They are gloomy, their shadow dark, no light is in their bodies, ever they slink along covertly, walk not upright, from their claws drips bitter gall, their footprints are (full of) evil venom

withhold—natural disasters. In this view, there is not really a place for demons as causers of calamity: it is God or the gods who act and who can be held responsible for such disasters as occur. (2) The second possibility is that calamity is attributed not to God or the gods but to evil spirits or demons. ‘For the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, sickness and evil had a simple explanation. They were brought by demons’, according to Nash.9 In like vein, Martinez writes: ‘Ancient Mesopotamia organized reality in a way that frequently personified epidemic disease as deities or demons.’10 Whenever people are mystified as to the why and wherefore of the disaster that has befallen them, it is evident that they will blame evil spirits for it. ‘The only possible reason that could be given to explain attacks by “demons”… was their wantonness and pure malevolence, for the attacks could not be explained through any provocation on the part of their victims.’11 Because the origin of the evil differs in this scenario, the remedy is also different. In a world in which Ancient Near Eastern man has become the plaything of dark and evil powers, he tends to resort to ‘magic, spells and incantations’ in order to ward off, cast out or fight off demons.12

Bottéro calls the first approach to evil exorcistic and the second magical.13 In the exorcistic approach, the help of the gods is invoked to eradicate the evil. In the magical approach, one seeks to remove the evil using magic formulas and rituals (incantations and magic spells, amulets and figurines). We also find such a differentiated approach within Ancient Israel. In the texts of the Old Testament, evil (as punishment or judgement) can be attributed to yhwh (Am. 3:6; II Sam. 24:1) or to Satan (I Chronicles 21:1; Job 1 and 2), yet at the same time we find in the Ancient Israel archaeological field many examples of a magical approach to evil. For example, amulets, figurines, magic dishes, stelae and other apotropaic objects have been found. Old habits evidently died hard and were sometimes more deeply-rooted than the ‘doctrine’ on this point (see Chapter 3).14

As Albertz and others have shown, in a given culture different views can co-exist as to the source of disaster. These differences are largely related to the ‘multi-layered nature’ of religion (Chapter 1, §3.2). God-talk and religious beliefs and theological reflexion are necessarily contextual and in certain concordance

9 T. Nash, ‘Devils, Demons, and Disease: Folklore in Ancient Near Eastern Rites of Atonement’, in: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature—Scripture in Context III (ANETS 8), W.W. Hallo (ed.), New York 1990, 57. 10 Martinez, ‘Epidemic Disease’, 425. 11 Bottéro, Religion, 187. 12 Bietenhard, in: NIDNTT 1, 450. 13 Bottéro, Religion, 192–200; cf. also J.A. Scurlock, ‘Magic’, in: ABD 4, 464–468. 14 Robertson, Drought, Famine, Plague and Pestilence, 130–147.

with changing customs, cultures and social conditions. It is therefore to be expected that in the rebellious beliefs of an individual, other interests are central than in the life of a tribe, people or king.

In general, it can be observed that official religion usually paid little heed to the drives and needs of the common man or woman. Official and priestly activities were focused on the maintenance of the daily cult and the preparation and conduct of national festivals and rituals. This cult was aimed at worshipping and serving the gods and was thus theocentric in nature.15 Conversely, the religious practices of the individual and of the family were much more focused on concrete needs of each day.16 These are at the service of the human being and are interwoven with day-to-day cares and needs. Its rituals are more ‘problem-oriented’17 and focus on the elimination of mischief and the suppression of suffering and pain.18 Hence, it is mainly in the context of family religion that we find mention of mischief of demonic origin.19

In the present chapter, our interest revolves around the religious convictions of Ancient Near Eastern man (and woman) concerning demons. Were demons seen as the cause of sickness and disaster? Were demons connected with dramatic events in the life of the family or clan? Was protection against demons part of the domestic religion (and was it a fixed part)? What were people actually afraid of? Moreover, did they represent that fear in terms of spirits or demons?20 A related question is that of what rituals one used to protect oneself. Were there objects or customs that had an apotropaic function?

15 Bottéro, Religion, 114–115. 16 The distinction between official (state) religion and personal or familial piety is elaborated by R. Albertz, Persönliche Frömmigkeit, 1–23, 97–98, and Religionsgeschichte Israels, 41. 17 Scurlock, ‘Magic’, in: ABD 4, 464. 18 Bottéro, Religion, 114, 170. 19 Most authors introduce their discourse of evil spirits and demons when treating of personal piety. See e.g. Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, 186–192; and T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness—A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven 1976, 12; for a more thorough elaboration see R. Albertz, R. Schmitt, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, Winona Lake 2012; E.S. Gerstenberger, Der bittende Mensch: Bittritual und Klagelied des Einzelnen im Alten Testament (WMANT 51), Neukirchen 1980; ‘Theologies in the Book of Psalms’, in: The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (VTS 99), P.D. Miller. P.W. Flint (eds.), Leiden 2004, 603–625. 20 For an analysis of the fundamental human phenomenon of fear, cf. G. Glas, Angst— Beleving, structuur, macht, Amsterdam 2001. In that book, Glas also discusses the category of levensangst or bestaansangst (fear of life, or fear of existence), i.e. the existential trepidation which people have when fearing for their lives or afraid to continue living. Glas calls this the anthropological dimension of fear, bound up with the human condition.