What do you think?
Rate this book
De geschiedenis van het kwaad
A History of the Devil is a provocative exploration of the personification of evil through the ages and across cultures. Messadie reveals that the Satan of Judeo-Christian mythology--the antithesis of God and good--was a concept unknown to the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese. In fact, the devil was probably invented six centuries before the Common Era by Persian clergy eager to demonize their political adversaries. And the image of absolute evil has been a useful tool of the powerful--both religious and secular--ever since, from the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada to Ronald Reagan.
560 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
30 people are currently reading
610 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
August 24, 2015
-Enorme ejercicio de erudición e investigación a partes iguales.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Con el título original de Histoire générale du Diable (más útil para que el lector potencial valore su lectura, en mi humilde opinión), viaje por nuestra historia y por nuestro globo terráqueo para que tratemos de descubrir el origen del concepto del diablo desde diferentes orígenes y la evolución del mismo a través del tiempo, las culturas y los territorios.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Con el título original de Histoire générale du Diable (más útil para que el lector potencial valore su lectura, en mi humilde opinión), viaje por nuestra historia y por nuestro globo terráqueo para que tratemos de descubrir el origen del concepto del diablo desde diferentes orígenes y la evolución del mismo a través del tiempo, las culturas y los territorios.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
May 2, 2021
I think I didn't like this book because I was expecting something occult-based or something of that nature. Instead it was a pretty clear cut historical recollection of the history of the devil. From Zoroastrianism, to Judaism, to the concept of the devil in other culture throughout the world. It was good on what information was presented, I was disappointed in nothing mystical or occult was presented.
August 7, 2008
Overall, I say that this book is worth reading. The first few chapters are dry and tedious and imperialist prejudices keep popping up. Non-Western cultures are continually referred to as "primitive." Even when the author is describing the jungles of an area that can only be trekked through using a "primitive" tool made by the natives. So, it's the best tool for the job; hell, it's the only tool for the job, but because it wasn't made by white people, let's call it primitive. However, after about five or so chapters it becomes much more readable, and in the chapters about Africa and the Americas, the author takes Western scholars and religious figures to task for their racism. It makes me wonder if the book wasn't actually translated by two different people.
Sometimes the book feels too simplistic, and I don't always agree with his interpretation of the mythology he's discussing. He states that when we think of Greek gods, we think of heroes lounging on Mt. Olympus. I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but when I think of Greek gods, I think of spiteful, jealous, petty, rapists... lounging on Mt. Olympus. Then again, maybe I'm the unusual one. (But also the right one.)
Despite the book's flaws, I wouldn't dissuade anyone from picking it up. Once it got going, it was really interesting.
Sometimes the book feels too simplistic, and I don't always agree with his interpretation of the mythology he's discussing. He states that when we think of Greek gods, we think of heroes lounging on Mt. Olympus. I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but when I think of Greek gods, I think of spiteful, jealous, petty, rapists... lounging on Mt. Olympus. Then again, maybe I'm the unusual one. (But also the right one.)
Despite the book's flaws, I wouldn't dissuade anyone from picking it up. Once it got going, it was really interesting.
April 10, 2019
Kniha zajímavá, ovšem z dlouhým seznamem výtek. Autor je novinář. Odborný novinář, ale novinář, nikoliv vědec-výzkumník. Píše o tématech, která má nastudovaná do hloubky, a to hodně do hloubky, můžeme i smeknout. Jenže píše, jak už to v takovém žánru chodí, své názory, které ho nad vědeckým výzkumem napadají, nepíše tedy závěry vědeckého bádání. Když to zaměníte, máte problém.
Jako autorův pohled na vznik a historii fenoménu “ďábel” je kniha skvělá. A dal bych jí čtyři hvězdy. A je fajn, že řada z částí mozaiky autorových pohledů je doložitelná vědeckými badateli. Ovšem celé dílo? Ani náhodou.
Pokud máte rádi ony populárněvědecké knihy, ve kterých se dozvíte řadu věcí a nemusíte řešit, co kde autor zjednodušil nebo vynechal, aby mu to sedlo do výkladu, pak se vám i tahle kniha bude líbit. A já vám ji rád doporučím. Pokud hledáte nějaký seriózní výzkum, ze kterého byste snad chtěli citovat nebo se na něj odkazovat, ruce pryč, ani to snad neotevírejte.
Jako autorův pohled na vznik a historii fenoménu “ďábel” je kniha skvělá. A dal bych jí čtyři hvězdy. A je fajn, že řada z částí mozaiky autorových pohledů je doložitelná vědeckými badateli. Ovšem celé dílo? Ani náhodou.
Pokud máte rádi ony populárněvědecké knihy, ve kterých se dozvíte řadu věcí a nemusíte řešit, co kde autor zjednodušil nebo vynechal, aby mu to sedlo do výkladu, pak se vám i tahle kniha bude líbit. A já vám ji rád doporučím. Pokud hledáte nějaký seriózní výzkum, ze kterého byste snad chtěli citovat nebo se na něj odkazovat, ruce pryč, ani to snad neotevírejte.
November 26, 2011
The devil made me read it.
March 25, 2019
[English follows Dutch]
Wat een hopeloos slecht boek. Te beginnen met de Nederlandse titel: "De geschiedenis van het kwaad". Dit boek is niet een geschiedenis van het kwaad als fenomeen, maar een geschiedenis van het personage van de duivel, zoals de titel in elke andere taal wel correct vermeldt.
Op het belangrijkste punt van het boek valt (in elk geval door mij) weinig af te dingen: een Satan-achtig personage is ontstaan in een zoroastristische stroming, geëerfd door de Esseense Joden, van wie Jezus er een was. En zo heeft de duivel zich doen gelden door de geschiedenis.
Messadié doet zijn uiterste best om te bewijzen dat monotheïstische godsdiensten een duivel nodig hebben, vooral om socio-politieke redenen. Daarom besteedt hij een tiental hoofdstukken aan polytheïstische religies om daar omstandig en redelijk onnodig aan te tonen dat die geen abstract begrip en zeker geen godheid van het kwaad kennen. Al deze hoofdstukken ruiken sterk naar de "noble savage": de heidenen hadden gelijk, de christenen (en in mindere mate de andere boekreligies) zitten ernaast. De verhalen en rituelen van deze volkeren neemt hij tamelijk kritiekloos aan, terwijl hij de principes van het christendom ineens aan rationele logica gaat toetsen. Zo “bewijst” hij de onrechtvaardigheid en het ongelijk van de Christenen.
Hij behandelt culturen die duizenden jaren hebben bestaan als monolieten, alsof daar nooit iets veranderd is en trekt zeer verregaande conclusies uit zeer beperkte bronnen. Het merendeel van die conclusies zijn zijn eigen verzinsels, die op geen enkele manier aantoonbaar zijn of zelfs maar aannemelijk gemaakt kunnen worden.
Hij hanteert het aloude "wetenschappelijke" principe: 'Als ik vind dat twee fenomenen / namen / rituelen / verhalen op elkaar lijken dan moeten ze wel verwant zijn.' En zo spint hij webben over de hele wereld, waarbij Kelten en Noord-Amerikaanse Indianen opeens van elkaar afgeleide verhalen vertellen. Even het scheermes van Ockham eroverheen - er zou weinig van dit boek overblijven.
Echt volkomen mis heeft hij het als hij Keltische en Noordse-Germaanse volkeren op één hoop gooit en ze voor het gemak allemaal "kelten" noemt.
Als hij volkeren en religies bespreekt waar ik verstand van heb (Kelten, Romeinen, Grieken) kiest hij steevast obscure bronnen en negeert hij heel belangrijkere, veel bekendere bronnen. Mede daardoor vertelt hij veel onzin. Dit doet me vermoeden dat dat bij de volkeren waar ik niks over weet niet anders is. Opvallend is de nadruk op Essenen (een tamelijk obscure Joodse sekte) en de rol van de Tempeliers (als die opduiken is een boek per definitie verdacht).
Het geheel eindigt in een stukje cultuurpessimisme van jewelste, als hij zegt dat de moderne duivel de gestalte heeft van massamedia en menselijke haat. Dat hij het kwaad van zijn religieuze aura ontdoet is te prijzen (daarmee en met zijn onmiskenbare eruditie verdient hij die ene ster), maar verder is dit boek een draak. Slechte wetenschap en ook nog eens slaapverwekkend geschreven.
This is a very, very bad book. For starters, the Dutch title: “The history of Evil”. This book is not about evil as a phenomenon, it’s a history of the devil as a character in religion. The title in every other language is correct in this respect.
The main point in the book is hard to discredit and probably true: Zoroastrians invented a satan-like character as a personification of evil, who was inherited by the Essenes, one of who was Jesus Christ. That’s the route the devil took to modern society.
Messadié tries very hard to prove that monotheistic religions need a devil, mainly for socio-political reasons. So he devotes about ten chapters to polytheistic religions, to make it abundantly clear that they didn’t have an abstract notion or a god of evil. These chapters stink of the “noble savage”: the heathens were right, the christians (and the other book religions) were and are wrong. He takes the heathen stories and rituals at face value, but uses real-world, rational logic on the christian ideas and doctrines, proving the polytheistic societies right(ish) and the Christians wrong.
He speaks about societies that have existed for thousands of years as single-culture monoliths, where nothing ever changed. He draws conclusions based on obscure and limited sources. Most of those conclusions are his own phantasies, that are unprovable at best and often provably wrong.
The ancient “scientific” principle Messadié uses is: ‘If I think that two phenomena / rituals / names / stories seem alike, they are always related.’ This way he spins a web of related phenomena around the world, where Celts and Native Americans have adapted stories from one another. A good shaving with Ockham’s razor wouldn’t leave much of this book. He is completely wrong when he calls the ancient Germanic and Scandinavian tribes “Celts”, as if they were of the same culture.
Whenever he treats cultures I know something about (Greeks, Romans, Celts), he always chooses obscure sources and ignores much more important ones in order to make his point. This makes me suspect that he does the same with the peoples and cultures I don’t know about. A case in point is the attention the Essenes get. They are a Jewish cult we don’t know too much about. And there’s the Templars. It’s alway suspicious when the Templars get a major role in a book.
He ends on a very pessimistic note, saying that the devil is now mass-media and human hatred. It’s a good thing to make evil human, rather than divine. Because of that and because of his unmistakable erudition he earns his single star - otherwise it would have been zero. This book is a 560-page brick, let’s use it as such and throw it at someone, preferably the writer. Bad science in a mind-bogglingly boring book.
Wat een hopeloos slecht boek. Te beginnen met de Nederlandse titel: "De geschiedenis van het kwaad". Dit boek is niet een geschiedenis van het kwaad als fenomeen, maar een geschiedenis van het personage van de duivel, zoals de titel in elke andere taal wel correct vermeldt.
Op het belangrijkste punt van het boek valt (in elk geval door mij) weinig af te dingen: een Satan-achtig personage is ontstaan in een zoroastristische stroming, geëerfd door de Esseense Joden, van wie Jezus er een was. En zo heeft de duivel zich doen gelden door de geschiedenis.
Messadié doet zijn uiterste best om te bewijzen dat monotheïstische godsdiensten een duivel nodig hebben, vooral om socio-politieke redenen. Daarom besteedt hij een tiental hoofdstukken aan polytheïstische religies om daar omstandig en redelijk onnodig aan te tonen dat die geen abstract begrip en zeker geen godheid van het kwaad kennen. Al deze hoofdstukken ruiken sterk naar de "noble savage": de heidenen hadden gelijk, de christenen (en in mindere mate de andere boekreligies) zitten ernaast. De verhalen en rituelen van deze volkeren neemt hij tamelijk kritiekloos aan, terwijl hij de principes van het christendom ineens aan rationele logica gaat toetsen. Zo “bewijst” hij de onrechtvaardigheid en het ongelijk van de Christenen.
Hij behandelt culturen die duizenden jaren hebben bestaan als monolieten, alsof daar nooit iets veranderd is en trekt zeer verregaande conclusies uit zeer beperkte bronnen. Het merendeel van die conclusies zijn zijn eigen verzinsels, die op geen enkele manier aantoonbaar zijn of zelfs maar aannemelijk gemaakt kunnen worden.
Hij hanteert het aloude "wetenschappelijke" principe: 'Als ik vind dat twee fenomenen / namen / rituelen / verhalen op elkaar lijken dan moeten ze wel verwant zijn.' En zo spint hij webben over de hele wereld, waarbij Kelten en Noord-Amerikaanse Indianen opeens van elkaar afgeleide verhalen vertellen. Even het scheermes van Ockham eroverheen - er zou weinig van dit boek overblijven.
Echt volkomen mis heeft hij het als hij Keltische en Noordse-Germaanse volkeren op één hoop gooit en ze voor het gemak allemaal "kelten" noemt.
Als hij volkeren en religies bespreekt waar ik verstand van heb (Kelten, Romeinen, Grieken) kiest hij steevast obscure bronnen en negeert hij heel belangrijkere, veel bekendere bronnen. Mede daardoor vertelt hij veel onzin. Dit doet me vermoeden dat dat bij de volkeren waar ik niks over weet niet anders is. Opvallend is de nadruk op Essenen (een tamelijk obscure Joodse sekte) en de rol van de Tempeliers (als die opduiken is een boek per definitie verdacht).
Het geheel eindigt in een stukje cultuurpessimisme van jewelste, als hij zegt dat de moderne duivel de gestalte heeft van massamedia en menselijke haat. Dat hij het kwaad van zijn religieuze aura ontdoet is te prijzen (daarmee en met zijn onmiskenbare eruditie verdient hij die ene ster), maar verder is dit boek een draak. Slechte wetenschap en ook nog eens slaapverwekkend geschreven.
This is a very, very bad book. For starters, the Dutch title: “The history of Evil”. This book is not about evil as a phenomenon, it’s a history of the devil as a character in religion. The title in every other language is correct in this respect.
The main point in the book is hard to discredit and probably true: Zoroastrians invented a satan-like character as a personification of evil, who was inherited by the Essenes, one of who was Jesus Christ. That’s the route the devil took to modern society.
Messadié tries very hard to prove that monotheistic religions need a devil, mainly for socio-political reasons. So he devotes about ten chapters to polytheistic religions, to make it abundantly clear that they didn’t have an abstract notion or a god of evil. These chapters stink of the “noble savage”: the heathens were right, the christians (and the other book religions) were and are wrong. He takes the heathen stories and rituals at face value, but uses real-world, rational logic on the christian ideas and doctrines, proving the polytheistic societies right(ish) and the Christians wrong.
He speaks about societies that have existed for thousands of years as single-culture monoliths, where nothing ever changed. He draws conclusions based on obscure and limited sources. Most of those conclusions are his own phantasies, that are unprovable at best and often provably wrong.
The ancient “scientific” principle Messadié uses is: ‘If I think that two phenomena / rituals / names / stories seem alike, they are always related.’ This way he spins a web of related phenomena around the world, where Celts and Native Americans have adapted stories from one another. A good shaving with Ockham’s razor wouldn’t leave much of this book. He is completely wrong when he calls the ancient Germanic and Scandinavian tribes “Celts”, as if they were of the same culture.
Whenever he treats cultures I know something about (Greeks, Romans, Celts), he always chooses obscure sources and ignores much more important ones in order to make his point. This makes me suspect that he does the same with the peoples and cultures I don’t know about. A case in point is the attention the Essenes get. They are a Jewish cult we don’t know too much about. And there’s the Templars. It’s alway suspicious when the Templars get a major role in a book.
He ends on a very pessimistic note, saying that the devil is now mass-media and human hatred. It’s a good thing to make evil human, rather than divine. Because of that and because of his unmistakable erudition he earns his single star - otherwise it would have been zero. This book is a 560-page brick, let’s use it as such and throw it at someone, preferably the writer. Bad science in a mind-bogglingly boring book.
September 5, 2013
It started great...great idea. But then the mistakes arise.. (translation mistakes, I hope). It states that Snorri Sturluson was Irish (someone please inform the Icelanders of this) and he refers to the Vikings and Norse as Celts which even though maybe right in terms of DNA traces is not normal to call them so, as the Celts are a completely different ethnolinguistic group of people who shared the same Celtic languages. At no point in time did they migrate north to Scandinavia. It is not my subject so of course ..what do I know... but I continued to read the rest of the book slightly suspiciously. I did however enjoy the main premise of the book that the devil is a political creation for manipulation of the masses..that's what I interpreted the premise to be and of course is spot on.
February 11, 2023
Out dated, this survey of the idea of the Devil is most useful for the first half before it reaches Judaism. However, scholarship has moved on since this was written, I know a few anthropologists he cites when talking about indigenous cultures have since been debunked. The author's bias against organized monotheism (the introduction lets us know he didn't appreciate his strict Catholic education, and the whole book keeps harping on this as if it's relevant to anyone else). I enjoyed reading it, but I'm afraid I'm not anymore enlightened, and fear I may have absorbed some unhelpful generalizations.
The hardcover of this I found at a used bookstore will look cool on my shelf.
The hardcover of this I found at a used bookstore will look cool on my shelf.
July 28, 2015
Not as good as I was hoping.
October 23, 2023
...the more one tries to extinguish the devil, the brighter he burns.
Saw this book in an antique store and had to grab it. While it has its problems and wasn’t quite was I was expecting, I’m glad I did.
It definitely had a rough start. I hated the way ancient people were described, especially Pacific Islanders. However, the author’s attitudes towards indigenous people seem to suddenly change in the chapter on North America, where he (rightfully) drags the U.S. for filth. This change of tune was jarring to say the least.
Some of it is tedious, but overall, I really enjoyed learning about the political motivations behind the creation of our devil. I kept forgetting it was written at the tail end of America’s great satanic panic, and that context is important. While the historical analysis was generally good, I thought the final analysis on the contemporary mass hysteria fell short. I think there’s a lot more nuance to the popular concept of Satan. Plus, there’s a difference between Satanism vs. The Church of Satan, i.e., believing each individual is essentially their own god, versus worshipping Satan.
We’re living through another satanic panic of sorts, and it’s especially being weaponized against queer and trans people. Personally, this is where my growing fascination with satanic panic lies. In the light of being demonized, I found it really comforting to reframe the devil as just a means of political control.
Saw this book in an antique store and had to grab it. While it has its problems and wasn’t quite was I was expecting, I’m glad I did.
It definitely had a rough start. I hated the way ancient people were described, especially Pacific Islanders. However, the author’s attitudes towards indigenous people seem to suddenly change in the chapter on North America, where he (rightfully) drags the U.S. for filth. This change of tune was jarring to say the least.
Some of it is tedious, but overall, I really enjoyed learning about the political motivations behind the creation of our devil. I kept forgetting it was written at the tail end of America’s great satanic panic, and that context is important. While the historical analysis was generally good, I thought the final analysis on the contemporary mass hysteria fell short. I think there’s a lot more nuance to the popular concept of Satan. Plus, there’s a difference between Satanism vs. The Church of Satan, i.e., believing each individual is essentially their own god, versus worshipping Satan.
We’re living through another satanic panic of sorts, and it’s especially being weaponized against queer and trans people. Personally, this is where my growing fascination with satanic panic lies. In the light of being demonized, I found it really comforting to reframe the devil as just a means of political control.
January 20, 2018
Sadly, it did not meet my expectations. From the start through Zarathustra, it was, again sadly, quite boring. After that, it became much more readable and quite informative. As a whole I found it a little hard to understand since Messadie's sentences were sometimes overwhelmingly loaded. Messadie's own views about the Devil part was also mostly great. However, the book as a whole, especially in the aforementioned part as boring, felt a little off-track when it's title taken into consideration. I can understand all that historical info might be relevant, alas remotely, to the concept of the Devil in respective civilizations, but it was too much information, which in my opinion impeded the books flow.
April 30, 2021
3.5 stars. A wide-ranging survey of the concept of the devil throughout history and different cultures. Full of interesting facts, myths, and history. Suffers a bit from a somewhat scattershot and superficial treatment but is a useful and informative introduction to the creation and perpetuation of the idea of the devil.
Most interesting is that most cultures don’t have a devil deity. The devil was created and is maintained under conditions in which it is politically advantageous to do so. In the final analysis, Messadie argues that, paradoxically, it is belief in and blame for human atrocity on the devil, rather than acknowledging the true responsibility of human hate and systems of evil, that is the ultimate satanism.
Most interesting is that most cultures don’t have a devil deity. The devil was created and is maintained under conditions in which it is politically advantageous to do so. In the final analysis, Messadie argues that, paradoxically, it is belief in and blame for human atrocity on the devil, rather than acknowledging the true responsibility of human hate and systems of evil, that is the ultimate satanism.
August 31, 2023
Adından da anlaşıldığı gibi teoloji tarihinde şeytanın varlığını, ilk çıkışını araştırmış Gerald Messadie'nin araştırmalarını topladığı kitaptır. Anlaşıldığı kadarıyla yazar kitapta şeytanın bir günah keçisi olduğunu, insanlar tarafından oluşturulan dinlerde, dinin veya tanrının hatalarını yüklemek için tanrı tarafından meclisten kovulmuş kötü bir karakter olduğunu iddia ediyor ve gayet kabul edilebilir argümanlar sunmuş.
Örneğin Hristiyanlık inancında kötülüğün başlangıcının şeytan olduğu iddia edilir fakat şeytandan önce düşen melekler vardır. Meleklerin düşmesinin nedeni ise "kötü" olmalarıdır. Bu durumda kötülüğün başlangıcı şeytan değilse nedir?
Örneğin Hristiyanlık inancında kötülüğün başlangıcının şeytan olduğu iddia edilir fakat şeytandan önce düşen melekler vardır. Meleklerin düşmesinin nedeni ise "kötü" olmalarıdır. Bu durumda kötülüğün başlangıcı şeytan değilse nedir?
July 9, 2023
This is a must read. This is a comparative history of religions from around the world and going back several millennia. The author brilliantly makes his case that both god and the devil are human constructs create for political purposes. The last chapter is eye-opening and so relevant to today, even though this was written in the 1990s. He has a great sentence at the end. "The human being is responsible for history, and the intrusions of religion into history have all, without a single exception from the Crusades on, been disastrous." How true!
July 18, 2025
If this book were titled A History of World Religions, I’d consider it quite interesting. Unfortunately, it claims to be about the history of the devil, and yet the devil himself appears only sparsely. There’s a lot of historical information and storytelling, many digressions unrelated to the main topic, but not much about the titular figure. I expected a greater focus on the subject, so I’m a bit disappointed. Overall, it’s an interesting read—but you have to be prepared for a lot of side stories.
October 10, 2021
Good book. A historical, religious anthropology. Touches on the occult only in the last chapter briefly, which is all it deserves in my opinion.
I happened to read this alongside Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, which made for a pretty rich experience.
I happened to read this alongside Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, which made for a pretty rich experience.
February 20, 2026
Interesting look at the devil's evolution through history. Some bits were harder to read mostly because not knowing how things are ponounced makes it harder for me to get through, but overall I thought the history was really interesting.
May 28, 2018
I love this book so much I checked it out 3 times, paid a ton of fines, and finally bought a copy.
February 22, 2020
More like 3.5
March 10, 2017
Un sujet très intéressant, mais très inégal dans l'écriture. Certains chapitres se perdent dans les digressions et autres virgules ou parenthèses.
January 20, 2011
This book was a real challenge for me, so my rating may not be entirely fair. The author seemed to take for granted the background knowledge of the reader, so I felt like a lot of material was glanced over, and that conclusions he made were not well supported. I felt like he was saying, "This is the conclusion, and I don't need to back it up because it's so obvious."
The chapter on the Persians, and the later chapters on Judaism, Christianity and Islam were the strongest. The other chapters were intended to show that there is not a universal idea of a single, evil adversary. I think the author should have spent more time on those strong areas and peppered the rest throughout as a means of contrast.
In spite of that, I think the author (in those stronger chapters) does make a very good argument that the idea of an evil adversary was created and exploited out of political need.
Finally, I felt the last chapter was extremely dated material. If a later edition is ever published, the final word needs to be re-written.
The chapter on the Persians, and the later chapters on Judaism, Christianity and Islam were the strongest. The other chapters were intended to show that there is not a universal idea of a single, evil adversary. I think the author should have spent more time on those strong areas and peppered the rest throughout as a means of contrast.
In spite of that, I think the author (in those stronger chapters) does make a very good argument that the idea of an evil adversary was created and exploited out of political need.
Finally, I felt the last chapter was extremely dated material. If a later edition is ever published, the final word needs to be re-written.
May 11, 2013
I wish I could give it a half star more. It's not quite four stars. But it was incredibly interesting. Coming from my background, there are plenty of things I know precious little about as far as religion goes, so I thoroughly enjoyed learning even a tidbit about some of the more obscure bits of religious history. And I'm always unutterably fascinated by something taking a stance opposite of the one with which I grew up (a stance with which I disagree now). And I found M. Messadie to be enjoyable and erudite; he reminded me a bit of Hitchens in the translation. But I also found him a bit biased, which made me question his assumptions of texts about which I know something. So I'm dubious about his accuracy at times. Still, this is well worth the read, despite any flaws, and it is incredibly informative and enjoyable.
Aw, heck. I'll give it four stars.
Aw, heck. I'll give it four stars.
June 8, 2013
What makes this work stand out from other literature on the devil is that it isn't limited by a focus on Israel or devil figures alone, but rather branches out to other civilizations and the evolution of evil, sin, and demonic figures in general. Messadie's expertise is matched by his ability to keep the reader's interest piqued, and, though it is scholarly in its approach, it is not what I would call dry. Recommended to all interested in the conception and evolution of ancient civilizations' perceptions of evil.
July 17, 2015
Născocit de preoții iranieni acum 2600 de ani, Diavolul încă nu și-a găsit nici scopul, nici sensul, de-a lungul timpului. Satana din Vechiul Testament este un aliat și un slujitor al voinței divine, așa cum ne arată Cartea lui Iov. Abia în Noul Testament el devine Lucifer, Belzebut sau Baal, sursă a răului în lume, deși nici până azi Biserica nu a putut preciza dacă Prințul acestei lumi s-a născut înaintea de apariția Răului sau de ce și în ce împrejurări acest înger căzut a devenit "vrăjmaș al lui Dumnezeu", egal ca putere și influență?
June 26, 2012
Anyone that thinks they know about religion and the bible ought to read this book. Although I thought upon reading it that it would be scary and horrifying it was not. Yet it was well researched and intriguing in understanding the reason for the development of the concept of the Devil. It revealed much about human psyche which I found to be more twisted than what the devil is suppose to represent.
March 14, 2018
Fun read but judging from the inconsistencies and inaccuracies on topics i know about makes me wonder about the exactitude of the information therein. The writing resembles popular articles rather than serious historical research and the tone at many points is sarcastic towards historians and researchers (not to mention writers whose work the author seems not to comprehend - [last chapter]).
February 27, 2008
An entertaining, opinionated, and erudite discussion of the origins of Satan. Very fascinating; I'd never really thought about whether other cultures have beings analagous to Satan, and it turns out many of them just don't. They have demons, but no great Evil like Christianity's Satan.
Currently reading
January 31, 2009Just started... will let you know.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews