Wiccans and neo-pagans like to insist that Satan is not a pagan invention, but wholly a creation of Judaeo-Christianity. But Schreck demonstrates that Satan is both younger and older than the Bible. For while Dante created the modern image of Satan, the concept of an evil dark god — a malevolent deity in opposition to the established social order — predates Judaism. Satan's roots extend into paganism, and probably into prehistory.
Schreck writes:
"Swiss writer Hannes Vatter observed in his 1978 'The Devil In English Literature' that 'the oldest known deity bearing some resemblance to our devil is Set or Setekh, the Egyptian god of drought and tempest. ...
The Norse Edda provides us with the trickster god Loki, disobedient commander of Hel's dark forces, identified with fire and a contentious relation to the All-Father of the Nordic pantheon. ...
Judaeo-Christianity's advent added surprisingly little to the ancient mythos of the Dark God, save for that faith's declaration that the morally ambiguous chthonic deities of all other religions were now to be considered irredeemably evil. This simplistic dualistic understanding of the universe was adopted by the Hebrew tribes during their Babylonian captivity, when they encountered the Persian Zoroastrian philosophy. Zoroaster posited a never-ending war between the good day god Ahura Mazda and his wicked foe, the night god Ahriman, a conflict that spawned the Judaeo-Christian concept of Absolute Good and Evil that would blight centuries to come."
I spoke of Schreck's iconoclastic perspective. His Introduction evinces ethical nihilism. He seems opposed not only to "the Judaeo-Christian concept of Absolute Good and Evil," but to all objective morality. Schreck dismisses "evil" as an "entirely subjective chimera."
Here is Schreck's remark, in context:
"All dualistic moralists, despite the purist of intentions, must ultimately fail to convince their audiences that 'evil' — however they may define that entirely subjective chimera — is not rather attractive and exciting. The tragic splendor of the Devil's sullied beauty has proven to be an alluring literary device, one that conspires time and time again to transform the ultimate villain into a hero after all."
But if evil is an "entirely subjective chimera," then so is good. Morality is illusory. Taken literally, Schreck's words deny any moral difference between Hitler and Gandhi, between a hate criminal and a hate crime victim.
Does Schreck believe his own words? Or is he sophomorically trying to irritate Judaeo-Christian sensibilities, and in so doing, has inadvertently said more than he meant? I don't know. However, it is noteworthy that the late Anton Szandor LaVey espoused a similar nihilism in his Satanic Bible.
Article comments