R E V I E W A RT I C L E

The ‘Fascinating’ World of the Evil Eye

Lindsey A. Askin
Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. Volume 1:
Introduction, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, John H. Elliott, James Clarke & Co., 2016
(ISBN 978-0-227-17568-2), xxii + 209 pp., pb £16
Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. Volume 2:
Greece and Rome, John H. Elliott, James Clarke & Co., 2016 (ISBN 978-0-227-
17613-9), xxxvi + 334 pp., pb £27.50
Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. Volume 3:
The Bible and Related Sources, John H. Elliott, James Clarke & Co., 2017 (ISBN
978-0-227-17667-2), xxx + 354 pp., pb £32
Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. Volume 4:
Postbiblical Israel and Early Christianity through Late Antiquity, John H. Elliott,
Wipf and Stock, 2017 (ISBN 978-1-4982-3072-8), xxvi + 220 pp., pb $29

Abstract
The Evil Eye is a pervasive folkloric belief in the eye as an active organ. Historically, the
belief and its related protective practices have been much maligned by modern Western at-
titudes. Origins of the belief, as best as can be traced, are pinned to ancient Mesopotamia
and Egypt. From there, the belief radiated outwards until it was pervasive throughout
the ancient Near East and Mediterranean world including, as Elliott argues, ancient
Judaism and early Christianity. Conceptualizations of the Evil Eye and related beliefs
and protective practices have been found as far as Brazil, Tibet, and Australia and are still
expressed in Western society. Elliott’s four-volume work on the Evil Eye in antiquity is a
contextual reception history that draws together both textual sources and material culture
of this fascinating belief across the ancient world.

Key Words: Evil Eye, envy, gluttony, greed, apotropaic, magic

Once upon a time, the eye was capable of more than just ‘seeing’ through
the entrance of light upon the lens of an eye. If a mother displayed too

Reviews in Religion & Theology, 26:1 (2019)

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Review Articles

much affection for her child, if disaster struck, if crops failed or livestock
mysteriously died, if injury or illness befell you, the natural power of
the eye could be to blame. However, beliefs and practices concerning
the Evil Eye resist interpretation as magic or superstition. Rather, the cul-
tural concept of the Evil Eye incorporates a complex worldview about dis-
ability, affection and envy, causes of disaster and harm, trauma, social
tensions, and protection of the self in antiquity. One could unwittingly
be a fascinator of the Evil Eye through a variety of factors, or one could ac-
tivate it intentionally through envy or malice. John H. Elliott’s four-vol-
ume work on the Evil Eye in antiquity is a contextual reception history
that draws together both textual sources and material culture of this ‘fas-
cinating’ belief across the ancient world. Today, these beliefs and protec-
tive practices have been found as far as Brazil, Tibet, many parts of
Africa, and Australia and are communicated today in Western society
particularly through phrases (like the Yiddish ‘kineahora’ or ‘keyn ayin
hara’), symbols, objects, and gestures.1 Elliott’s study is equally suited
for those within biblical, Jewish, or Christian studies. Elliott’s work would
be also highly relevant for Christian pastoral leaders (ministers, mission-
aries, etc.), as the relevance for church communities in many parts of the
world, both home and abroad, is clear. It would also be relevant for
leaders and wardens in many Jewish communities, as well.
Elliott writes that his work is a ‘contextual analysis of the Evil Eye in the
Bible shaped by the conviction that traces of biblical Evil Eye can only be
understood in relation to ancient Evil Eye belief and practice in general’
(Vol. 1, p. 2). In Volume 1 (Introduction, Mesopotamia, and Egypt), Elliott
explores the definition and description of the Evil Eye belief and practice,
including its pervasiveness and appearances in popular culture, crafts
and visual art (such as boat decoration), and gestures. Elliott explores ter-
minology and common features, describing an ‘Evil Eye belief complex’
that encompasses cultural notions, particularly the notion of the eye as
an active organ, commonly held signs of Evil Eye injury/activity, precau-
tions, and the Evil Eye being understood within such a cultural belief
complex as being entirely a natural phenomenon, not a symptom of
magic or witchcraft (Vol. 1, pp. 18–27). Elliott analyses the social-cultural
environments that tend to produce Evil Eye beliefs, arguing for initial
prevalence of the belief within ‘agonistic societies’, where hierarchical
and social tensions, scarcity of resources, and high mortality rates are
present (Vol. 1, pp. 41–44). Here, Elliott draws upon anthropological
and sociological studies, but it is difficult to wonder why, if the belief
1
Over a recent coffee with a colleague, the subject of the Evil Eye came up. A mathematician,
originally from India, showed me the apotropaic Evil Eye charm he wears around his neck
together with a Christian cross. Although he grew up with Evil Eye practices and belief in
India, he wears the charm mostly at the request of his Lebanese wife. Personal encounters
with the Evil Eye certainly are all around us as modern Evil Eye beliefs and practices thrive
globally.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Review Articles 7

can be derived from social-economic factors, did similar beliefs not

emerge in ancient China or premodern Central America. His introduction
then surveys research on the Evil Eye from antique thought through to the
present day. Such figures as Plutarch, Basil of Caesarea, Dante Aligheri,
Martin Luther, and William Shakespeare offer glimpses into historical
attitudes toward the Evil Eye (Vol. 1, pp. 45–49).
To help explain why we overlook the presence of the Evil Eye in the
Bible and antiquity, Elliott’s analysis encompasses a comprehensive sur-
vey of scholarship from late antiquity to more contemporary times. Elliott
mentions the comprehensive anthropological work of a German ophthal-
mologist, Der böse Blick und Verwandtes (Vol. 1, p. 50).2 Seligman and his
contemporaries in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century thought
encompasses well the orientalization of Evil Eye belief as a superstition
(Aberglaube) in the modern era. A reader may be tempted to gloss the
scholarship survey at this point, but it is sobering to see how the conver-
sation shifts across time. After the nineteenth century, particularly in bib-
lical scholarship, the assumption that the Evil Eye is a magical power and
vulgar superstitious practice, unworthy of real Judaism and Christianity,
is no longer questioned (Vol. 1, pp. 58–72). Hence, an emic approach is
crucial to resist capitulation of Evil Eye belief and practices to the realm
of magic simply because of the presence of agency, amulets, and symbols.
Although Evil Eye belief is folkloric, Elliott is careful to distinguish be-
tween the ‘naturalistic’ folklore of the Evil Eye, which involves any divine,
human, or animal agent or victim, and the supernaturalist folklore of
magic (Vol. 1, pp. 61–68).
In the rest of Volume 1, Elliott covers Mesopotamia and Egypt textual
and material culture related to the Evil Eye belief complex (Vol. 1, pp.
77–155). Beginning with belief probably originating the Fertile Crescent
around 5000 years ago (Vol. 1, p. 78), the Evil Eye is articulated in
Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic
texts and culture – mostly inscriptions and protective incantations,
medical texts, ‘eye idols’, votives, engravings, amulets, noise clappers,
symbols such as the Eye of Horus and hands, incantation bowls, and both
documentary and literary sources from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.
Elliott notes that the practice of having public and secret names in
Pharaonic Egypt may be to do with Evil Eye beliefs (Vol. 1, p. 155).
Volume 2 (Greece and Rome) covers classical to late antiquity (up to
600 CE). The terminology in Greek and Latin (Vol. 2, pp. 23–46) is useful
for comparison with Greco-Roman Judaism and early Christianity. The
vast collection of primary sources presents a vivid picture of Greco-
Roman Evil Eye beliefs and practices, not as vulgar superstition but, as
accepted by sophisticated elites: envy and zeal are a human (or divine)

2
Siegfried Seligman, Der böse Blick und Verwandtes. Ein Beitrag aur Geschichte des Aberglaubens
aller Zeiten und Völker (Berlin: Barsdorf, 1910).
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 Review Articles

feelings, but the Evil Eye is the natural ‘physical mechanism’ of such emo-
tions (Vol. 2, p. 113). This volume brings new meaning to Greek
and Roman practices of self-discipline and moderation in behavior
(Vol. 2, p. 134ff.).
Volume 3 (The Bible and Related Sources) collects numerous textual
sources: HB/OT (e.g. Deut. 15:9; Prov. 23:6), 12Patriarchs, Joseph and
Asenath, 2 Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls, apocrypha (Ben Sira, Tobit, Wisdom,
4 Maccabees), Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament. The discussions of
terminology (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, vernacular) and how modern vernac-
ular translations have obscured Evil Eye references in the above texts are
revealing (Vol. 3, pp. 9–78). There is a marked focus in Volume 3 more on
textual sources than in Vols 1, 2, and 4, which balance textual and material
data, but there is a lot of textual ground to cover in the biblical and
cognate sources.
Lastly, Volume 4 (Postbiblical Israel and Early Christianity through Late
Antiquity) comprises rabbinic and patristic texts and related material cul-
ture (such as amulets, art, and bowls in Vol. 4, pp. 31–46), as well as some
early Islamic sources. Here, the sources include 2 Maccabees, the Mishnah
(including Pirqei Avot), Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, the Babylonian Talmud,
and the Jerusalem Talmud. Rabbinic apotropaic interpretations of the te-
fillin, mezuzot, and tzitzit are interesting (Vol. 4, pp. 28–31, cf. Vol. 3,
pp. 98–103). The Christian sources include The Acts of Thomas, Tertullian,
John Chrysostom, Jerome, Syriac texts, and early Christian apotropaics
and iconography (Vol. 4, pp.100–150). It would not be recommended for
a reader to consult only Vols 3–4 and ignore Vols 1–2, since Elliott’s
buildup of contextual material from across the ancient world is what
helps make sense of the data presented in Vols 3–4, especially the Evil
Eye terminology and symbolism.
Elliott demonstrates Evil Eye belief distinctions between cultures, such
as a tendency toward mostly human fascinators in Israelite and early
Jewish culture. Elliott also discusses the relationship of the Evil Eye to
envy and jealousy throughout his work, giving new meaning to the
contexts of these emotions throughout biblical and postbiblical texts.
Taking a modern Western perspective to the Evil Eye is akin to thinking
that Egyptian embalmers removed the brains during mummification be-
cause they wanted everyone to be equally stupid in the afterlife. In fact,
we know the brain was removed because Egyptians believed that the
heart, not the brain, was the seat of knowledge and spirit. Why, then,
should we not look at the eye firstly as the ancients understood it to
function, rather than assume that it was (is) a superstitious anomaly in
otherwise pious and monotheistic patterns of thought in early Judaism
and Christianity?
Upon reflection, readers of the Bible and cognate texts seem to overlook
or misinterpret the Evil Eye partly because of cultural presuppositions
based upon an indelibly modern outlook on the nature of the human
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Review Articles 9

body and its physical limits. This erasure then exacerbates cultural mis-
representation of the nature of the Evil Eye itself, overplaying the
phenomenon as magical power or vulgar superstition and thus
modifying critical understandings of the presence/absence of Evil Eye
belief in early Jewish and Christian worlds – overplaying the distance
between the concept of the Evil Eye and ‘mainstream’ or normative
Jewish and Christian beliefs.
For example, in the Book of Ben Sira, there is a saying
related to dining etiquette (Sir 31:13). The Hebrew of this passage reads,
‫( זכור רעה עין רעה \ רע עין שונא אל \ ורע ממנו לא ברא‬MS B IV r.).3 Skehan and Di
Lella translate, ‘Remember, gluttony is a bad thing. God hates the eye’s
greed; was ever any creature greedier?’4 The saying comes embedded in
a package of table manners advice, of which Emily Post might be proud,
for rustic readers who might be apt to gorging themselves or reaching for
things at the wrong moment among nice company (Sir. 31:16–19). Yet,
philologically, it is not necessary to translate ‫ רעה‬as greed in Sir 31:13, nor
does the preceding line’s occurrence of the phrase ‫ עין רעה‬mean gluttony.
Elliott offers a simpler reading among the contents of his preface pages,
‘Remember that an Evil Eye is a wicked thing. What has been created
more evil than an Evil Eye?’ (Vol. 1, p. xi).
If Ben Sira speaks about the Evil Eye, Elliott argues, it is because greed
and gluttony were states of mind that activated an Evil Eye either volun-
tarily (moral causes) or involuntarily (natural causes) (Vol. 1, pp. 25, 26).
Not only envious or sour emotions activated the ‘Evil Eye’ attribute of
an eye. Having blue eyes, physical deformity, or prominent bulging eyes
might also inadvertently cause the eye to fascinate unwittingly. The use of
ritual, practices, and apotropaic objects and symbols employed to project
one’s self, or one’s property, by their existence confirms this normative be-
lief in the eye’s active power as it was understood in antiquity. Constant
precaution and protection were needed to guard from a phenomenon that
occurred naturally and therefore unpredictably. Elliott mentions
Plutarch’s Table Talk (100 CE), where the Evil Eye is discussed seriously
as a nature characteristic of the eye, both human and animal (Vol. 2, pp.
48–56). Ben Sira did not want rustic Judeans to accidentally cast, or be ac-
cused of casting, an Evil Eye upon their generous hosts. By implication,
the gluttonous are envious and thus real/potential fascinators of the Evil
Eye – they do not get repeat invitations to those nice dinners that Ben Sira
is talking about.
The modern scientific interpretation of the eye as passive lens seems to
be the main culprit for why biblical scholars and bible translators have felt
uneasy translating, and interpreting, occurrences of the Evil Eye plainly.

3
There is a circular dot above ‫ זכור‬and marginal text ‫ דע‬after ‫זכור‬.
4
Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New
York; London: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 385–88.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 Review Articles

The shared spaces between magic and medicine also blind us with respec-
tive to our understandings of the Evil Eye as articulated in the Bible (Vol.
1, p. 62). However, as Elliott points out, even protective precautions and
apotropaics do not connote either medical or magical practice. Recent
studies in Mesopotamian and Babylonian medicine, as well as the divine
causes of illness in Greco-Roman medicine, would be relevant here.5
Within some of the analysis of evidence, such as Aramaic incantation
bowls and magical-medical practices, the secondary scholarship seems
at times a little sparse but can be attributed to its stated focus on the explo-
ration of primary sources. Future studies in this area, however, would be
able to consult Elliott as a comprehensive collation of primary data.
Elliott’s demonstration of the ‘purge’ of the Evil Eye from biblical texts
over time by translators is revealing. Elliott shows an increasing tendency
toward avoidance of translating plainly any references to the Evil Eye in
biblical texts for theological reasons distancing the orthodox beliefs from
those deemed superstitious (Vol. 3). Several chief recipients of such saniti-
zation are Ben Sira, Jesus (Mt 6:22–23, 20:1–15/16; Mk 7:22; Lk 11:33–36),
and Paul the Apostle (Gal 1–4). Elliott remains judicial when he surveys
studies that tend to overlook or misinterpret the historical and sociocul-
tural context of the Evil Eye. For example, he cites the 1950 work of Karl
Meisen, who allows ancient Israelites to be familiar on a vague folkloric
level with the concept of the Evil Eye, but does not permit such a belief
to have been positively articulated in the Bible itself, despite citing Deut
28:54, 46; Prov 23:6, 28:22; Isa 13:8, et al. (Vol. 3, p. 9).6 Overall, modern
studies of the Jewish and Christian sources turn from theological avoid-
ance toward inexplicable reticence about the Evil Eye. Contemporary
scholarly hesitance to comment upon such magical, medical, or scientific
beliefs in ancient Judaism and Christianity, however, cannot be attributed
to a lack of explicit textual data or material culture. Rather, the silence
seems to be due to a cultural misreading of the sources at hand. Historical
context and material culture are therefore crucial to recognize the pres-
ence of beliefs and practices concerning the Evil Eye in biblical and cog-
nate literature.
Elliott’s study is a resource in itself as well as a contribution to critical
knowledge of the Evil Eye. The work contains countless illustrations,
overviews of scholarship and reception, and bibliographies for primary

5
Markham J. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); Vivian
Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London: Routledge, 2004); JoAnn Scurlock, ‘Ancient Mesopota-
mian Medicine’, in ed. Daniel C. Snell, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World A Com-
panion to the Ancient Near East (Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 302–315; JoAnn
Scurlock, ‘Physician, Conjurer, Magician: A Tale of Two Healing Professionals’, in ed. Tzvi
Abusch and Karel van der Toorn, Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical and Interpretive Per-
spectives (Groningen: Styx, 1999), pp. 69–79.
6
Karl Meisen, ‘Der Böse Blick und anderer Schadenzauber in Glaube und Brauch der alten
Völker und in frühchristlicher Zeit’, Rheinisches Jahrbuch für Volkskunde 1 (1950), pp. 144–177.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679418, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rirt.13436 by <shibboleth>[email protected], Wiley Online Library on [05/03/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Review Articles 11

sources and further reading. In all four volumes, Elliott provides the rele-
vant primary texts in full English translation with recourse to the original
languages where pertinent. The study also gives new meanings to certain
traditions, colors, symbols, gestures, and animals (such as peacocks,
snakes, and dogs) that are encountered in daily life today. Finally, this
work is also timely as a contribution to wider debates on the intersecting
natures of belief, medicine, magic, mysticism, and science in ancient and
early Judaism and Christianity – and the hermeneutical lenses used to
interpret these concepts within their historical contexts. More specifically,
Elliott’s research is valuable as an example of why it is still easy to
overlook (or overplay) ancient and traditional presuppositions about the
body and its relationship to nature and the cosmos. As Elliott argues,
the necessary step then is to take an emic perspective and ‘see’ with more
ancient eyes.

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd