.Some reference may hero be made to the inter- esting Book of the Secrets of Enurh recently bro\i;;ht to light in its Slavonic form by Mr. Mortill. It has been supposed that it was origin- ally composed about the beginning of the Christian era. Here again we note the identification of Satan with the Serpent in Gn 3. We read in SI'"- ' The devil took thought as if wishing to make another world because things were subservient to Adam on earth . . . He became Satan after he left the heavens. His name waa formerly Satanail. He conceived designs against Adam in such a manner that he entered and deceived Eve. But he did not touch Adam.' 29'"'- graphically por- trays how Satanail was burled from the heights with his angels on the third day of creation : ' One of those in the ranks of the archangel.^ having turned away with the rank below him, entertained an impossible idea that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth, and should be equal in rank to My power. And I hurled him from the heights witii his angels. And he was flying in the air continually above the abyss.' Hero we have one of the ultimate sonrces of Milton's conception of Satan's revolt.
The Jewish ideas reflected in the Targums and Midrash present a close resemblance to those just described. The identification of the Serpent with Satan was expressed in Jewish theological writers by the name bestowed on the latter, pc^isn pnj. Ihus in iiifre 138A the heathen are called the disciples of 'linp? c'Oi who seduced Adam and Eve. In Bcreshith 29 we find the tradition that Sammael, the highest angel that stands before God's throne, caused the Serpent to seduce the woman. Thus Satan and Sammael coalesce into one personality. Sammael, according to Dettt. Rabba 11, is the angel, the wicked one, chief of all Satans. Here again we observe the same divided personalities as in the Book of Enoch, and Satan appears to be a personified generalization. There is an arch- Satan called Sammael, and there are Satans who are subordinate to him, just as the angels who are subject to God as His attendant ministers. According to Targ. Jems. I. on Gn 3" Eve saw, at the moment when the Serpent addressed her, Sam- mael, ' angel of death,' and became afraid. Envy is made the motive to man's temptation. Accord- ing to Sanhedrin 59, the Serpent was jealous of the services rendered to man by the angels. In Sota 9a and Bcresh. Babba 18, the temptation is ascribed to the motive of lustful jealousy. lb. 24 relates the curious legend that demons held intercourse with Adam and Eve during the first 130 years after the Fall, and other demons {a^'a, I'V^. i'T'i, and ninn) were the product of the union. Bereshith 42 ascribes the birth of Cain to the union of Satan with Eve (Weber).
Freedom of will is ascribed in the Talmud to man even after the F'all. He can therefore choose either good or evil. The evil impulse in man is designated by the term j,"!? i)". which works within him like a leaven (Berakh. 17a). Satan accom- plishes his fell purpose by the instrumentality of the W} "ly; (Bammidbar rabba 20, Baba bathra I5a). Moreover, Satan is not only tempter, but also accuser, of whom the individual is continually in dread, since he never knows what is his stand- ing before God, whether he is justified in His sight, or liable to condemnation through Satan's accusations. A similar conception underlies 1 Ti 3'-' and Rev 12'". — Targums frequently foist Satan into the OT narrative, e.g. Targ. Jon. on Ex 32" (Lv 9'). Eisenmenger, Ent. J\ul. i. p. 840, quotes rabbinic passages in which the angel who wrestled with Jacob is identified with Sammael. Similarly Belial (Beliar), according to Ascensiu Jesaim, enters into Manasseh and accomplishes the martyrdom of the prophet.
iv. New Testament ideas respecting Satan. —These follow the broad outlines of contemporary Judaism, but are without its grosser and more extravagant elements, and are generally char- acterized by simplicity. The epithets bestowed on Satan are various. He is apparently identified with Beelzebub * (Beelzebul) in Mt 12^- ", cf. 10» ;
* Instead of Bii*ti5«iii the better attested form In Mt 10* 1234. 27, Ilk ■i'!:i, Lk lll»- 1« is \UiW'<->- (sustained by B «nd partly by N ; see WH). The latter is obviously a corruption of the foniier, and the fonner (BiiAji^aiiX) arnso out of the OT fomi o^iopled by Jerome and Aramaized, IleelzfOub. How did Bitxlti^ciK iirise? About this we have three theories — (11 olxc^iir^cTyt< in .Mt 10*-^ is held to bo a reiulerinff based on the Aramaic Sinj^y^. Tliifl may be true in reference to ^i|^, but that S^f means ' house,* * dwellintj,' is doubtful. In 1 K 813 the readin); is uncertain; cf. LX.\ and Wcllh. in lileek's /i'l'n- leitung*. p. 2:)0. See also Nownck on Hob 3". (2) S317j;3 is ref^anled as a purjiosed variation with a contemptuous meaning, 'lord of nith.' Su't ( = '7}1 Syr. ZfM6) meant tteretu. Chevne in Kncycl. liibl. ar^^ucs that super«titiou8 Jews would hardly use such an opprobrious epithet ajjainst the prince of the demons. Moreover, such a mode of pronouncing the name is not found anywhere but in the NT. (3) More probable is the view of Bauaissin (art. 'Beelzebub' In Piitl^) that we have a change of flnal consonant in popular pronunciation parallel tc