Pagels argues that Satan is not demonic in the early books of the Bible. The Satan of the Old Testament is weak, able to do evil only with divine permission (as in the book of Job). In some ways, this Satan seems like a true "devil's advocate," in that he opposes God only to make God stronger. Pagels also presents evidence to support the notion that passages we now think refer to Satan actually refer to leaders who were contemporaries of biblical writers.

So how did Satan morph into a powerful subverter and tempter? Pagels' basic argument is that whenever Jews or Christians encountered dissent or disloyalty among their own groups they invoked the power of Satan to explain it. In their minds, Satan tempted true believers to betray the cause. Consider one example. In 66 CE Jews rebelled against Rome; but some Jews sided with Rome and worked to end the war in Roman favor. For Jews who believed they were the chosen people, this betrayal made no sense. Why would some of the chosen help the enemy? The only explanation was that a demonic force was at work: Satan had tempted them. Thus, Pagels' argues that Satan is not an evil force. Instead, Satan is a way for the betrayed to understand their world.

I found Pagels' evidence convincing. She focuses on three conflicts: The war against Rome discussed above, the period from 70-100 CE when Christians were persecuted by non-Christians, and the period after 100 CE when the Christian church in Rome began to drive out heretics. Most of her illustrations are from the Jewish and Christian apocrypha and the New Testament. In all three cases, the basic problem people faced was trying to understand betrayal and persecution. And in all three cases, they found the answer in Satan.

I liked the book. If you are short on time, I recommend reading only the first two chapters (62 pages total). Pagels' basic thesis is laid out clearly, and she uses the rebellion against Rome to illustrate her point. This is by far the strongest part of the book. The remaining chapters reiterate the same points using different examples, and for a person (like me) who is not a religious scholar, the details can get confusing. However, I was convinced by the overall thesis: that the notion of Satan as we understand it today was shaped by a particular social and political epoch.