Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Cornell Paperbacks)

Fascinating work written by a master of the subject.

A great book

Russell's book - one of a series written about the concept of the Devil - is concerned with the nature of evil in the world. However, while the book addresses the problem of evil it does not pretend to be able to solve it. Indeed, it recognises the fundamental disagreements over the nature of evil and its existence in theological interpretations of the cosmos.Unlike critics of religion, who attribute evil to religious practice and opinion, Russell points out that the problem of evil transcends religion. Evil, rather like the concept of the Devil, has been used by human beings to attribute evil to anything and anybody who is opposed to particular individuals or groups in the human world. Irrespective of what John Lennon suggested in his song "Imagine" if the world was full of atheists with "no religion too" evil would still exist.Which raises the question of what evil is and how it can exist in a world created by an all knowing, all loving God? In fact any convincing idea of God must carry with it an ability to account for good and evil in the world. The Devil, whether portrayed as a fallen angel or a spirit who chose through free will to ignore God's commands, is a concept for dealing with metaphysical ideas of objective reality which cannot, by their very nature, be established other than by conviction and belief. As Russell points out, "in human affairs the truth is often inversely proportional to the certitude with which it is stated." Hence the need to evaluate by reference to history.Concepts which have developed historically should be read in their historical context and identified by that context and development. Rebellions against the established Church institutions were often fired by protests against the way in which historical concepts had become institutionalised in a manner foreign to the contemporary society in which the rebellions arose. This, in a sense, is the weakness of many critics of Christianity who attack the Christian Faith as being non historical - when clearly it is factually based - and being confined to its own social context, which it isn't. The historical development of the Church is a reflection of every social context in which it found itself, some of which moved a substantial distance away from the teachings of Jesus himself.In Judaism the Devil was an allegory of the evil inclination amongst humans, in early Christianity this was translated into diabology rather than ontology. The relevance of either to the teaching of Jesus wasn't always apparent but it must be remembered that, while the early Christian church had Jewish origins, after the Pharisees emerged as the dominant Jewish faction following the fall of Jerusalem in A D 70 Christians were anathemised. This at a time when Christian congregations consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. Disagreements between both parties were common and, unlike the those referred to in the letters of Paul, attempts to settle disputes no longer carried the authority of personal experience. It was common for the Apostolic Fathers to identify divisions as the work of the Devil, rather than the failings of human beings per se. This sometimes spilled over into defining people with non orthodox views as heretics working on behalf of evil forces opposed to the person and teaching of Christ.The prevailing desire of the Apostolic Fathers was to ensure there was unity within the Church and in its teaching. This wandered into non Biblical creations such as guardian angels and speculation on the nature of the Devil rather than the existence of evil in the world. It laid the foundations for medieval corruption from which the horned Devil emerged as a reality rather than an allegory. One is reminded of the conclusion of Animal Farm where pig and man become indistinguishable from each other. In the final analysis the Fall of Mankind was a far clearer explanation for the existence of evil in an alien world than the personalisation of evil in the form of the Devil himself. The evil is within ourselves. We have the free will to do good or evil.Evolutionary biologists, working from the false premises of Darwin's struggle for existence and the inappropriate transfer of animal and insect behaviour to human beings, put it all down to our genes. Selfish genes abolish free will in favour of the Nazi defence of "I was only obeying orders". Yet, people, whether religious or not, have the capacity to determine their own choices. That such choices are often heavily influenced by context is irrelevant. Treating other people as subservient to one's own existence, as in the case of suicide bombers or fanatics (whether political or social), can be rejected.It's often forgotten that Roman persecution of Christians was based on the idea they were atheists and that Christians such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria responded in a manner that reflected both Christian and Platonic influences. Thus the perceived physical order of the world from Hell to Heaven provided for a variety of beings which did not exist in Christ's teaching. It is perhaps ironic that Christian apologists confronted paganism with calls for tolerance which, when Christianity became the official Roman religion, it often failed to show to other Christians.Russell's book covers the full gamut of explanations of evil in the world, a fact which illustrates the incapacity of the human mind to comprehend the reality of God by its inability to grasp the nature of evil. Does evil exist so we can comprehend good or is it a reminder of the sinful nature of human kind? In defining evil what standards are we applying and for what purpose? We can all recognise evil when it appears - or can we? Too often evil is what we want it to be. These days, mea culpa seems less fashionable than a denial of any wrongdoing. In philosophy - and early Christians often saw their faith as a mature philosophy - politics is always on hand.Russell traces the concept of the Devil from the pre-Christian monism in which good and evil were seen as the two sides of God to the diabology of Augustine in the mid-fifth century which had not reached the dualist position that God and the Devil were two independent principals. God did not will evil to exist but tolerated it for the greater good. The substantive argument hasn't changed much in the last 16oo years.Russell, quoting the experience of Job and the view of many theologians, suggests that God's goodness is not a human quality but of a nature which human beings are incapable of understanding. He writes, "We may assume that God ultimately loves his creatures, though in ways beyond our grasp," concluding that, "the Devil has some purpose in the cosmos that we cannot grasp; the Devil is God's enemy and our enemy and must be resisted with all our strength. This is true whether the Devil is an ontological entity or the personification of the "demonic" in humanity."Clearly such a conclusion is a metaphysical one, relying on assumptions which will not be shared by everyone. The beauty of Russell's book, however, lies in its sources. It's far too easy to dismiss the concept of the Devil by default, basing such dismissal on medieval distortions of primitive Christianity. By examining the origins and development of the concept as a means of trying to explain the existence of evil in the world, Russell demonstrates the intellectual shallowness of those who equate modernity with knowledge and historical knowledge with ignorance. In understanding the concept of the Devil, as understood historically, we can understand how that concept applies to modern day society. If Russell's scholarly work proves anything it's that's there is nothing new under the sun.In fairness this is not a light read and will probably only be of interest of those who enjoy looking for an in depth study of how concepts develop and in those concepts themselves as philosophical or theological interpretations of reality. As ever, the devil is in the detail.

As a more focussed work, the second part of Russell's four-part series on the history of the concept known as 'the Devil' lacks the impressive breath of the first-part. Here, Russell presents an in-depth study into the development of ideas of evil within the early Christian church. The analysis of the develpments between monist and dualist theologies is impressive. There is a large inflection of Russell's own views on the nature of evil that detract from an otherwise excellent work and cost it one-star in the rating.

This is a fantastic book. So much history regarding the development and wanderings of the church with regards to evil, satan, demons, angels and God's purpose in it all. I really liked the chapter on asceticism. Great old stories of monks confronting demons in the wilderness. One story recounts a demon presenting himself as an enticing woman, for example. Even more interesting are the notions of people like Origin, Clement and other Fathers regarding the heirarchy of the spiritual realm.

I love his historical approach to the topic.Thought provoking. Informative. Well researched.

A classic study on the origin of evil in the Christian tradition from an unbiased perspective.

In Russell's first volume, [book:The Devil: Personifications of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity|11152379], he dealt with an era of time that was much more diverse, covering ancient history of all kinds of religious views. This time around, he sticks with Christian history, and focuses on only the first few hundred years of church history. A much easier read than the first volume, and covering an era already somewhat familiar to me, this volume was easier to digest overall.I found it very interesting to read some of the understandings held by the early monks, and the ways they believed and dealt with evil, demons and possession. It revealed a glimpse into where some of the traditions of the Roman Catholic church started from (i.e. sign of the cross, views on baptism).This volumes ultimately comes out to be a large discussion on the problem of evil, and how they sought to explain it. It seems the most common explanation they have used to explain the existence of it was that it was tied to man's free will. It was not until Augustine comes on the scene that this view changes to more of a mix between free will and predestination. but the struggle in understanding has never really been exhausted or satisfactorily answered for some. Good stuff.

Not what I expected