What do you think?
Rate this book
Jeffrey Burton Russell's History of the Devil #2
Satan: The Early Christian Tradition
Undeniably, evil exists in our world; we ourselves commit evil acts. How can one account for evil's ageless presence, its attraction, and its fruits? The question is one that Jeffrey Burton Russell addresses in his history of the concept of the Devil the personification of evil itself. In the predecessor to this book, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Russell traced the idea of the Devil in comparative religions and examined its development in Western thought through ancient Hebrew religion and the New Testament. This volume follows its course over the first five centuries of the Christian era.
Like most theological problems, the question of evil was largely ignored by the primitive Christian community. The later Christian thinkers who wrestled with it for many centuries were faced with a seemingly irreconcilable paradox: If God is benevolent and omnipotent, why does He permit evil? How, on the other hand, can God be all-powerful if one adopts a dualist stance, and posits two divine forces, one good and one evil?
Drawing upon a rich variety of literary sources as well as upon the visual arts, Russell discusses the apostolic fathers, the apologetic fathers, and the Gnostics. He goes on to treat the thought of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and to describe the diabology of the Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen, as well as the dualist tendencies in Lactantius and in the monastic fathers. Finally he addresses the syntheses of the fifth century, especially that of Augustine, whose view of the Devil has been widely accepted in the entire Christian community ever since.
Satan is both a revealing study of the compelling figure of the Devil and an imaginative and persuasive inquiry into the forces that shape a concept and ensure its survival."
Like most theological problems, the question of evil was largely ignored by the primitive Christian community. The later Christian thinkers who wrestled with it for many centuries were faced with a seemingly irreconcilable paradox: If God is benevolent and omnipotent, why does He permit evil? How, on the other hand, can God be all-powerful if one adopts a dualist stance, and posits two divine forces, one good and one evil?
Drawing upon a rich variety of literary sources as well as upon the visual arts, Russell discusses the apostolic fathers, the apologetic fathers, and the Gnostics. He goes on to treat the thought of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and to describe the diabology of the Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen, as well as the dualist tendencies in Lactantius and in the monastic fathers. Finally he addresses the syntheses of the fifth century, especially that of Augustine, whose view of the Devil has been widely accepted in the entire Christian community ever since.
Satan is both a revealing study of the compelling figure of the Devil and an imaginative and persuasive inquiry into the forces that shape a concept and ensure its survival."
258 pages, Paperback
First published December 12, 1981
13 people are currently reading
706 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey Burton Russell
34 books168 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 - 25 of 25 reviews
February 24, 2016
Jeffery Burton Russell's "Satan: The Early Christian Tradition" is, like Elaine Pagels' later "The Origin of Satan", in part a meditation on the nature of evil, using the various early Christian schools as a framework. While Pagels focused largely but not exclusively on the Gospels, Russell concerns himself with the early writers, famous and forgotten, concluding with Augustine. These writers faced the problem of developing the intellectual framework of their still-developing faith, and they laid hands on whatever tradition was available to them, the old Jewish stories--the serpent in the garden, the "adversary" of Job, the stories of rebellious and falling angels, and other less well-known tales--along with the eternal opposition of good and evil inherited from Zoroastrianism by way of Mani and even the fantastic cosmologies of the Neo-Platonists. The essential problem that Russell examines is how to explain the existence of evil in a world created by a just deity--especially if one believes, as many of the early Christian writers did, that the deity is omniscient and omnipotent. Their efforts to resolve that issue, along with the chronological problems presented by the identification of Satan with the serpent in the garden (just exactly when did that rebellion of the angels take place, and what is its implication for Adam and Eve's expulsion?), led them to some amazing contortions. Then there is the question of what free will is the presence of a deity who knows what will happen. (Note the solution proposed by many denominations, which is that God intends the faithful of a particular church to either obtain money and health). Augustine himself, in Russell's view seems to have taken a variety of positions on these issues at different times in his career; no doubt consistency was difficult for a highly productive writer to achieve in an age when books were written and copied by hand. But in the end, the problem, as Russell freely admits, is not solvable (at least by humans) given the assumptions made by these writers. Implicit in all of this is the very human tendency to think of one's own group as virtuous and its opponents as evil; Russell himself mentions the endless nastiness caused by the association of evil with dark colors and ugliness. Perhaps it is the concept of evil that needs some serious thought; certainly, we can do better than those who expended so much energy and intellect on transforming some old Jewish tales into the winged, horned, foul-smelling beast who, for example, eternally chews on Cassius, Brutus and Judas in Dante's Commedia. Certainly, we must question any tradition capable of turning a Jewish concept into something that, in the Middle Ages, was used to persecute them.
November 25, 2011
In this second book in the series that began with The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, Jeffrey Burton Russell picks up the story of the Devil where the New Testament left it and carries it on to the time of St. Augustine in the 5th century.
The "story" he's telling is actually that of the development of the "concept" of the Devil, a term that he is at pains to distinguish from that of "idea". For Russell, while an idea "is intellectual and closely defined, a concept includes the affective as well as the analytical and has hazier boundaries". He thinks that a concept changes over time, remaining current and valid only so long as people find it useful. A concept may or may not correspond to something in objective reality.
I'm not sure that I accept Russell's distinction between ideas and concepts, but he does make clear how he uses these terms, so I was fine with it in reading the book. One interesting point is that Russell himself believes in the Devil, in Satan, as a really existing person who is responsible for the evil in the universe. This means that the author has some serious skin in the game of this subject, and it more than explains why he has devoted at least four volumes to examining the history of Satan. For if there really is such a being as Satan, surely there could be few facts as important in all our lives—and our post-lives.
But Russell doesn't spend time trying to convince the reader of Satan's existence. He merely leaves us with the question of why people are gassed to death in concentration camps and why children are napalmed. If we believe in God even hypothetically, then we've got a problem explaining those things. Instead, Russell traces those historical figures who have been the most influential in fleshing out our image of Satan, sketching in their diabology and examining the logical and doctrinal problems raised by their positions. For any picture of Satan creates logical problems. As God came to be seen as all-good, then the cause of cosmic evil had to be outsourced. That role went to Satan. But, as Russell observes, blaming Satan for the existence of evil doesn't really work, because God created Satan, and presumably Satan cannot operate without God's permission or acquiescence. If the universe is truly run by God, then the buck stops with him, no matter how many intermediaries there may be in the cosmic bureaucracy.
The church fathers and their theological successors all grappled with the problem in various ways. Russell outlines the teachings on Satan of the apostolic fathers, the so-called apologetic fathers who succeeded them, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the scholars of Alexandria, the monks of the desert, and finally the great theologian Augustine. These thinkers shifted back and forth with questions about whether Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and if not what their relationship was; whether Satan was involved with the story of the Watchers, an early account of angels falling to Earth; whether demons are in fact fallen angels; when Satan fell; what sin caused him to fall; and so on. As orthodoxy was gradually defined, some of these thinkers would find themselves anathematized, the upstanding Christian of today becoming the heretic of tomorrow.
Augustine, fighting off educated pagans and heretics, developed the most comprehensive and systematic theology, including an account of Satan. As Neil Forsyth says in his book The Old Enemy, Augustine finally created a coherent Christian theology that was able to withstand the attacks of critics from all sides, and it was built around the ancient myth of the enemy of the king of the gods. But Augustine was still not able to make it entirely consistent, and he wavered between a free-will and a predestinarian view of the human spirit. The question remains unresolved today.
Even though I'm very interested in this topic material, I find Russell's style dry and lacking in humor. Evil is a grim topic, but that doesn't mean the prose needs to be grim. But he doesn't flinch from the difficulties and contradictions in the idea, and lays out the various logical issues clearly and comprehensively. Even though I found the reading a bit tough my copy of the book is now heavily highlighted.
Evil acts occur all the time; we perpetrate them ourselves. Why? It's a really good, important question, and for millions of people right up to the present day the answer has a name: Satan. And if he isn't real, then he's doing a damn good job for someone who doesn't exist.
The "story" he's telling is actually that of the development of the "concept" of the Devil, a term that he is at pains to distinguish from that of "idea". For Russell, while an idea "is intellectual and closely defined, a concept includes the affective as well as the analytical and has hazier boundaries". He thinks that a concept changes over time, remaining current and valid only so long as people find it useful. A concept may or may not correspond to something in objective reality.
I'm not sure that I accept Russell's distinction between ideas and concepts, but he does make clear how he uses these terms, so I was fine with it in reading the book. One interesting point is that Russell himself believes in the Devil, in Satan, as a really existing person who is responsible for the evil in the universe. This means that the author has some serious skin in the game of this subject, and it more than explains why he has devoted at least four volumes to examining the history of Satan. For if there really is such a being as Satan, surely there could be few facts as important in all our lives—and our post-lives.
But Russell doesn't spend time trying to convince the reader of Satan's existence. He merely leaves us with the question of why people are gassed to death in concentration camps and why children are napalmed. If we believe in God even hypothetically, then we've got a problem explaining those things. Instead, Russell traces those historical figures who have been the most influential in fleshing out our image of Satan, sketching in their diabology and examining the logical and doctrinal problems raised by their positions. For any picture of Satan creates logical problems. As God came to be seen as all-good, then the cause of cosmic evil had to be outsourced. That role went to Satan. But, as Russell observes, blaming Satan for the existence of evil doesn't really work, because God created Satan, and presumably Satan cannot operate without God's permission or acquiescence. If the universe is truly run by God, then the buck stops with him, no matter how many intermediaries there may be in the cosmic bureaucracy.
The church fathers and their theological successors all grappled with the problem in various ways. Russell outlines the teachings on Satan of the apostolic fathers, the so-called apologetic fathers who succeeded them, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the scholars of Alexandria, the monks of the desert, and finally the great theologian Augustine. These thinkers shifted back and forth with questions about whether Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and if not what their relationship was; whether Satan was involved with the story of the Watchers, an early account of angels falling to Earth; whether demons are in fact fallen angels; when Satan fell; what sin caused him to fall; and so on. As orthodoxy was gradually defined, some of these thinkers would find themselves anathematized, the upstanding Christian of today becoming the heretic of tomorrow.
Augustine, fighting off educated pagans and heretics, developed the most comprehensive and systematic theology, including an account of Satan. As Neil Forsyth says in his book The Old Enemy, Augustine finally created a coherent Christian theology that was able to withstand the attacks of critics from all sides, and it was built around the ancient myth of the enemy of the king of the gods. But Augustine was still not able to make it entirely consistent, and he wavered between a free-will and a predestinarian view of the human spirit. The question remains unresolved today.
Even though I'm very interested in this topic material, I find Russell's style dry and lacking in humor. Evil is a grim topic, but that doesn't mean the prose needs to be grim. But he doesn't flinch from the difficulties and contradictions in the idea, and lays out the various logical issues clearly and comprehensively. Even though I found the reading a bit tough my copy of the book is now heavily highlighted.
Evil acts occur all the time; we perpetrate them ourselves. Why? It's a really good, important question, and for millions of people right up to the present day the answer has a name: Satan. And if he isn't real, then he's doing a damn good job for someone who doesn't exist.
June 5, 2018
tek kusuru kitabin hemen hemen ilk otuz sayfasinda serinin ilk kitabinda sorgulanan kisimlarin genis bir ozetinin gecilmesi. yine de bilgi acisindan oldukca doyurucuydu elbette. kotulugu insanin adalet terazisinde bir nevi mesrulastiran -seytan tarafindan kandirilma aciklamasi vicdani oldukca rahatlatan bir seydir insan icin- seytan mitlerinin farkli dinler ve kulturlerde sayisiz sekilde ele alinmasi ne kadar mide bulandirici yaratiklar oldugumuzu bir kez daha hatirlatsa da, bu kadar zengin bir tarih yaratilmasina neden oldugu icin dogamiza mutesekkirim de aslinda. tabii dogamiz degil yalnizca bu mitlere gerek duyan, tanri'nin "iyiligini" koruma gudusu de dahil bu sebeplere, daha baskin olarak ustelik. bir seytan, yok seytan, ve binlerce mit. muhtesem bir hayal gucu, muhtesem bir siginak ve muhtesem bir birikim. kotulugun hayatimizdaki ve icimizdeki yerine, ayni zamanda da bu rengarenk -hmm, kirmizi ve siyah agirlikli- seytan mitlerine merak duyan herkes eminim bu seriyi cok sevecektir. uzun zamandir serinin kabalci baskisi yoktu ancak panama yayincilik tekrar basiyor -ve emin degilim ama sanirim cevirisi yeniden yapiliyor- ilk uc kitap basilmis durumda. meraklilarina da mujdeler olsun buradan. en kisa zamanda devam edecegim seriye. 9/10
September 28, 2024
Like its predecessor, a very dense read despite its relatively short length-- with all the footnotes that refer to verses from books of the Bible and namecheck the writings of various early Christian thinkers, I highly recommend having a copy of the Bible handy for supplementary reading/reference purposes, as well as having one's phone or laptop/tablet close at hand for looking up relevant quotes from the writers/philosophers mentioned. Also like its predecessor, this level of detail can occasionally become a bit exhausting/overwhelming, but I think this volume benefits from its relatively more narrow focus, sticking as it does to early debate about diabology/evil in the crucible of the early Christian church rather than covering thousands of years of evil gods/demons/etc. in a wide variety of religious traditions at a somewhat distant remove. I found the material about the Gnostics (a longstanding interest of mine) and the Alexandrians (namely Clement and the absolutely fascinating Origen) to be of particular interest. A wonderful study but needless to say not for everyone, and better approached after Burton Russell's previous work in this series, The Devil.
November 22, 2017
4 kitaplı bir serinin ikinci kitabı, erken Hristiyanlık zamanlarında Şeytan kavramına nasıl bakıldığını irdeliyor. Konusu ve konsepti son derece cazip olsa da, gerek dilinin ağırlığı, gerek Hristiyan ekastolojisine olan göndermeleri itibarıyla benim çok zor okuduğum ve yazılanların çoğunu anlamadığım bir eser oldu.
Kitabın temel tartışma eksenlerinden bazılarının, örneğin Hristiyanlıkta kötülüğün kaynağı (yani kötülük Tanrının bünyesinde mi vardır, yoksa ondan bağımsız olarak mı yaratılmıştır), özgür iradenin olup olmadığı, Şeytanın melek mi cin mi olduğu gibi ihtilaflar kelamda da popüler konular olması merak uyandırıcıyken; doğrudan Hristiyan dogmasının parçası olan ilk apostle'ların şeytan yorumu, Hz. İsa'nın şeytanla çatışması gibi konular da ilgi çekiciydi.
Yine de diyorum ki, daha anlaşılır bir tercümeyle ve daha basit bir dille yazılsaydı da hem okurken daha çok zevk alsaydım, hem de bu kitap elimde bu kadar sürünmeseydi
Kitabın temel tartışma eksenlerinden bazılarının, örneğin Hristiyanlıkta kötülüğün kaynağı (yani kötülük Tanrının bünyesinde mi vardır, yoksa ondan bağımsız olarak mı yaratılmıştır), özgür iradenin olup olmadığı, Şeytanın melek mi cin mi olduğu gibi ihtilaflar kelamda da popüler konular olması merak uyandırıcıyken; doğrudan Hristiyan dogmasının parçası olan ilk apostle'ların şeytan yorumu, Hz. İsa'nın şeytanla çatışması gibi konular da ilgi çekiciydi.
Yine de diyorum ki, daha anlaşılır bir tercümeyle ve daha basit bir dille yazılsaydı da hem okurken daha çok zevk alsaydım, hem de bu kitap elimde bu kadar sürünmeseydi
January 27, 2018
The second member of a non-fiction trilogy by Jeffrey Burton Russell, this book picks up where his previous one (The Devil) leaves off. As the author states clearly, his purpose is to trace the idea of evil in western culture. Since the Devil is a character with shadowy beginnings, it makes sense to trace the idea chronologically. His first book on the topic was excellent. This one, while good, became very theological in nature and stayed mostly in the fifth century.
There can be no doubt that this time period was formative for Christian beliefs. Early church writers and councils discussed theology endlessly, as if the supernatural can be categorized. The discussions, although they contain the early steps of the scientific method, are tedious and depend on presuppositions. The patristic period was obsessed with getting the theology right and called those who believed differently heretics. Ironically, many of those who were most influential were later labeled heretics as well (Tertullian and Origen come to mind). It is no surprise that Augustine stands out as one of the heavyweights here. He has unduly influenced Christian thought for centuries, partially because he wrote so much.
My blog post on the book—Sects and Violence in the Ancient World—summarizes my thoughts on the religious angle, but the real disappointment here is not the fault of the author. The concept itself went from being mythological and mystical to being one where certain views of orthodoxy came to overshadow the thinking of the average person. Religion got into the hands of experts and subsequently suffered the consequences.
In the history of religions approach, emphasis has turned toward what the average person believed. This is difficult to trace in ancient times since the average person did not read or write. Their ideas, however, more easily crept into written accounts. By Late Antiquity the theological experts had in some sense become snobs. They write with an authority and assurance that modern theologians (except those on the extremes) would eschew. A great deal of effort was spent on explaining God so that Satan might be contrasted with him.
This is a good book, but it requires the reader to wade through a deep puddle of theological thinking. It won't stop me from reading the last book in the series, but I will take a good break between them.
There can be no doubt that this time period was formative for Christian beliefs. Early church writers and councils discussed theology endlessly, as if the supernatural can be categorized. The discussions, although they contain the early steps of the scientific method, are tedious and depend on presuppositions. The patristic period was obsessed with getting the theology right and called those who believed differently heretics. Ironically, many of those who were most influential were later labeled heretics as well (Tertullian and Origen come to mind). It is no surprise that Augustine stands out as one of the heavyweights here. He has unduly influenced Christian thought for centuries, partially because he wrote so much.
My blog post on the book—Sects and Violence in the Ancient World—summarizes my thoughts on the religious angle, but the real disappointment here is not the fault of the author. The concept itself went from being mythological and mystical to being one where certain views of orthodoxy came to overshadow the thinking of the average person. Religion got into the hands of experts and subsequently suffered the consequences.
In the history of religions approach, emphasis has turned toward what the average person believed. This is difficult to trace in ancient times since the average person did not read or write. Their ideas, however, more easily crept into written accounts. By Late Antiquity the theological experts had in some sense become snobs. They write with an authority and assurance that modern theologians (except those on the extremes) would eschew. A great deal of effort was spent on explaining God so that Satan might be contrasted with him.
This is a good book, but it requires the reader to wade through a deep puddle of theological thinking. It won't stop me from reading the last book in the series, but I will take a good break between them.
April 14, 2021
Pros: detailed analysis, lots of explanation
Cons: lots of necessary repetition
This is the second in a series of books on the evolution of the devil in Christian thought, following The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. There are 8 chapters: The Devil, The Apostolic Fathers, The Apologetic Fathers and the Gnostics, Human Sin and Redemption: Irenaeus and Tertullian, Mercy and Damnation: the Alexandrians, Dualism and the Desert, Satan and Saint Augustine, Conclusion: Satan Today. There is also an essay on the sources used by Russell.
Given that each group of theologians built on what came before, the book contains a lot of repetition. Several later authors expanded on Origen’s theory of the cosmos and redemption before it was declared heretical. Russell does a good job of explaining sometimes convoluted mythologies (like those of the Gnostics and Manicheans) so that you can see how their beliefs coloured that of Orthodox Christians.
Each chapter deals with a stage in the development of Christianity, including how the believers at that period understood Creation, the Fall (of angels and mankind), and Redemption (whether through Christ’s sacrifice or via tricking the Devil). It’s interesting to read the various theories and how they shifted and grew over time into the ideas we’re familiar with today.
While it’s an older book, first published in 1981, the scholarship is solid, with then current references and a lot of page notes explaining certain concepts in more detail.
If you’re interested in the development of the devil and hell, how theological discourse changes over time, or simply in the history of Christianity as a whole, this is an interesting read.
Cons: lots of necessary repetition
This is the second in a series of books on the evolution of the devil in Christian thought, following The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. There are 8 chapters: The Devil, The Apostolic Fathers, The Apologetic Fathers and the Gnostics, Human Sin and Redemption: Irenaeus and Tertullian, Mercy and Damnation: the Alexandrians, Dualism and the Desert, Satan and Saint Augustine, Conclusion: Satan Today. There is also an essay on the sources used by Russell.
Given that each group of theologians built on what came before, the book contains a lot of repetition. Several later authors expanded on Origen’s theory of the cosmos and redemption before it was declared heretical. Russell does a good job of explaining sometimes convoluted mythologies (like those of the Gnostics and Manicheans) so that you can see how their beliefs coloured that of Orthodox Christians.
Each chapter deals with a stage in the development of Christianity, including how the believers at that period understood Creation, the Fall (of angels and mankind), and Redemption (whether through Christ’s sacrifice or via tricking the Devil). It’s interesting to read the various theories and how they shifted and grew over time into the ideas we’re familiar with today.
While it’s an older book, first published in 1981, the scholarship is solid, with then current references and a lot of page notes explaining certain concepts in more detail.
If you’re interested in the development of the devil and hell, how theological discourse changes over time, or simply in the history of Christianity as a whole, this is an interesting read.
March 28, 2021
The author clearly does so much research to write this series, but it is hard to follow because the text is so dry. It's incredibly interesting subject matter that could be made to be more engaging than it was. It was the subject, not the writing, that I found interesting
March 20, 2022
I just finished "Satan: The Early ChristianTradition," by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
This is book 2 of 5 by Russell on Ole Scratch. Also, one thing I failed to mention in my previous review/comments on Russell's "The Devil" was that it is packed with historical artwork and pictures of artifacts (which is art); this present work "Satan" is likewise full of historical art.
"Evil--radical evil--exists, and its experience imposes on us the obligation of attempting to understand it and transform it," p 16.
The above is a bold challenge, "to understand it and transform [evil]." But what are Kingdom people to do? Do we just run the MASH unit to sew up the broken or do we try to also keep people from being broken? Are we trying to understand evil?--such is an intellectual action using our God-given minds, think His thoughts after Him and for Him, while thinking and practicing against evil. And in trying to transform evil do we have skin in the game (doing) or are we just "for" the "right" thing (promoting)? Have we become escapist where we look for Divine rescue but not at "tending the garden" God left for us to occupy ourselves with? Escapism is the Gnostic dream that pits matter against Spirit, yet it was God who gave us both and promised to resurrect the matter as a new body. Evangelical Fundamentalism has been good at taking care of the Spirit and being secure in right knowledge (that's the crux of faith, right...right?) but should hang their heads in shame when understanding and transforming evil that touches and deals with matter, the body.
Russell states that this, his second book, will cover mainly Christianity, but also some Judaism from post canonical apocalyptic Jewish writings. Also, this work will span from roughly 100 ad to 400 ad.
One thing on Gnosticism and the apostolic fathers that I thought was interesting was that Gnosticism made sense because some saw the demonic as pulling people to give into fleshly desires as opposed to spiritual desires. This set up the spirit/body dichotomy: if the demonic want us to serve our flesh then the flesh must be evil and the spirit is good. If that's true then we must serve the spirit and despise the body and work to shed the flesh. This also obviously works into their Christology: if Jesus was God-man and perfect then the "man" part of the equation must only seem to be man because man is flesh and imperfect, Jesus is perfect and can't be flesh.
One of the moves made by some of the apostolic fathers was to suggest a good and bad God. The bad God was over Satan and at times the bad God was the one represented in the Old Testament where the good God is represented in the New as the Father of Jesus Christ. Of course this didn't get tons of traction for multiple reasons. One small one was that the bad God over Satan would have been the true Satan or principal of evil and whoever Satan was ends up being just a number two.
During this period baptism had an exorcism aspect to it where our bodies were seen as houses occupied by Satan and upon baptism he is cast out and Christ takes up residence. The first act preceeding baptism was renouncing Satan. There seems to be a "binding of the strong man by a stronger man" theme here. Baptism was a conversion from Satan to Jesus.
The early Gnosticism shows itself when one explores the ransom theory. The reason why Satan had rights to humanity was because humanity had bodies which because they were material belonged to Satan and had to be purchased--ransom--by Jesus.
Tertullian was one of the few who upheld Bodily (flesh) worth believing--contra the Gnostics--that it was good and even better than that because Christ had come in the flesh. If there was a doubt about what God thought of the flesh before Christ there was none after the incarnation. Also new with Tertullian was that he saw Satan and his demons as the same species as angels and not a different type of thing. Previous apostolic fathers saw Satan as a totally different type of being. (I think it was also Tertullian who first said the verse in Isiah from which we get "Lucifer" i.e. "morning star" is about Satan; other data says the morning star--Venus--is not Satan.)
It seems there arose in Clement of Alexandria (Clem A.) some special Satan/Hell thought to go with the Atonement. It started with what was Jesus doing from Friday after His death till Sunday before His resurrection? Solid thought. Peter gets into this a bit but here's the line of thought in Clem A. and the other fathers: from Original sin to the atonement there was a bunch of people who didn't hear of the atoning work of Christ. They must be in Hell. The Old Testament has two words for Hell, Hades and Gehenna and in scripture they are used interchangeably. But fathers said Hades the place of purgation and Gehenna is everlasting torment. The implication seems to be that Christ's decent was to Hades, though the fathers who were universalists said His descending was to both Hades and Gehenna. The next question was to whom did Christ preach when in Hell? Some thought it was only the people of the covenant, others that it was the righteous dead (I believe Plato et al would be here) rightious Jew and Gentile alike, and finally there were the fathers who thought Jesus made a massive jail break for all. Clem A. sounds a bit out there?--maybe, and in the words if St. Billy Mays: but wait, there's more. In rough categories the Calvinist believes in a limited atonement and non-determinists believes in an unlimited atonement (open to all people). Universalists believe that, one way or another, all will be saved in the end, and then there's Clem A. who believes that all, including Satan, will be saved in the end because God's grace and mercy is that good and big. Clem A. didn't work out all the specifics of this all encompassing universalism but left that job to his pupil Origen.
Origen had an ontology that seems to establish the concept that people cab become angels or demons. He thought that intelligent entities existed and were cast down from heaven. Some got caught up in the air, some on earth and some under the earth. He solid concept on free will had a odd consequence which allowed transition between levels: if we are free to be different than we can be better or worse thus moving up or down on the level of being. Or humans can become demons or angels. This thought is very obvious in Anselm.
Origen's view of hell is curative not penal.
Another dude, Lactantius, had a good approach to "why evil?" If evil in no way existed then the concept of good would be hollow. "Good" would be the norm and not admirable. Had God created a world without the possibility of evil then He would have created a world without freewill. For an action to be free it has to have to ability to be good or evil; if evil is eliminated then all actions are by default good but not free.
"To exclude evil is to eliminate virtue," p 151.
"If evil did not exist we would be simpletons, bland puppets; it is the experience of temptation and the struggle to overcome it that enables us to become wise," p 152.
Demons, according to the fathers, can fly through the air and can also become smaller so as to enter us through the nose. This is why the superstition of saying "bless you" took root: one was in the process of becoming possessed.
Book two was good. Next up is "Lucifer."
#Satan #TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
This is book 2 of 5 by Russell on Ole Scratch. Also, one thing I failed to mention in my previous review/comments on Russell's "The Devil" was that it is packed with historical artwork and pictures of artifacts (which is art); this present work "Satan" is likewise full of historical art.
"Evil--radical evil--exists, and its experience imposes on us the obligation of attempting to understand it and transform it," p 16.
The above is a bold challenge, "to understand it and transform [evil]." But what are Kingdom people to do? Do we just run the MASH unit to sew up the broken or do we try to also keep people from being broken? Are we trying to understand evil?--such is an intellectual action using our God-given minds, think His thoughts after Him and for Him, while thinking and practicing against evil. And in trying to transform evil do we have skin in the game (doing) or are we just "for" the "right" thing (promoting)? Have we become escapist where we look for Divine rescue but not at "tending the garden" God left for us to occupy ourselves with? Escapism is the Gnostic dream that pits matter against Spirit, yet it was God who gave us both and promised to resurrect the matter as a new body. Evangelical Fundamentalism has been good at taking care of the Spirit and being secure in right knowledge (that's the crux of faith, right...right?) but should hang their heads in shame when understanding and transforming evil that touches and deals with matter, the body.
Russell states that this, his second book, will cover mainly Christianity, but also some Judaism from post canonical apocalyptic Jewish writings. Also, this work will span from roughly 100 ad to 400 ad.
One thing on Gnosticism and the apostolic fathers that I thought was interesting was that Gnosticism made sense because some saw the demonic as pulling people to give into fleshly desires as opposed to spiritual desires. This set up the spirit/body dichotomy: if the demonic want us to serve our flesh then the flesh must be evil and the spirit is good. If that's true then we must serve the spirit and despise the body and work to shed the flesh. This also obviously works into their Christology: if Jesus was God-man and perfect then the "man" part of the equation must only seem to be man because man is flesh and imperfect, Jesus is perfect and can't be flesh.
One of the moves made by some of the apostolic fathers was to suggest a good and bad God. The bad God was over Satan and at times the bad God was the one represented in the Old Testament where the good God is represented in the New as the Father of Jesus Christ. Of course this didn't get tons of traction for multiple reasons. One small one was that the bad God over Satan would have been the true Satan or principal of evil and whoever Satan was ends up being just a number two.
During this period baptism had an exorcism aspect to it where our bodies were seen as houses occupied by Satan and upon baptism he is cast out and Christ takes up residence. The first act preceeding baptism was renouncing Satan. There seems to be a "binding of the strong man by a stronger man" theme here. Baptism was a conversion from Satan to Jesus.
The early Gnosticism shows itself when one explores the ransom theory. The reason why Satan had rights to humanity was because humanity had bodies which because they were material belonged to Satan and had to be purchased--ransom--by Jesus.
Tertullian was one of the few who upheld Bodily (flesh) worth believing--contra the Gnostics--that it was good and even better than that because Christ had come in the flesh. If there was a doubt about what God thought of the flesh before Christ there was none after the incarnation. Also new with Tertullian was that he saw Satan and his demons as the same species as angels and not a different type of thing. Previous apostolic fathers saw Satan as a totally different type of being. (I think it was also Tertullian who first said the verse in Isiah from which we get "Lucifer" i.e. "morning star" is about Satan; other data says the morning star--Venus--is not Satan.)
It seems there arose in Clement of Alexandria (Clem A.) some special Satan/Hell thought to go with the Atonement. It started with what was Jesus doing from Friday after His death till Sunday before His resurrection? Solid thought. Peter gets into this a bit but here's the line of thought in Clem A. and the other fathers: from Original sin to the atonement there was a bunch of people who didn't hear of the atoning work of Christ. They must be in Hell. The Old Testament has two words for Hell, Hades and Gehenna and in scripture they are used interchangeably. But fathers said Hades the place of purgation and Gehenna is everlasting torment. The implication seems to be that Christ's decent was to Hades, though the fathers who were universalists said His descending was to both Hades and Gehenna. The next question was to whom did Christ preach when in Hell? Some thought it was only the people of the covenant, others that it was the righteous dead (I believe Plato et al would be here) rightious Jew and Gentile alike, and finally there were the fathers who thought Jesus made a massive jail break for all. Clem A. sounds a bit out there?--maybe, and in the words if St. Billy Mays: but wait, there's more. In rough categories the Calvinist believes in a limited atonement and non-determinists believes in an unlimited atonement (open to all people). Universalists believe that, one way or another, all will be saved in the end, and then there's Clem A. who believes that all, including Satan, will be saved in the end because God's grace and mercy is that good and big. Clem A. didn't work out all the specifics of this all encompassing universalism but left that job to his pupil Origen.
Origen had an ontology that seems to establish the concept that people cab become angels or demons. He thought that intelligent entities existed and were cast down from heaven. Some got caught up in the air, some on earth and some under the earth. He solid concept on free will had a odd consequence which allowed transition between levels: if we are free to be different than we can be better or worse thus moving up or down on the level of being. Or humans can become demons or angels. This thought is very obvious in Anselm.
Origen's view of hell is curative not penal.
Another dude, Lactantius, had a good approach to "why evil?" If evil in no way existed then the concept of good would be hollow. "Good" would be the norm and not admirable. Had God created a world without the possibility of evil then He would have created a world without freewill. For an action to be free it has to have to ability to be good or evil; if evil is eliminated then all actions are by default good but not free.
"To exclude evil is to eliminate virtue," p 151.
"If evil did not exist we would be simpletons, bland puppets; it is the experience of temptation and the struggle to overcome it that enables us to become wise," p 152.
Demons, according to the fathers, can fly through the air and can also become smaller so as to enter us through the nose. This is why the superstition of saying "bless you" took root: one was in the process of becoming possessed.
Book two was good. Next up is "Lucifer."
#Satan #TheDevil #Devil #Demonology #JefferyBurtonRussell
April 3, 2022
First, I love the doofy demon face on the cover of this book. Also, I respect Jeffrey Burton Russell for compiling this - the amount of work involved is evident in the copious footnotes and bibliography. Reading it is certainly an interesting experience.
Satan: the Early Christian Tradition continues on from Russell's previous volume, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, now focusing on the first few centuries of the Common Era. With Christianity being the new religion on the block, it's time for every crackpot philosopher to espouse his wildest theories on how they should view their God, their Devil, and their universe.
What if Christ didn't have a body and was instead a hologram of some kind?
What if life on Earth was the result of a series of emanations from God, each emanation getting progressively less real, so that humans are less real than God, animals are less real than people, and rocks are less real than animals?
What if demons time-traveled or used precognition to give the pagans ideas for religions, so that in the future people would think Christians were ripping the pagans off?
What if there were a bunch of teeny tiny demons floating through the air and they went inside your body and that's why you sneezed?
It was interesting to see that the idea of a little devil and a little angel sitting on your shoulders arguing apparently goes all the way back to the very earliest days of the religion - I always think of that as a 1950s cartoon type of trope, but the idea apparently has its origins way back in the early days of the Christian religion. Some took a step further, and said that after you died a courtroom drama ensued with your good angel acting as defense and your devil as prosecutor for the fate of your soul. Fun stuff.
Also, there's this:
"The demons are not proud; they will descend from the horrible to the silly in order to distract the monk from his contemplation. They dance, laugh, whistle, caper, fart, and prance; sometimes they stage comedies." (p. 174) Truly the Dark Lord's evil knows no bounds.
Satan: the Early Christian Tradition continues on from Russell's previous volume, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, now focusing on the first few centuries of the Common Era. With Christianity being the new religion on the block, it's time for every crackpot philosopher to espouse his wildest theories on how they should view their God, their Devil, and their universe.
What if Christ didn't have a body and was instead a hologram of some kind?
What if life on Earth was the result of a series of emanations from God, each emanation getting progressively less real, so that humans are less real than God, animals are less real than people, and rocks are less real than animals?
What if demons time-traveled or used precognition to give the pagans ideas for religions, so that in the future people would think Christians were ripping the pagans off?
What if there were a bunch of teeny tiny demons floating through the air and they went inside your body and that's why you sneezed?
It was interesting to see that the idea of a little devil and a little angel sitting on your shoulders arguing apparently goes all the way back to the very earliest days of the religion - I always think of that as a 1950s cartoon type of trope, but the idea apparently has its origins way back in the early days of the Christian religion. Some took a step further, and said that after you died a courtroom drama ensued with your good angel acting as defense and your devil as prosecutor for the fate of your soul. Fun stuff.
Also, there's this:
"The demons are not proud; they will descend from the horrible to the silly in order to distract the monk from his contemplation. They dance, laugh, whistle, caper, fart, and prance; sometimes they stage comedies." (p. 174) Truly the Dark Lord's evil knows no bounds.
August 10, 2011
In Russell's first volume, The Devil: Personifications of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, 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.
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.
May 24, 2019
This is the second time I've read this particular book in Russell's corpus. It has been especially helpful in providing a cross-cultural historical setting for the concept of the devil and its development through the early years of the Christian Church. I used this book during the elective I taught on Evil and Exorcism in the Eastern Tradition.
January 29, 2009
Focusing largely on late Medieval European interpretations, this is a good book describing the literary development of Satan from obscure Zoroastrian Persia to the present day.
October 13, 2020
I really enjoy Russel's tendency to waste no time in pointing out contradictions and problems with the figure's theologies. It provides a deeper insight, allowing you to understand the tensions which may encourage or neccesitate further developments.
What I find really fascinating about this period is it is still grappling with extra canonical material, incorporating it into their theologies, molding it through interpretation. This is clearest in The Watchers who in some authors are a key part of their timeline of the fall, but by Augustine is no longer considered accurate.
The articulation of this timeline is so crucial as it essentially the articulation of why evil has entered this world. Starting from the beginning that God is good, the observations we make must be explained, without blame to God. The extent to which this derives from Platonism is also astounding, the theory of some form of emanations and privation explaining the non-existent of evil being utterly key.
It's also fascinating to see how despite God being creator he is essentially sidelined in his own creation, having to construct some sort of means of dethroning the Devil is undermining his power within the world.
There are few statements which show Russel is pretty conservative, I wonder how that will play out in the final book of this series.
What I find really fascinating about this period is it is still grappling with extra canonical material, incorporating it into their theologies, molding it through interpretation. This is clearest in The Watchers who in some authors are a key part of their timeline of the fall, but by Augustine is no longer considered accurate.
The articulation of this timeline is so crucial as it essentially the articulation of why evil has entered this world. Starting from the beginning that God is good, the observations we make must be explained, without blame to God. The extent to which this derives from Platonism is also astounding, the theory of some form of emanations and privation explaining the non-existent of evil being utterly key.
It's also fascinating to see how despite God being creator he is essentially sidelined in his own creation, having to construct some sort of means of dethroning the Devil is undermining his power within the world.
There are few statements which show Russel is pretty conservative, I wonder how that will play out in the final book of this series.
April 21, 2025
An unbelievably good book, wow. I think the reader will gain a much more sophisticated understanding of the beliefs and history of early Christianity at the bare minimum. If one is carefully reading this, there's an immense amount of wisdom and insight to be gleamed. This being Vol.2, I can not report yet on how the series comes together as a whole. However, this book was quite a bit better than the first, which is still an incredible book. I would advise readers who struggle to just keep going even if you don't understand everything. It will begin to make sense. Amazing work of scholarship, this is what reading books is all about. Well done.
October 6, 2017
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.
June 27, 2022
This book is rather complicated for any layman, as it is also for me being a theologian. It seems to me that anybody interested in reading this book should first have read some theology as also some history classes.
December 1, 2024
Preface
*1. The Devil
2. The Apostolic Fathers
3. The Apologetic Fathers and the Gnostics
4. Human Sin and Redemption: Irenaeus and Tertullian
5. Mercy and Damnation: The Alexandrians
6. Dualism and the Desert
*7. Satan and Saint Augustine
8. Conclusion: Satan Today
*1. The Devil
2. The Apostolic Fathers
3. The Apologetic Fathers and the Gnostics
4. Human Sin and Redemption: Irenaeus and Tertullian
5. Mercy and Damnation: The Alexandrians
6. Dualism and the Desert
*7. Satan and Saint Augustine
8. Conclusion: Satan Today
June 25, 2020
This is not really about Satan himself. It summarizes the various ideas about the nature and doings of devils and their relationship to man that were expressed from the Apostolic Fathers to St. Augustine of Hippo, but that is just a framework. It is really about theodicy--how does a good and omnipotent God allow evil and suffering? The author vigorously critiques all of the proposed ideas from the point of view of logical consistency, and finds them all weak, incoherent, self-contradictory. "Traditional Christian theodicies do not succeed."
St. Augustine distinguishes two types of evil. The first is natural evil--pain, disaster, suffering, etc. These evils are allowed by God to punish, to admonish, to warn, to teach, and perhaps for other reasons we do not and maybe cannot understand. The second type is moral evil--people (or devils) causing pain and suffering by choice. These evils are caused by the perverse or malicious exercise of free will--and the existence of free will is a great good. That's the usual story, but our author says that God allows a levels of suffering that go way beyond any imaginable tolerable purpose. But he says in His Incarnation, He also suffered intolerably for us, and that provides his theodicy.
St. Augustine distinguishes two types of evil. The first is natural evil--pain, disaster, suffering, etc. These evils are allowed by God to punish, to admonish, to warn, to teach, and perhaps for other reasons we do not and maybe cannot understand. The second type is moral evil--people (or devils) causing pain and suffering by choice. These evils are caused by the perverse or malicious exercise of free will--and the existence of free will is a great good. That's the usual story, but our author says that God allows a levels of suffering that go way beyond any imaginable tolerable purpose. But he says in His Incarnation, He also suffered intolerably for us, and that provides his theodicy.
August 5, 2013
Part 2 of Russell's monumental study of history's baddest dude. The author gives us the many opinions that the early church fathers had of who Satan was, when and why he fell from grace, and the problems of reconciling evil with the existence of a loving God. The book is heavy on philosophy and history as well as theology, so be prepared for a cerebral workout. I did not know so much could be written about Satan in such a small slice of history (1st to 6th Centuries AD).
But he is more complicated than one thinks. The bible does not give a consistent seamless story of his genesis, so it was up to the church fathers to work out the details. Starting with the apostolic writers and ending with Augustine, we are treated with many issues dealing with monism, dualism, heresies, free will vs. predestination, even the theory of the possible redemption of Satan himself! Happy reading.
But he is more complicated than one thinks. The bible does not give a consistent seamless story of his genesis, so it was up to the church fathers to work out the details. Starting with the apostolic writers and ending with Augustine, we are treated with many issues dealing with monism, dualism, heresies, free will vs. predestination, even the theory of the possible redemption of Satan himself! Happy reading.
October 7, 2011
Jeffrey Burton Russell is the author of (at least) five books on Satan, mostly biographies, so I think it's safe to say that we need to give the devil his due, he knows his Lucifer. This particular volume is a study of the Christian Devil up to the time of St. Augustine. Your enjoyment of the book depends on how much detail you want to know about what people thought of Satan during that time period. I won't say that you'll have a devil of a good time, but at least there won't be hell to pay.
A bit more seriously, this is an excellent book for those interested in the early Christian views of Satan and an explanation of evil in the early Church.
A bit more seriously, this is an excellent book for those interested in the early Christian views of Satan and an explanation of evil in the early Church.
May 17, 2016
I just picked this book up again after years. I have read excerpts in the past. I decided to sit down with it an plow through. I really appreciate what Jeffrey Burton Russell contributes to theology and philosophy. He is really good about taking a survey of the historical development of a concept and giving it to his readers in a way that is thorough, and yet approachable, deep, but not daunting. Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, is no exception. An invaluable perspective.
September 8, 2019
Davvero davvero eccezionale mi piace molto come analizza il pensiero di Sant'Agostino e della vita di Sant'Antonio Abate oltre a una serie di conclusioni che danno molto da pensare... Molto bello, ne avevo proprio bisogno.
September 6, 2013
An interesting and informative look at the concept of Evil from a purely historiological perspective. Good read.
Read
July 7, 2018Kitabin degerlendirmesi icin, bkz.
https://wanderlustpress.net/2015/06/0...
https://wanderlustpress.net/2015/06/0...
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews