Animals and demons: Nonhuman beings in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Abstract

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, usually included in collections of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, contains descriptions of nonhuman animals in eight of its twelve testaments. This article is the first to examine these descriptions of nonhumans. In this text virtuous humans are protected from nonhuman animals and this protection is a sign of a person’s virtue. Furthermore, nonhuman animals plot against human ones and attempt to gain mastery over them, using the same terms as would be used for other nonhuman, demonic forces possessing humans. This article suggests that in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, these types of nonhuman opponents are not neatly distinguished, and that these categories bleed into one another. This suggests that a less strong distinction in the classification and discussion of animals and spirits is beneficial for early Christian texts.

Ancient Jewish and Christian texts often portray wild animals as a source of danger and a reason for fear. Many texts proclaim a hero’s ability to overcome animals through physical prowess, spiritual excellence or both. In this paper, I will explore the portrayal of wild animals, which I will usually refer to as nonhuman animals, ¹ in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. I will examine how they are associated with and sometimes described in similar ways to the other nonhuman opponents of humans: the forces of darkness. Beliar and his spirits are key to the Testaments’ biography, exhortation and eschatology. They form the basis for its anthropology and ethics. ² Despite this key aspect of the text, no research has been done that looks at the role or position of nonhuman animals in humanity’s struggle against other nonhuman opponents. This is peculiar, as there are at least four sections that place these animals within this battle. What does exist are authors using these passages as short citations (and a single slightly longer discussion) to justify interpretations of New Testament passages. The Testaments end up as fodder for another argument and are not—as is often the case with this pseudepigraphon (and others!)—discussed on their own terms. ³

Nonhuman animals are frequent characters in ancient Jewish and early Christian texts, ⁴ and there many examples to be given where they are associated with the demonic. ⁵ Ingvild Saelid Gilhus concludes that in early Christianity, “the borderline between beasts and demons was sometimes blurred.” ⁶ In the first century, we can find possessions of animals (for example, the demon-possessed pigs of Mark 5 ⁷ ) as well as people possessed by animal spirits (for example, the python spirit of Acts 16 ⁸ ). The association of animals with demons is especially well known among the desert fathers in the third and fourth centuries. David Brakke summarizes “for the Christian monk, the daimōn became a fearsome enemy, an agent of evil that could appear as a human being, a wild animal, or even an angel.” ⁹ For example, in the fourth-century Life of Antony, Antony resists sustained attacks by many demons taking the form of lions, snakes, bears, wolves and leopards—to name a few (Life of Antony 9–12). ¹⁰ And indeed, the association of demons with animals was so strong that, as Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe has demonstrated, “early Christian writers tended to characterize collective bodies of demons in animal terms like the swarm, herd, and flock.” ¹¹ In other words, in early Christianity we can see a broad association of dangerous physical beings (that is, animals) with dangerous spiritual beings (that is, demons), which in some cases is explicit and others less obvious. It appears that in many places the lines between these different types of antagonistic nonhuman beings are blurred. As I will argue, the Testaments generally fit into this broad conflation of animals and demons in early Christianity, but in no way as clearly as these given examples.

Surviving in fifteen Greek manuscripts are the collection of texts often called the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. ¹² It also survives in scores of Armenian versions, as well as Slavonic and Serbian. As the setting of this text is similar to the narratives of Genesis from the Hebrew Bible, this text is usually included as part of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. But the text is, in all probability, a second-century creation by a Christ-following writer, editor and redactor. ¹³ It incorporates earlier sources and traditions, to what extent we do not know. ¹⁴ The text consists of twelve farewell speeches, one by each of the sons of Jacob. The speeches appear to be created to belong together and the order of the twelve testaments appears to be intentional. ¹⁵

Each testament consists of biographical, exhortatory and future-oriented passages. Through these passages the patriarch tries to convince his sons to live ethical lives. Such a life is usually called following the commandments or living a simple life. Each patriarch portrays the spirits of deceit as the largest barrier to an ethical life. The central framework of each Testament is the dying patriarch warning his sons against these spirits. As such the “exhortation in the Testaments is androcentric, and the ethical ideal is gendered as a good man (ἀνήρ ἀγαθὸς). The Testaments are specifically talking to men, and any implications for female hearers/readers is filtered through patriarchal androcentrism (cf. T. Reu. 4.1–2).” ¹⁶ My language, when referring to the Testaments, will therefore be intentionally non-inclusive: I use “he/him” pronouns throughout and “man/mankind” instead of “humanity.”

Hunting nonhuman animals in the Testaments

Eight testaments refer to nonhuman animals, I will discuss six of these: T. Jud. 2.2–7, T. Iss. 7.7, T. Zeb. 5.1, T. Naph. 8.4–6, T. Gad. 1.3 and T. Benj. 3.5, 5.2. The other two, T. Levi 9.13 and T. Jos. 19.3, lie outside the argument. T. Levi 9 refers to priestly sacrifices of animals and T. Jos. 19.3 is an eschatological vision where the messiahs are a lamb and a lion, who are attacked by other nonhuman animals. These two passages do not concern the theme of nonhuman opposition to mankind and are thus not applicable to the topic under discussion.

In his biographical section, Gad tells his sons about his shepherding skills:

At night, I guarded the flock and whenever a lion, a wolf, a leopard, a bear, or any animal (θηρίον) came upon the flock, I gave chase. Grabbing its paw in my hand, I would whirl it round, dizzy it, and whirl it 300 metres. (T. Gad 1.3) ¹⁷

This is one of the more mundane ways the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs discuss dealing with dangerous nonhuman animals. Gad is a diligent shepherd, not afraid to protect the flock. The testament, here, is surely building on the image of David as a brave shepherd, ¹⁸ as David claims about himself when suggesting he attack the monstrous Goliath:

Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears. (1 Samuel 17:34–36 NRSV)

“As I have killed lions and bears,” claims David, “I can kill Goliath too.” And he does. Gad, on the other hand, doesn’t go to war, but uses this introduction of his shepherding skills to introduce the tension between himself and Joseph—who was a poor shepherd indeed, and either misunderstood or (more likely) wilfully misrepresented Gad’s shepherding practices to their father (T. Gad 1.6–7). ¹⁹ This drove Gad into a murderous rage, which he expresses in a rather peculiar analogy: he wishes to “lick him up out of the land of the living, like an ox licks the grass from the ground” (T. Gad 2.2, cf. Num 22:4). Now angry Gad is, in his own words, certainly an impressive hunter of beasts. But he is nothing compared to his elder brother Judah.

Unlike Gad, Judah truly prefigures David as mighty against animals, nonhuman and human alike. In Testament of Judah, the patriarch Judah tells his sons in great detail of his prowess as a fighter and a hunter (T. Jud. 1–7). By my count, he singlehandedly killed four kings and with his brothers killed another four kings, as well as razing and slaughtering four entire cities and three armies. He did this all before he was twenty. In other words, he was—at least in his nostalgic reminiscing—extremely skilled at warfare. And like David, his martial skills are based on transferable skills in hunting and killing nonhuman animals:

And I saw that I ran with a deer, and laying hold on it, I made it into food for my father. I caught gazelles by running, and everything in the fields I overtook. I overtook a wild mare, and capturing it I tamed it. I killed a lion and took a kid from its mouth. Grabbing a bear by its paw, I rolled it over a cliff. Like a dog, I ripped apart any beast that turned against me. I ran with a wild boar, and overtaking it, I tore it to pieces. In Hebron a leopard attacked my dog, and grabbing it by the tail I hurled it away—it shattered in the area of Gaza. I grabbed an ox grazing in the field by its horns, I span it around, dizzying it, and hurled it away and killed it. (T. Jud. 2.2–7)

Now, Judah’s boasting of his hunting prowess surely contains significant hyperbole. He’s faster than a running horse, more powerful than a bear and able to whirl wild oxen above his head. To top it all, he once threw a leopard that threatened his dog from Hebron to Gaza, beating Gad’s record-breaking throw by more than fifty kilometers! ²⁰ It stands out that as Judah overcomes these nonhuman animals, he also acts like one of them: running with them, ripping them apart like dogs do and devouring them. The difference between man and animal seems to elide in Judah’s boasting.

This mastery of these other animals is important to Judah’s persona, and it is more than simply a reception of David’s shepherding skills. ²¹ As Esther Marie Menn has argued, “the Testament of Judah draws on the exploits of heroic biblical characters to portray the patriarch himself as an unsurpassed hero. . . . Within the context of the Testaments itself, however, Judah’s defeat of animals corresponds with his high moral character.” ²² In other words, while it might be tempting to assume that these references to shepherding and hunting prowess are little more than a sign of particular skill or divine blessing, the whole of the Testaments require a different reading of these sections.

Enslaving nonhuman animals

In his testament, Issachar too reminisces on his life. Issachar functions in the Testaments as the living embodiment of the central value of simplicity (ἁπλότης). ²³ In the final section of his testament, he reinforces his virtuousness. Unlike other brothers, he did not fornicate with women, he did not drink too much wine, he was not envious or deceitful, he was empathetic and charitable, he was pious and he loved God and all humans alike (T. Iss. 7.2–6). In short, he was a paragon of ethical behavior. Saying this, he then concludes by saying:

My children, do these things also. And every spirit of Beliar will flee from you, and no evil person’s deed with prevail over you. And you will enslave (καταδουλώσεσθε) every wild animal (ἄγριον θῆρα), having with yourselves the God of heaven who walks together with men who have simplicity of heart (συμπορευόμενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας). (T. Iss. 7.7)

Issachar gives several benefits to living a simple life like he did. If a man does this, evil spirits—the primary concern of the Testaments—will flee him, evil people will not be able to gain dominion over him and he will master or enslave wild animals. All these benefits and protections are attributed to God walking or living with (συμπορεύομαι) the simple of heart. ²⁴ These are the last words Issachar speaks. As the entire testament discusses simplicity (ἁπλότης), the final clause forms a nice inclusion; Issachar’s final words to his sons remind them about the simple life they should lead. ²⁵ In a basic reading of this text it seems likely that these benefits are personal and immediate, not corporate and in the future: Issachar is reflecting on his life and its blessings and exhorting his sons to lead similar lives to receive similar blessings. In this reading, Issachar’s words reflect the biographical passages of Gad and Judah discussed above, ²⁶ yet Issachar’s inclusion of God walking with men seems to complicate the matter.

Hollander and De Jonge argue that all these benefits of the simple life are eschatological. ²⁷ Hollander and De Jonge base their opinion on two arguments. (1) Other similar passages in the Testaments are future-oriented and (2) the verb συμπορεύομαι (walk together with) implies an eschatological future. Let me look at these in turn. There are three passages in the Testaments that express similar thoughts: T. Naph. 8.4, T. Benj. 3.3–5, 5.1–2 (both discussed below) and T. Dan 5.1. One of these texts is very clearly not immediate, that section of Testament of Naphtali discusses the coming and blessings of Jesus Christ, but for the Testament of Dan it is not as clear-cut. T. Dan 5.4 is another future-oriented passage about the Israelites disrespecting (the descendants of) Judah and Levi; and T. Dan 5.1 promises that Beliar will flee from those that keep the law, here it is not conclusive whether this is part of the foretelling of a corporate future or discussion of immediate personal blessings. Hollander and De Jonge appear to see both these as future-oriented. I remain unconvinced. In Testament of Benjamin, the context is even more clear than Testament of Issachar; the discussion there is about the benefits of leading a good life, and the consequences are immediate and individual. In other words, though some similar passages concern the future, others are clearly immediate. Living ethically protects the righteous from opponents—human and nonhuman alike. Turning to the verb συμπορεύομαι, Hollander and De Jonge point out that it is used in relation to God’s presence among the Israelites at the exodus, though why that would point to a solely eschatological reading I am not sure—see the mundane use in T. Zeb. 7.4. ²⁸ They also point out that it is used in the T. Jud. 24.1 in an extremely similar way, in a passage clearly referring to Jesus Christ:

After these things a star will arise for you out of Jacob. And a man will stand up from among my seed, one like the sun of righteousness, who walks together with the sons of men who are gentleness and righteousness (συμπορευόμενος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐν πρᾳότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ). And in him no sin will be found. (T. Jud. 24.1)

Hollander and De Jonge rightly point out that this verse is extremely similar to T. Iss. 7.7, with the present participle of συμπορεύομαι and a clause introduced with ἐν. Both talk of a divine figure living with men, and both associate divine presence with one or more virtues (simplicity of heart, T. Iss. 7.7; gentleness and righteousness, T. Jud. 24.1). These two verses do resemble each other very strongly, yet how far we should let resemblance influence interpretation is not a simple decision. It seems that the benefits of ethical living are both available in the presence as well as in the eschatological future. Later, De Jonge seems to show a similar yet more nuanced reading of T. Iss. 7.7: “Spirits of evil, wicked men and beasts have no hold on the virtuous man . . . . This will become fully apparent in the eschatological future.” ²⁹ As this reading is given in passing in an article discussing Jewish or Christian provenance, there is no discussion of or justification for his thinking.

Though I am willing to admit that the final part of T. Iss. 7.7 seems to refer to future where God or Jesus has intervened in history, the gist of the section is setting out the here-and-now benefits of leading a simple, ethical life. Moving these benefits into an eschatological future goes against the literary context, as well as other sections of the Testaments (for example, T. Gad 1.3, T. Jud. 2, T. Benj. 5.2) where patriarchs are protected from nonhumans—spirits and animals. Judah’s mastery over animals threatening the flock, discussed above, surely reflects the thinking here: he is so powerful because he lives according to God’s will. And as this patriarch consistently prevails over wild beasts and evil men, it proves his virtue.

Nonhuman opponents to man

In the Testaments, the link between virtue and mastery over nonhuman animals is mentioned a couple more times than those just discussed. In these passages the portrayal of these animals is closely associated with the nonhuman demonic forces. Naphtali’s final words of his testament start with him giving his sons information about the final events (T. Naph. 8) where the messiah will come through the tribe of Judah, who will save both Israel and the righteous gentiles. Directly following this messianic prophecy, Naphtali changes topic to the consequences of doing good and evil:

If you do good, my children, both angels and men will bless you. God will be glorified among the nations. The devil will flee from you and the animals (τὰ θηρία) will fear you, and the angels will support you. (T. Naph. 8.4)

Naphtali makes very similar points to Issachar: good deeds will lead to protection and blessings. And, as we will see below, evil deeds will lead to bad consequences and curses. Note, however, that there are other nonhuman forces here that Issachar failed to mention: angels will bless people, and the devil will flee from people. But, looking at the phrasing of the sentences here, I wonder whether the mention of animals is more than simply the hunting skills that Judah and Gad showed over lions and tigers and bears. Judah and Gad’s narratives appear to be the realization of the creation order where human animals have dominion over nonhuman ones (Gen 1:28; Sir. 17:4). But here, there appears to be a close relationship between the devil fleeing, beasts fearing and angels supporting, which goes beyond creation order. By sandwiching animals between two other supernatural, nonhuman forces, the writer implies that these animals might be something more than the mundane beasts of Genesis 1 that Gad and Judah fought. The association of animals with supernatural beings is, of course, not an uncommon argument to be made for animals in the wilderness (cf. Isa 13:21–22; 34:13–14; Ezek 34:5, 25). ³⁰

Richard Bauckham argues the opposite. ³¹ Though he is discussing Jesus and the animals in Mark 1:13, he spends a couple of pages discussing the animals in the Testaments from the point of view of Mark. He does this to counteract interpreters of Mark, such as R. T. France, who argue that there is an “alliance between Satan and the animals” in both Mark 1:13 and the Testaments. ³² In Bauckham’s view, animals in the Testaments are simply one of five categories of beings a person could encounter in life: the devil, God, angels, animals and other humans. He then concludes that “this also shows that in these passages the wild animals are not represented specifically as the agents or allies of the devil, but simply as one category of living being, who behave differently toward the righteous and the wicked, as do also God, the angels, the devil, and other humans.” ³³ Serious doubts should be raised about this interpretation. For any reader of the Testaments, it should be immediately obvious that one of the—if not the—most important category of beings is missing from this list: the spirits of deceit. From the Testaments perspective, it would be extremely unlikely that demons would be missing from such a list (especially as God and angels are included, both of which play a much smaller role in the Testaments ³⁴ ). It appears that Bauckham leaves the spirits out because he reads Beliar and the demons to be one category—but God and angels are two. ³⁵ Just as God and angels should not be conflated, Beliar and the spirits should not be confused in the Testaments—they are very different entities with very different influences on humans. ³⁶ Bauckham’s theorization of these five categories does not hold water, but the largest issue with Bauckham’s suggestion that animals are nothing more than a type of being one could run into, are the final few passages about animals in the Testaments.

As Naphtali continues his admonition toward ethical living, he reminds his children about how important it is to raise children well, and then gives the inverse of his earlier promise, which further raises questions whether these are simply wild animals:

Men and angels will curse he who does not do good, and God will be disdained among the nations because of him. The devil will inhabit him like his own body (ἴδιον σκεῦος), every animal (θηρίον) will have dominion (κατακυριεύσει) over him, and the Lord will hate him. (T. Naph 8.6)

This verse is not the exact opposite of the previous; the final promise of support by angels is replaced by God’s hatred. Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to show that unethical behavior has the opposite consequences to a simple life. Blessings become curses and glorification becomes disdain. Rather than fleeing from those that do good, the devil now inhabits and controls those that do evil deeds. Naphtali uses a key word for the Testaments’ complex anthropology here, ἴδιος. ³⁷ The devil will inhabit such a man as his ἴδιος thing. ³⁸ This is important to note, and I will discuss this term below. Finally, the animals, rather than fearing a man, will dominate or totally enslave (κατακυριεύω) him. This is clearly setting up a reversal of the Testament of Issachar’s promised enslavement (καταδουλοω) of nonhumans by using its antonym. Nevertheless, this is unexpected behavior for an animal, as usually a wild animal would kill, hurt or devour a person. In fact, this is the only text that I could find where a nonhuman animal is said to dominate a human one.

Take for example, the Septuagint version of Leviticus 26:22, which Hollander and De Jonge, in their commentary on the Testaments, link to these passages of divine protection against beasts:

I am sending wild animals (τὰ θηρία τὰ ἄγρια) of the earth against you. They will devour you (κατέδεται) and they will annihilate (ἐξαναλώσει) your creatures. They will make you few in number and they will make your roads desolate. (Lev 26:22)

These wild animals, once God has removed God’s protection, do terrible things to humanity and their flocks, but the wild animals do not dominate them. Yet, in the Testament of Naphtali, the powers of nonhuman animals are extended from attacking, devouring and annihilation to domination itself.

The verb κατακυριεύω is used in the Testaments in three other places (T. Jud. 15.5, T. Dan 3.2 and T. Benj. 3.3), ³⁹ all three of which relate to a man losing control of his behavior under the influence of evil spirits. In the Testament of Dan, for example, the way the spirit of anger works is described:

Anger, my children, is evil. It becomes a mind (ψυχῇ) to the mind itself. It makes the body its own (ἰδιοποιεῖται) with anger. It exercises dominion (κατακυριεύει) over the mind, and grants the body its own power (δύναμιν ἰδίαν) so that it commits all manner of lawlessness. (T. Dan 3.1–2)

This passage is highly typical for the Testaments’ exhortation and anthropology. Throughout the text, the most important part of a man is his mind, ⁴⁰ with which he can differentiate between good and evil. The spirits of the opponent are specifically dangerous because they blind the mind, ⁴¹ and here in Dan we can see how this process is imagined. The key here is the double usage of ἴδιος, the same specific term as used in T. Naph. 8.6, the meaning of which runs from “one’s own” to “strange” or “peculiar.” The thinking here is that the spirit of anger replaces a man’s own human faculties with the spirit’s ἴδιος ones. These are then “strange” to the man but the spirit’s “own.” When this occurs, sinfulness is unavoidable, as the man’s natural faculties for avoiding sinfulness are replaced by the spirit’s tendencies toward lawlessness. ⁴² In this way the spirit dominates (κατακυριεύω) the mind. ⁴³

Considering how κατακυριεύω is elsewhere used for the way the spirits of the enemy cause a man to sin by replacing his human faculties with demonic ones, it is striking to read about animals doing this. One could potentially argue that κατακυριεύω is used in a completely different way in this sentence, but there is no need to assume a different meaning for such a key term in the Testaments. Maybe, as Richard Bauckham argues, the idea of animals dominating humans is an ironic twist on God’s blessing of human’s having dominion over animals in Genesis 1:28. Though he admits that the Septuagint there uses ἄρχω for having dominion over the animals, and κατακυριεύω for the earth itself, feeling that it “echoes” Genesis 1. ⁴⁴ More likely is that this reflects the usual usage of κατακυριεύω in the Testaments (a usage we see elsewhere, for example, Acts 19:16) as nonhuman control, ⁴⁵ especially considering the close association of the devil claiming a person as his own. This passage problematizes the category of nonhuman animal, putting it closer in influence to the other nonhuman beings in the Testaments, and similar to the demon-animals that inhabit the deserted places in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Isa 34:14).

Another passage in the Testaments which also problematizes the category of nonhuman animal is in the Testament of Benjamin. Here we have a discussion of the benefits of doing good similar to those in Issachar and Naphtali:

[He who fears God] will not be dominated (κυριευθῆναι) by plots of men or animals (ὑπὸ ἐπιβου λῆς ἀνθρώπων ἢ θηρίων), as he is aided by the Lord’s love, which he has for his neighbor. . . . If you keep doing good, the unclean spirits will flee from you and the animals (θηρία) themselves will fear you. (T. Benj. 3.5, 5.2)

The virtuous man is aided by the love that he has for his neighbor, which is seen as divine love. Thus, evil spirits flee and animals fear him. But he will also not be dominated by an ἐπιβουλή of either another man or an animal, a word which generally means “plot,” “plan,” “conspiracy,” or “trap.” ⁴⁶ Like κατακυριεύω, this is not a word commonly associated with animals, who are not usually portrayed as intelligent enough to plot or conspire against humans. Indeed, our final passage about animals in the Testaments understands them in exactly this way:

And now, my children, let me tell you to guard the Lord’s commandments. Show mercy on your neighbor and have compassion for all, not only humans, but even the speechless (ἄλογα). (T. Zeb. 5.1)

Zebulon repeats a “well-known topic of Jewish-hellenistic apologetics”: mercy to animals. ⁴⁷ The text, however, refers to these nonhuman animals with a description that contrasts them with human animals. Human animals have λόγος, whereas nonhumans ones are ἄ-λογος. Humans thus have speech and rational thought, whereas animals are—quite literally—dumb: they are speechless and irrational. Thus, the Testaments reflect the “Stoic notion so pervasive in antiquity that humans were rational and animals were irrational.” ⁴⁸ This portrayal of animals stands in contrast with them plotting against humans, as T. Benj. 3.5 suggests. Furthermore, again we have the verb to dominate, this time κυριεύω. Like κατακυριεύω, in almost every case this verb applies to evil forces controlling a man’s mind, leading to evil deeds. ⁴⁹ Here, like in Testament of Naphtali, these animals are more than meets the eye.

Conclusion

While the passages about animals in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are not straightforward and do not necessarily give enough information to draw uncontroversial and final conclusions about nonhuman animals, we do see that the work problematizes animals as a category. At the very least it is not easy to conclude that in these passages animals are “simply” the dangerous and wild animals that someone like David is said to face. The animals act intelligently and are associated with supernatural forces, they fall in Satan/Beliar’s domain and their defeat is part of Satan’s eschatological defeat. These animals are by no means ordinary.

It would be simple, in the context of early Christianity where animals are often associated with demonic forces, to overread the passages in the Testaments and conclude that nonhuman animals are demonic forces. Though, often when the Testaments refer to animals the meaning supersedes the simple meaning, there is no clear indication that the nonhuman animals are imagined specifically as demons. Nevertheless, these animals that oppose humans, dominate them and attack them with plots are certainly strongly associated with Beliar’s workforce of nonhuman beings. It would appear that the conceptualization and categorization of these nonhuman beings is simply not entirely consistent and specific.

The traditional role of animosity, based on animals being physically dangerous, seems to have been extended in some sense toward ethical and supernatural danger. The hostile nonhuman animals are in some ways conflated with other hostile beings, and they take on some of their roles and traits. Nonhuman animals appear to dominate humans, like spirits and Beliar do, and to plot against humans, like other humans do. This is not to say that nonhuman animals are understood as demons. Rather it appears that when considering these nonhuman opponents to humans, the categories are not always as neatly distinguished as one might expect. This means that aspects and traits of the demonic are projected onto nonhuman animals. The reverse is also true. Demons, for example, are said to devour (κατεσθίω, T. Sim. 4.9) men or to consume (καταδαπανάω, T. Jud. 18.4) their flesh. In the Testaments these nonhuman forces are not strictly categorized, but blend and overlap in influence, power and workings. In this they reflect similar trends in early Christianity that associate demons and animals in meaningful ways.