Patrick Reany
8 June 2025
Patrick:
The book "The Testament of Solomon" is on my mind. My reading of the Old Testament has never suggested that Solomon was a conjurer of spells, even if the purpose was to bind demons. So, I must consider the book as apocrypha, at best an historical fiction.
Copilot:
Your skepticism is well-founded. The Testament of Solomon is widely regarded as a pseudepigraphical text---meaning it was falsely attributed to Solomon and is not considered canonical by Jewish or Christian traditions. It likely originated between the 1st century AD and the Middle Ages, blending Jewish, Christian, and Greek influences.
The text portrays Solomon as wielding a magical ring, granted by the archangel Michael, which allows him to command demons to aid in constructing the Temple. This depiction is far removed from the biblical Solomon, who is primarily known for his wisdom rather than occult practices.
Given your analytical approach to mysticism, you might find it interesting to examine how this text fits into broader traditions of Solomonic magic and demonology. It has influenced later grimoires, including the Lesser Key of Solomon. Would you like to explore how these traditions evolved?
1en.wikipedia.org
2www.youtube.com
Patrick:
Exactly. Were there not enough prophets in Israel during the time of the kings to cast out demons? And since when do angels hand off magical rings to people? All very unscriptural, yet people take this stuff seriously.
Copilot:
You're absolutely right---these elements feel completely out of place in the biblical tradition. The Old Testament makes it clear that divine power to overcome demons and evil forces was vested in prophets and God Himself, not in magical artifacts. Figures like Moses, Elijah, and Elisha performed miracles, but always as agents of divine will, not through talismans or rituals akin to sorcery.
The idea of Solomon as a demon-conjuring magician emerged much later, influenced by **
Patrick:
Why is Solomon such a lightning rod for the magical, bizarre, and esoteric? He seemed to me like a very unremarkable king of those days. Supposedly the masonic order was an age-old guild of masons who built Solomon's temple -- if not many other grand masonry of ages past. There were the so-called mines of Solomon. There's probably more that has escaped my attention. Perhaps after the first person built a reputation on apocrypha regarding Solomon, others decided to copycat.
Copilot:
Solomon's reputation as a figure of esoteric power is one of history's great paradoxes. In the biblical narrative, he is primarily known for his wisdom, his wealth, and his construction of the First Temple---not for sorcery or mystical exploits. Yet, over time, he became a magnet for legends involving magic, secret knowledge, and even demonology.
A few key reasons for this transformation:
The Temple Connection -- The construction of Solomon's Temple was seen as a monumental achievement, and later traditions imbued it with mystical significance. The Freemasons, for example, trace their symbolic lineage to the builders of the Temple, though historical evidence for an actual guild of masons tied to Solomon is lacking.
The Seal of Solomon -- The legend of Solomon possessing a magical ring that could control demons and spirits emerged in Jewish, Islamic, and Western occult traditions. This ring, sometimes depicted as a hexagram or pentagram, became a powerful symbol in medieval magic.
Apocryphal Texts -- Works like The Testament of Solomon and the Magical Treatise of Solomon introduced the idea that Solomon had command over supernatural forces. These texts were likely written centuries after his time, blending biblical themes with Greco-Roman and Near Eastern magical traditions.
Copycat Mythmaking – As you suggested, once Solomon was linked to mystical power, later writers and traditions expanded on the myth. His name became attached to lost mines, secret grimoires, and occult wisdom, even though none of these have historical basis.
It's fascinating how a historical king, known for diplomacy and governance, became a legendary magician in later traditions. His story is a prime example of how myth evolves, absorbing cultural influences and reshaping historical figures into something entirely new.
Would you like to explore how these myths influenced later mystical traditions? There's a deep connection between Solomonic magic and medieval grimoires.
Patrick:
The gospels mention demons quite a lot, but the Old Testament does not mention them much at all. Of course, Job comes to mind, but more interesting to me right now is the case of King Saul. He would at times be attacked by a demon, but it could be relieved by the playing of a lyre (harp) by David. But we can't build much of a case of demon posession on that. On the other hand, Jesus talked a lot about demons. So, any work that mentions demons a lot but is supposedly set in Old Testament times is immediately suspicious to me.
Copilot:
You're onto something important---demonology as a developed concept is much more prominent in Second Temple Judaism and especially in the New Testament. The Old Testament, by contrast, has very few direct references to demonic entities. Saul's affliction is interesting because the Hebrew text describes it as "a harmful spirit from the Lord" (ruach ra'ah me'et Yahweh) rather than a demonic possession in the later Christian sense. This raises questions about whether the phenomenon was understood as a divine punishment or as a malignant entity acting independently.
In contrast, by Jesus's time, exorcism was a recognized practice. The Gospels present demon possession as a real and active force, with Jesus explicitly casting out demons in multiple accounts. This suggests that by then, Jewish thought had shifted toward a clearer understanding of evil spirits as independent agents---possibly influenced by Persian, Hellenistic, or apocalyptic traditions.
Given this, you're right to be skeptical of texts like The Testament of Solomon, which frame demons as organized beings with hierarchies in an Old Testament setting. That concept only gained traction later in Jewish and Christian mystical thought.
Would you like to trace how demonology evolved between the intertestamental period and the early Christian era? The shift from sparse mentions in the Old Testament to the structured demonology of early Christian writings is quite revealing.
Patrick:
In Matthew 12 we read of an interesting exchange of words that Jesus had with his accusers. After he had cast out a demon, the religious leaders said that he was able to cast out demons, but by an evil power --- that of Beelzebub. Jesus then defended himself: "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?" This clever reply has two points, I think. First, those who are casting out devils cannot logically be criticized by those who aren't (the eternal bystanders who don't get involved don't get to criticize those who do). Second, Jesus put an even finer point on it: Since God put the rule of Israel into their hands, they're suppose to be casting out devils! So why aren't you?! he implied. But by what tradition would this ministry of exorcism have come from? Is Jesus implying that since the need was there, that they should have taken the initiative to seek God on what to do and then to do it?
Copilot:
Your interpretation of Jesus' response is insightful---he's not just defending himself but exposing the hypocrisy of his accusers. His rhetorical question forces them to acknowledge that exorcism was already practiced among them, meaning they couldn't logically condemn him without condemning their own people.
Regarding the tradition of exorcism, Jewish exorcism did exist in Jesus' time, though it wasn't as developed as in later Christian traditions. Some key points:
Old Testament Precedent -- While the Hebrew Bible doesn't emphasize exorcism, figures like David playing the lyre for Saul suggest that spiritual affliction could be relieved through divine means. However, there's no formalized exorcism practice recorded.
Second Temple Judaism -- By Jesus' time, Jewish exorcists were known to use prayers, rituals, and invocations of God's name to drive out spirits. Some traditions attributed exorcistic power to Solomon, which may explain why later texts like The Testament of Solomon emerged.
Jesus' Expectation -- His statement implies that spiritual authority was something Israel's leaders should have exercised. If demons were afflicting people, they should have sought God's guidance and acted accordingly. Instead, they stood by, allowing suffering to persist while criticizing those who actually did something.
Jesus' words also highlight a shift in authority---he wasn't just another exorcist; he was demonstrating that the Kingdom of God had arrived, overpowering demonic forces in a way that surpassed previous traditions. His exorcisms weren't just acts of healing but signs of divine rule breaking into the world.
Afterwords: See the Youtube video: The Testament of Solomon - The Origins of Solomonic Magic, Occultism & Demonology ESOTERICA
I did not accept Copilot's encouragement for me to delve deeper into 'broader traditions of Solomonic magic and demonology' because I have to draw the line somewhere.
The fact that it was Solomon who was king during the construction of the First Temple is highly ironic. It was not for any virtue in him, rather, he inherited that mission by default because his father David had 'killed too many people', so said God to David. The Lord did not seem to imply that it was a fault of David, just a reality he had to live with.
Let me now suggest a reason why Solomon was a natural figure for later traditions (for selfish reasons) to ascribe to him occult powers: Solomon was considered as 'wise', but in olden times, 'wisdom' seems to have been used as a euphemism for esoteric knowledge and power. Hence, for example, the wisemen from the east who came to see Jesus could have been magi of an esoteric tradition. Solomon, by his reputation of having 'wisdom' seem to provide a reputation enhancement of all things occult. In other words, if it was alright, even virtuous, for Solomon to do it, it's alright for the rest of us to do it.