Part 1 (1/2)
The Sceptics of the Old Testament: Job - Koheleth - Agur.
by Emile Joseph Dillon.
DEDICATORY NOTE
_My Dear Paschkoff,
In the philosophical problems dealt with by the Sceptics of the Old Testament, you will recognise the theme of our numerous and pleasant discussions during the past sixteen years. Three of these are indelibly engraven in my memory, and, if I mistake not, in yours.
The first took place in St. Petersburg one soft Indian-summer's evening, in a cosy room on the Gagarine Quay, from the windows of which we looked out with admiration upon the blue expanse of the Neva, as it reflected the burnished gold of the spire of the Fortress church. At that time we gazed upon the wavelets of the river and the wonders of the world from exactly the same angle of vision.
The second of these memorable conversations occurred after the lapse of nine years. We had met together in the old place, and sauntering out one bitterly cold December evening resumed the discussion, walking to and fro on the moonlit bank of the ice-bound river, until evening merged into night and the moon sank beneath the horizon, leaving us in total darkness, vainly desirous, like Goethe, of ”light, more light.”
Our last exchange of views took place after six further years had sped away, and we stood last August on the summit of the historic Monchsberg, overlooking the final resting-place of the great Paracelsus. The long and interesting discussions which we had on that occasion, just before setting out in opposite directions, you to the East and I to the West, neither of us is likely ever to forget.
It is in commemoration of these pleasant conversations, and more especially of the good old times, now past for ever, when we looked out upon the wavelets of the Neva and the wonders of the world from the same angle of vision, that I ask you to allow me to a.s.sociate your name with this translation of the primitive texts of the Sceptics of the Old Testament.
Yours affectionately,
E. J. DILLON.
TREBIZOND, January 3, 1895._
PREFACE
A careful perusal of this first English translation of the primitive text of ”Job,” ”Koheleth,” and the ”Sayings of Agur” will, I doubt not, satisfy the most orthodox reader that I am fully warranted in characterising their authors as Sceptics. The epithet, I confess, may prove distasteful to many, but the truth, I trust, will be welcome to all. It is not easy to understand why any one who firmly believes that Providence is continually educing good from evil should hesitate to admit that it may in like manner allow sound moral principles to be enshrined in doubtful or even erroneous philosophical theories. Or, is trust in G.o.d to be made dependent upon the confirmation or rejection by physical science of, say, the Old Testament account of the origin of the rainbow?
Agur, ”Job” and ”Koheleth” had outgrown the intellectual husks which a narrow, inadequate and erroneous account of G.o.d's dealings with man had caused to form around the minds of their countrymen, and they had the moral courage to put their words into harmony with their thoughts.
Clearly perceiving that, whatever the sacerdotal cla.s.s might say to the contrary, the political strength of the Hebrew people was spent and its religious ideals exploded, they sought to s.h.i.+ft the centre of gravity from speculative theology to practical morality.
The manner in which they adjusted their hopes, fears, and aspirations to the new conditions, strikes the keynote of their respective characters.
”Job,” looking down upon the world from the tranquil heights of genius, is manful, calm, resigned. ”Koheleth,” shuddering at the gloom that envelops and the pain that convulses all living beings, prefers death to life, and freedom from suffering to ”positive” pleasure; while Agur, revealing the bitterness bred by dispelled illusions and blasted hopes, administers a severe chastis.e.m.e.nt to those who first called them into being. All three[1] reject the dogma of retribution, the doctrine of eternal life and belief in the coming of a Messiah, over and above which they at times strip the notion of G.o.d of its most essential attributes, reducing it to the shadow of a mere metaphysical abstraction. This is why I call them Sceptics.
”Job” and ”Koheleth” emphatically deny that there is any proof to be found of the so-called moral order in the universe, and they unhesitatingly declare that existence is an evil. They would have us therefore exchange our hopes for insight, and warn us that even this is very circ.u.mscribed at best. For not only is happiness a mockery, but knowledge is a will-o'-the-wisp. Mankind resembles the bricklayer and the hodman who help to raise an imposing edifice without any knowledge of the general plan. And yet the structure is the outcome of their labour. In like manner this mysterious world is the work of man--the mirror of his will. As his will is, so are his acts, and as his acts are, so is his world. Or as the ancient Hindoos put it:
”Before the G.o.ds we bend our necks, and yet within the toils of Fate Entangled are the G.o.ds themselves. To Fate, then, be all honour given.
Yet Fate itself can compa.s.s nought, 'tis but the bringer of the meed For every deed that we perform.
As then our acts shape our rewards, of what avail are G.o.ds or Fate?
Let honour therefore be decerned to deeds alone.”
But what, I have been frequently asked, will be the effect of all this upon theology? Are we to suppose that the writings of these three Sceptics were admitted into the Canon by mistake, and if not, shall we not have to widen our definition of inspiration until it can be made to include contributions which every Christian must regard as heterodox? An exhaustive reply to this question would need a theological dissertation, for which I have neither desire nor leisure. I may say, however, that eminent theologians representing various Christian denominations--Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran--have a.s.sured me that they could readily reconcile the dogmas of their respective Churches with doctrines educible from the primitive text of ”Job,” ”Koheleth,” and Agur, whose ethics they are disposed to identify, in essentials, with the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. With the ways and means by which they effect this reconciliation I am not now concerned.
My object was neither to attack a religious dogma, nor to provoke a theological controversy, but merely to put the latest results of philological science within the reach of him who reads as he runs. And I feel confident that the reader who can appreciate the highest forms of poetry, or who has anxiously pondered over the problems of G.o.d, immortality, the origin of evil, &c., will peruse the writings of ”Job,”
”Koheleth” and Agur with a lively interest, awakened, and sustained not merely by the extrinsic value which they possess as historical doc.u.ments, but by their intrinsic merits as precious contributions to the literature and philosophy of the world.