, he established the first known dualistic cosmological system, which would later influence other religions, includingJudaism,Christianity,Manichaeism, andIslam.[20] Alienated from the new sole deity, spirits of previous belief-systems thus becameassociated with the forces of evil and hencedemons.[21] As servants of the destructive spirit, the demons were believed to follow only evil; inflicting pain and causing destruction. Unfortunate souls, who find themselves in the domain of the evil spirits after death (i.e. in hell), are also tortured by the demons.[22] Spirits found to align with the new sole deity then became theGodhead's servants (i.e. angels).[21][23]
Thus, theoriginally monistic Canaanite form of Judaism absorbs parts of Persian dualistic tendencies during thePost-exilic period.[24][25] However, Second-Temple Judaism, and later Christianity, differ from Persian dualism in some regards: the proposed omnipotence of God of the former does not allow for a radical dualism as proposed by Zorastrianism and later Manichaeism. Judeo-Christian tradition differs from earlier monistic beliefs by limiting the power of their Godhead through an evil principle or force, introduced by Zorastrianism.[24] Christianity in particular, struggled with reconciling God's omnipresence with God's benevolence.[26] While Zorastrianism sacrificed God's omnipotence for God's benevolence, thus giving rise to a principle Devil as independent from God, Christianity mostly insisted on the Devil being created and mildly dependent on God.[26]
Excerpt of a Byzantine-Mosaic-Image. A blue angel, probably representing the Devil, standing before goats. Early 6th century.
One way Christianity addressed theproblem of evil was by distinguishing between mind and body, an idea inherited fromGreekPlatonism. Similar to Zorastrianism, Platonism was dualistic. However, Platonism and Christianity differ from Persian dualism insofar as that they associated goodness only with spirit and evil with matter, proposing a form ofmind–body dualism.[27] According toPlato, God is like acraftsman (Demiurge) whobuilds the best possible world. However, God has to abide by thelaws of nature and can only work with the material presented. Matter, thus, becomes the refractionary element in Plato's and laterNeoplatonic models of the cosmos, resisting the perfection God originally intended.[28][29] In religious beliefs, applying such theories of evil, matter (Greek:hyleὝλη) becomes a sphere of lack of goodness and transforms matter into the devilish principle par excellence.[28][30]
According to Neoplatonic cosmology, evil (or matter) results from a lack of goodness. The good spirit at the centre gives rise to several emanations, each decreasing in goodness and increasing in deficiency. Thus, in Christianity, following theprivation theory of the Neo-Platonists, the Devil became the principle for the thing most remote from God.[31] Details were worked out by Christian scholars, such asPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite[31] andJohn of Damascus[32] who argued that evil is merely a lack (or removal) of goodness. As such, the Devil was conceptualized as afallen angel; a being brought forth as good first, but then turned evil by abandoning goodness.[33] John of Damascus used the privation theory to combat dualistic approaches to evil.[34] Similar rebuttals were written byAugustine of Hippo.[35]
The possibly strongest form of body-mind dualism, and a radical step back towards absolute dualism as conceptualized earlier in Zorastrianism, was reestablished byManichaeism. Manichaeism was a major religion[36] founded in the third century AD by theParthian[37] prophetMani (c. 216–274 AD), in theSasanian Empire.[38] One of its key concepts is the doctrine ofTwo Principles and Three Moments: the world could be described as resulting from a past moment, in which two principles (good and evil) were separate, a contemporary moment in which both principles are mixed due to an assault of theworld of darkness on the realm of light, and a future moment when both principles are distinct forever.[39]
Spread through Europe in late Antiquity and early Medieval Age
Due to Christian dualistic monotheism, non-Christian deities became associated with demons.Ephesians 6:12, stating " our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" inspired early Christians to think of themselves on a mission to "drive out demons".[40] By the fourth century, most Christians took it for granted that the Greek pagans worshipped demons and thus belong to the realm of the spiritually impure.[41] In the 2nd century,Justin Martyr already conceptualized the pagan deities as demons, responsible for persecution of Christians.[42]By the end of the sixth century, Mediterranean society widely identified themselves as unequivocally Christian, with an exception to Jews.[43] The last recorded worship of another non-Christian deity is dated to the 570s.[43]Tatian considered the pagan gods to be under the power of fate.[44] The daimons (spirits) of the Greeks thus became the demons of the Christian's belief-system under the leadership of Zeus, whom they equated with he Devil, i.e. the leader of the foreign spirits.[44] The Christians, however, would have broken free from the influence of the gods of the Greek pantheon and thus also free from the fetters of fate and the law.[45]
Abstract notions of the Devil, such as regarding evil as the mere absence of good, were far too subtle to be embraced by most theologians during the Early Middle Ages. Instead, they sought a more concrete image of the Devil to represent spiritual struggle and pain. Thus, the Devil became more of a concrete entity. From the 4th through the 12th centuries, Christian ideas combined with European pagan beliefs, created a vivid folklore about the Devil. In many German folktales, the deceived giants of pagan tales, are substituted by a devil.[46] For example, the devil builds a bridge in exchange for the first passing being's soul, then people let a dog pass the bridge first and the devil is cheated.[47] At the same time, magical rites calling upon pagan deities were replaced by references to Jesus Christ.[48][49]
God and Lucifer – The Queen Mary Psalter (1310–1320), f.1v – BL Royal MS 2 B VIISatan (the dragon; on the left) gives to the beast of the sea (on the right) power represented by asceptre in a detail of panel III.40 of the medieval FrenchApocalypse Tapestry, produced between 1377 and 1382.
Cosmological dualism underwent a revival in the 12th century by throughCatharism, probably influenced byBogomilism in the 10th century.[50] What is known of the Cathars largely comes in what is preserved by the critics in the Catholic Church which later destroyed them in theAlbigensian Crusade.Alain de Lille,c. 1195, accused the Cathars of believing in two gods, one of light and one of darkness.[51] Durand de Huesca, responding to a Cathar tractc. 1220 indicates that they regarded the physical world as the creation of Satan.[52] In theGospel of the Secret Supper, Lucifer, just as in prior Gnostic systems, appears as an evil demiurge, who created the material world and traps souls inside.[53] Bogomilism owed many ideas to the earlierPaulicians inArmenia and the Near East and had strong impact on the history of theBalkans. Their true origin probably lies within earlier sects such asNestorianism,Marcionism andBorboritism, who all share the notion of adocetic Jesus. Like these earlier movements, Bogomilites agree upon a dualism between body and soul, matter and spirit, and a struggle between good and evil.[54] The Catholic church sanctioned dualistic teachings in theFourth Council of the Lateran (1215), by affirming that God created everything from nothing; that the devil and his demons were created good, but turned evil by their own will; that humans yielded to the devil's temptations, thus falling into sin; and that, afterResurrection, the damned will suffer along with the devil, while the saved enjoy eternity with Christ.[55] Only a few theologians from theUniversity of Paris, in 1241, proposed the contrary assertion, that God created the devil evil and without his own decision.[56]
After the collapse of theOttoman Empire, parts of Bogomil Dualism remained inBalkanfolklore concerning creation: according to a story, dated back to the eleventh to thirteenth century, before God created the world, he meets a goose on the eternal ocean. The name of the Goose is reportedlySatanael and it claims to be a god. When God asks Satanael who he is, the devil answers "the god of gods". God requests that the devil then dive to the bottom of the sea to carry some mud, and from this mud, they fashioned the world. God created his fiery angels from the right part of a flint rock, and the Devil created his demons from the left part of the flint. Later, the devil tries to assault God but is thrown into the abyss. He remains lurking on the creation of God and planning another attack on heaven.[57] This myth shares some resemblance withPre-Islamic Turkic creation myths as well as Bogomilite thoughts.[58]
The story bears resemblance to other Turko-Mongolian cosmogonies. According to one myth found among theSiberian Tatars, God and his first creation are envisaged in the form of ducks. God asks his creature and companion to dive into the ocean to retrieve some earth. However, the second duck, identified withErlik Khan, turns against God and becomes his rival.[58] A similar legend is recorded among theAltai Turks. Erlik and God swam together over the primordial waters. When God was about to create the Earth, he sent Erlik to dive into the waters and collect some mud. Erlik hid some inside his mouth to later create his own world. But when God commanded the Earth to expand, Erlik got troubled by the mud in his mouth. God aided Erlik to spit it out. The mud carried by Erlik gave place to the unpleasant areas of the world. Because of his sin, he was assigned to evil. Since he claimed equality with God by creating his own world, God punishes Erlik Khan, by granting him his own kingdom in the Underworld.[58][59][60] In one variant, recorded byVerbitsky Vasily, not only Erlik Khan, but also the spirits he created, were banished form the heavens and cast down to the lower realms.[61]
Christianity describes Satan as afallen angel who terrorizes the world through evil,[62] is opposed totruth,[64] and shall be condemned, together with the fallen angels who follow him, to eternal fire at theLast Judgment.[62]
Horns of agoat and aram, goat's fur and ears, nose and canines of apig; a typical depiction of the devil inChristian art. The goat, ram and pig are consistently associated with the devil.[65] Detail of a 16th-century painting byJacob de Backer in theNational Museum inWarsaw.
Ezekiel's cherub in Eden is thought to be a description of the major characteristic of the Devil, that he was created good, as a high ranking angel and lived in Eden, later turning evil on his own accord:[69]
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz, emerald, chrysolite, onyx, jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and beryl. Gold work of tambourines and of pipes was in you. In the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers: and I set you, so that you were on the holy mountain of God; you have walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you.
TheHebrew termśāṭān (Hebrew:שָּׂטָן) was originally a common noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary" and derived from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose".[71][72] Satan is conceptualized as a heavenly being hostile to humans and a personification of evil 18 times in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3.[73] In theBook of Job,Job is a righteous man favored by God.[74] Job 1:6–8[75] describes the "sons of God" (bənê hā'ĕlōhîm) presenting themselves before God.[74] Satan thinks Job only loves God because he has been blessed, so he requests that God tests the sincerity of Job's love for God through suffering, expecting Job to abandon his faith.[76] God consents; Satan destroys Job's family, health, servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn God.[76]
The Devil figures much more prominently in theNew Testament and inChristiantheology than in the Old Testament.[77] The Devil is a unique entity throughout the New Testament, neither identical to the demons nor the fallen angels,[78][79] the tempter and perhaps rules over the kingdoms of earth.[80] In thetemptation of Christ (Matthew 4:8–9 and Luke 4:6–7),[81] the devil offers all kingdoms of the earth to Jesus, implying they belong to him.[82] Since Jesus does not dispute this offer, it may indicate that the authors of those gospels believed this to be true.[82] This event is described in all threesynoptic gospels, (Matthew 4:1–11,[83] Mark 1:12–13[84] and Luke 4:1–13).[85] Some Church Fathers, such asIrenaeus, reject that the Devil holds such power, arguing that, since the devil was a liar since the beginning, he also lied here and that all kingdoms belong to God, referring to Proverbs 21.[86][87]
Adversaries of Jesus are suggested to be under the influence of the Devil.John 8:40 speaks about thePharisees as the "offspring of the devil". John 13:2[88] states that the Devil enteredJudas Iscariotbefore Judas's betrayal (Luke 22:3).[89][90] In all threesynoptic gospels (Matthew 9:22–29,[91] Mark 3:22–30[92] and Luke 11:14–20),[93] Jesus himself is also accused of serving the Devil. Jesus's adversaries claim that he receives the power to cast out demons fromBeelzebub, the Devil. In response, Jesus says that a house divided against itself will fall, and that there would be no reason for the devil to allow one to defeat the devil's works with his own power.[94]
InChristian theology the Devil is thepersonification ofevil, traditionally held to haverebelled againstGod in an attempt to become equal to God himself.[a] He is said to be afallen angel, who was expelled fromHeaven at the beginning of time, before God created the material world, and is in constant opposition to God.[101][102]
Many scholars explain the Devil's fall from God's grace inNeoplatonic fashion. According toOrigen, God created rational creatures first then the material world. The rational creatures are divided into angels and humans, both endowed with free will,[103] and the material world is a result of their evil choices.[104][105] Therefore, the Devil is considered most remote from the presence of God, and those who adhere to the Devil's will follow the Devil's removal from God's presence.[106] Similar,Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite considers evil as a deficiency having no real ontological existence. Thus the Devil is conceptualized as the entity most remote from God.[107]Dante Alighieri'sInferno follows a similar portrayal of theDevil by placing him at the bottom of hell where he becomes the center of the material and sinful world to which all sinfulness is drawn.[108]
From the beginning of theearly modern period (around the 1400s), Christians started to imagine the Devil as an increasingly powerful entity, actively leading people into falsehood. ForMartin Luther the Devil was not a deficit of good, but a real, personal and powerful entity, with a presumptuous will against God, his word and his creation.[109][110] Luther lists several hosts ofgreater andlesser devils. Greater devils would incite to greater sins, like unbelief andheresy, while lesser devils to minor sins likegreed andfornication. Among these devils also appearsAsmodeus known from theBook of Tobit.[b] These anthropomorphic devils are used asstylistic devices for his audience, although Luther regards them as different manifestations of one spirit (i.e. the Devil).[c]
A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem inBernard de Montfaucon'sL'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, a depiction ofYaldabaoth.
Gnostic and Gnostic-influenced religions postulate the idea that the material world is inherently evil. TheOne true God is remote, beyond the material universe; therefore, this universe must be governed by an inferior imposter deity. This deity was identified with the deity of the Old Testament by some sects, such as theSethians and theMarcions.Tertullian accusesMarcion of Sinope, that he
[held that] the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful ... and ... accounted for it by postulating [that Jehovah was] a secondary deity, ademiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.[115]
John Arendzen (1909) in theCatholic Encyclopedia (1913) mentions thatEusebius accusedApelles, the 2nd-century AD Gnostic, of considering the Inspirer of Old Testament prophecies to be not a god, but an evil angel.[116] These writings commonly refer to the Creator of the material world as "ademiurgus"[115] to distinguish him from theOne true God. Some texts, such as theApocryphon of John andOn the Origin of the World, not only demonized the Creator God but also called him by the name of the devil in some Jewish writings,Samael.[117]
Iblis (top right on the picture) refuses to prostrate before the newly createdAdam from aPersian miniature.
In Islam, the principle of evil is expressed by two terms referring to the same entity:[118][119][120]Shaitan (meaningastray,distant ordevil) andIblis. Iblis is the proper name of the devil representing the characteristics of evil.[121] According to the Quran, Iblis is "one of thejinn", which can refer to all sorts of invisible beings, including angels, demons, spirits, and devils.[122] The early-Modern scholarMahmud al-Alusi (1802 – 29 July 1854 CE) summarizes viewpoints regarding the nature of the Devil prevailing throughout pre-Modern times:
the Devil was an earthly angel sent to fight the jinn. Unlike the celestial angels, the earthly angels are not protected from sin.[123]
the angels took prisoners during their battle from among the spirits of the earth. They were brought up to heaven and served with the angels. These spirits have a malicious nature even though some of them might be good, and the Devil was one of these spirits but later disobeyed.[124]
originally, the Devil was a good angel, but then God stripped away the angelic qualities and exchanged them for satanic ones. Akin to the "fallen angel", the Devil turned from a beautiful being into a hideous demon. Unlike Christianity, the fall was initiated by Gods decree.[125]
the Devil is one of the archangels, and the archangels are all manifestations of a set of God's names. They convey God's will to the earthly world. The Devil is responsible for manifesting God's "majestic attributes", such as "the domineering", "the haughty", or "the misguider" and follows necessarily from God's nature.[126]
Iblis is mentioned in theQuranic narrative about the creation of humanity. WhenGod createdAdam, he ordered the angels to prostrate themselves before him. Out of pride, Iblis refused and claimed to be superior to Adam.[Quran7:12] Therefore, pride but also envy became a sign of "unbelief" in Islam.[121] Thereafter, Iblis was condemned to Hell, but God granted him a request to lead humanity astray,[127] knowing the righteous would resist Iblis's attempts to misguide them. In Islam, both good and evil are ultimately created by God. But since God's will is good, the evil in the world must be part of God's plan.[128]
God allowed the Devil to seduce humanity. Evil and suffering are regarded as a test or a chance to prove confidence in God.[128] Some philosophers and mystics emphasized Iblis himself as a role model of confidence in God. Because God ordered the angels to prostrate themselves, Iblis was forced to choose between God's command and God's will (not to praise someone other than God). He successfully passed the test, yet his disobedience caused his punishment and therefore suffering. However, he stays patient and is rewarded in the end.[129]
Although Iblis is often compared to the devil inChristian theology, Islam rejects the idea thatSatan is an opponent of God and the implied struggle between God andthe devil.[clarification needed] Iblis might either be regarded asthe most monotheistic orthe greatest sinner, but remains only a creature of God. Iblis did not become anunbeliever due to his disobedience, but because of attributing injustice to God; that is, by asserting that the command to prostrate himself beforeAdam was inappropriate.[131] There is no reference to angelic revolt in theQuran and no mention of Iblis trying to take God's throne,[132][133] and Iblis'ssin could be forgiven at any time by God.[134] According to the Quran, Iblis's disobedience was due to his disdain forhumanity, a narrative already occurring in earlyNew Testament apocrypha.[135]
As in Christianity, Iblis was once a pious creature of God but later cast out of Heaven due to his pride. However, to maintain God's absolute sovereignty,[136] Islam matches the line taken by Irenaeus instead of the later Christian consensus that the devil did not rebel against God but against humanity.[16][119] Further, although Iblis is generally regarded as a real bodily entity,[137] he plays a less significant role as the personification of evil than in Christianity. Iblis is merely a tempter, notable for inciting humans into sin bywhispering into humans minds (waswās), akin to the Jewish idea of the devil asyetzer hara.[138][139]
On the other hand,Shaitan refers unilaterally to forces of evil, including the devil Iblis who causes mischief.[140] Shaitan is also linked to humans' psychological nature, appearing in dreams, causing anger, or interrupting the mental preparation for prayer.[137] Furthermore, the termShaitan also refers to beings who follow the evil suggestions of Iblis. Also, the principle ofshaitan is in many ways a symbol of spiritual impurity, representing humans' own deficits, in contrast to a "true Muslim", who is free from anger, lust and other devilish desires.[141]
In Muslim culture, devils are believed to be hermaphrodite creatures created from hell-fire, with one male and one female thigh, and able to procreate without a mate. It is generally believed that devils can harm the souls of humans through their whisperings. While whisperings tempt humans to sin, the devils might enter thehearth (qalb) of an individual. If the devils take over the soul of a person, this would render them aggressive or insane.[142] In extreme cases, the alterings of the soul are believed to have effect on the body, matching its spiritual qualities.[143]
Islamic theology (kalam) does not discuss the role of Iblis in as much as related to angels and demons (jinn andshayāṭīn), but rather in his role as the principle of evil. One major concern of Muslim theologians was to disprovecosmological dualism, the idea that the Devil partakes in the creation of the world, i.e. that God creates goodness and the Devil creates evil.[144][145][146] According to Sunni creed, God is the originator of both good and evil. Thus, the Devil, as embodiment of evil, is an example on the fate of thedisbelievers (kuffār), rather than an independent principle. Like Iblis, disbelievers are also held to be misguided by God, for, as it has been demonstrated in the case of Iblis, belief and unbelief depend on God's will not on the individual.[147][148]
It further shows that the blessed can become damned and the damned become blessed, as Iblis, when he was the leader of theangels, was happy, but miserable after his fall.[149]Abu-Sufyani is the opposite example, someone who was miserable but then became blessed once he became a Muslim.[149] The principle Devil also demonstrates that disobedience does not equal unbelief because Iblis became an unbeliever due to his arrogance and will to follow his own desires rather than loving God.[150][151]
In contrast to Occidental philosophy, the Sufi idea of seeing "Many as One" and considering the creation in its essence as the Absolute, leads to the idea of the dissolution of any dualism between the ego substance and the "external" substantial objects. The rebellion against God, mentioned in the Quran, takes place on the level of thepsyche that must be trained and disciplined for its union with thespirit that is pure. Since psyche drives the body,flesh is not the obstacle to humans but rather an unawareness that allows the impulsive forces to cause rebellion against God on the level of the psyche. Yet it is not a dualism between body, psyche and spirit, since the spirit embraces both psyche and corporeal aspects of humanity.[152] Since the world is held to be the mirror in which God's attributes are reflected, participation in worldly affairs is not necessarily seen as opposed to God.[138] The devil activates the selfish desires of the psyche, leading the human astray from the Divine.[153] Thus, it is theI that is regarded as evil, and both Iblis andPharao are present as symbols for uttering "I" in ones own behavior. Therefore, it is recommended to use the termI as little as possible. It is only God who has the right to say "I", since it is only God who is self-subsistent. Uttering "I" is therefore a way to compare oneself to God, regarded asshirk.[154]
ManySalafi strands emphasize adualistic worldview between believers and unbelievers,[155] The unbelievers are considered to be under the domain of the Devil and are the enemies of the faithful. The former are credited with tempting the latter to sin and away from God's path. The Devil will ultimately be defeated by the power of God, but remains until then a serious threat for the believer.[156]
The notion of a substantial reality of evil (or a form of dualism between God and the Devil) has no precedence in the Quran or earlier Muslim traditions.[157] The writings of ibn Sina, Ghazali, and ibn Taimiyya, all describe evil as the absence of good, rather than having any positive existence. Accordingly, infidelity among humans, civilizations, and empires are not described as evil or devilish in Classical Islamic sources.[157] This is in stark contrast to Islamists, such asOsama bin Laden, who justifies his violence against the infidels by contrary assertions.[157]
While in classicalhadiths, devils (shayāṭīn) andjinn are responsible for ritual impurity, many Salafis substitute local demons by an omnipresent threat through the Devil himself.[158] Only through remembrance of God and ritual purity, can the devil be kept away.[159] As such, the Devil becomes an increasingly powerful entity who is believed to interfer with both personal and political life.[160] For example, many Salafis blame the Devil forWesternemancipation.[161]
Yahweh, the god in pre-exilicJudaism, created both good and evil, as stated inIsaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." The Devil does not exist in Jewish scriptures. Satan, who will later become a representative for the Devil in Christian tradition, is not yet the Devil. The Hebrew term śāṭān (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן), meaning "accuser" or "adversary", was applied to both human and heavenly adversaries.[162][163] However, even when the term is referring to a supernatural adversary, such as in Numbers 22:22 and in Job 1–2, Satan is merely one "of the Sons of God", a manifestation of God's will.[164]
Under influence ofZoroastrianism during theAchaemenid Empire, which introduced the idea of Evil as a separate principle into the Jewish belief system, Satan gradually developed into an independent principle, abolishing the Godhead from evil actions.[130] In theBook of Jubilees, the evil angelMastema substitutes deprecated actions of Yahweh.[165][166] Nonetheless, Mastema can only act with God's permission[167] and only succeeds when attacking non-Jewish nations.[168]
In theBook of Enoch, there is an entire class of angels called satans.[169] According to Jeffrey Burton Russell, Satan is yet another name forAzazel, the leader of therebel angel of the story.[169] Derek R. Brown argues that here, the Devil and the satans are still distinct: while Azazel and his angels rebel against God, the satans act on God's behalf as God's executioners of Divine Judgement.[170] The fallen angels are blamed for introducing the forbidden arts of war into the world and sire demonic offspring with human women.[171] By ascribing the origin of evil to angels acting from God independently, evil is attributed to something supernatural from without; external to the prevailing belief-system.[172] Due to resemblance of the fallen angels with creatures of Greek mythology, the fallen angels might be a reaction invading Hellenistic culture, resulting in perceived oppression of the Jews.[173]
The story of fallen angels, proposing a second independent power in heaven, was at odds with laterRabbinic Judaism.[174] Therefore, the Book of Enoch, which depicted the evil as an independent force besides God were rejected.[175] After theapocalyptic period, references toSatan in theTanakh are thought to beallegorical.[176]
InMandaean mythology,Ruha fell apart from theWorld of Light and became the queen of theWorld of Darkness, also referred to asSheol.[177][178][179] She is considered evil and a liar, sorcerer and seductress.[180]: 541 She gives birth toUr, also referred to asLeviathan. He is portrayed as a large, ferocious dragon or snake and is considered the king of the World of Darkness.[178] Together they rule theunderworld and create theseven planets andtwelve zodiac constellations.[178] Also found in the underworld isKrun, the greatest of the five Mandaean Lords of the underworld. He dwells in the lowest depths of creation and his epithet is the 'mountain of flesh'.[181]: 251 Prominent infernal beings found in the World of Darkness includelilith,nalai (vampire),niuli (hobgoblin),latabi (devil),gadalta (ghost),satani (Satan) and various other demons and evil spirits.[178][177]
InManichaeism, God and the devil are two unrelated principles. God createdgood and inhabits the realm of light, while the devil (also called theprince of darkness[182][183]) created evil and inhabits the kingdom of darkness. The contemporary world came into existence, when the kingdom of darkness assaulted the kingdom of light and mingled with the spiritual world.[184] At the end, the devil and his followers will be sealed forever and the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness will continue to co-exist eternally, never to commingle again.[185]
Hegemonius (4th century CE) accuses that the Persian prophetMani, founder of the Manichaean sect in the 3rd century CE, identified Jehovah as "the devil god which created the world"[186] and said that "he who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and the priests ... is the [Prince] of Darkness, ... not the god of truth."[182][183]
Dualism is rejected by Yazidis;[187] according toYazidism, evil is nonexistent[188]and there is no entity that represents evil in opposition to God. Yazidis adhere to strict monism and are prohibited from uttering the word "devil" and from speaking of anything related toHell.[189]
Ahriman Div being slain during a scene from theShahnameh
Zoroastrianism probably introduced the first idea of the devil; a principle of evil independently existing apart from God.[24] In Zoroastrianism, good and evil derive from two ultimately opposed forces.[190] The force of good is calledAhura Mazda and the "destructive spirit" in theAvestan language is calledAngra Mainyu. TheMiddle Persian equivalent isAhriman. They are in eternal struggle and neither is all-powerful, especially Angra Mainyu is limited to space and time: in the end of time, he will be finally defeated. While Ahura Mazda creates what is good, Angra Mainyu is responsible for every evil and suffering in the world, such as toads and scorpions.[24]Iranian Zoroastrians also considered theDaeva as devil creature, because of this in theShahnameh, it is mentioned as both AhrimanDiv (Persian:اهریمن دیو,romanized: Ahriman Div) as a devil.
A non-published manuscript ofSpinoza'sEthics contained a chapter (Chapter XXI) on the devil, where Spinoza examined whether the devil may exist or not. He defines the devil as an entity which is contrary to God.[191]: 46 [192]: 150 However, if the devil is the opposite of God, the devil would consist of Nothingness, which does not exist.[191]: 145
In a paper calledOn Devils, he writes that we can a priori find out that such a thing cannot exist. Because the duration of a thing results in its degree of perfection, and the more essence a thing possess the more lasting it is, and since the devil has no perfection at all, it is impossible for the devil to be an existing thing.[193]: 72 Evil or immoral behaviour in humans, such as anger, hate, envy, and all things for which the devil is blamed for could be explained without the proposal of a devil.[191]: 145 Thus, the devil does not have anyexplanatory power and should be dismissed (Occam's razor).
Regarding evil through free choice, Spinoza asks how it can be that Adam would have chosen sin over his own well-being. Theology traditionally responds to this by asserting it is the devil who tempts humans into sin, but who would have tempted the devil? According to Spinoza, a rational being, such as the devil must have been, could not choose his own damnation.[194] The devil must have known his sin would lead to doom, thus the devil was not knowing, or the devil did not know his sin will lead to doom, thus the devil would not have been a rational being. Spinoza concluded a strictdeterminism in whichmoral agency as a free choice, cannot exist.[191]: 150
The Devil found a way intorational discourse throughImmanuel Kant's personification of the "idea of absolute egoism".[33] InReligion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, Immanuel Kant uses the devil as the personification of maximum moral reprehensibility. Deviating from the common Christian idea, Kant does not locate the morally reprehensible in sensual urges. Since evil has to beintelligible, only when the sensual is consciously placed above the moral obligation can something be regarded as morally evil. Thus, to be evil, the devil must be able to comprehend morality but consciously reject it, and, as aspiritual being (Geistwesen), having no relation to any form of sensual pleasure. It is necessarily required for the devil to be a spiritual being because if the devil were also a sensual being, it would be possible that the devil does evil to satisfy lower sensual desires, and does not act from the mind alone. The devil acts against morals, not to satisfy sensual lust, but solely for the sake of evil. As such, the devil is unselfish, for he does not benefit from his evil deeds.
However, Kant denies that a human being could ever be completely devilish, since a human does not act evil for the sake of evil itself, but for is perceived as good, such as a law or self-love.[195] Kant argues that despite that there are devilish vices (ingratitude, envy, and malicious joy), i.e., vices that do not bring any personal advantage, however, the person cannot act for the sake of evil itself and thus, not be considered a devil. In hisLecture on Moral Philosophy (1774/75) Kant gives an example of a tulip seller who was in possession of a rare tulip, but when he learned that another seller had the same tulip, he bought it from him and then destroyed it instead of keeping it for himself. If he had acted according to his sensual urges, the seller would have kept the tulip for himself to make a profit, but not have destroyed it. Nevertheless, the destruction of the tulip cannot be completely absolved from sensual impulses, since a sensual joy or relief still accompanies the destruction of the tulip and therefore cannot be thought of solely as a violation of morality.[196]: 156–173
Kant further argues that a (spiritual) devil would be a self-contradiction. If the devil would be defined by doing evil, the devil had no free choice in the first place. But if the devil had no free-choice, the devil could not have been held accountable for his actions, since he had no free will but was only following his nature.[197]
Satan / the Adversary, Accuser, Prosecutor; in Christianity, the devil
Sycophantes or Sycophant (Συκοφάντης), meaning "false accuser", for he falsely accused God when he claimed that God had prevented them from partaking of the tree, and he also spoke againstJob.[200]
where it is more common among the religious, regular church goers, political conservatives, and the older and less well educated,[202] but has declined in recent decades.
^abcBonnetain, Yvonne S (2015). Loki: Beweger der Geschichten [Loki: Movers of the stories](in German). Roter Drache.ISBN978-3-939459-68-2.OCLC935942344. p. 267
^Craige, W. A.; Onions, C. T. A. "Devil".A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1933) pp. 283–284
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1987b). The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9409-3.
^abMaul, S., Jansen-Winkeln, K., Niehr, H., Macuch, M., & Johnston, S. I. (2006). Demons. In Brill's New Pauly Online. Brill.doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e309270
^Barr, James. "The question of religious influence: The case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 53.2 (1985): 201-235
^Van der Toorn, Karel, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999. p. 236
^Horst, P. W. v. d. (2018). Hyle Ὕλη. In Various Authors & Editors (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Online. Brill.doi:10.1163/2589-7802_DDDO_DDDO_Hyle
^abRussell, Jeffrey Burton. Lucifer: the Devil in the middle ages. Cornell University Press, 1986. p. 36
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986). Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9429-1. pp. 37-38
^abFelber, A., Hutter, M., Achenbach, R., Aune, D. E., Lang, B., Sparn, W., Reeg, G., Dan, J., Radtke, B., & Apostolos-Cappadona, D. (2011). Devil. In Religion Past and Present Online. Brill. https://doi:10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_COM_025084
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986). Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9429-1. p. 38
^Babcock, William S. (1988). "Augustine on Sin and Moral Agency". The Journal of Religious Ethics. 16 (1): 28–55
^R. van den Broek, Wouter J. HanegraaffGnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern TimesSUNY Press, 1998ISBN978-0-7914-3611-0 p. 37
^Yarshater, EhsanThe Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3 (2), The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
^"Manichaeism". New Advent Encyclopedia.Archived from the original on 12 March 2007. Retrieved4 October 2013.
^Barnstone, Willis; Meyer, Marvin (2009).The Gnostic Bible (Revised and Expanded ed.). Shambhala Publications. pp. 575–577.ISBN978-0-834-82414-0.
^Brown, Peter. Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages. New York, NY, 1970. p. 31
^Brown, Peter. Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages. New York, NY, 1970. p. 24
^Annette Yoshiko Reed Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature Cambridge University Press 2005ISBN978-0-521-85378-1 p. 162
^abBrown, Peter. Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages. New York, NY, 1970. p. 35
^abQuinn, Dennis P. "Early Christianity and Ancient Astrology–By Tim Hegedus." (2009): 125.
^Quinn, Dennis P. "Early Christianity and Ancient Astrology–By Tim Hegedus." (2009): 126.
^Röhrich, Lutz (1970). "German Devil Tales and Devil Legends". Journal of the Folklore Institute. 7 (1): 21–35
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986). Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9429-1 p. 74
^Scribner, Robert W. "The Reformation, popular magic, and the" Disenchantment of the World"." The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23.3 (1993): 481
^Cameron, Malcolm L. "Anglo-Saxon medicine and magic." Anglo-Saxon England 17 (1988): 214
^Mircea Eliade History of Religious Ideas, Volume 3: From Muhammad to the Age of Reforms University of Chicago Press, 31 December 2013ISBN978-0-226-14772-7 p. 9
^David Adams Leeming A Dictionary of Creation Myths Oxford University Press 2014ISBN978-0-19-510275-8 p. 7
^Fuzuli Bayat Türk Mitolojik Sistemi 2: Kutsal Dişi – Mitolojik Ana, Umay Paradigmasında İlkel Mitolojik Kategoriler – İyeler ve Demonoloji Ötüken Neşriyat A.Ş 2016ISBN978-605-155-407-5 (Turkish)
^Fritscher, Jack (2004).Popular Witchcraft: Straight from the Witch's Mouth. Popular Press. p. 23.ISBN0-299-20304-2.The pig, goat, ram—all of these creatures are consistently associated with the Devil.
^The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1283 John F. Walvoord, Walter L. Baker, Roy B. Zuck. 1985 "This 'king' had appeared in theGarden of Eden (v. 13), had been a guardiancherub (v. 14a), had possessed free access ... The best explanation is that Ezekiel was describing Satan who was the true 'king' of Tyre, the one motivating."
^H. A. Kelly (30 January 2004). The Devil, Demonology, and Witchcraft: Christian Beliefs in Evil Spirits. Wipf and Stock Publishers.ISBN978-1-59244-531-8 p. 104
^Pagels, Elaine (1994). "The Social History of Satan, Part II: Satan in the New Testament Gospels".Journal of the American Academy of Religion.62 (1):17–58.doi:10.1093/jaarel/LXII.1.17.JSTOR1465555.
^abWaite, Gary K. (1995). "'Man is a Devil to Himself': David Joris and the Rise of a Sceptical Tradition towards the Devil in the Early Modern Netherlands, 1540–1600".Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis.75 (1):1–30.doi:10.1163/002820395X00010.JSTOR24009006.ProQuest1301893880.
^Edwards, Linda. A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements. Vereinigtes Königreich, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. p. 57
^Birger A. PearsonGnosticism Judaism Egyptian Fortress PressISBN978-1-4514-0434-0 p. 100
^Jane Dammen McAuliffeEncyclopaedia of the Qurʼān Brill 2001ISBN978-90-04-14764-5 p. 526
^abJeffrey Burton Russell,Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press 1986ISBN978-0-801-49429-1, p. 57
^Benjamin W. McCraw, Robert ArpPhilosophical Approaches to the Devil Routledge 2015ISBN978-1-317-39221-7
^abJerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, Hendrik M. VroomProbing the Depths of Evil and Good: Multireligious Views and Case Studies Rodopi 2007ISBN978-90-420-2231-7 p. 250
^"موقع التفير الكبير".Altafsir.com Arabic: إذا علمت ذلك فاعلم أنهم اختلفوا في الملائكة المقول لهم، فقيل: كلهم لعموم اللفظ وعدم المخصص، فشمل المهيمين وغيرهم، وقيل: ملائكة الأرض بقرينة أن الكلام في خلافة الأرض، وقيل: إبليس ومن كان معه في محاربة الجن/ الذين أسكنوا الأرض دهراً طويلاً ففسدوا فبعث الله تعالى عليهم جنداً من الملائكة يقال لهم الجن أيضاً وهم خزان الجنة ـ اشتق لهم اسم منها ـ فطردوهم إلى شعوب الجبال والجزائر. والذي عليه السادة الصوفية قدس الله تعالى أسرارهم. English: If you understand this, then know that they differed regarding the angels to whom this was said. It was said: all of them, due to the generality of the wording and the absence of any specific exception, thus including the dominant angels and others. It was also said: the angels of the earth, based on the context of the discussion being about the stewardship of the earth. And it was said: Iblis and those with him in the war against the jinn, who inhabited the earth for a long time and caused corruption, so God Almighty sent against them an army of angels, also called jinn, who are the guardians of Paradise—their name is derived from it—and they drove them out to the mountain passes and islands. Retrieved11 November 2025.
^"موقع التفير الكبير".Altafsir.com Original: { كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْجِنّ } وأفادت تسبب فسقه عن كونه من الجن إذ شأنهم التمرد لكدورة مادتهم وخباثة ذاتهم والذي خبث لا يخرج إلا نكداً وإن كان منهم من أطاع وآمن Translation: "He was one of the jinn" and it indicates that his immorality was caused by the fact that he was one of the jinn, as they rebelled because of their substance and their own malice, which is malice that only comes out of malice, even if there are some of them who obey and believe. Retrieved11 November 2025.
^"موقع التفير الكبير".Altafsir.com Original:كان الغالب فيهم العصمة على العكس منا - وفي «عقيدة أبـي المعين النسفي» ما يؤيد ذلك، وإما لأن إبليس سلبه الله تعالى الصفات الملكية وألبسه ثياب الصفات الشيطانية فعصى عند ذلك والملك ما دام ملكاً لا يعصي: English: The fact that angels do not act arrogantly—and he did act arrogantly—does not matter, either because some angels are not infallible—although infallibility is the norm among them, unlike us—and there is support for this in “Abu al-Mu’in al-Nasafi’s Creed”—or because God Almighty stripped Iblis of his angelic attributes and clothed him in the garments of satanic attributes, so he disobeyed at that time, and an angel, as long as he is an angel, does not disobey. Retrieved11 November 2025.
^"موقع التفير الكبير".Altafsir.com Original: إلا أن الملائكة العلويين خلقوا منه عليه الصلاة والسلام من حيث الجمال، وإبليس من حيث الجلال، ويؤل هذا بالآخرة إلى أن إبليس مظهر جلال الله سبحانه وتعالى، ولهذا كان منه ما كان ولم يجزع ولم يندم ولم يطلب المغفرة لعلمه أن الله تعالى يفعل ما يريده وأن ما يريده سبحانه هو الذي/ تقتضيه الحقائق، فلا سبيل إلى تغييرها وتبديلها. Translation: However, the celestial angels, peace and blessings be upon them, are created in terms of beauty, and Iblis in terms of majesty. This leads to the conclusion that Iblis is a manifestation of the majesty of God Almighty. This is why he did what he did, and he did not despair, nor regret, nor ask for forgiveness, because he knew that God Almighty does what He wills, and what He wills is what the realities require, so there is no way to change or alter them. Retrieved11 November 2025.
^abJerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, Hendrik M. VroomProbing the Depths of Evil and Good: Multireligious Views and Case Studies Rodopi 2007ISBN978-90-420-2231-7 p. 249
^Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, Hendrik M. VroomProbing the Depths of Evil and Good: Multireligious Views and Case Studies Rodopi 2007ISBN978-90-420-2231-7 pp. 254–255
^Sharpe, Elizabeth MarieInto the realm of smokeless fire: (Qur'an 55:14): A critical translation of al-Damiri's article on the jinn from "Hayat al-Hayawan al-Kubra 1953 The University of Arizona download date: 15/03/2020
^Bullard, A. (2022). Spiritual and Mental Health Crisis in Globalizing Senegal: A History of Transcultural Psychiatry. US: Taylor & Francis.
^Woodward, Mark. Java, Indonesia and Islam. Deutschland, Springer Netherlands, 2010. p. 88
^Waardenburg, Jean Jacques, ed. (1999).Muslim perceptions of other religions: a historical survey. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 198.ISBN978-0-19-510472-1.
^Michael Kiefer, Jörg Hüttermann, Bacem Dziri, Rauf Ceylan, Viktoria Roth, Fabian Srowig, Andreas Zick"Lasset uns in shaʼa Allah ein Plan machen": Fallgestützte Analyse der Radikalisierung einer WhatsApp-Gruppe Springer-Verlag 2017ISBN978-3-658-17950-2 p. 111
^Janusz Biene, Christopher Daase, Julian Junk, Harald MüllerSalafismus und Dschihadismus in Deutschland: Ursachen, Dynamiken, Handlungsempfehlungen Campus Verlag 2016 9783593506371 p. 177(in German)
^Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2006). Satan: A Biography. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-84339-3 p. 1-13
^Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File.ISBN978-1-438-12696-8. p. 603
^Löfstedt, Torsten. "Who is the Blinder of Eyes and Hardener of Hearts in John 12: 40?." Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 84 (2019): 191.
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton. The devil: Perceptions of evil from antiquity to primitive Christianity. Cornell University Press, 1987. p. 204
^Russell, Jeffrey Burton. The devil: Perceptions of evil from antiquity to primitive Christianity. Cornell University Press, 1987. p. 194
^Hanneken, Todd R. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. Vol. 34. Society of Biblical Lit, 2012. p. 63-64
^abRussell, Jeffrey Burton. The devil: Perceptions of evil from antiquity to primitive Christianity. Cornell University Press, 1987. p. 206
^Derek R. Brown The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical Studies, Currents in Biblical Research 9, no.22 (Mar 2011): 200–227
^Laurence, Richard (1883). "The Book of Enoch the Prophet". from the original on 5 February 2022.
^Annette Yoshiko Reed Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature Cambridge University Press 2005ISBN978-0-521-85378-1 p. 6
^George W. E. Nickelsburg. "Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11." Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96, no. 3, 1977, pp. 383–405
^SUTER, DAVID. Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6—16. Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. 50, 1979, pp. 115–135. JSTOR,
^Jackson, David R. (2004).Enochic Judaism. London: T&T Clark International. pp. 2–4.ISBN0-8264-7089-0
^Manichaeism by Alan G. Hefner inThe Mystica, undated
^Birgül AçikyildizThe Yezidis: The History of a Community, Culture and Religion I.B. Tauris 2014ISBN978-0-857-72061-0 p. 74
^Wadie JwaidehThe Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development Syracuse University Press 2006ISBN978-0-815-63093-7 p. 20
^Florin Curta, Andrew HoltGreat Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in Religious History [3 volumes] ABC-CLIO 2016ISBN978-1-610-69566-4 p. 513
^John R. HinnellsThe Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration OUP Oxford 2005ISBN978-0-191-51350-3 p. 108
^abcd, B. d., Spinoza, B. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza, Volume I. Vereinigtes Königreich: Princeton University Press.
^Jarrett, C. (2007). Spinoza: A Guide for the Perplexed. Vereinigtes Königreich: Bloomsbury Publishing.
^Guthrie, S. L. (2018). Gods of this World: A Philosophical Discussion and Defense of Christian Demonology. US: Pickwick Publications.
^Polka, B. (2007). Between Philosophy and Religion, Vol. II: Spinoza, the Bible, and Modernity. Ukraine: Lexington Books.
^Hendrik Klinge: Die moralische Stufenleiter: Kant über Teufel, Menschen, Engel und Gott. Walter de Gruyter, 2018,ISBN978-3-11-057620-7
^Formosa, Paul. "Kant on the limits of human evil."Journal of Philosophical Research 34 (2009): 189–214.
^Grimm,Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. "leibhaftig":"gern in bezug auf den teufel:dasz er kein mensch möchte sein, sondern ein leibhaftiger teufel. volksbuch von dr.Faust [...]der auch blosz der leibhaftige heiszt, so in Tirol. Fromm. 6, 445;wenn ich dén sehe, wäre es mir immer, der leibhaftige wäre da und wolle mich nehmen.J. Gotthelf Uli d. pächter (1870) 345
Boureau, Alain (2006).Satan the Heretic: The Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West. University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0-226-06748-3.
Brüggemann, Romy (2010).Die Angst vor dem Bösen: Codierungen des malum in der spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Narren-, Teufel- und Teufelsbündnerliteratur [The fear of evil: Coding of the malum in the late medieval and early modern literature of fools, devils and allies of the devil] (in German). Königshausen & Neumann.ISBN978-3-8260-4245-4.
Costen, Michael (1997).The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade. Manchester University Press.ISBN978-0-7190-4332-1.
Geisenhanslüke, Achim; Mein, Georg; Overthun, Rasmus (2015) [2009]. Geisenhanslüke, Achim; Mein, Georg (eds.).Monströse Ordnungen: Zur Typologie und Ästhetik des Anormalen [Monstrous Orders: On the Typology and Aesthetics of the Abnormal]. Literalität und Liminalität (in German). Vol. 12.Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.doi:10.1515/9783839412572.ISBN978-3-8394-1257-2.
Goetz, Hans-Werner (2016).Gott und die Welt. Religiöse Vorstellungen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Teil I, Band 3: IV. Die Geschöpfe: Engel, Teufel, Menschen [God and the world. Religious Concepts of the Early and High Middle Ages. Part I, Volume 3: IV. The Creatures: Angels, Devils, Humans] (in German). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.ISBN978-3-8470-0581-0.
Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2004).The Devil, demonology, and witchcraft: the development of Christian beliefs in evil spirits. Wipf and Stock Publishers.ISBN978-1-59244-531-8.OCLC56727898.
Kolb, Robert; Dingel, Irene; Batka, Lubomir, eds. (2014).The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-960470-8.
Koskenniemi, Erkki; Fröhlich, Ida (2013).Evil and the Devil. A&C Black.ISBN978-0-567-60738-6.
Oberman, Heiko Augustinus (2006).Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. Yale University Press.ISBN978-0-300-10313-7.
Orlov, Andrei A. (2011).Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology. SUNY Press.ISBN978-1-4384-3953-2.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1986).Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9429-1.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1987a).Satan: The Early Christian Tradition. Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9413-0.
Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1987b).The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-9409-3.
Theißen, Gerd (2009).Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums [Experience and Behavior of the First Christians: A Psychology of Early Christianity] (in German). Gütersloher Verlagshaus.ISBN978-3-641-02817-6.
Tyneh, Carl S. (2003).Orthodox Christianity: Overview and Bibliography. Nova Publishers.ISBN978-1-59033-466-9.
Tzamalikos, Panayiotis (2007).Origen: Philosophy of History & Eschatology. BRILL.ISBN978-90-474-2869-5.
^"By desiring to be equal to God in his arrogance, Lucifer abolishes the difference between God and the angels created by him and thus calls the entire system of order into question (if he were instead to replace God, the system itself would only be preserved with reversed positions)".[100]
^"The reformer interprets the book of Tobit as a drama in which Asmodeus is up to mischief as a house devil."[111]
^"Thus Luther's use of individual specific devils is explained by the need to present his thoughts in a manner that is reasonable and understandable for the masses of his contemporaries."[112]
.jpg)
%2c_f.1v_-_BL_Royal_MS_2_B_VII.jpg)
_(2).jpg)
.JPG)
_engraving.jpg)
