|
|
45 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
It's Not In The Details, March 9, 2002
It is rare for me to find myself giving a book a very bad rating. For one thing, I reserve one star for books that do more harm than good, and there are really few works that have no redeeming value. For another, I make a real effort not to buy books in that category, since it's a waste of my time. This book, "The Devil," caught me by surprise. I expected one thing and got something else entirely. I'm not sure if it's my expectations or the book itself that are the source of my disappointment, but I will go with my instincts for now.What did I expect? A good historical and anthropological study about the role of the devil or devils in human history up to the beginnings of Christianity. In particular, I was interested in demonic legends in first millennium BCE Israel. What did I get? I guess the best way to put it is that, had the subtitle should have been "Jeffrey Russell's Perceptions of Evil..." I would have been less surprised. The reader gets an early warning when, in the preface, Russell starts out with "This is a work of history, not of theology" and then immediately begins discussing theological and metaphysical issues. Russell's style is reminiscent of a Victorian churchman/academic, rambling from one subject to another in mid-paragraph, regularly making portentous statements that seem to have no basis in fact. In fact, one of his most unusual quirks is to state a premise, actually indicate that there is either no or conflicting evidence for it, and then go on to use it for further logical gyrations. This is an argument style better suited to politicians than academics. Gradually it becomes clear that Russell has at least one hidden agenda. He is intent on making a case for the dualistic nature of God. This causes him to flit from one isolated fact to another, skipping over any material in between that it in conflict with this theory. The worst examples of this are in the section entitled "Hebrew Personifications of Evil." As most people know, outside of the Job and the unfortunate snake, the Old Testament makes very little mention of the demonic. There were some beliefs, but they are discussed more in sacred materials external to the Bible, dating from the Babylonian Exile onward. Russell misses that material, pays attention to Job, and then focuses entirely on several books of the Apocrypha as evidence of Hebrew dualism. In the process he skips an entire millennia or so of Jewish thinking. This is not exactly history. I don't know quite what to make of an academic historical text which, in the end, turns out to have been a soapbox for a writer's own orations on the nature and place of evil (with a capital E). But I do know that I don't like it one bit. If the volume have been clearly labeled as philosophy or theology, I would have gone on to find something else, and this problem would not have arisen. The book attempts to cover ancient, classical, Hebrew and early Christian civilization. As it is, regardless of Russell's qualifications as a medievalist, he seems a bit out of his depth in the fields of ancient and biblical history. There is an extensive bibliography, of which I know many of the citations. Surprisingly, it appears that Russell's sources are much less biased than he is himself. If you must buy this book, I suggest you use it to key into other authors and thinkers rather than as a conclusive resource on it's own.
|