The rendering "Lucifer" (AV,Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer comes from a root meaning "to shine" and is a descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon." Isa. 14:4,12
This shining one is represented as saying in his heart: "Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting." (Isa. 14:13)
Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the mountain of meeting." Since stars can refer to kings (Numbers 24:17; Rev. 22:16), the stars of God must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion.
In fact the metaphor of a star is specifically used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by the conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. They did therefore, shine brightly in the ancient world and could be termed "shining one" (Lucifer)
The king of Babylon (or, the dynasty of Babylonian kings) indicated his ambition to lift up his throne above the stars of God by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally dethroning them.
Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph's dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his eleven brothers by eleven stars.(Gen. 37:9,10)
Job 38:7 parallels the morning stars that joyfully cried out at earth's founding with the angelic sons of God.
The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as the bright morning star and promised to give the morning star to his conquering followers, this evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Rev. 22:16; 2:26,28; compare 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6)
The seven angels of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Rev. 1:16,20; 2:1; 3:1)
The angel of the abyss called Abaddon is also represented by a star. Rev. 9:1,11
Literally, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן־שׁחר), light bearer (or shining one), son of the dawn, to refer to the fall of the Babylonian king.
Strong, Briggs, Robinson, and others tell us that the term, הילל, helel, can be translated "shining one".
The King James Version renders vs. 12 as follows: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations."
In spite of this rendering, the proper name "Lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew "Lucifer, son of the morning" is helel ben shachar. It could be translated "Shining one, son of the dawn." It is NOT a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.
In the fourth century C.E., Jerome (340 AD – 419 AD) had risen to prominence within the Roman Catholic Church and began work on a Latin translation of the Bible. After 20 years the translation known as the Vulgate was completed (405 C.E.)
Church historian Schaff says of the Vulgate: "From the present stage of biblical philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing, in particulars…"
When he (Jerome) translated Isaiah 14:12, he did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, neither did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros. He instead translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, which by Jerome's time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan.
Many think that Jerome's selection of words may have been influenced by the theology of the earlier Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen, who had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon.
Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, offers some insightful background, "The history of the origin of a being called Lucifer is interesting. The word Lucifer comes from the Latin verb, luceo, lucere, luxi, which means to shine, to glow, glitter, to be clear. It is light, day dawning. The adjective, lucidus-a-um, means shining, bright, clear, lucid. The noun, lucifer-eri, means the morning star, the planet Venus, or a day. It comes from the adjective lucifer-era-erum, shiny."
The Bible includes no character named Lucifer. Isaiah had never heard of such a being. Nor had the apostles of Jesus' day. Lucifer, as a manifestation of the devil, is a later invention. We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name "Lucifer" does not find its way into a translation until Jerome's time, some 150 years later.
Dr. Watts summarizes, "The apparent reflection of a 'Lucifer myth' in v. 12 is just that. It is a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant." We learn nothing of the origins of Satan from this story.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
