Abstract
This book attempts more than its size would suggest. The author declares a challenge to traditional scholarship in the fashion of Bultmann. He focuses on resolving ideological tensions inherent in the Bible. As a result, the book is for serious-minded academics who are ready to grapple with difficult issues.
Kallas presents an overview of the Bible, in which he narrows and bases conflicting ideologies on Demonology and Eschatology, of which, he argues, it is impossible to have one without the other. Then he classifies the New Testament on this basis. Paul and the Synoptics are on the one hand agreeing with the existence of demons and their full agency, but these are opposed to the Johannine writings and Hebrews that deny the agency (at least full agency) of demons. His aetiology for this relates to his understanding of the biblical writings moving from Hebrew to Greek thought in history. His ultimate solution, as the topic suggests, is to derive truth by holding those opposites together in tension. This is a solution that appears to be more idealistic than pragmatic. Kallas argues that this approach is already adopted and enshrined in counterposed sayings such as, ‘opposites attract’, yet on the other hand, ‘birds of a feather flock together’. This is the only rationale that he provides. Thus one must ask whether the theoretical basis of his ideas can be compelling, established by this observation alone.
Though some of the overarching ideas are compelling, there are drawbacks owing chiefly to some vague, exaggerated, and highly debateable statements. Examples include claims like ‘education is not salvatory’ because ‘educate a young thief who steals pennies off the newsstand and he will steal the whole newsstand’ (p. 66). The presentation of education as a single set of ideas appears reductionist. Elsewhere he claims that ‘Revelation is not apocalyptic because in apocalyptic, suffering is an attack by Satan.’ (p. 59). Yet the portrait of Satan in the book of Revelation would appear to undercut Kallas’ argument here. Furthermore, he states that ‘the term Christ was devoid of religious overtones and was pure political…’ (p. 46). Such a statement is open to challenge on many levels. Apart from simply presenting such assertions, Kallas does little else to justify them. The book is also deficient in its interaction with recent scholarly debates on any of the issues it raises: none of the references cited are more recent than 1955.
However, what Kallas attempted in such a small book is admirable in addressing a persistent problem in scholarship and responding to apparent grave disagreements in religious ideologies. While the arguments presented may fail to convince, the questions raised require ongoing attention.