THE HERESY OF JOB

INTRODUCTION

THE prose Prologue and Epilogue are probably the oldest parts of the Book of Job, and possibly the remains of a poem far more ancient than the rest of the work, since in the Prologue, at all events, there are traces of rhythm.

The only fact actually necessary for the purposes of the argument of the Book is the utter misery of Job. Our attention ought to be concentrated on the meaning of the bitter debate between Job and his friends. Yet it is impossible to avoid lingering over that strange episode of the Prologue, the appearance of Satan (more correctly The Satan) among "the sons of God" in heaven, apparently holding the office of Inspector or Examiner of the inhabitants of the Earth.

Scholars tell us that the Hebrew idea of a supernatural duality of good and evil was derived from the Persians, during the Babylonian captivity, and that before that time the Jews

knew but one God, who was omnipotent, and who manipulated Evil as well as Good for his own ultimate purposes; as when he hardened Pharaoh's heart' and sent a lying prophet among the prophets of Ahab."

But is it not true that we unavoidably learn good and evil from Nature herself? As soon as a penalty is imposed, a sin is created; and who shall say that Nature imposes no penalties?

With all deference to better opinion, may it not be that the Jews were mythologically influenced by a much older superstition, of which there are many traces in the Scriptures, arising directly from a natural phenomenon-that of the Dragon of the Eclipse, who tries to swallow up the Sun?

3

From such a conception of the Spirit of Evil as a Darkness, a Negation, it is easy to develop the idea of a Spirit of Denial; and the ancient Hebrews, always fighting against idolatry, always striving to keep pure their faith in the one God, imagined this mysterious Being of Contradiction as one of the Angels in Heaven, subordinate to the commands of Jehovah.

In this character he is not without dignity. He has a difficult and thankless task to perform: no less than to inspect and try men, and to report on the value of their profession of religion. In the ordinary course of his duty he tormented Job, he tested David, and he appeared in the Court of Heaven as advocate against Joshua,' the High Priest. But

6

his office was not a pleasant one. Perhaps he was too officious, but on one occasion, at all events, he was rebuked for over-zeal; while at the same time he drew on himself much dislike; for even his ordinary official title meant, The Adversary, or The Accuser. It is difficult, however, to believe that even in the greatest Cause in which he was ever engaged, always known afterwards as The Temptation, he was not merely carrying out the commission entrusted to him; and if this view is plausible, it is possible to apply the same explanation to the part which he is credited with playing in the Garden of Eden; though it is far from proved that he was ever there at all; since the serpent spoken of in Genesis is clearly an animal, and the curse pronounced on it refers solely to its animal nature. The presence of Satan may only be an unwarranted inference of later dogmatic opinion from the "Old Serpent (another trace of the Dragon of the Shadow) mentioned in Revelation." However this may be, it is certain that in several parts of the Scriptures the more ancient tradition still clings to him, and he is spoken of as the Spirit of Darkness, inimical to God and men; and as most people are more attracted by what is ugly than by what is beautiful, this portrait of him was accepted by the mediæval monks and embellished with the familiar accessories of cloven feet, barbed tail, horns, and brimstone breath, partly derived, no doubt, from "the great god Pan."

This degradation of his character is also due to the supposition that he was a Fallen Seraph; that is to say, an angel who rebelled against the Almighty and so forfeited his place in Heaven. But this notion is very ill-founded. There is no certain authority for it in the Scriptures. The famous vision in The Revelation of S. John the Divine3 refers of course to a supposed future event, and rather tends to disprove the assertion of S. Peter that the Devil walks about the earth, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour;" because S. John's description of the battle between S. Michael and the Dragon closes with the future descent of the Dragon to work woe among the inhabitants of the earth." It may be objected, however, that this seems contradicted farther on in the same book;" but it may be again objected, without irreverence, that the Revelation of S. John reveals nothing except to those who think they have a private interpretation.

13

The common belief in Satan's defection and declension from High Places is in fact derived from Milton, though the whole legend is to be found in the Anglo-Saxon poem, A Paraphrase of Genesis"; and there is mention of it in the of Avitus, De Originali Peccato, composed poem about the end of the fifth century. Milton made the story popular; but the actual origin of it remains obscure. Some have thought that the beautiful hexameter line in Isaiah, really referring, in a figure of the Morning Star,

15

14

to the destruction of Babylon, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, Son of the Morning," " gave rise to it, through the Vulgate translation; " assisted, perhaps, by the strange verse in The Gospel according to S. Luke, "I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven." 16 Certainly Satan seems to have derived from this source the only beautiful name he ever had, and incongruous as it may seem. that the Spirit of Darkness should be a Bearer of Light, yet it must be remembered that Fire is supposed to be his familiar element.

Others are convinced that Milton, at all events, felt himself bound by The General Epistle of Jude to represent Satan and his angels as already cast into Hell; because “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" are there spoken of as being "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. "" But Milton must have known that Jude is of dubious authenticity and dubious identity; because he was evidently acquainted with the work of Hugo Grotius called Annotationes in Evangelistas, published in 1644, since he quotes it in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and in that commentary Grotius assigns the authorship of the Epistle to a certain Jude who was Bishop of Jerusalem in the time of the Emperor Adrian. Grotius is here in substantial agreement with modern scholarship, and if the surmise be correct, it of