What do you think?
Rate this book
Jeffrey Burton Russell's History of the Devil #1
The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity
"Evil―the infliction of pain upon sentient beings―is one of the most long-standing and serious problems of human existence. Frequently and in many cultures evil has been personified. This book is a history of the personification of evil, which for the sake of clarity I have called 'the Devil.' I am a medievalist, but when I began some years ago to work with the concept of the Devil in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, I came to see that I could not understand the medieval Devil except in terms of its historical antecedents. More important, I realized that I could not understand the Devil at all except in the context of the problem of evil. I needed to face the issue of evil squarely, both as a historian and as a human being."―from the Preface This lively and learned book traces the history of the concept of evil from its beginnings in ancient times to the period of the New Testament. A remarkable work of synthesis, it draws upon a vast number of sources in addressing a major historical and philosophical problem over a broad span of time and in a number of diverse cultures, East and West. Jeffrey Burton Russell probes the roots of the idea of evil, treats the development of the idea in the Ancient Near East, and then examines the concept of the Devil as it was formed in late Judaism and early Christianity. Generously illustrated with fifty black-and-white photographs, this book will appeal to a wide range of readers, from specialists in religion, theology, sociology, history, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy to anyone with an interest in the demonic, the supernatural, and the question of good and evil.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
38 people are currently reading
1315 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey Burton Russell
34 books162 followersJeffrey Burton Russell was an American historian of medieval Europe and religious studies scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
November 24, 2011
Drawing on many different sources, the author suggests how the concept of the Devil as used in the New Testament took shape.
Clearly, some reviewers of this book on Amazon were very disappointed with it. They did not find what they were looking for. Speaking for myself, I pretty much did. Russell takes some pains early on to say that his work is part of the history of concepts, and even spends time distinguishing this from the history of ideasa distinction that I found to be a bit pedantic and, for me, unhelpful.
However, in the rest of the book I mostly found what I hoped to find: an inventory and discussion of the ideas and images that contributed to the concept of the Devil as he appeared in the Judeo-Christian world by New Testament times.
Since the Devil came to be known as the source and personification of evil in the world, Russell starts off very well by discussing what he means by "evil": the immediate and unjust suffering of an individual. For Russell this is an immediate and visceral experience, not a philosophical conclusion or theological category. We know evil when we see it, and there's no mistaking it.
Having set these terms of reference, Russell goes on to discuss how evil and its related mythological characters were portrayed in various ancient societies, from India to Iran to Mesopotamia to Egypt, among others. Along the way he shows how various characteristics were eventually echoed by the Biblical portrait of the Devil. For example, in Egypt the god most identified with evil was Seth, killer of Osiris. Seth was pictured as red, the color eventually taken on by Satan. Seth was also "twinned" with Horus in a close antagonism, as the Devil eventually came to be regarded as the dark "twin" of the good God.
Russell is clear that these links are only suggestive. There is no way of knowing exactly how ideas arrived at the minds of the writers of the ancient texts, or how they combined there. Rather, the ancient writers, having a need to explain or demonstrate certain things, reached into the bank of images and ideas of which they were aware, and made use of those that fit their purpose. Over time the Devil gradually took shape, acquiring more definite features as his role in the evolving theological system developed.
Here and there Russell makes declarations or assumptions that are not necessarily backed up by authority. He declares, for example, that in ancient Egypt and ancient Greece there was one God who manifested in the multifarious guise of the gods of mythology. It's not clear to me how true this is, or in what sense.
He also refers to "the God" and "the Devil" as near-universal concepts for many cultures, underlying specific figures such as Yahweh and Satan. Again, it's not clear to me that there really is a universal concept underlying these different manifestations.
However, these ideas are not unreasonable, and I was certainly willing to entertain them in order to engage with Russell's argument. The author did a lot of homework and a lot of thinking in preparing this book, and for me earned some credit. The idea of gods' appearing as twins or doublets in the process of unconscious contents' becoming differentiated en route to consciousness is intriguing, plausible, and backed up by the thinking of Jung and Erich Neumann, among others.
There is a certain diffuseness to the book that comes from the fact that ideas usually cannot be linked with certainty. The process is probabilistic. Russell assembles myths, images, ideas from various places, and there is a feeling that he is preparing to launch into a more definite account which never actually happens. Or maybe it does happenin the subsequent books of the series.
In this one, the outlines of the Devil appear gradually, as though he were walking slowly toward us out of a fog.
Clearly, some reviewers of this book on Amazon were very disappointed with it. They did not find what they were looking for. Speaking for myself, I pretty much did. Russell takes some pains early on to say that his work is part of the history of concepts, and even spends time distinguishing this from the history of ideasa distinction that I found to be a bit pedantic and, for me, unhelpful.
However, in the rest of the book I mostly found what I hoped to find: an inventory and discussion of the ideas and images that contributed to the concept of the Devil as he appeared in the Judeo-Christian world by New Testament times.
Since the Devil came to be known as the source and personification of evil in the world, Russell starts off very well by discussing what he means by "evil": the immediate and unjust suffering of an individual. For Russell this is an immediate and visceral experience, not a philosophical conclusion or theological category. We know evil when we see it, and there's no mistaking it.
Having set these terms of reference, Russell goes on to discuss how evil and its related mythological characters were portrayed in various ancient societies, from India to Iran to Mesopotamia to Egypt, among others. Along the way he shows how various characteristics were eventually echoed by the Biblical portrait of the Devil. For example, in Egypt the god most identified with evil was Seth, killer of Osiris. Seth was pictured as red, the color eventually taken on by Satan. Seth was also "twinned" with Horus in a close antagonism, as the Devil eventually came to be regarded as the dark "twin" of the good God.
Russell is clear that these links are only suggestive. There is no way of knowing exactly how ideas arrived at the minds of the writers of the ancient texts, or how they combined there. Rather, the ancient writers, having a need to explain or demonstrate certain things, reached into the bank of images and ideas of which they were aware, and made use of those that fit their purpose. Over time the Devil gradually took shape, acquiring more definite features as his role in the evolving theological system developed.
Here and there Russell makes declarations or assumptions that are not necessarily backed up by authority. He declares, for example, that in ancient Egypt and ancient Greece there was one God who manifested in the multifarious guise of the gods of mythology. It's not clear to me how true this is, or in what sense.
He also refers to "the God" and "the Devil" as near-universal concepts for many cultures, underlying specific figures such as Yahweh and Satan. Again, it's not clear to me that there really is a universal concept underlying these different manifestations.
However, these ideas are not unreasonable, and I was certainly willing to entertain them in order to engage with Russell's argument. The author did a lot of homework and a lot of thinking in preparing this book, and for me earned some credit. The idea of gods' appearing as twins or doublets in the process of unconscious contents' becoming differentiated en route to consciousness is intriguing, plausible, and backed up by the thinking of Jung and Erich Neumann, among others.
There is a certain diffuseness to the book that comes from the fact that ideas usually cannot be linked with certainty. The process is probabilistic. Russell assembles myths, images, ideas from various places, and there is a feeling that he is preparing to launch into a more definite account which never actually happens. Or maybe it does happenin the subsequent books of the series.
In this one, the outlines of the Devil appear gradually, as though he were walking slowly toward us out of a fog.
January 16, 2023
Exhaustive, and occasionally exhausting, history of the concept of an embodiment of evil, stretching from the earliest, most shadowy religions of antiquity to the New Testament of Christianity. Most of the book actually covers the "pre-history" of the concept from monist faiths, before the concepts of "good" and "evil" were represented by distinct entities and the gods were instead ambivalent figures with ostensibly contradictory qualities and attributes. The most fascinating thing, to me, is how similar the myths of the various religions are, and the question of whether they're tapping into something inherent to human cultures or whether the similarities are due to some as-yet not fully unearthed instance(s) of cultural diffusion. There is a bit of repetition and at times the enjoyability of the reading experience suffers when Russell slips into basically just listing the names of various religions and corresponding gods, but for the most part it's a fascinating work and I look forward to digging into the second of the four volumes the author has written on the subject.
March 20, 2023
Cuando tengo necesidad de leer sobre religión, tengo que encontrar un libro que ahonde seriamente el tema y me guie por la ruta del conocimiento histórico evitando el fanatismo con explicaciones dudosas y exageradas dentro de lo posible. Este libro era la respuesta que estaba buscando a un tema que ha sido extremadamente distorsionado y empobrecido por diversas interpretaciones especialmente en las últimas décadas.
Jeffrey Burton Russell es catedrático en Harvard, Licenciado en Historia y Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad de Emory y UCSB. Este libro es un trabajo de investigación histórica desde los tiempos primitivos de Hititas, Mesopotamia, Hebreos, Romanos, Griegos, Aztecas, Hindús, Japoneses, Egipcios hasta llegar a el Cristianismo y Judaísmo en el medievo. Explica cómo han ido cambiado las percepciones del mal con el tiempo y la mezcla de características que se han tomado de religiones y dioses de varias religiones han creado la imagen del diablo como lo conocemos actualmente que en realidad es el dios Pan de los griegos.
El Dr. Burton Russell ha intentado dentro de lo posible evitar escrudiñar mucho en los conceptos filosóficos sobre el mal y sobre todo ahondar en la teología, para así centrarse en la historia, pero de vez en cuando introduce uno que otro concepto filosófico sobre la inducción en Platón o Aristóteles y el estructuralismo histórico de Lévis-Strauss. Aunque llegando al cristianismo evitó totalmente cualquier referencia filosófica al Dr. Angélico Santo Tomás de Aquino o San Agustín.
La investigación tratará de definir la figura del diablo, así como el concepto del mal desde la antigüedad hasta la edad media exclusivamente. En conclusión, basándose en palabras del Dr. Russell no podemos negar que todos hemos experimentado el mal en nuestra vida y eso nos ha dado una noción y percepción de este, el diablo y el infierno son símbolos que nos ayudan a darle una forma a ese mal. La tradición es una mezcla compleja entre elementos mitológicos y filosóficos y está viva. La percepción del mal le ocurre a todo individuo, la percepción del mal también ocurre en el mundo materialista de hoy en día, la cultura pop ha empoderado la figura representativa del diablo en casi todos los medios de comunicación así como el renovado interés por las posesiones y el exorcismo. Como la tradición sigue viva, continúa cambiando y evolucionando con el tiempo. Por lo mismo, no ha llegado a su última definición sobre el mal y el diablo. Esta experiencia del mal es interpretada por cada persona, de acuerdo con su vivencia y entrono cultural. Pero al final la pregunta persiste ¿el diablo existe?... como dijo Kant sobre la existencia de Dios, “la prueba misma es contradictoria o imposible: es contradictoria pues si en el concepto de Dios se considera implícita su existencia, no se trata ya en tal caso del simple concepto, y es imposible si no se la considera implícita, porque en tal caso la existencia deberá ser agregada sintéticamente al concepto, es decir, por el camino de la experiencia posible” (Crít. R. Pura, Diál., cap. III Sec.4).
Jeffrey Burton Russell es catedrático en Harvard, Licenciado en Historia y Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad de Emory y UCSB. Este libro es un trabajo de investigación histórica desde los tiempos primitivos de Hititas, Mesopotamia, Hebreos, Romanos, Griegos, Aztecas, Hindús, Japoneses, Egipcios hasta llegar a el Cristianismo y Judaísmo en el medievo. Explica cómo han ido cambiado las percepciones del mal con el tiempo y la mezcla de características que se han tomado de religiones y dioses de varias religiones han creado la imagen del diablo como lo conocemos actualmente que en realidad es el dios Pan de los griegos.
El Dr. Burton Russell ha intentado dentro de lo posible evitar escrudiñar mucho en los conceptos filosóficos sobre el mal y sobre todo ahondar en la teología, para así centrarse en la historia, pero de vez en cuando introduce uno que otro concepto filosófico sobre la inducción en Platón o Aristóteles y el estructuralismo histórico de Lévis-Strauss. Aunque llegando al cristianismo evitó totalmente cualquier referencia filosófica al Dr. Angélico Santo Tomás de Aquino o San Agustín.
La investigación tratará de definir la figura del diablo, así como el concepto del mal desde la antigüedad hasta la edad media exclusivamente. En conclusión, basándose en palabras del Dr. Russell no podemos negar que todos hemos experimentado el mal en nuestra vida y eso nos ha dado una noción y percepción de este, el diablo y el infierno son símbolos que nos ayudan a darle una forma a ese mal. La tradición es una mezcla compleja entre elementos mitológicos y filosóficos y está viva. La percepción del mal le ocurre a todo individuo, la percepción del mal también ocurre en el mundo materialista de hoy en día, la cultura pop ha empoderado la figura representativa del diablo en casi todos los medios de comunicación así como el renovado interés por las posesiones y el exorcismo. Como la tradición sigue viva, continúa cambiando y evolucionando con el tiempo. Por lo mismo, no ha llegado a su última definición sobre el mal y el diablo. Esta experiencia del mal es interpretada por cada persona, de acuerdo con su vivencia y entrono cultural. Pero al final la pregunta persiste ¿el diablo existe?... como dijo Kant sobre la existencia de Dios, “la prueba misma es contradictoria o imposible: es contradictoria pues si en el concepto de Dios se considera implícita su existencia, no se trata ya en tal caso del simple concepto, y es imposible si no se la considera implícita, porque en tal caso la existencia deberá ser agregada sintéticamente al concepto, es decir, por el camino de la experiencia posible” (Crít. R. Pura, Diál., cap. III Sec.4).
October 5, 2023
Very good.
Will read his other books. I already have The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History but will try to find the others too.
Top rating for the new stuff. But is not a perfect book. I would have liked less repetition and more structure and more separation inside the chapters.
Will read his other books. I already have The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History but will try to find the others too.
Top rating for the new stuff. But is not a perfect book. I would have liked less repetition and more structure and more separation inside the chapters.
November 6, 2019
A fascinating perspective on the history and personification of evil throughout various early cultures, and how they impacted Judaism and ultimately Christianity. For the first two chapters, Russell establishes definitions of terms he will be using through out the text and his methodology. Chapters three and on dive into the polytheistic gods of the underworld (chthonic), the developments of monism and dualism, Judaic and Christian apocrypha, etc. There are two major reasons for choosing this text over others: Jeffrey Burton Russell has an academic background on the subject and he takes a historical perspective rather than a theological perspective on the subject of evil. There are three other books in the series: Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, and Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World.
April 2, 2019
This book deserved every second spent on reading it. The author has diverse knowledge over different civilizations, cultures and history. Statements supported by facts and references. Highly recommended read
February 10, 2020
I suppose a book about the Devil will sell more copies than a philosophical book about evil in antiquity. That is the case here. Most of the book was about evil with teasing glances to the Christian Devil much in the way viewers wish George RR Martin would stop talking about dragons and white walkers and give audiences monsters. I am mostly frustrated with this book because the tone is philosophical rather than historical. I am also bothered by the lack of citations. Russell casually drops names and examples throughout the book without proper citations, as though readers either already have knowledge of the references, or Russell is attempting to demonstrate his own familiarity with the resources.
Russell does an adequate job discussing evil an antiquity. At times the book appears to be too cursory, and at other times it is too academic. To rhetorically ask readers "what is evil?" Starts a discussion that is grounded in a Christian perception (probably 20th Century American) onto the ancient Levant with dabblings in India, Iran, Greece, and "Africa." Any time an author tackles a problem with epistemology and eschatology, I am already lost. I do not believe he even used epistemology to look at the word "evil." He did consider several words in the Greek, Ugaric, and Hebrew languages. Maybe I missed it. I tend not to pay too much attention to epistemes.
The conclusion is that all of these ancient cultures and interpretations have an affect on the Christian understanding of evil and the Devil. When discussing Egypt, Russell observes that red was often equated with Seth or Set, the primary deity in Upper Egypt. Then, in the conclusion, he notes that observation may not be enough to understand why red is associated with the Devil. Nor, is there adequate epistemic study to conclude "Set" has any bearing on "Satan." Russell then goes on to talk about Egyptian cosmology. The deceased's heart / soul / truth is weighed. Bad people are fed to a monster. Good people???? Oh well, it is a general overview of Egyptian cosmology within a few pages. Then he moves on to discuss Mesopotamian cosmology.
There is a lot of information packed into the book. I do not intend to brush it all aside. However, I think much of this book is classic armchair scholarship with an almost conversational tone to it. Russell will refer back to earlier discussions in the book as though he is making a great point. God and the Devil, asuras and daevas, Seth and Horus, light and dark, truth and no truth - It all comes together. Maybe Russell is more powerful as a speaker.
About one-third or one-quarter of the book discusses the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Devil. After reading other reviews, I now see that this book is the first in 3-4 books discussing the metamorphosis of the Devil in Christian thought. However, I am ultimately left with almost nothing new on the Devil after reading this book. Russell's argument that the classical European portrayals of Pan as being half man, half goat led Christians to portray the Devil the same way is because of Pan's association with fertility and debauchery is a valid argument; but it is not developed or cited to make that connection. Instead, Russell jumps to Demeter and Kybele, then epistemes, then Horus and Seth, back to what is evil, then to Jesus and the Disciples. The result is a monograph that has a confusing format and is difficult to follow.
At the end, I did not learn anything. Why? Russell insists that evil is a collective mental concept. Some groups conceive of a goat man fornicated and to them, that is evil or the Devil. Other groups envision a man in red with a goatee. Society changes the Devil, so there is no history of the Devil in this book; but rather a twisty trip down the rabbit hole of what is evil to ancient Levantines.
Russell does an adequate job discussing evil an antiquity. At times the book appears to be too cursory, and at other times it is too academic. To rhetorically ask readers "what is evil?" Starts a discussion that is grounded in a Christian perception (probably 20th Century American) onto the ancient Levant with dabblings in India, Iran, Greece, and "Africa." Any time an author tackles a problem with epistemology and eschatology, I am already lost. I do not believe he even used epistemology to look at the word "evil." He did consider several words in the Greek, Ugaric, and Hebrew languages. Maybe I missed it. I tend not to pay too much attention to epistemes.
The conclusion is that all of these ancient cultures and interpretations have an affect on the Christian understanding of evil and the Devil. When discussing Egypt, Russell observes that red was often equated with Seth or Set, the primary deity in Upper Egypt. Then, in the conclusion, he notes that observation may not be enough to understand why red is associated with the Devil. Nor, is there adequate epistemic study to conclude "Set" has any bearing on "Satan." Russell then goes on to talk about Egyptian cosmology. The deceased's heart / soul / truth is weighed. Bad people are fed to a monster. Good people???? Oh well, it is a general overview of Egyptian cosmology within a few pages. Then he moves on to discuss Mesopotamian cosmology.
There is a lot of information packed into the book. I do not intend to brush it all aside. However, I think much of this book is classic armchair scholarship with an almost conversational tone to it. Russell will refer back to earlier discussions in the book as though he is making a great point. God and the Devil, asuras and daevas, Seth and Horus, light and dark, truth and no truth - It all comes together. Maybe Russell is more powerful as a speaker.
About one-third or one-quarter of the book discusses the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Devil. After reading other reviews, I now see that this book is the first in 3-4 books discussing the metamorphosis of the Devil in Christian thought. However, I am ultimately left with almost nothing new on the Devil after reading this book. Russell's argument that the classical European portrayals of Pan as being half man, half goat led Christians to portray the Devil the same way is because of Pan's association with fertility and debauchery is a valid argument; but it is not developed or cited to make that connection. Instead, Russell jumps to Demeter and Kybele, then epistemes, then Horus and Seth, back to what is evil, then to Jesus and the Disciples. The result is a monograph that has a confusing format and is difficult to follow.
At the end, I did not learn anything. Why? Russell insists that evil is a collective mental concept. Some groups conceive of a goat man fornicated and to them, that is evil or the Devil. Other groups envision a man in red with a goatee. Society changes the Devil, so there is no history of the Devil in this book; but rather a twisty trip down the rabbit hole of what is evil to ancient Levantines.
March 20, 2020
Kötülüğün tarihi, teodise sorunu ve insanın bu soruna anlam arayışı. Çözümü demiyorum, çünkü yaşadığımız bu evrende (bu düzlemde, bu boyutta) çözümü olmayan bir problem. Çözebilmek için, matematikte, fizikte bazı problemlerin çözümünde olduğu gibi, bir boyut daha lazım, birkaç denklem daha lazım. O da yaşadığımız bu evrende, içine sıkıştığımız bu boyutlarda, mümkün gözükmüyor. Eser 4 cilt. İlk cilt, antik çağlardan hristiyanlığın ilk zamanlarına uzanıyor.
Herkese iyi okumalar :)
Herkese iyi okumalar :)
April 18, 2011
WOW! What a book, and what a history lesson. The first half of the book covers so much mythology, ancient Eastern views of evil, and enough odd names and stories to make your head spin. Yet all along you start to see some similarities shared and transferred from culture to culture, until you finally hit the second half of the book, which deals with evil in the Hebrew and biblical context.
This was (to me) the most fascinating section, as it is an area I knew a little more about already. The author uses many ancient apocryphal and extra-biblical writings to show the developing mindset that seems to have eventually led to the more modern view of evil and the Devil that is believed today.
It is so hard to clear out the traditional thoughts that you have had all your life, and that made this section a bit harder, though surprisingly revealing too. If you strip away all that you know of the Devil, and simply use the few mentions in the Bible, you will find that the information is quite lacking from the whole story we hear now. Then you start to see how Hellenistic thought started coming in and influencing the text, to build the whole story we mostly now believe in the modern church.
The influence of Dante and Milton adds to the story line, and the details grow and grow to a story that is nowhere to be found in biblical text. Even the non-canonical writings add to the story, filling in many of the gaps that the Bible has in this story. How much emphasis should we put on those extra bits and pieces? Is the "Devil" a member of the heavenly council of God, doing the evil? Is he a fallen angel, and if so, did he fall for pride against God as some tell us, or was it for lust as the book of Enoch displays? Was his fall before the fall of Adam, or just prior to the flood? These and so many more topics are examined in detail, making this a fascinating, and sometimes mind boggling look at the topic.
In the end, I do not know if what I have learned is more for the better or the worse on this topic. There is much more to it that I had originally thought, and now in some ways I am a bit more confused on where I stand on certain aspects. All in all though, a good read that looks at many questions, many histories, gives many answers, and in the end just makes me wonder even more. Fortunately, there are more volumes in this series that might provide further answers; so I will refrain from making any decisions on where I stand on this whole topic.
This was (to me) the most fascinating section, as it is an area I knew a little more about already. The author uses many ancient apocryphal and extra-biblical writings to show the developing mindset that seems to have eventually led to the more modern view of evil and the Devil that is believed today.
It is so hard to clear out the traditional thoughts that you have had all your life, and that made this section a bit harder, though surprisingly revealing too. If you strip away all that you know of the Devil, and simply use the few mentions in the Bible, you will find that the information is quite lacking from the whole story we hear now. Then you start to see how Hellenistic thought started coming in and influencing the text, to build the whole story we mostly now believe in the modern church.
The influence of Dante and Milton adds to the story line, and the details grow and grow to a story that is nowhere to be found in biblical text. Even the non-canonical writings add to the story, filling in many of the gaps that the Bible has in this story. How much emphasis should we put on those extra bits and pieces? Is the "Devil" a member of the heavenly council of God, doing the evil? Is he a fallen angel, and if so, did he fall for pride against God as some tell us, or was it for lust as the book of Enoch displays? Was his fall before the fall of Adam, or just prior to the flood? These and so many more topics are examined in detail, making this a fascinating, and sometimes mind boggling look at the topic.
In the end, I do not know if what I have learned is more for the better or the worse on this topic. There is much more to it that I had originally thought, and now in some ways I am a bit more confused on where I stand on certain aspects. All in all though, a good read that looks at many questions, many histories, gives many answers, and in the end just makes me wonder even more. Fortunately, there are more volumes in this series that might provide further answers; so I will refrain from making any decisions on where I stand on this whole topic.
March 4, 2017
The Devil isn't an easy topic to write about. Russell, as part of a series of books on the prince of darkness, here explores the early stages of the history of not just Satan, but the Devil. As I mention on my blog (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) it is difficult for a medievalist to handle the earlier material so well. Apart from updates that have occurred since the book was written, Russell handles the evidence quite well. His thesis is that evil is personified as the Devil, and the descriptions of evil he offers are difficult to read. Still, he does an admirable job tracing the development from Greek, Zoroastrian, and Semitic sources to that nefarious being the New Testament knows as the Devil.
As I was reading this I reflected at several points just how unusual and inevitable the Devil seems to be. Things don't always go our way and we want what we can't have. At some point this crosses the line into an evil and when that evil gains intention, it becomes a Devil. I'm oversimplifying, of course. Dated, perhaps, but Russell won't lead the reader far afield. I've added his next book on the subject to my reading list.
As I was reading this I reflected at several points just how unusual and inevitable the Devil seems to be. Things don't always go our way and we want what we can't have. At some point this crosses the line into an evil and when that evil gains intention, it becomes a Devil. I'm oversimplifying, of course. Dated, perhaps, but Russell won't lead the reader far afield. I've added his next book on the subject to my reading list.
March 14, 2022
I just finished "The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity," by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
No, nothings wrong. Everything is going fine. Russell wrote a five book series on ole scratch (The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, and The Prince of Darkness; I have been collecting these for the last two years) and this is the first. My goal is to read them back-to-back in published order.
Russell says right up front that this is a historical, not a theological, work. The work he wrote is to see how the figure of the Devil was conceived historically. It is a history of the personification of evil. He is a historian reporting not on that which is true but rather on that which persons in history thought was true or had happened; people act upon what they believe is true. Yes, Russell is a Christian and has written some fascinating stuff like how early Christians knew the world was spherical and the myth that they believed it flat is a 19th century invention, also the history of witchcraft. He is Prof emeritus at UC Berkeley. So if your cat disappears thats not on me.
In religion it is common, when one goes far enough back, to see the High God play the role of both good and evil. This is the dual nature of God. As the concepts developed over time one can see these roles split off in, for instance, polytheism where one God will have a good role and another an evil one (the evil one was often female with the good one male). More modern development sees the High God as good and a lesser being as the evil one thus suggesting a metaphysical dualism.
Non-western cultures have these evil entities attacking people rather than tempting them; the moral temptation aspect seems to be mainly Jewish and Christian.
Russell spends time diving into myth of the ancient near east to give context to the cultures which surrounded the Jews, and later Christians. There was a large change when he gets to Zoroastrianism. Zarathustra created the first truly dualistic religion. Whereas before people thought of the high God as creator of good and evil, Zarathustra's dualism suggested two, a good deity and a bad entity. I found it interesting that in the story of the first parents (the fall) in Zoroastrianism the fall changed the condition of their lives but not their will toward God.
From the other side, Greece in the West, there is a good bit to cover but I'll lay it down like this: Plato thought evil existed as a non-being, a lack, as something missing. He never jumped into either monism or dualism, though his students of Middle Platonism did. Fast forward a bit and we see Augustine (also heavily influenced by a splinter group from Zoroastrianism, the Machanieists) and later Aquinas pulling from Platos thought. They paved the way for later Christian thought on the Devil, demons and hell, but that's another book (serious, Satan and the following Lucifer cover later Christian development of these themes). Just remember Plato was highly influential to early Christian thought on evil. Another character who actually worked at fusing Platonic thought to Yahweh was Philo (1st century a.d.), a highly Hellenized Jew who loved Plato. He worked Platonism into the thought of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament).
Russell has hit all around but not yet in scripture when dealing with the Devil. Now he speaks to the Devil and the Hebrew scripture. The firstbthingbto see isbthatbearlybon in the Hebrew scriptures there really isn't much difference between the God of Israel and the Monistic God of the philosophers. There is an air of a single entity causing good and evil. Just because this is Judaism (Christian) early on we aren't to take this example as "pure source," that would be a genetic fallacy. We build from here.
The Apocalyptic writer of the book(s) of Enoch really had a hand in making black and white categories for demons and angels. Previously in the Old Testament one could read the text in not so black and white terms but the writer of Enoch writing after the completion of the OT played off a verse in Genisis where angels lusted after the daughters of men. This accounts for the angelic fall read back into the OT.
Moving on to the Devil in the New Testament Russell does well to point out how modern theology largely ignores Satan in the New Testament but they do so to the destruction of the narrative of the text. What exactly did Jesus do if not bind the stron man, defeat him and introduce His Kingdom while pushing out Satan's reign? The very heart of the New Testament is Jesus V Satan. Here the "job" of Satan is more clear; after having drawn from the Apocalyptic interest intertestmental writings the New Testament writers are almost fully dualistic, what Russell calls semi-dualistic. Historically other dualists place equal power on both principles in a dualism. In Christianity there is no dividing the oneness of God to share with an equal counterpart. Also, it must be stated that the NT is a blending of Hellenistic and Jewish cultures.
One difference between the OT and NT is that demons appear to have a God-given job to punish people for their sins in the OT but in the New they are placed under the command of Satan to oppose the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
Interesting that Russell points out that Satan as the ruler or chief of Hell can be found more in Danta and Milton than it can in the New Testament.
I think one thing I hadn't counted on but should have with this (these five) book(s) is one reads a history of theodicy. I don't dive into this above but if theodicy is a question you have then this covers its earliest days of if God is all loving and God is all powerful why does evil exist?
Excellent book on history. Now for book 2.
#TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
No, nothings wrong. Everything is going fine. Russell wrote a five book series on ole scratch (The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, and The Prince of Darkness; I have been collecting these for the last two years) and this is the first. My goal is to read them back-to-back in published order.
Russell says right up front that this is a historical, not a theological, work. The work he wrote is to see how the figure of the Devil was conceived historically. It is a history of the personification of evil. He is a historian reporting not on that which is true but rather on that which persons in history thought was true or had happened; people act upon what they believe is true. Yes, Russell is a Christian and has written some fascinating stuff like how early Christians knew the world was spherical and the myth that they believed it flat is a 19th century invention, also the history of witchcraft. He is Prof emeritus at UC Berkeley. So if your cat disappears thats not on me.
In religion it is common, when one goes far enough back, to see the High God play the role of both good and evil. This is the dual nature of God. As the concepts developed over time one can see these roles split off in, for instance, polytheism where one God will have a good role and another an evil one (the evil one was often female with the good one male). More modern development sees the High God as good and a lesser being as the evil one thus suggesting a metaphysical dualism.
Non-western cultures have these evil entities attacking people rather than tempting them; the moral temptation aspect seems to be mainly Jewish and Christian.
Russell spends time diving into myth of the ancient near east to give context to the cultures which surrounded the Jews, and later Christians. There was a large change when he gets to Zoroastrianism. Zarathustra created the first truly dualistic religion. Whereas before people thought of the high God as creator of good and evil, Zarathustra's dualism suggested two, a good deity and a bad entity. I found it interesting that in the story of the first parents (the fall) in Zoroastrianism the fall changed the condition of their lives but not their will toward God.
From the other side, Greece in the West, there is a good bit to cover but I'll lay it down like this: Plato thought evil existed as a non-being, a lack, as something missing. He never jumped into either monism or dualism, though his students of Middle Platonism did. Fast forward a bit and we see Augustine (also heavily influenced by a splinter group from Zoroastrianism, the Machanieists) and later Aquinas pulling from Platos thought. They paved the way for later Christian thought on the Devil, demons and hell, but that's another book (serious, Satan and the following Lucifer cover later Christian development of these themes). Just remember Plato was highly influential to early Christian thought on evil. Another character who actually worked at fusing Platonic thought to Yahweh was Philo (1st century a.d.), a highly Hellenized Jew who loved Plato. He worked Platonism into the thought of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament).
Russell has hit all around but not yet in scripture when dealing with the Devil. Now he speaks to the Devil and the Hebrew scripture. The firstbthingbto see isbthatbearlybon in the Hebrew scriptures there really isn't much difference between the God of Israel and the Monistic God of the philosophers. There is an air of a single entity causing good and evil. Just because this is Judaism (Christian) early on we aren't to take this example as "pure source," that would be a genetic fallacy. We build from here.
The Apocalyptic writer of the book(s) of Enoch really had a hand in making black and white categories for demons and angels. Previously in the Old Testament one could read the text in not so black and white terms but the writer of Enoch writing after the completion of the OT played off a verse in Genisis where angels lusted after the daughters of men. This accounts for the angelic fall read back into the OT.
Moving on to the Devil in the New Testament Russell does well to point out how modern theology largely ignores Satan in the New Testament but they do so to the destruction of the narrative of the text. What exactly did Jesus do if not bind the stron man, defeat him and introduce His Kingdom while pushing out Satan's reign? The very heart of the New Testament is Jesus V Satan. Here the "job" of Satan is more clear; after having drawn from the Apocalyptic interest intertestmental writings the New Testament writers are almost fully dualistic, what Russell calls semi-dualistic. Historically other dualists place equal power on both principles in a dualism. In Christianity there is no dividing the oneness of God to share with an equal counterpart. Also, it must be stated that the NT is a blending of Hellenistic and Jewish cultures.
One difference between the OT and NT is that demons appear to have a God-given job to punish people for their sins in the OT but in the New they are placed under the command of Satan to oppose the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
Interesting that Russell points out that Satan as the ruler or chief of Hell can be found more in Danta and Milton than it can in the New Testament.
I think one thing I hadn't counted on but should have with this (these five) book(s) is one reads a history of theodicy. I don't dive into this above but if theodicy is a question you have then this covers its earliest days of if God is all loving and God is all powerful why does evil exist?
Excellent book on history. Now for book 2.
#TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
Read
December 21, 2008A pretty stodgy study of what should have been a very interesting topic. Russell at times sounds like he’s on the verge of preaching to us on the existence of a very real Satan, attempting to add credibility to this belief by disguising it as a rigorous scholarly study. He also enjoys taking sniffy pot-shots at fellow historians who don’t follow his particular methodology. Humorless dude. I read this as a tester before deciding whether or not to buy the other three volumes in Russell’s “Devil” study. I don’t think I’ll bother. The guy’s just too unreadable.
June 4, 2018
Jeffrey Burton Russell sets out to trace the evolution of ideas concerning the personification of evil. This is intended as work of history, specifically a history of concepts, not as a work of theology or psychology. It also is limited primarily to the western tradition, which Russell acknowledges as an artificial, albeit useful, distinction, and chronologically ends at early Christianity. As a matter of convenience, for most of the book, Russell uses the term “the Devil” to refer to the general concept of evil personified, not necessarily the Judeo-Christian entity most common associated with that term.
This study does a magnificent job of explaining and organizing information from a vast range of belief systems. Russell delves into religious and philosophical beliefs from Ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Near East, and clearly introduces the reader to each new topic and ideas that he touches on. Often, he raises broad questions inherent in a topic like this and applies them to the material he is considering. What is the nature of evil anyway? Why do certain philosophical or religious systems require a concept of evil? How do sociological changes impact a culture’s perception of evil?
This text also shows much of the evolution of religions over time. It gives the reader a glimpse at vastly differing cosmologies, such as the monism of the Ancient Egyptian and the absolute dualism of Zarathustra’s followers. The evolution of the Jewish tradition’s ideas about evil are covered in detail, as Russell highlights the gradual change from the pre-exilic period to the apocalyptic Jewish traditions. It concludes with the Devil as he appears in the New Testament, showing that much of early Christian drew on Orphic and Iranian dualism as well as other traditions, leading to a semidualist religion that had some implicit inconsistencies. Finally, the book wraps up with a short chapter of Russell’s musings about the nature of evil.
Russell acknowledges that the evolution of the personification of evil did not end with the New Testament. He continues to explore the idea in later periods with his subsequent books. Overall, this book is a wonderful read both for those interested in the ancient world, and those curious about this fascinating topic. Russell has a crisp and clear writing style that allows this to be an enjoyable and thought provoking read. Concepts like the Hebrew idea of mal’ak are expertly explained throughout the text, making it accessible to a general audience.
This study does a magnificent job of explaining and organizing information from a vast range of belief systems. Russell delves into religious and philosophical beliefs from Ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Near East, and clearly introduces the reader to each new topic and ideas that he touches on. Often, he raises broad questions inherent in a topic like this and applies them to the material he is considering. What is the nature of evil anyway? Why do certain philosophical or religious systems require a concept of evil? How do sociological changes impact a culture’s perception of evil?
This text also shows much of the evolution of religions over time. It gives the reader a glimpse at vastly differing cosmologies, such as the monism of the Ancient Egyptian and the absolute dualism of Zarathustra’s followers. The evolution of the Jewish tradition’s ideas about evil are covered in detail, as Russell highlights the gradual change from the pre-exilic period to the apocalyptic Jewish traditions. It concludes with the Devil as he appears in the New Testament, showing that much of early Christian drew on Orphic and Iranian dualism as well as other traditions, leading to a semidualist religion that had some implicit inconsistencies. Finally, the book wraps up with a short chapter of Russell’s musings about the nature of evil.
Russell acknowledges that the evolution of the personification of evil did not end with the New Testament. He continues to explore the idea in later periods with his subsequent books. Overall, this book is a wonderful read both for those interested in the ancient world, and those curious about this fascinating topic. Russell has a crisp and clear writing style that allows this to be an enjoyable and thought provoking read. Concepts like the Hebrew idea of mal’ak are expertly explained throughout the text, making it accessible to a general audience.
March 18, 2024
1. The Question of Evil
2. In Search of the Devil
3. The Devil East and West
4. Evil in the Classical World
5. Hebrew Personifications of Evil
6. The Devil in the New Testament
7. The Face of the Devil
Evil—the infliction of pain upon sentient beings—is one of the most longstanding and serious problems of human existence. Frequently and in many cultures evil has been personified. This book is a history of the personification of evil, which for the sake of clarity I have called "the Devil."
“…if the Devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.”
—Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
A revolution in the history of concepts occurred in Iran shortly before 600 B.C. with the teachings of the prophet Zarathushtra, who laid the basis for the first thoroughly dualist religion. Zarathushtra's revelation was that evil is not a manifestation of the divine at all; rather it proceeds from a wholly separate principle. While thus moving from monism to dualism, Zarathushtra also moved from polytheism in the direction of monotheism. …the dualism introduced by Zarathushtra was a revolutionary step in the development of the Devil, for it posited, for the first time, an absolute principle of evil, whose personification, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, is the first clearly defined Devil.
Mazdaism undeniably influenced Jewish and Christian thought, but the degree of the influence is uncertain. For one thing, the greatest period of Zoroastrian theology was the Sassanian period, which began two hundred years after Christ. Of course Mazdaist ideas had been current for centuries before, but it is difficult to establish the extent to which they might have been known to Christians. The many similarities in the Iranian and Judeo-Christian notions of the evil one, of hell, and of resurrection probably indicate a high degree of cultural diffusion. Iranian influence seems undeniable upon the Essenes (especially in the Manual of Discipline) and upon the Gnostics (laldabaoth's similarities to Ahriman are striking). The vectors established in Iranian religion move the concept of the Devil strongly away from the more ambiguous realms of monism into the sharp distinctions of the dualist opposition of good and evil.
The old liberal belief that man is somehow, for some reason, intrinsically good, and that evils can be corrected by adjusting education, penal laws, welfare arrangements, city planning, and so on, has not proved its validity. Recognition of the basic existence of evil, and consequently of the need for strong efforts to integrate and overcome it, may be socially more useful as well as intellectually and psychologically more true.
2. In Search of the Devil
3. The Devil East and West
4. Evil in the Classical World
5. Hebrew Personifications of Evil
6. The Devil in the New Testament
7. The Face of the Devil
Evil—the infliction of pain upon sentient beings—is one of the most longstanding and serious problems of human existence. Frequently and in many cultures evil has been personified. This book is a history of the personification of evil, which for the sake of clarity I have called "the Devil."
“…if the Devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.”
—Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
A revolution in the history of concepts occurred in Iran shortly before 600 B.C. with the teachings of the prophet Zarathushtra, who laid the basis for the first thoroughly dualist religion. Zarathushtra's revelation was that evil is not a manifestation of the divine at all; rather it proceeds from a wholly separate principle. While thus moving from monism to dualism, Zarathushtra also moved from polytheism in the direction of monotheism. …the dualism introduced by Zarathushtra was a revolutionary step in the development of the Devil, for it posited, for the first time, an absolute principle of evil, whose personification, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, is the first clearly defined Devil.
Mazdaism undeniably influenced Jewish and Christian thought, but the degree of the influence is uncertain. For one thing, the greatest period of Zoroastrian theology was the Sassanian period, which began two hundred years after Christ. Of course Mazdaist ideas had been current for centuries before, but it is difficult to establish the extent to which they might have been known to Christians. The many similarities in the Iranian and Judeo-Christian notions of the evil one, of hell, and of resurrection probably indicate a high degree of cultural diffusion. Iranian influence seems undeniable upon the Essenes (especially in the Manual of Discipline) and upon the Gnostics (laldabaoth's similarities to Ahriman are striking). The vectors established in Iranian religion move the concept of the Devil strongly away from the more ambiguous realms of monism into the sharp distinctions of the dualist opposition of good and evil.
The old liberal belief that man is somehow, for some reason, intrinsically good, and that evils can be corrected by adjusting education, penal laws, welfare arrangements, city planning, and so on, has not proved its validity. Recognition of the basic existence of evil, and consequently of the need for strong efforts to integrate and overcome it, may be socially more useful as well as intellectually and psychologically more true.
July 12, 2025
This is an interesting history of religious and philosophical perceptions of evil in Ancient Europe and the Near East. Although Russell also discusses Egyptian, Babylonian, and Indian representations of evil, his main focus is on the development of Zoroastrian dualism, Greek mitigated dualism and the Jewish and New Testament traditions, which he perceives as an unstable synthesis of the Zoroastrian and Greek positions. I was less interested in the book for its attempts to show why the concept of the devil developed as it did. Sometimes I think he spends too much energy looking for older antecedents of satanic iconography and then admitting that there is no provable historical connection. But I did find the illustrations of some of the ways that cultures have tried to deal with the notion of evil fascinating. The positions Russell stresses and the cultures he identifies them with can be summarized: the God is both good and evil (Babylonian, Hindu, Archaic Greek), the world is well ordered so evil is not a problem (Egyptian, some Greek philosophies), good and evil are represented by equally powerful spirits that do battle with each other (Zoroastrian), good is creative spirit and evil is resistant matter, (some Greek philosophy, Christianity), God is all-powerful and good but also somehow establishes Satan as a worthy adversary which God will eventually destroy (Christianity). Russell does a good job of showing how these different conceptual systems can feel plausible and can seem to make the world comprehensible.
One side of Russell that I dislike is his unwillingness to engage with philosophical treatments of evil on their own terms. He insists at the beginning of the book that evil is not a concept but an immediate experience of a principle opposed to goodness. For Russell, the conceptual schemes do not have to ultimately make sense; their real value is in building tension that facilitates engagement with the experience. But, since I do not perceive evil as a substantive principle, since I think that all of the moral evil I have encountered in my own life can be explained through moral ignorance, I am not sympathetic to Russell's position here. Since he insists immediate experience is the only appeal worth anything, and since I do not share his immediate experience, I do not find this very helpful. I tend to think Russell is undertaking this project because of an implicit philosophical position that he hasn't adequately worked through for himself.
But all in all, this was still a stimulating read.
One side of Russell that I dislike is his unwillingness to engage with philosophical treatments of evil on their own terms. He insists at the beginning of the book that evil is not a concept but an immediate experience of a principle opposed to goodness. For Russell, the conceptual schemes do not have to ultimately make sense; their real value is in building tension that facilitates engagement with the experience. But, since I do not perceive evil as a substantive principle, since I think that all of the moral evil I have encountered in my own life can be explained through moral ignorance, I am not sympathetic to Russell's position here. Since he insists immediate experience is the only appeal worth anything, and since I do not share his immediate experience, I do not find this very helpful. I tend to think Russell is undertaking this project because of an implicit philosophical position that he hasn't adequately worked through for himself.
But all in all, this was still a stimulating read.
November 2, 2023
Russell breaks down the societal foundation of the devil archetype and then folds it into pre-Christian religions from Iran, Greece, and eventually Judea. He goes back 4,000-5,000 years ago and goes up until about 150 AD, when the New Testament was fully written. This motif builds upon that foundation and how the devil came into being from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
It is not an exhaustive book only focusing on the motif of the devil development. It is rather an academic read, but not overly so. His strong point would be the development and not the symbolism of the devil so much.
In fact, one criticism is that he lacks the astro-theology of the devil motif as, for one example, he keeps questioning why the Goat is associated with the Devil. He does posit some reasoning, but misses the fact that the Goat represents Capricorn in the Zodiac, and Capricorn represents the death of the Sun, which is why the devil is symbolized with a Goat. Remember, the devils is darkness, and the light of God/Jesus is the sun - it is the battle between dark and light (day and night). Russell misses this entirely, and makes we wonder how deep his analysis goes?
I think Russell's strong suit with devil motif is not with symbolism but with cultural aspects of the devil motif. This is really where Russell shines, and it is a good perspective to read about. Equally important than the symbolic side of the Devil motif.
Another advantage is that he does all of his analysis in about 263 pages which is a very good length, and does not drone on with unrelated matters. Keep in mind this is his first volume in a 4 volume work (Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles).
It is not an exhaustive book only focusing on the motif of the devil development. It is rather an academic read, but not overly so. His strong point would be the development and not the symbolism of the devil so much.
In fact, one criticism is that he lacks the astro-theology of the devil motif as, for one example, he keeps questioning why the Goat is associated with the Devil. He does posit some reasoning, but misses the fact that the Goat represents Capricorn in the Zodiac, and Capricorn represents the death of the Sun, which is why the devil is symbolized with a Goat. Remember, the devils is darkness, and the light of God/Jesus is the sun - it is the battle between dark and light (day and night). Russell misses this entirely, and makes we wonder how deep his analysis goes?
I think Russell's strong suit with devil motif is not with symbolism but with cultural aspects of the devil motif. This is really where Russell shines, and it is a good perspective to read about. Equally important than the symbolic side of the Devil motif.
Another advantage is that he does all of his analysis in about 263 pages which is a very good length, and does not drone on with unrelated matters. Keep in mind this is his first volume in a 4 volume work (Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mephistopheles).
September 18, 2020
Near the end of the Book of Revelation there is a promise: Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. If you don't feel as I do, despite being an unbeliever, that the promise is important, that God must rectify what is wrong, through his action or perhaps no fault, then I'm not really interested in your opinion on evil or theodicy.
That's what I think grounds this book, is the underlying statement that evil is so visceral is ita direct perception or understanding that it requires redress. That in turns informs a view which is not content with traditional answers but questions them, analyses the stresses between experience and general principles.
It strikes a nice balance between operating on what can be fairly well demonstrated as well as drawing connections that are speculatively, and clearly stating so. That is the most important think when diving so far back into less than conclusively documented aspects of history.
Very interesting to finally have a better understanding about how these cultures actually thought of a principle that looms so large in the dominant religion of my world. I find myself facinated by the notion that you may be satisfied by a more granular analysis of your system of God or gods, but with that it seems an almost inevitable issue that the deity must become somewhat personalised, but in that you sew the seeds of evil in it. It is this movement which invokes an insoluble problem.
That's what I think grounds this book, is the underlying statement that evil is so visceral is ita direct perception or understanding that it requires redress. That in turns informs a view which is not content with traditional answers but questions them, analyses the stresses between experience and general principles.
It strikes a nice balance between operating on what can be fairly well demonstrated as well as drawing connections that are speculatively, and clearly stating so. That is the most important think when diving so far back into less than conclusively documented aspects of history.
Very interesting to finally have a better understanding about how these cultures actually thought of a principle that looms so large in the dominant religion of my world. I find myself facinated by the notion that you may be satisfied by a more granular analysis of your system of God or gods, but with that it seems an almost inevitable issue that the deity must become somewhat personalised, but in that you sew the seeds of evil in it. It is this movement which invokes an insoluble problem.
February 5, 2022
Who is the Devil? Where did he come from? How has he evolved over the millenia? What is his relationship with humans and God? Why does he matter? Should he be taken seriously? People probably do not think about these things in today’s secular world. Stuff happens and unknown forces control our fates. Certainly, Catholics see the Devil fighting against God and goodness. The Devil convinces us to sin. Our free will allows us to do so. What is hell and the demons that associate with the Devil?
The issue of the Devil as a perception is taken up by Russell in a historical way. He starts in the ancient world and how the early gods behaved and how they were seen as personifying both good and evil at the same time. Depending on their moods, they could bless or condemn humankind. Read the Iliad and the Odyssey to get an idea. This changes over time as evil becomes separated from any one god and becomes an independent entity which people can blame for the evil in the world. In addition, the book covers natural evils such as destructive storms, earthquakes, and tsunamis. This is a good book for learning how the Devil has developed as being a part of a god and now has his own personality and haven apart from God. It is a scholarly explanation which covers these issues very well. The Devil may not be a reality, but he is certainly perceived that way.
The issue of the Devil as a perception is taken up by Russell in a historical way. He starts in the ancient world and how the early gods behaved and how they were seen as personifying both good and evil at the same time. Depending on their moods, they could bless or condemn humankind. Read the Iliad and the Odyssey to get an idea. This changes over time as evil becomes separated from any one god and becomes an independent entity which people can blame for the evil in the world. In addition, the book covers natural evils such as destructive storms, earthquakes, and tsunamis. This is a good book for learning how the Devil has developed as being a part of a god and now has his own personality and haven apart from God. It is a scholarly explanation which covers these issues very well. The Devil may not be a reality, but he is certainly perceived that way.
March 12, 2022
Interesting. It does pretty much what it says on the tin: explores the history of the concept of personified evil in Western thought, mainly in Antiquity. Some interesting thoughts on monism vs. dualism in theology and how religions have seemingly always struggled to reconcile an all-powerful "good" deity with a world in which evil is very clearly a lived reality for the adherents. Russell covers many different cultures and religions in rapid succession, with bare-bones explanations that can leave you reeling. All the pictures are appreciated.
I will note that this was written in the 1970s and has aged poorly in some respects. There's a bizarre segment in which the author tries to make a case for the colour black being somehow intrinsically evil (p.64-66) despite even admitting - in a footnote - that not all cultures uniformly perceive the colour negatively. The author attempts to state it's not "racial," but one can hardly read the passages without considering the prejudices (acknowledged or not) that must have been in the author's mind.
So, there are definitely significant things to critique in this work. But in terms of interesting tidbits about the creation of the mythological figure of Satan over time, it's okay. Gets real weird in the last chapter, though.
I will note that this was written in the 1970s and has aged poorly in some respects. There's a bizarre segment in which the author tries to make a case for the colour black being somehow intrinsically evil (p.64-66) despite even admitting - in a footnote - that not all cultures uniformly perceive the colour negatively. The author attempts to state it's not "racial," but one can hardly read the passages without considering the prejudices (acknowledged or not) that must have been in the author's mind.
So, there are definitely significant things to critique in this work. But in terms of interesting tidbits about the creation of the mythological figure of Satan over time, it's okay. Gets real weird in the last chapter, though.
February 20, 2019
Although this book was not quite I was looking for, it was an interesting read nonetheless. Russell takes the reader from the recognition of evil in the world to the theological implications of the figure of the Devil in the New Testament. Along the way, he also seeks to contrast it with similar concepts in varies world religions/mythologies, from those of Egypt to those of the India and Iran. As he approaches the Judeo-Christian take on the Devil, he also seeks to emphasize the alternating poles of strict monotheism, which leaves God as ultimately responsible for evil, and dualism, which makes the Devil wholly separate at the cost of some of God’s power. While I found the book interesting and less parochial than other works on the same topic, I was a little turned off by the amount of philosophy that Russell imbues in his prose. This only increases as he focuses on the influence of Plato and Aristotle in the Jewish and Christian theologies. Finally, I was also disappointed in seeing him completely ignore the third monotheist religion, Islam. All in all I would only recommend this to someone quite tolerant of philosophy.
October 3, 2017
An excellent study. Russell presents a historians assessment of the development of the concept for the Devil, rather than a theological treatise. Included are relevant traits from Hiduism, Aztec, Tolmec, Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Zoroastrian theological systems. Russell assess the development of the form of the Devil, including the colour red and the trident, and identifies their origins in other forms of the archetytpe.
The most valuable aspect of the work however is in Russell's assessment of how Judaism integrated these earlier notions as a means by which to resolve its monistic crisis and resolve its own theodicy -- the result of the process being the inferred dualism of Christianity.
The most valuable aspect of the work however is in Russell's assessment of how Judaism integrated these earlier notions as a means by which to resolve its monistic crisis and resolve its own theodicy -- the result of the process being the inferred dualism of Christianity.
October 19, 2024
This review is not only on 'The Devil', but Russells 5-piece work on The Devil: 'The Devil', 'Satan', 'Lucifer', 'Mephistopheles' & 'The Prince of Darkness'. To read these book individually is most certainly possible, but reading them in succession, gives the reader a great, however not 'finished', understanding on The Devil throughout time.
The books are throughout, and it's clear to read that Jeffrey Burton Russell is not well informed. The books are reflective and 'transparent' in it's methodology, that he uses.
This series deserves nothing less than 5-stars, each and everybook. They are more than the parts of their sums, and the time this series has taken to write is an accomplisment.
Thank you Jeffrey B. Russell, for giving everyone a toll to understand The Devil.
The books are throughout, and it's clear to read that Jeffrey Burton Russell is not well informed. The books are reflective and 'transparent' in it's methodology, that he uses.
This series deserves nothing less than 5-stars, each and everybook. They are more than the parts of their sums, and the time this series has taken to write is an accomplisment.
Thank you Jeffrey B. Russell, for giving everyone a toll to understand The Devil.
November 16, 2021
I was impressed by the scholarly nature of the work. It reminded me of my History of Witches class that I had in college which was supposed to be a blow-off class but turned into the most difficult class of the semester (note my degree was in Nursing). Like the class while not an easy journey it was very rewarding. There were sections which I reread multiple times. Not due to poor writing but because of the complicated subject matter. It was close to 5 stars but I couldn't quite cross the threshold of enthralled needed for 5, but, as I said it was close. Starting the follow-up Satan when I finish typing.
April 6, 2021
Para empezar este libro no es para todo el mundo, la razón es que este libro solo habla del diablo y su origen, algo que en conclusión es sencillo y corto de definir, pero son todos esos detalles de las antiguas religiones las que están llenas de explicaciones de porque el diablo de la cultura judeocristiana es así, haciendo la lectura muy pesada. Aun esto creo que es un muy buen libro del que puedes sacar mucho provecho, no solo por la información relacionada con el diablo sino por todos esos hilos mitológicos de los que uno puede tirar para ahondar más en el asunto.
September 24, 2023
I first read this book about 30 years ago. Keep in mind this is a HISTORY book not a religion book. Great survey of the history of the development of the concept of evil up to the earliest days of Christianity. Limited to Western thought though. Not the easiest read, the first two chapters are pretty technical and academic, defining abstract ideas and concepts. Still the book is accessible and readable.
May 31, 2017
This is a very thorough and precise account of the history of the ancient religions and how their commonalities developed into what we have today. The book also breaks down various arguments about the devil in a very logical way, paying pretty close attention to the hypocrisies and inconsistencies inherent in any religion. It gets a little redundant towards the end, but overall I say well done!
October 7, 2024
This wasn’t reallyyy what I was looking for because it focuses on the ancient more than I thought and “primitive Christianity” meant the time of the New Testament to him i guess. I think the others in this serious will be more useful and interesting to me. Honestly this dealt heavily with abstraction and these universal statements even though he emphasizes his historical focus.
December 9, 2024
This is a wonderful introduction to the personification of evil in the ancient world. Russell handles the subject with care and depth but spares the humor. If you would like laughter and devil talk try that movie with Bill Cosby and Elliot Gould, because Russell just lays it out like a topographical map.
July 2, 2019
One of the most readable books I've ever read about a concept. It is not a mythological tale or something of the sort, rather it breaks down the history of evil to the periods that make sense in and of themselves and binds all these periods on a firm ground.
January 28, 2020
Pros: very thorough, lots of endnotes
Cons: not many photos
This was a very interesting book about how peoples in the past thought about the concept of evil and how those philosophical musings and religious beliefs slowly morphed into the idea held by Christians that there is a single force that causes evil: the Devil.
After the preface the book consists of 7 chapters: The Question of Evil, In Search of the Devil, The Devil East and West, Evil in the Classical World, Hebrew Personifications of Evil, The Devil in the New Testament, and The Face of the Devil. There’s a select bibliography and an index.
The book starts with a discussion of what evil is. This book traces how ancient societies thought of ‘evil’, whether it was part of the gods, human nature, imposed from the outside or something within us. It examines both religious and philosophical beliefs from various cultures and periods whose peoples wanted to know why good things happened to bad people. Why, if there’s a god (or gods) who is good, who created a world of good, is there evil in the world?
We’re so used to categorizing things that it’s easy to forget just how interconnected the world really is. I tend to think of Greek mythology as independent from other religious practices, even though I know the Romans modified the beliefs to fit with their own pantheon of gods. So it was eye opening learning how the Greek gods were turned into evil spirits by early Christian thought, and how Pan was used as a template when artists started visualizing the devil as a personification of evil.
I only knew bits and pieces of other ancient religions so leaning more about them and how they intersected and built off of one another was fascinating. I also loved learning side information like why people with red hair were considered evil.
The most interesting section for me was on the Persian Zoroastrian religion, whose basic mythology is similar to the one Christianity ultimately settled on. I also enjoyed learning more about the apocalyptic Jewish writings and how they impacted the Gospels in the New Testament.
There aren't that many photos, but the ones included help visualize how the devil gained certain attributes (like wings, horns, etc).
This is an older book (it came out in 1977), but it’s still highly relevant to Christian and general religious studies.
Cons: not many photos
This was a very interesting book about how peoples in the past thought about the concept of evil and how those philosophical musings and religious beliefs slowly morphed into the idea held by Christians that there is a single force that causes evil: the Devil.
After the preface the book consists of 7 chapters: The Question of Evil, In Search of the Devil, The Devil East and West, Evil in the Classical World, Hebrew Personifications of Evil, The Devil in the New Testament, and The Face of the Devil. There’s a select bibliography and an index.
The book starts with a discussion of what evil is. This book traces how ancient societies thought of ‘evil’, whether it was part of the gods, human nature, imposed from the outside or something within us. It examines both religious and philosophical beliefs from various cultures and periods whose peoples wanted to know why good things happened to bad people. Why, if there’s a god (or gods) who is good, who created a world of good, is there evil in the world?
We’re so used to categorizing things that it’s easy to forget just how interconnected the world really is. I tend to think of Greek mythology as independent from other religious practices, even though I know the Romans modified the beliefs to fit with their own pantheon of gods. So it was eye opening learning how the Greek gods were turned into evil spirits by early Christian thought, and how Pan was used as a template when artists started visualizing the devil as a personification of evil.
I only knew bits and pieces of other ancient religions so leaning more about them and how they intersected and built off of one another was fascinating. I also loved learning side information like why people with red hair were considered evil.
The most interesting section for me was on the Persian Zoroastrian religion, whose basic mythology is similar to the one Christianity ultimately settled on. I also enjoyed learning more about the apocalyptic Jewish writings and how they impacted the Gospels in the New Testament.
There aren't that many photos, but the ones included help visualize how the devil gained certain attributes (like wings, horns, etc).
This is an older book (it came out in 1977), but it’s still highly relevant to Christian and general religious studies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews