helel ben shachar - Part II

Question:

"Do you think that the "Shining One, Son of the Morning" may be a reference to the Morning Star (i.e. Venus as it appears in the morning sky)? Or do you think there is another significance (though I doubt that the Afroasiatic peoples with the exception of the Egyptians made much use of helical rising stars in time-keeping measurements)?

If it is a reference to the Morning Star, then the translation of Lucifer is quite apt. If it is a reference to another astronolical phenominon, then it is not."

Response:

If I had a nickel for every individual (scholar and layman) who have attempted association of the Hebrew "helel" to various Canaanite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, and other ancient near east astral myths – I would have been able to retire decades ago in the south of France. There is an entire section within the CUL dedicated to the various thesis, studies, and papers issued in this regard – the majority of course peaking between the 15th and 17th centuries before interest was quashed as Jerome's erroneous theological blunder became quite apparent.

The Hebrew word "helel" is not a proper name, but is rather an epithet. Assigning "Lucifer", or "Bob", or "Mary", or any other proper name to helel is a wide divergence from Hebrew grammar, and simply cannot be supported in the underlying text, nor context. That is problem number one. A larger problem has to do with the fact that "helel ben-shachar" is a "hapax legomenon", appearing only once in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

Many sources (such as Herder and Gunkel, McKay, Pritchard, Winckler, Day, et al ) are often drawn upon to argue that the Hebrew phrase rendered helel ben shachar is the product of myth, or at least similar in reference to other mystical accounts. These sources reference the astral myths, the mythology from various ancient near east cultures, and alleged mythological phrases that supposedly parallel Isaiah 14:12. The greater majority of these theses dried-up long before the end of the 18th century as more information regarding B-Hebrew became known and available.

You propose the "comparison to Venus" endeavors.

As many have claimed an association with Venus, so have they claimed association with Jupiter, Marduk, Enlil, Arabic (Sahr – the moon god), Hil (Ugaritic god), Nergal, Shahar, even Halley's comet.

As many have proposed the association with astral myth, twice have adequately shown all the approaches problematic for numerous reasons.

An examination of the various existing myths from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Chaldean, Canaanite, Greek, and Ugaritic et al regions (yes, and even the Nordic) and cultures has demonstrated that any similarities between these myths and the Helel account are typically outweighed by vast differences. In those situations when a cited myth seems to be on point, a careful investigation demonstrates that the historicity of such a myth is in doubt. In essence, there is an absence of any single myth reflecting the totality of the context presented in Isaiah 14:12. This absence of association has been recognized by a number of scholars (my favorite in this regard is Chisholm).

Despite enormous interest in this aspect of Isaiah and innumerable attempts, nobody has yet been able to reconstruct a convincing mythological torso or to determine its precise origin. No known literature matches the details provided in Isaiah, nor has Isaiah been shown to have depended on any mythical source.

It is most probable however, that the prophet simply drew upon existing Hebrew culture and prior biblical material rather than from the mythology of the surrounding culture (compare Job 38:32 and the known Mazzaroth and Ash constellations, and the association with established earthly authority or rulership). The context alone in Isaiah is fairly convincing that it is a Babylonian ruler who is being addressed (and most convincingly, the associated whole of Babylonian rulership/political system).

Rendering "Lucifer" or any other proper name to Isaiah 14:12 is not supported by the Hebrew text and grammatical construct. There is simply nothing with the context of Isaiah 14, or within the entire Hebrew Scriptures, to presume an association to Venus (McKay), as the "morning star". The rendering therefore, and implied association with Lucifer of other origin, is somewhat impotent. There is however, strong evidence that such refers to titles often assigned to themselves by Babylonian Kings (Sayce touches on this, as well as the more contemporary Joan Oates in her and her husbands latest revision of Babylon – just a few suggestions if you are looking for more info).

Does this mean you personally cannot ascribe a higher mystical association with certain Hebrew biblical accounts and other cultural antiquity accounts and literature? Nah. People have been doing such for eons, and I suspect as long as people are more excited about a perceived mystical explanation hidden in the kosmos, the section in the CUL will certainly grow larger over time.