Editing Devil (section)

== History ==
Most early belief-systems had no unifying concept of evil. In the oldest available records, natural evils are considered to be simply part of nature. In [[Mesopotamia]], evil is sometimes said to derive from [[primordial chaos]], but there are no inherently evil demons or devils. Various spirits and deities could do both good and evil depending on whim.<ref>Maul, S. (., Jansen-Winkeln, K. (., Niehr, H. (., Macuch, M. (., & Johnston, S. I. (. (2006). Demons. In Brill's New Pauly Online. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e309270</ref> The oldest known Egyptian beliefs had no evil deities: the gods being morally ambivalent and required to submit to the divine order of the cosmos, evil being an action violating said harmony.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 76</ref> In [[Hinduism|old Hindu beliefs]], deities, reflecting the supreme reality, are both benevolent and fierce.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 56</ref> Among ancient Middle Eastern beliefs, [[Zorastrianism]] was the first institutionized belief-system which developed a clear demonology headed by a [[Angra Mainyu|supreme spirit of Evil]] (Angra Mainyu), i.e. Devil.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 104</ref><ref>Maul, S. (., Jansen-Winkeln, K. (., Niehr, H. (., Macuch, M. (., & Johnston, S. I. (. (2006). Demons. In Brill's New Pauly Online. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e309270</ref>

Around 600 BC, [[Zarathustra]] urged his followers to turn away from the devas, in favor of dedicating worship to [[Ahura Mazda]] alone.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 98</ref> 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 fro God.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 98</ref> For the formulation of [[Good and Evil]] as entirely separate principles, Zarathustra argued that God (Ahura Mazda) freely choose goodness, while Angra Mainyu freely choose evil.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 106</ref> By doing so, he established the first known dualistic cosmologoical system, which would later influence other religions, including [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], [[Manichaeism]], and [[Islam]].<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, pp. 98-99</ref> Alienated from the new sole deity, spirits of previous belief-systems thus became [[demonization|associated with the forces of evil]] and hence [[demon]]s.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 105</ref> 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.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 117</ref> Spirits found to allign with the new sole deity then became the [[Angel|Godhead's servants]] (i.e. angels).<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 105</ref><ref>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</ref>

Thus, the [[Canaanite religion|originally monistic Canaanite form]] of Judaism absorbs parts of Persian dualistic tendencies during the [[Post-exilic|Post-exilic period]].<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 99</ref><ref>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</ref> 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. However, Judeo-Christian tradition still differs from earlier monistic beliefs by limiting the power of their Godhead through an evil principle or force, introduced by Zorastrianism.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 99</ref> Christianity in particular, struggled with reconsiling God's omnipresence with God's benevolence.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 101</ref> While Zorastrianism sacrificed God's omnipotence for God's benevolence, thus giving raise to a principle Devil as independent from God, Christianity mostly insisted on the Devil being created and mildly dependent from God.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 101</ref>

One way Christianity adressed the [[Theodicy|problem of evil]] was by distinguishing between mind and body, an idea inherited from [[Ancient Greek Philosophy|Greek]] [[Platonism]]. Similar to Zorastrianism, Platonism was dualistic. However, Platonism and Christianity differ from Persian dualism in sofar as that they associated goodness with only with spirit and evil with matter, proposing a form of [[mind-body dualism]].<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, pp. 99; 160</ref> According to [[Plato]], God is like a [[Demiurge|craftsman]] (Demiurge) who [[Best of all possible worlds|builds the best possible world]]. However, God has to abide by the [[Laws of Nature|laws of nature]] and can only work with the material presented. Matter, thus, becomes to be the refractionary element in Platon's and later [[Neo-Platonism|Neo-Platonic]] model of the cosmos; resisting the perfection God originally intended.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 160</ref><ref>Calder, Todd, "The Concept of Evil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/concept-evil/> Chapter: 2</ref> In religious beliefs, applying such theories of evil, matter (Greek: {{Lang|grc-latn|hyle}} {{Lang|grc|Ὕλη}}) becomes a sphere of lack of goodness and transforms matter into the devilish principle par excellence.<ref>Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Cornell University Press 1987 ISBN 978-0-801-49409-3, p. 160</ref><ref>Horst, P. W. v. d. (2018). Hyle Ὕλη. In Various Authors & Editors (ed.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible Online. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/2589-7802_DDDO_DDDO_Hyle</ref>

The possibly strongest form of body-mind dualism, and a radical step back towards absolute dualism, as conceptualized earlier in Zorastrianism, was reestablished again by [[Manichaeism]]. Manichaeism was a major religion<ref>R. van den Broek, Wouter J. Hanegraaff ''Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times''SUNY Press, 1998 {{ISBN|978-0-7914-3611-0}} p. 37</ref> founded in the third century AD by the [[Parthian Empire|Parthian]]<ref>Yarshater, Ehsan ''The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3 (2), The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.</ref> prophet [[Mani (prophet)|Mani]] ({{circa|216–274 AD}}), in the [[Sasanian Empire]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm |title=Manichaeism |publisher=New Advent Encyclopedia |access-date=4 October 2013 |archive-date=12 March 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312005021/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> One of its key concepts is the doctrine of ''[[Two Principles and Three Moments]]''. Accordingly, 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 the [[Prince of darkness (Manichaeism)|world of darkness]] on the realm of light, and a future moment when both principles are distinct forever.<ref>Willis Barnstone, Marvin Meyer ''The Gnostic Bible: Revised and Expanded Edition Shambhala Publications'' 2009 {{ISBN|978-0-834-82414-0}} page 575-577</ref>