Angels and Demons

BUMP...

Not sure how I missed this post. I would use the google and type in stuff like angel/demons, 1st.-3rd. century as a start. From the amount of superstitions and myths it might take a little research. I would think that the Catholic Church readings would have a bunch of stuff in them about it. They did have a stand about it.

If your desire is to keep it 'real', then I couldn't guess where to start. It's an area that you will have to use the Bible as your base to match up any truths for the Christian part. Good luck.

ETA;....I did a quick check and found lots of stuff through google.

Gustav Davidson's Dictionary of Angels is an excellent reference.

Davidson.
1st &2nd Books of Enoch.
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha generally.

Rufus Coppertop said:

Davidson.
1st &2nd Books of Enoch.
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha generally.

Click to expand...

Hm. Those are indeed apocryphal and unreliable. Spurious at best. Get a good Topical Bible (Naves is one) or Bible Dictionary to get some facts. For instance, There was Michael and there was Gabriel, but there was NO Raphael. Did you know Lucifer, before he was Satan, was a cherub? Did you know cherubs had four faces around there heads? Keep that in mind next Valentine's day. Did you know that all the angels in the bible are male, with the exception of a small reference in Zechariah and those female angels turned out to be demons.

Did you know that as Daniel prayed, God sent an angel to deliver a message (start chapter 8) but that a princely demon prevented him in a fierce battle for days? Ultimately, Michael had to come to this angel's rescue.

I could go on. It's a fascinating study. Did you know sometimes, as a test, you might entertain an angel? Think of that next time you pass by some benign homeless man with his hand out and don't feed him and share the good news with him.

Have fun!

Dave

JustDave said:

Hm. Those are indeed apocryphal and unreliable. Spurious at best. Get a good Topical Bible (Naves is one) or Bible Dictionary to get some facts. For instance, There was Michael and there was Gabriel, but there was NO Raphael. Did you know Lucifer, before he was Satan, was a cherub? Did you know cherubs had four faces around there heads? Keep that in mind next Valentine's day. Did you know that all the angels in the bible are male, with the exception of a small reference in Zechariah and those female angels turned out to be demons.

Did you know that as Daniel prayed, God sent an angel to deliver a message (start chapter 8) but that a princely demon prevented him in a fierce battle for days? Ultimately, Michael had to come to this angel's rescue.

I could go on. It's a fascinating study. Did you know sometimes, as a test, you might entertain an angel? Think of that next time you pass by some benign homeless man with his hand out and don't feed him and share the good news with him.

Click to expand...

Actually, all that is covered in Davidson's dictionary.

"Facts" about angels are slippery things. There are "facts" according to what contemporary Christians believe, and then there are "facts" according to what 1st-3rd century Christians and Jews believed (as the OP asked), and then there is all the other lore that has accumulated about angels, believed by someone or other at some point in history.

JustDave said:

Hm. Those are indeed apocryphal and unreliable. Spurious at best.

Click to expand...

It's odd that they are spurious since they are the earliest evidence of an
apocalyptic tradition that had some impact on early Christianity.

The Enochian texts and the letter of Jude are canonical texts in the Eithopian Church which is itself quite ancient.

I'll not argue that point. Yet, while it is an interesting book, it is historically inaccurate. This is why the various councils in the past and most bible scholars agree it ought not be considered as canon. Most also will cite that its authorship is questionable so they lean on the side of caution and omit the work as biblical canon. It is an interesting read though.

I might jump in and also concur. Old does NOT by any means mean reliable or credible. The early church made quite a few theological blunders.

Well I suppose this would vary widely on which set of Christians and/or Jews you are talking about. How much tradition and misunderstanding of the scriptures are they holding onto? Perhaps you are just looking for the most common interpretations of the times. Your research and your answers will depend on how doctrinally sound you are trying to be.

Kenny said:

I've got some idea about evil in general but I'm trying to do a bit of research on Angels and Demons in 1st - 3rd century Christian and Jewish thought. Any one got any good resources out there?

Thanks in advance,
Kenny

Click to expand...

peetred said:

Well I suppose this would vary widely on which set of Christians and/or Jews you are talking about. How much tradition and misunderstanding of the scriptures are they holding onto? Perhaps you are just looking for the most common interpretations of the times. Your research and your answers will depend on how doctrinally sound you are trying to be.

Click to expand...

How Doctrinally unsound is Enoch? Surely it represents Angels and demons in more detail than your averge 1st Century BCE document?
It seems more relevent to me than say Catullus or Livy or even Tacitus.

MickCarranza said:

I might jump in and also concur. Old does NOT by any means mean reliable or credible. The early church made quite a few theological blunders.

Click to expand...

Such as? What?

Unless anyone here know the "truth" about angels I think the only qualifications a text has is age and how many people may have believed it at the time. Which would probably put the Book of Enoch way up there IMHO.

For Jews, you could try the Talmud. It is a VERY large work, but there are multiple stories involving demons, golems, etc. The majority of religious Jews believed that stuff then, and most of them "believe" it today (meaning they say they do publicly, but most likely a number of them don't).

callalily61 said:

PrincessofPersia: I strongly advise against making blanket statements like the one I bolded above.

Click to expand...

Blanket statements are only inappropriate if they are not based on fact.

Are you a student of Jewish history?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Have you read documents from the time the Talmud was written that validate the claim "majority of religious Jews believed that stuff then"?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Also, on what basis do you make the statement that "most likely a number" of current practitioners of Judaism do not believe in angels?

Click to expand...

The three years I spent living with three different Orthodox families in communities of varying levels of orthodoxy, as well as a number of writings.

ETA: I am not implying anything negative by any of this, just my experiences and what I have learned or been told.

callalily61 said:

Thank you. I appreciate you letting us know your level of scholarship. Sometimes we get posters who do indeed make blanket statements with little or nothing to back them up.

You could've avoid the potential Wrath of Mod if you'd mentioned all that in your original post. I know a bit about the convent and its history, and I make sure to mention my creds if I post on that topic.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the warning. I will do so in the future. It did not occur to me that someone would make a statement without having the proper experience to back up said claims, but I suppose that is a very naive way of thinking, particularly on the internet. I appreciate the guidance.

Convents are something I know exceptionally little about, but am very interested in.

ETA: Funny enough, I'm not Jewish at all. My parents are Catholic, and I myself worship Isis (as well as the other Egyptian gods, particularly the Isis-Osiris-Horus triad). Needless to say, I did not mention that fact very often when I was involved in the Jewish communities.

JustDave said:

I'll not argue that point. Yet, while it is an interesting book, it is historically inaccurate.

Click to expand...

What's historically inaccurate? The Books of Enoch or the Letter of Jude?

Try the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, specifically the one on the celestial hierarchy. Their actual authorship is disputed, so they may date a little later than you're looking for, but may still be helpful, especially since they were long regarded as dating from the period you want. St. Dionysius was converted by St. Paul.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading some of his works online at some point. A Google search for St. Dionysius the Areopagite and the celestial hierarchy might bring up the text.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite

And in the Did You Know category: Did you know the Bible was written by mere mortal men who, according to their society, maintained a purely male dominated society relegating women to a second class status? The exception to this was with the Old Testament period wherein the Judaic society held women, in many respects, as the rulers of the tribe. This, in fact, holds true even unto today where the heritage of the bloodline follows the woman's line.
And, did you know, back in the 1980's (and recently released again pretending to be new info) there was one specific gene isolated and found in everyone? EVERYONE regardless of who or where they lived, were born, or what their native ancestry might be. This gene is passed down through the female only and was designated the Eve Gene. So that old saw about "we are all brothers" is actually true!

A good read. I, too am doing a lot of research on 1st century angels and demons.
The approach I've taken is to use the modern, accepted teachings of the Catholic Church as the basis for "reality" in my world. The interesting thing is squaring "reality" with the then current beliefs of my characters.

Angels and demons are slippery things to use. For every authority you find, there are ten others who disagree. It seems to me that no matter what approach one takes, someone will find fault.

EG

TheWordsmith said:

And in the Did You Know category: Did you know the Bible was written by mere mortal men who, according to their society, maintained a purely male dominated society relegating women to a second class status? The exception to this was with the Old Testament period wherein the Judaic society held women, in many respects, as the rulers of the tribe. This, in fact, holds true even unto today where the heritage of the bloodline follows the woman's line.
And, did you know, back in the 1980's (and recently released again pretending to be new info) there was one specific gene isolated and found in everyone? EVERYONE regardless of who or where they lived, were born, or what their native ancestry might be. This gene is passed down through the female only and was designated the Eve Gene. So that old saw about "we are all brothers" is actually true!

Click to expand...

Yes! Everybody has mitochondria and since mitochondria used to be free-living bacteria, they have their own genes. Plus 99.999% of the time one's mitochondria come only from one's mother. So there are those mitochondria!

Elias Graves said:

A good read. I, too am doing a lot of research on 1st century angels and demons.
The approach I've taken is to use the modern, accepted teachings of the Catholic Church as the basis for "reality" in my world. The interesting thing is squaring "reality" with the then current beliefs of my characters.

Angels and demons are slippery things to use. For every authority you find, there are ten others who disagree. It seems to me that no matter what approach one takes, someone will find fault.

EG

Click to expand...

Not me. I've always found that most people can write a good angel part.
Philip Pullman, on the other hand, was no good with angels.