ON THE JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT DEMONS' AND THE DEMONISED,' TOGETHER WITH SOME NOTES ON THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JEWS AND JEWISH CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURIES.
(See vol. i. Book III. ch. xiv.)
IT is not, of course, our purpose here to attempt an exhaustive account of the Jewish views on demons' and the demonised.' A few preliminary strictures were, however, necessary on a work upon which writers on this subject have too implictly relied. I refer to Gfrörer's Jahrhundert des Heils (especially vol. i. pp. 378-424). Gfrörer sets out by quoting a passage in the Book of Enoch on which he lays great stress, but which critical inquiries of Dillmann and other scholars have shown to be of no value on the argument. This disposes of many pages of negative criticism on the New Testament which Gfrörer founds on this quotation. Similarly, 4 Esdras would not in our days be adduced in evidence of pre-Christian teaching. As regards Rabbinic passages, Gfrörer uncritically quotes from Kabalistic works which he mixes with quotations from the Talmud and from writings of a later date. Again, as regards the two quotations of Gfrörer from the Mishah (Erub. iv. 1; Gitt. vii. 1), it has already been stated (vol. i. p. 481, note 4) that neither of these passages bears any refernece to demoniac possesions. Further, Gfrörer appeals to two passages in Sifré which may here be given in extenso. The first of these (ed. Friedmann, p. 107 b) is on Duet. xviii. 12, and reads thus: He who joins himself (cleaves) to uncleanness, on him rests the spirit of uncleaness; but he who cleaves to the Shechinah, it is meet that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.' The second occurs in explanation of Deut. xxxii. 16, and reads as follows (u. s. p. 136 b): What is the way of a "demon" (Shed)? He enters into a man and subjects him.' It will be observed that in both these quotations reference is made to certian moral, not to a physical effects, such as in the case of the demonised. Lastly, although one passage from the Talmud which Gfrörer adduces (though not quite exactly) applies, indeed, to demonical possessions, but is given in an exaggerated and embellished form.
If from these incorrect references we turn to what Jewish authorities really state on the subject, we have: -
1. To deal with the Writings of Josephus. in Aniq. vi. 8. 2, Josephus ascribes Saul's disorder to demonic influence, which brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him. In Antiq. viii. 2. 5, Josephus describes the wisdom, learning, and achievements of Solomon, referring specially to his skill in expelling demons who caused various diseases. According to Josephus Solomon had exercised this power by incantations, his formulae and words of exorcism being still known in Josephus's days. In such manner a certain Eleazar had healed a demoniac' in the presence of Vespasian, his officers, and troops, by putting to his nostrils a ring that held a root of one of those mentioned by Solomon,' by which the demon was drawn out amidst convulsions of the demoniac, when the demon was further adjured not to return by frequent mention of the name of Solomon, and by incantations which he [Solomon] had composed.' To show the reality of this, a vessel with water had been placed at a little distance, and the demon had, in coming out, overturned it. It is probably to this root' that Josephus refers in War. vii. 6. 3, where he names it Baaras, which I conjecture to be the equivalent of the form {hebrew}, boara, the burning,' since he describes it as of colour like a flame, and as emitting at even a ray like lightning, and which it would cost a man's life to take up otherwise than by certain magical means which Josephus specifies. From all this we infer that Josephus occupied the later Talmudical standpoint, alike as regards exorcism, magical cures, and magical preventions. This is of great importance as showing that these views prevailed in New Testament times. But when Josephus adds, that the demons expelled by Baaras were the spirits of the wicked,' he represents a superstition which is not shared by the earlier Rabbis, and may possibly be due to a rationalising attempt to account for the phenomenon. It is, indeed, true that the same view occurs in comparatively late Jewish writings, and that in Yalkuat on Is. 46 b there appears to be a reference to it, at least in connection with the spirits of those who had perished in the flood; but this seems to belong to a different cycle of legends.