Jinn Sorcery

and Divination
 Imam Ali Conquers Jinn, unknown artist.
From the Ahsan-ol-Kobar (1568). Golestan Palace.
 Published by
Spiritual Instinct Press, Hoym

PDF I
First published as a chapter in the book:
Satan Rethroned:
Magic and Sorcery in the Early Church Vol. II(pp 80-106).
© Steve Seven, 2021, Spiritual Instinct Press

PDF II
The Nature of the Arab Ginn, Illustrated by the
Present Beliefs of the People of Morocco
Edward Westermarck
First published 1899

Ink, Oil and Mirror Gazing Ceremonies in Modern Egypt

William H. Worrell
First published 1916

All illustrations have been adapted from the public domain.

Cover art attributed to:

Üstad Muhammed Siyah Kalem (Poss. Bahşi Uygur)
Assumed: Turkey, sixteenth century.
Currently housed in a collection at: Topkapı Sarayı'na.

copyright © 2021 by Steve Seven

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any

manner whatsoever without written permission except
in the case of brief quotations for criticism or review.
For information, address: Spiritual Instinct Press,
Rudolf-Breitscheidstr. 11, Hoym, Seeland. 06467 Germany.

www.spiritualinstinctpress.com
contact@spiritualinstinctpress.com
An 18th century hand-illustrated page from an Ottoman Turk
dental book featuring jinn as the cause of tooth decay.
 Demons and Genii in the New Testament and Beyond.
Steve Seven

Our English word 'demon' comes from the Latin daemon which had various
meanings such as 'god' or 'godlike.' It could also mean more abstract concepts
such as 'divine power' or 'fate' and derives from the ancient Greek word
daimōn, from daio: 'to distribute fortunes.'
According to Hesiod, great and powerful figures were to be honoured after
death as a daimōn. One such example is Phaeton who, in Theogony (991),
becomes an incorporeal daimōn or a divine spirit. In Hesiod's Works and Days,
the people of the Golden Age were transformed into daimōnes by the will of
Zeus. This is described by Hesiod at lines 120-124:

But when this race had been hidden under the cover of earth, they
became, as almighty Zeus decreed, divinities, powers of good on the
earth, guardians of mortal men, who keep a watch on cases at law
and hard‐hearted deeds, being hidden in air and going all over the
earth, blessing men with wealth, as this is their kingly right (Frazer
trans.)

In Plato's Symposium, the priestess Diotima teaches Socrates that Eros is a

'great daimōn' and goes on to explain that everything daimōnic is intermediary
between the divine and mortals. She describes daimōnes as “interpreting and
transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men; entreaties and
sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above ... ” (202d-e.
Jowett trans.).
According to Iamblichus, “we preserve in their entirety the mystical and
arcane images [archetypes] of the gods in our soul; and we raise our soul up
through these towards the gods and, as far as possible, when it has been
elevated, we experience union with these gods.” (On the Mysteries: VII.4)
In Plato's Apology, Socrates claimed to have a daimónion which is the
diminutive form of the term which can be translated literally as an 'impersonal
force.' This force acted as a 'divine sign' which frequently warned him—in the
form of a 'voice'—against mistakes but never told him what to do. (31c–d, 40a).
In Classical mythology Eros is the god of love who was wedded to Psyche.
One cannot think of the one, in this context, without the connection to the other.
The word psuché or psyche means one's mind, soul or vital life force and, also,
the connected principle of breath. In the simplest terms, Psyche was the
deification of the human soul and was the goddess who had to venture into the
underworld and retrieve a treasure which lead to her apotheosis—or
divinization.
This is a very good analogy for the dynamics of depth psychology which
 2

turn around upon the concept of venturing into the dark, unknown territory of
the unconscious to retrieve the treasure of self-awareness. This is an important
aspect to bear in mind when considering that the first psychologists were
schooled in Classical mythology and philosophy and this dimension of the
symbolism would have been quite apparent to them.
The divinized heroes of the mythic Golden Age were created as a result of,
and in contrast to, the unleashing on the world of the miseries or ills which were
released by Pandora. These latter are deadly deities known as keres.
Over time, this divinization also became attached to humans. The Hellenistic
ruler cult began with Alexander although, initially, it was not the ruler himself
but his guiding daimōn that was venerated. (Tarn: 1928.206-219). Through the
influence of philosophers such as Plato and his concept of the Ideas or Forms,
as well as other factors such as the mystery religions—where the initiate was
visited by a personal spirit helper—the concept of the daimōn became
democratized and internalized for each person. In the Archaic and early
Classical period they served as guides and motivators, inspiring those who were
possessed by such good spirits. As with everything 'divine' there was, however,
still a level of awe and, sometimes, subsequent danger attached to the concept
because of the powerful, unknown and unpredictable nature of its
manifestations.
The later Hellenistic writers came to differentiate between 'good' and 'dark'
daimōnes. The 'noble spirit' was called agathodaímōn from agathós which
means good, brave, noble, moral, lucky, useful and so on. This category was set
against the 'malevolent spirit' kakodaímōn from kakós meaning bad or evil.
A similar evolution of the concept can be seen in Judaism. Evil spirits appear
in the HB in, for example, the books of Judges and 1 Samuel. At 1 Sam. 16:14-
16, it states:

Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit
from the Lord tormented him. Saul’s attendants said to him, 'See, an
evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord command his
servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will
play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel
better.'

At Judges 9:23 it states: “Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech
and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with
Abimelech.” (KJV). The Hebrew translated as 'evil' in these occasions is ra‘
which has a very broad meaning and can include 'troubling,' 'bad,' 'vicious,'
'disagreeable,' 'tormenting' and so on. In the NIV, this Judges verse is translated:
“God stirred up animosity between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem … ”
 3

In keeping with the overall theme of the all-powerful nature of YHWH in the
HB, the appearance of the 'evil' or 'tormenting' spirit is also attributed to the
agency of God. This is the same dynamic that is attached to the appearance of
Satan.
Many 'fallen angels' play an important role of the in the early extra-
Canonical texts such as, for example, 1 Enoch. Despite this, however, modern
Jews, by and large, do not accept the existence of ‘demons.’ This is because
there are no clear references to the specific concept in the HB nor in the
Jerusalem Talmud. There are two references which are sometimes translated as
‘demons’ in English. These are found in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalms
106:37. In both instances the designation is being used in a literary way, rather
than literal one, in order to denigrate foreign deities in a similar derogatory
sense as the Ba'al Zebub term. According to Strong's Lexicon, the Hebrew used
here, shedim, “probably” means “demon” and it is likely a loan-word from the
Assyrian šêdu, which became yā·šūḏ, meaning “waste” in Hebrew and the root
of the term shedim.
A far as the 'good' daimōn in the HB, an angel or 'messenger' is mal'ak. This
term is translated In LXX with the Greek ángelos which also means
'messenger.' The word daimōn, on the other hand, carries the meaning of a
natural spirit that is less than divine in LXX and translates the Hebrew words
for idols, foreign deities, certain beasts, and natural evils. It is this translation
that supported the typical Christian association to evil demons.
Together with the tension of opposites in creation, the problem of evil is also
one that has occupied the attention of philosophers since our earliest extant
records. It becomes a much more mysterious enigma when one's world-view
follows a chain of thinking with the first domino being a good and just creative
force, or God, that is attributed to have started the universe. This problem has
been explained within the dynamics of the emanations and we will make a
tentative start here to examine this riddle.
In the process of their course through the universe, the elements are subject
to change and differentiation. As Plato informs us, the Ideas or primal
archetypes are pure and fixed Forms that exist in the heavenly realm. What
appears to us as their images and what is created in the material world are
similitudes of these Forms. This is why, in the Republic for example, Plato
holds a hard line regarding the arts because these products, be they visual or
performing, are merely second-hand imitations of the Real.
With many of the Jewish apocalyptic writers, the proto-orthodox Christians
and 'Gnostics' this dilemma became expressed in the perspective that the
material world is inherently 'evil.' It was for this reason that a 'bi-theistic'
theology was necessary to explain these dynamics with a kingdom of (worldly)
dark, under a capricious king, waging war against a kingdom of (heavenly)
 4

good under a polar opposite, benevolent, monarch.

We have seen above, in Philo's writing, that the shining out of the eternal
emanations brings the different geological forms and that the transient creation
is in a process of evolutionary 'becoming.' A typical analogy, in the mystic
strands of Judaism, is that as the divine spark makes its way into creation it is
split and, therefore, with each differentiation some of its purity and power is
lost. It is for this reason that the various angels are required to provide a bridge
for people back to the God-head.
Following LXX, Philo also divided these astral messengers into two
categories and he gives us a very clear distinction between them in his work,
On Dreams, that they are God sent. Philo begins by explaining that it is logical
to assume the element of air is inhabited by living souls because, if it provides
so much vitality to the rest of creation, how could it be devoid itself of life?
Furthermore, our own soul is invisible and therefore it is reasonable to assume
that there are other invisible souls, “equal in number to the stars.”

Now of these souls some descend upon the earth with a view to
bound up in mortal bodies, those namely which are most connected
with the earth, and which are lovers of the body. … There are
others, again, the purest and most excellent which have received
greater and more divine intellects, never by any chance desiring any
earthly thing whatever, but being as it were lieutenants of the Ruler
of the universe, as though they were the eyes and ears of the great
king, beholding and listening to everything. Now philosophers in
general are wont to call these demons, but the sacred scripture calls
them angels, using a name more in accordance with nature.
(I.xxii.138,140-141)

Although Philo shares the, then, common negative attitude towards the
physical realm for him, as with Plato, the “demons” are not evil spirits but,
rather, less evolved forms of etheric intelligence. He continues by explaining
that the “angels” are the “words of God” and are continually listening to both
humans and God, “ascending and descending” a celestial “ladder”. To
conclude, Philo states that the angels are the medium through which God forms
relationship with people and, to draw support from the HB for the concept that
God penetrates all, he quotes Genesis 28: 15, “I am with you and will watch
over you wherever you go … ” and Leviticus 26:12, “I will walk among you
and be your God, and you will be my people.”
In the HB, the calamities that the Jewish people experienced, both
collectively and individually, were usually attributed to punishment from God
and this was generally seen as a response to having deserted YHWH for foreign
 5

idols. It was this 'wrathful' and 'vengeful' portrayal that led many of the later
Gnostics to differentiate between the God of Jesus and the deity of the HB—the
latter being considered an evil creator of the material universe while the former
being a redemptive figure whose goal is to save people from the chains of
physical existence.
An influential figure in the development of this concept as a formal doctrine
was the Gnostic theologian Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85-160 CE) who declared
that YHWH of the HB was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Marcion
was ex-communicated for his beliefs by the proto-orthodox church but retained
many followers and exerted a second major influence by proposing the first
Christian canon. He rejected the entire HB and included the gospel of Luke
along with what are, now, the undisputed epistles from Paul: Galatians; 1 & 2
Corinthians; 1 Thessalonians; Philippians; Philemon and Romans. He also
included three of the disputed letters: Ephesians (which he called Laodicians);
Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. It was this move that prompted the proto-
orthodox faction to also begin, what was for them, the long process of
formulating their own canon.
The post-Biblical Jewish movement away from the portrayal of God as the
bringer of calamity and towards an emphasis on 'fallen angels' and 'evil' spirits
can be seen as proto-Gnostic. One of the reasons for this move was that the
Jewish people came to see that their political oppression was not given at the
hand of forsaking God as it is explained in the HB. Many Jewish people came
to believe that they were experiencing oppression and consequent calamity for
resisting the effects of Hellenisation—including the accepting of the Greek
pantheon and festivals. Therefore, a new reason for 'evil' became expressed in
the development of demonology.
This change is graphically expressed in the eschatology of the various extra-
canonical texts that we have examined as well as many of the Dead Sea scrolls
such as the War Scroll, for example, where the 'Sons of Light' do battle against
the 'Sons of Darkness.' Writing in the heart of this period, this same dualist
theology was a strong influence on the authors of the NT.
Having stated that, however, this dualism has been exaggerated in the
modern translations which leave out the Greco-Roman nuances to the words
daimón and, more particularly, daimónion. The latter, as the diminutive form,
implies an impersonal divine force—either good or bad—and is by far the most
commonly used in the NT, with the noun daimōn being used only once, at
Matthew 8:31. The terms have proved problematic for traditional Christian
theology. The editors of Strong's Lexicon, for example, acknowledge that
daimōn is, in itself, neutral and, in contrast to their own interpretation, it is
employed in both a negative and positive sense by Hellenistic authors.
Furthermore, Strong's concedes that Josephus, amongst other “secular” writers,
 6

used it to convey the concept of 'deity' in a general sense. It needs to be pointed

out that using the distinction “secular” in this context is anachronistic because
Josephus as well as the other philosophers who used the term in this manner
were not at all secular in our modern sense of being atheistic or not
acknowledging the spiritual or 'divine' aspect in the universe.
A standard text in NT criticism is Richard Trench's Synonyms of the New
Testament which has been cited above in relation to the concept of the
archetype with the use of eikón in LXX and the NT. Since its first edition in
1858, this book has remained an undisputed authority and it continually refers
to Hellenistic writers and their use of Greek to determine definitions and
nuances of many words in the context of the NT. Despite this, however,
Strong's define daimónion specifically as a “little demon” which can be “an
evil-spirit, demon; a heathen deity” and, more particularly, the editors maintain
that its use in the NT carries the theological import which: “conveys how
utterly powerless demons (fallen angels) are against Christ (His plan)”. In this
instance, Strong's definition is objectively and demonstrably incorrect.
This confusion of terminology is further increased when we consider that the
psychological import associated with certain Greek terms is simply ignored in
modern translations and in NT commentaries.
For example, in most of the examples of 'demon' exorcism in the gospels the
malady is rendered in English as “impure spirit” (NIV) or “unclean spirit”
(KJV). The original Greek words in these instances are pneumati akathartō.
The first word, derived from pneuma, describes the 'spirit' of the person and the
second word is the negative form of katharsis which is the root of our modern
English term with the same meaning: 'catharsis.' Some of the NT texts do
describe something that we could equate with a 'demon,' and this is the word
that is used in translation, but where 'unclean spirit' is used it is pointing to a
person who has not been through a necessary emotional purging. The word
katharsis can also mean a ritual purity but this concept of emotional purging
was the subject of a discussion between the Classical Greek philosophers Plato
(ca. 428-348 BCE) and Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in their writings with the same
psychological meaning that it contains today. Therefore, this dimension of the
word would have been understood, without question, by the NT writers.
The many occurrences of akathartō pneumati are windows for us to see a
moderate theology in the NT—one that falls in line more with Greek
philosophical thinking. It is one which is also a realistic and practical means of
healing the 'possessed' person by pointing to a tangible, psychological therapy.
It is very interesting, and highly significant, that the so-called 'heretical' Gospel
of Thomas has no mention of demons or the devil..
There is a very important healing event in the NT where Jesus heals the
servant of a Roman centurion and this gives us another small glimpse into early
 7

Christian 'demonology.' One that also fits with the Greco-Roman concept of the
daimón. The story is related at Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13. The latter
version states:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him,

asking for help. 'Lord,' he said, 'my servant lies at home paralyzed,
suffering terribly.'
Jesus said to him, 'Shall I come and heal him?'
The centurion replied, 'Lord, I do not deserve to have you come
under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be
healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under
me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he
comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.'
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following
him, 'Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such
great faith. [I say to you that many will come from the east and the
west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom
will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.]'
Then Jesus said to the centurion, 'Go! Let it be done just as you
believed it would.' And his servant was healed at that moment.

As covered in detail in the first volume of the series, Magic and Sorcery in
the Early Church, by appearing in Matthew and Luke, this story forms part of
the early 'Q' source. In brief, the theory runs that where Matthew and Luke are
using the same material, outside of their borrowings from Mark, then another
shared source is the best explanation for this commonality. The primitive nature
of Q suggests it to be one of the earliest strands of NT literature.
Returning to the story, the successful healing is attributed to a laudable faith
on the part of the Roman centurion. The bracketed extra detail to the attack
against Israel for their lack of faith is not included in Luke's version and one
could assume that removing this may bring us closer to a supposed 'original'
narrative. The effect of this diatribe in Matthew creates a further distance to the
Jewish community and also brings the pagan Roman closer. The fact that the
centurion declines Jesus' offer to enter his house may be seen as bringing
distance between a Roman and Jesus and this is enhanced in Luke where the
centurion does not even speak directly to Jesus but sends friends to ask for him.
This latter aspect in Luke creates a clumsy narrative and, again, is best seen as a
betrayal of the particular political nuances of this gospel rather than part of the
'original' story. Whereas Matthew exaggerated the narrative to create extra
 8

distance to Jews, Luke has added distance to the Romans. We will see that the
original narrative, and especially Matthew's version, is a testimony to a close
and healthy rapport between the authors and the Roman occupiers because it
displays an intimate knowledge of a religiosity that was an institutionalized part
of the Roman army.
To get to the deeper meaning we need to start with the question: 'What does
the centurion mean when he says; “For I myself am a man under authority, with
soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and
he comes.”?'
In his speech, On the Diviner's Reply, Cicero explains that part of their
success is because the Roman army “excel all people in religiosity and in that
unique wisdom that has brought us to the realization that everything is
subordinate to the rule and direction of the gods.” (19. Yonge trans.)
Ancient historians and papyrologists have uncovered many aspects of
Roman military life that can bring the Q story alive for us. The soldier's career
began with a sacramentum, which is an oath sworn on enrolment and renewed
every year on Jan 3. Following from this, every morning a holy promise to obey
all the military customs and orders is made. (Fink: 1971).
In the Roman army devotions, adorations and signs of honour were multiple
throughout the ranks. Most notable was the daily honouring of the military
genii which were the spirits that protected the camp. Like the soldiers, the genii
were ranked in order of authority. The Genius centuriae, for example, received
daily obeisance from each centurion while Genii legionis were honoured by the
legion. So plentiful were the various genii that even “though worshipped only
by the army itself, the military genii were so manifold and plentiful that one has
rightly said that no other manifestation of Roman life left more remains of the
cult of the genii than the army.” (Speidel: 1978).
Our English word 'genius' is from the same term in Latin which meant a
guardian spirit or tutelary deity that watches over an individual. It was also a
general term for spirit, incarnation, wit or talent including the gift of 'seeing,'
divination or prophecy. In technical contexts, it referred to the male spirit of a
gens. Its Indo-European root comes from gen(e)-yo- which stems from gene; the
root of the English words 'gene' and 'genetic.' It originally meant 'generative
power' or 'inborn nature.'
Another important word here is the Greek, numen, which is a broad term to
describe nature spirits or chthonic, underworld, deities in their various
manifestations. The first-century Roman imperial cult began by venerating the
genius or numen of Augustus. This is similar to the origin of the worship of
Alexander described above and, as with the Hellenistic example, the distinction
between the numen and the person blurred in time.
In his book The Idea of the Holy, Rudolf Otto refers to both Immanuel Kant
 9

and Plato to describe his interpretation of religious experience. He defines the

attributes of God, such as righteous and loving, as “clear and definite concepts”
and compares these concepts to Kant’s doctrine of a priori categories. This is
referring to Kant's approach to the authority of the moral law which is given as
an inborn fact of reason like a moral instinct. This became encapsulated in
Kant's concept of the 'categorical imperative.' Otto contrasts this with Plato’s
description of Eros and his own idea of Holy and laments the fact that in our
modern languages there is something missing from the original depth of the
concept in its classical usage. The “unnamed something” has “in the main, no
means of linguistic expression but terms drawn from other fields of mental
life.” Otto is referring here to what he termed the “X factor”, or the psychic
feeling-tone, that underwrites and is embodied in the fuller experience attached
to the ancient use of the word holy. According to Otto: “our X cannot, strictly
speaking, be taught it can only be evoked, awakened in the mind: as everything
that comes from the spirit is awakened.” To label this X, which is “the object of
religion” for Otto, he introduces the term “numen” to describe the
psychic/emotional effects of religious experience. (Otto: 1923.5-7).
In the context of the ancient concept of numen, the energy of these nature
spirits was believed to be imparted to those who paid tribute to them. In the
Roman military cult, the numen were objectified in the standards such as the
eagles that belonged to each legion. These totems represented special animals
and it was their spirit which would be shared with those who honoured their
power. Camp walls were adorned with protection statues and there were also
specific sacred parade-ground deities. This spiritual transfer is understood in a
similar way in, for example, the shamanistic rituals of primal cultures.
The Roman army had, by all reports, a high profile in first century Palestine
and this Q story, with its pagan elements, made its way into the canon via its
inclusion in the Matthew and Luke. The metaphysical basis behind this long-
distance healing narrative is the ability of Jesus as the healer to marshal celestial
agents—the genii—as deputies.
This same occult level is evident in Jewish magical texts such as the Sefer
ha-Razim (SHR). This is a Jewish magical text which was compiled in the late
Classical period and confirms that Judaism had a strong, ancient magical
tradition. The document contains many spells that are drawn directly from the
HB including curses for the destruction of enemies which are taken from some
of the Psalms. As Morton Smith points out, “the author of SHR claims in the
preface that his book will teach the reader 'to rule over spirits and demons, to
send them so that they will go, like slaves.'” (Smith: 1978.110).
There is also what would have been understood as an overt reference to a
more general 'magical' procedure with the centurion's request that Jesus merely
had to “say the word” to activate the healing genii. Throughout the various
 10

ancient magical texts a strong emphasis is placed on the magical efficacy of

words which contain power in and of themselves. This magical concept was
also a part of the broader Hebrew religious tradition and the names of God
were, predictably enough, among those considered to be especially potent. At
Matthew 26.53, Jesus states he that he need only to say a word and his Father
would send him 12 legions of angels.
We do not need to read the centurion story as being exemplary of Jesus'
healing methods because this is a tale with the main message being the faith of
people from outside the Jewish community and their rapport with Jesus. It must
be emphasized that the specific rapport was not only detailed towards the
Roman occupiers but also a tribute is being made to their particular, typically
'pagan,' religiosity. In this instance, therefore, the story is probably not relating
an historical event and is most likely part of a later strand of Q when it was
more probable that a mythic level would have been added to pad out the
preliminary narrative basis which was derived from the oral tradition.
Furthermore, the technique is being laid out by the centurion himself and Jesus
merely accommodates his wish.
I hasten to add here that the possibility of a distance healing event is not
without foundation nor precedent. Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana founded a New
Zealand Maori religious movement which, in the late 1920s, became an
influential political force. Ratana travelled the country and, eventually, many
other parts of the world gaining fame as a faith healer. One particular healing
that caught widespread attention was the case of Fanny Lammas, a woman who
had been bedridden for 30 years and encased in a steel frame for 19 of those.
She had received the best of medical care during this period and specialists were
at a loss to diagnose or cure her condition. In 1921, she wrote to Ratana and,
after receiving his reply, spent a long season in prayer which he had exhorted
her to do. Within a few weeks she was able, by all accounts, to sit up, stand and
then walk unaided. In this well-documented case everyone who knew her was
amazed and her own local doctor confirmed that she had been healed. Cynics
and sceptics assumed to have solved this mystery by stating that the healing was
merely the result of auto-suggestion. (Schofield: 1940).
It is quite likely that Lammas' condition was, to a greater or lesser extent,
psychosomatic but to discount the extraordinary nature of the healing merely by
assuming it to have been solely the result of auto-suggestion or self-hypnosis is
not at all engaging with the profundity of the event—even if it was the result of
'mind over matter.' In fact, auto-suggestion is implied in the mechanics of these
healing operations by the emphasis of one's faith in any case. Dismissing the
spiritual aspect of the healing so quickly does not begin to address how the
effect of auto-suggestion healed such a long-standing case, nor does it allow for
any investigation as to the further potential of such techniques.
 11

Despite his healing and possible use of 'magic' being on record in Q as a

bone of contention between Jesus and his Jewish religious contemporaries, the
narrative still has at least one obvious reference to Jesus participating in pagan
magical practice. Given the external tension, it is logical to assume that Q was
written and treated as a secret document that contained mystery teachings
available only to an initiated inner group. This could also be conjectured for the
same reasons with Mark which has two very overt 'magical' healings that are
not included in Matthew nor Luke. The first is at Mark 7:31-37 where, among
other magical ingredients, Jesus uses an Aramaic power word Ephphatha
(which means 'be opened') to bring the cure. The second example is at Mark
8:22-26 describing a two-stage magical healing process which restored sight to
a blind man.
Now that we have broached the issue of secret documents it is necessary at
this point to continue by discussing a controversial example that was found in
1958 by Morton Smith. This was a previously unknown letter from Clement of
Alexandria bound into the end-pages of a 1646 edition of Ignatius of Antioch's
letters. The book was in the library of the Mara Saba Monastery, 20 km south
east of Jerusalem, where Smith had been assigned, coincidently enough, to go
through their inventory to search for exactly this type of hidden text. He made a
formal announcement of the discovery in 1960 which caused a massive furore
in the academic community. This excitement, which in some quarters led to
charges of forgery, came mainly because the original autograph was never
available to the academic community and was subsequently secreted away,
presumably by monastery staff wary of the implications of the subject matter.
Scholars have relied, until today, on photographs provided by Smith.
The letter in question was addressed to one Theodoros who appears to have
asked for clarification if a variant gospel of Mark existed in which the words
“naked man with naked man” and “other things” were written. Clement
confirms that Mark wrote another, longer and “more spiritual” version of his
gospel, which was “very securely kept” in the Alexandrian church, but that it
contained no such words.
Clement continues by quoting two sections of the document, which is now
known as the Secret Gospel of Mark, to elaborate on the passage in question
with regards to the wording. The first and longer of the sections describes Jesus
raising a dead youth and Clement placed this narrative between Mark 10:34 and
35 in the canonical gospel. The account has close parallels to the raising of
Lazarus in John 11:38–44. The youth is said to "love Jesus," and wanted be
"with him." Six days after being raised, he comes to Jesus "wearing a linen
cloth over his naked body". The youth spent that night with Jesus and "Jesus
taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God." The young man has been
compared to the youth who makes an anonymous cameo at Mark 14:51-52,
 12

where he fled so hurriedly after Jesus' arrest that he left the linen cloth which he
was wearing. (Hedrick: 2000).
Smith took the raw data from the fragments of 'Secret Mark' and argued that
the Christian movement began with Jesus practising a secret, “libertine”
baptismal initiation. The rite was administered at night by Jesus to chosen
disciples individually who were then united with him. Given that the symbolism
is open to a more literal interpretation, Smith proposed that the union may have
been physical but the vital aspect, for him, is that the disciple was possessed by
Jesus' spirit and participated in his heavenly ascension. (Smith: 1973a.251).
Smith asks the very important question which we are also keenly interested
in: 'Why did so very many gnostic sects spring up so early in so many parts of
the Christian Church?' He continues:

It seems likely that the primitive secret tradition of Christianity will

prove the most important single factor in the history of Gnosticism.
Groups that seem gnostic occasionally appear in paganism or
Judaism, but nowhere else is there anything like the quantity and
vigor of the Christian development. This has to be explained, and the
explanation must be something in Christianity. What else but the
secret tradition? (Smith: 1973b.137)

The importance of this question cannot be over-stated and anyone who wants
to understand the mechanics of how Jesus performed his wondrous feats would
do well to heed it. As to what the “secret tradition” involved for Smith, he
suggests:

One of Luke's purposes was to persuade his Roman readers that

Christianity was morally admirable and politically innocent. ...
Therefore the libertinism, usually scandalous and occasionally
criminal, was concealed. And no writings from the libertine side of
primitive Christianity have survived—an understandable
misfortune. Consequently scholars have denied the existence of the
libertine side and have treated the references to it in the New
Testament as references to particular abuses in practice or
corruptions in doctrine peculiar to the single churches … (Smith:
1973b.124)

The “references” to the “libertine side” that Smith is meaning are taken from
Paul's (and 'later'-Paul's) letters to his churches and he provides some examples
at “1 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:18; Eph. 5:1-20; 2 Pet. 2-3.” According to Smith: "These
clear passages are enough to show that libertine Christianity was widespread
 13

and ancient … ” However, most of these passages are not particularly “clear” as
to their meaning. Only in the 1 Corinthians example is sexual libertine
behaviour mentioned specifically and all the rest merely mention a general
immorality. More importantly, these narratives are written to people who were
followers of Paul's and later-Paul's teachings about Jesus and they became
believers many years after Jesus' death. The members of the congregations
addressed in these letters would never have met Jesus, nor any of his immediate
disciples, and it is highly unlikely that they would have had access to any of the
earliest texts or oral tradition from Jesus' followers. Smith would have known
this and so he is being disingenuous when he asserts that these references show
that the “libertine interpretation went back to Jesus himself and preserved and
developed elements of his esoteric teaching." (Smith: 1973b.130-131).
This term “esoteric” that Smith uses here means an inward focused
religiosity as opposed to an 'exoteric' one which is concentrated on the outer
world. This can be seen in that the adherents are in a closed, usually secret,
group rather than proselytizing for new members and also that they are
particularly interested in the inner dynamics of personal experience.
I agree with Smith that a libertine—or at least radical—esoteric tradition
went back to Jesus and I also acknowledge that we must separate out the chaff
of later dualism and legalism from the wheat of the authentic message that
Jesus taught. However, I think it is essential when we are reading the texts to be
open to what they really contain rather than what we want to read from them.
As Crossan has observed: “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical
Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do
autobiography and call it biography.” (Crossan: 1991.xxviii).
The sexual libertine aspect that was permeating Paul's groups was clearly
introduced into his churches from the pagan context within which his
congregations lived. It is very well known and documented that many of the
Hellenistic mysteries, particularly those associated with the god Bacchus or
Dionysius, were involved with overt and liberal sexual practices. At the 1
Corinthians reference and throughout this letter, Paul makes clear references to
this. If 'Gnostics' were drawn to a form of religiosity for this reason then these
mysteries would have sufficed—there would have been no need to seek out a
new and foreign religion.
Apart from this consideration, it is also stretching the evidence to assume
that a sexual libertine doctrine caught the attention of the broad spectrum of
'Gnostics' who were attracted to Christianity. There were some sects that appear
to have been this way inclined, such as the Carpocratians who are mentioned in
the Clement extract as having altered the original wording of 'Secret Mark' to
suit this perspective. However, these groups were a minority and generally, as
stated, the perspective of 'Gnostics' was decidedly anti-flesh and, following
 14

directly from this, anti-sexuality. It was this anti-flesh dogma that was one of
the factors in Paul's writings that have led modern scholars such as Pagels to
describe his theology as proto-'Gnostic.'
There is no need to engineer an hypothesis around a 'secret' variant of Mark
when the canon gospel itself contains enough explicit pericopes that refer to and
describe Jesus' secret teachings and magical healings. Furthermore, if we want
to study a gospel that has unshakable provenance as being an esoteric, proto-
Gnostic document then we need look no further than the Gospel of Thomas. As
the papyrologist James Robinson states in his introduction to the English
translations of the Nag Hammadi collection, these documents are almost
certainly available to us today after having been hidden away in the face of
fourth century persecution against the occult, heterodox teachings that they
contain. (Robinson: 1977). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Thomas text
has been tampered with by the editorial hands of orthodox theologians. The
opening sentence of Thomas states: “These are the secret words which the
living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote.” (Guillaumont trans.).
This brings us back to the question as to what was the nature of the secret
teaching in Christianity that attracted the 'Gnostics.' The answer to this has
already been shown above in various ways in exhortations such as at John
10:34 “Jesus replied; 'Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods.'” There
are many affirmations in the earliest Christian sources to this same principle.
This is mirroring the theology of Philo which was interpreted directly from
LXX and influenced by Hellenistic concepts such as the emanations and Plato's
doctrine of the immortal soul. It is this aspect of the divinization of the initiate
that has led many modern scholars to view Thomas as Gnostic. This level of
theology is actually no more explicit in Thomas than the canon. In the latter,
however, it is diluted by its greater size and one also tends to be distracted away
from it by the many complex apologetic discourses that have been later
embedded to assert a specific divinity to Jesus.
As Morton Smith demonstrated throughout his book, Jesus the Magician, the
dynamics of the ministry of both Jesus and Paul can be read as the two having
acted as sorcerers. However, in the ancient world there was nothing particularly
unusual in this as a form of religiosity. As we have seen in the writings of Plato
and Philo, for example, the concept of contacting or being empowered by an
angel or daemon was comparatively common and, in the main, it was
considered quite kosher in this cultural context.
The neo-Platonists, such as Iamblichus for example, described the operation
of being possessed by a daemon as 'theurgy.' This word comes from the Greek
words theós, meaning 'God,' and érgon meaning 'work:' So, 'God-working' or
'working with God.' Effectively, theurgy means 'sorcery' which is how the
Greek term is sometimes translated into English. The first recorded use of the
 15

term is found in the mid second-century neo-Platonist collection, The Chaldean

Oracles: “For the theurgists [theourgoí] do not fall into the herd which is
subject to destiny.” (Fragment 153. Majercik trans.). Again, we see here the
theme of finding the authentic self which means to shed the 'fate' or 'destiny' of
the herd who are marching to the tune of a predetermined program of the
dominant culture.
A distinction has been made between the Christian project of 'theosis,' which
means the process or 'action'—ōsis—to God, and pagan systems of divinization
which are labelled 'henosis.' This latter word comes from the Greek hénōsis:
'union,' from the root, heis: 'one.' The term means an action to 'oneness' and was
commonly used in Classical literature to also mean a political or medical union
as well as a spiritual union with God.
The, apparent, nuance is explained by the Eastern Orthodox theologian
Vladimir Lossky:

Most specifically creatures, i.e. created beings, cannot become God

in His transcendent essence, or ousia, hyper-being. Such a concept
would be the henosis, or absorption and fusion into God of Greek
pagan philosophy. However, every being and reality itself is
considered as composed of the immanent energy, or energeia, of
God. As energy is the actuality of God, i.e. his immanence, from
God's being, it is also the energia or activity of God. (Lossky:
1957.29-33).

This theologically pivotal Greek word, energia, is one that is used at several
occasions in the NT to describe the power of God (eg. Ephesians 1:19, 3:7,
Philemon 3:21) and the believers (eg. Ephesians 4:16). This same word, and its
attached conceptualization, was also part of the henosis of theurgy. In the
culmination of theurgic training (paideia) the soul ritually embraces and
receives the daemonic operation or working (energeias). As Iamblichus
explains the adepts “partake in eternal life and in the activity [energeias] of the
supercelestial gods.” (On the Mysteries: 271.8-9).
For Lossky, the difference between the two lies in the transcendence of God
which people cannot share because we are merely created beings in the earthly
realm. This is the theological dualism that arrives with the western obsession of
separating matter and spirit. However, the mystic strands within the
Judeo/Christian tradition do not all agree with such an interpretation.
We examined above with Richard Trench the creation myth in Genesis and
the terms 'likeness' and 'similitude' which both point to the worldly
apprehension of the divine Forms. In Philo's Questions and Answers to Genesis
(I:4), he also builds on the Platonic forms and has another important question.
 16

Philo is concerned about the difference between the man that God “made” on
the sixth day (Gen. 1:27) and the man that God “created” later (Gen. 2:7).
This seeming anomaly in Genesis has been a bone of contention against the
text's reliability for Bart Ehrman. In his book Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman details
many apparent 'contradictions' in the HB and NT and, in this instance, he has
noticed not only two separate creation stories but also that there are two
different names for God. This has created a problem in that, for Ehrman, there
is no seamless narrative. He continues by making the common redactive
argument that the two creation myths are from distinct traditions that arose in
the history of Jewish thought when the tribes were living in separate
geographical locations and that the two strands have been later finger-jointed
together to make a single narrative. The early texts were originally part of two
distinct traditions—one which used the term Elohim (ĕlōhîm) and the other
which used YHVH. (Ehrman: 2008.4,9).
One cannot help but get the feeling that Ehrman is playing the devil's
advocate here because the explanation for the different designations is well
known. The two names for God are deliberate and have distinct levels of
meaning. In his The Guide of the Perplexed, the influential Jewish philosopher
Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) states that: “Every Hebrew knew that the term
Elohim is equivocal, designating the deity, the angels and the rulers governing
the cities.” (Pines trans.) Even Strong's lexicon establishes this—“Elohim
[plural]: rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as
reflecting divine majesty and power; divine ones, superhuman beings including
God and angels.” It is with these various meanings that the term appears in the
narrative context of the HB. Elohim can also mean “works of God, or things
specially belonging to him”: Psalm 68:16; Ezekiel 28:14,16; 28:13; 31:8,9. Job
1:16. It can also mean “a godlike one”: Exodus 4:16.
Ehrman's argument for the historical editing may, in fact, be quite valid.
However, we have no need to discuss the various theories of such redaction
here because the important point for us is that Philo and other Jewish exegetes
have accommodated, not only the different names for God, but also the two
creation accounts into their readings of the text. For Philo, the first account was
the making of the divine archetypes of creation in the heavenly realms and the
second account was the making of the physical creation itself. The theologians
who built their readings directly from the text were not unaware of the various
strands and they were either originally, if the redaction theory is not true, or
later incorporated into the overall development of Jewish theology.
Philo's reading is developed further by Maimonides; “the sages have
explicitly stated in a number of passages that the word et figuring in his words,
et hash-shamayim ve-et ha-aretz (the heaven and the earth), has in that verse the
meaning: 'with.'” In other words, the Hebrew word: et has two meanings: “It is
 17

a grammatical indicator placed between a verb and a noun to indicate that the
verb is transitive and that the noun following is the object of the verb.” This is
the normal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 which in the English of the NIV reads:
“In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.” However,
there is an alternative reading because according to Maimonides the correct
reading is in favour of the understanding of the word et as meaning 'with.'
With this new interpretation of the ambiguous Hebrew, the first verse of
Genesis reads: 'In the beginning the Elohim were created with the heavens and
the earth.' This makes more sense because the designation YHWH, not Elohim,
is used for the creator God in the HB.
That YHVH said let “us” make man in “our” image means that the Elohim
are the specific Forms of the gods for each individual. According to Philo this
later man “was created as perceptible to the senses, and in similitude of [the
earlier made] being [which is] appreciable only by the [nous] … ” I have left
the Greek word nous in Philo's explanation here because it is important to
understand what he is meaning within the original nuances contained in this
term. Generally, the word is translated as 'intellect' or 'thinking' but, by
positioning it against the ability of being perceived by the senses, Philo is using
it here in another sense as relating to our spiritual intuition. One can think about
something that is perceived by the senses but the polarity implied in Philo's
explanation is emphasising Plato's point of the cave analogy that one cannot
grasp the original Form directly but only as a shadow. As Paul states at 1
Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; … ” Philo
continues by emphasising this same point: “ ... he who in respect of his form is
incorporeal, is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, and he is
the form of the principal character … ”
In the Platonic context, as Trench points out, the likenesses and similitudes
are “earthly copies and resemblances of the archetypal things in the heavens.”
This means that the earthly image is not the same as the original archetype.
“Thus, the monarch’s head on the coin is εἰκών (Matt.22:20); the reflection of
the sun in the water is εἰκών (Plato, Phaedo, 99 d); the statue in stone or other
material is εἰκών (Rev.13:14).” (Trench: 1858.48,50). Just as the reflection of
the sun is not the same as the actual sun, for example, the similitude or image,
i.e. the éikon (εἰκών), is not the same as the archetype.
In Plato's continued exposition it is possible for a closer apprehension of the
divine Forms through the learning of philosophy where the adept is released
from the cave. For Paul, this goal is explained as leaving behind the milk of
infants and growing towards spiritual maturity. This is expressed in the fuller
context of the 1 Corinthians exhortation. “ ... then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
This divinization of the adept is the best way to make sense of the texts
 18

referring to people as 'gods' which Jesus is attributed to have quoted. This

divine archetype can be equated with the modern concepts of a spirit guide or a
guardian angel.
Maimonides compares the Elohim, as cosmic messengers or divine forces,
with Aristotle's separate intellects and assures his reader that this is in keeping
with the law. He goes on to state: “They mean by this that He created with the
heavens all that is in heaven and with the earth all that is in the earth.” The
Elohim are specific archetypal contents within the heavens and the earth. That
they appear in both dimensions is the necessary link between the separate
spheres that enables their apprehension by intuition. The Elohim are an active
ingredient in the mechanics of the emanations.
In this discussion we have seen that the difference that Lassky sees between
pagan and Christian forms of divinization is not universally understood as such
in the Judeo/Christian tradition. In this mystic gloss of the creation event people
do, in fact, share in the transcendent nature of God—all our individual souls are
eternal and were created as pure Forms before the physical universe.
This same concept is more specifically detailed by the third century neo-
Platonist, Plotinus. In reference to the immortality of Socrates' soul he states
that “the individual soul has an existence in the Supreme as well as in the
world.” (Ennead: V.7.1f McKenna trans.). This leads to the inevitable question;
“Might not one (archetypal) man suffice for all, and similarly a limited number
of souls produce a limitless number of men?”
This transcendent nature that we are born with is the ground of our spiritual
instincts and the central aspect of these divine drives is the individual's unique
soul. This is explained in Plotinus' answer to his own rhetorical question:

No: one Reason-Principle cannot account for distinct and differing

individuals: one human being does not suffice as the exemplar for
many distinct each from the other ... the beings produced differ so
greatly as to demand distinct Reason-Principles.

While we all share the common psychic basis of the collective unconscious,
the soul is a specific element at the centre of each person's being. Again, this is
an important nuance which underlines the difference between being a 'god' and
being God. The former position is known as 'panentheism' which means 'God is
in all and all is in God.' The latter is a form of non-dualism where everything is
understood as God. To be God means, among other things, to be all-knowing,
all-powerful and all-present which is literally impossible for a human being.
The impossibility for a human to be all-present needs no demonstration but
even Jesus could not claim these other attributes: At Mark 15:34, for example,
“Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' (which means
 19

'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?').” This passage shows very
clearly that Jesus was neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. In Mark's passion
narrative Jesus is not in control of, nor expecting, the situation of his
crucifixion. After he learns of John the Baptist's death, at Mark 1:35f, Jesus
goes off in a boat to find solitude and, on arriving at his destination, encounters
a crowd that he did not expect. Again, Jesus is not portrayed as all-knowing.
Given all this, it is reasonable to assume that the original message of Jesus
was: 'I am the son of God and you are also a child of God.' The central pivot
around which the primitive, 'secret' version of Christianity and the so-called
'Gnostic' religions turned was the divinization of the individual through the
hidden principles of their inner practice. This is expressed in Thomas at Logion
2: “And he said: Whoever finds the explanation of these words will not taste
death.”
For the 'Gnostics,' the term Gnosis is not so much a noun but a verb. It refers
to the direct knowledge of God that the initiate experiences on their path
towards divination. This is what is meant by sharing in Jesus' suffering and
concomitant ascension. This divinization is understood with varying nuances in
different theological contexts. It can be compared, however, to a deeper
dimension of the injunction at Delphi to 'know thy Self.' Once we unpack the
accretionism of our social programming and the defence mechanisms of the ego
we leave the space for the growth of our divine soul.
A depiction of a jinn from the Kitab al-Bulhan, or Book of Wonders;
an Arabic manuscript dating mainly from the late 14th century.
 Above: Arabic protection Talisman

(Below) The Great talisman.

According to tradition, the Great Talisman has been used from the era
of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. It is carried for healing, protection
and luck and it is believed that whoever carries it will have a thousand
angels as companions. One should be alone while constructing this
talisman. It is traditionally drawn with a mixture of oils consisting of
Musk oil, Grey Amber, and Rose water upon virgin parchment made
from deer or goat skin. The construction is to be done on a Thursday
night after fasting and prayers.