Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4695917-trinitarian-latin-mass/page4
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4695917-trinitarian-latin-mass?p=4975387#post4975387

CARM - 2018
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/4840470-jehovah-as-the-pronunciation-of-יהוה?p=5226455#post5226455

Isaiah 14:12-15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Click to expand...

Luke 10:17-18
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying,
Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

=======================

The Devil Is in the Details: The Subtlety of Satan in the Complexity of Life (2010)
https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Details-Subtlety-Satan-Complexity/dp/1615071520
https://voice.dts.edu/review/tony-kessinger-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

You should be able to see p. 15-19, to start, from Chapter 2, in Amazon.

=======================

Tony Kessinger, reviewed by DTS, is, as I mentioned, generally superb, Basically a must read.

Sigve K. Tonstad also recognizes that even looking at just the original Hebrew "the original Hebrew may imply a name." And Jerome really was in the loop living in Bethlehem and studying at the Caesarea library and working with the Jews for language knowledge.

As for Jerome, I suggest you find and read his quotes, rather than take Gesenius or the Hermeneutics Stack Exchange ultra-sparse analysis. (Granted, Stack Exchange, Redddit and Quora and sources of that nature can sometimes really be helpful.) They were online from me a while back but got purged, so I would have to reinvigorate the list. (Now I generally mirror.)

In Isaiah 14:12 did the King James translator make a mistake using the term Lucifer to describe morning star?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20952/in-isaiah-1412-did-the-king-james-translator-make-a-mistake-using-the-term-luci/20959#20959?newreg=c04af4339ed74daca792a0b4c2016175
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Lucifer - ECW - Origen and Treatise on Rebaptism

Why is Isaiah 14:12-15 interpreted by some to refer to Satan?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8066/why-is-isaiah-1412-15-interpreted-by-some-to-refer-to-satan/8071
Origen appears to be the prime candidate to connect explicity Isaiah 14:12 and Luke 10:18. First, from De principiis (On First Principles), Bk. I.v.5 (brief citation: see link for whole passage):
​
Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.”​

This is the direct link (the smoking gun?) that joins together the two passages. The other, less explicit, passage also comes from De principiis, Bk. IV.i.22 (again, brief citation), and only offers support for the basis on which Origen could make the exegetical move:
​
And what is said in many places, and especially in Isaiah, of Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be explained of that individual. For the man Nebuchadnezzar neither fell from heaven, nor was he the morning star, nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning.​
​
=================================

And finally, the third "intriguing" suggestion is an editorial note in an anonymous work (sometimes connected with Cyprian, contemporary with Origen), "Treatise on Rebaptism", in which the ancient author briefly discusses the "Get behind me..." (Matthew 16:23) passage. The editor comments:

Isa. xiv. 12. The sin of Lucifer had, very possibly, been this of rebelling against the Incarnation and the introduction thereby of an order of beings higher than himself. Hence our Lord recognised in Peter’s words the voice of the old adversary, and called him “Satan.”...

=================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tertullian on Ezekiel 28

CARM 2018 continues - plan more ECW quotes.

For Tertullian, check out the discussion and references in Karlo V. Bordjadze - Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14:3-23 as Christian Scripture - p. 135-136 and especially the two refs in p. 136.
https://books.google.com/books?id=RSA6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA136

Jerome has a number of good references, I am checking if they are available in one spot.

And I think there are others that pre-date the Vulgate.of Jerome.

============================

Tertullian on Ezekiel 28 is akin to Origen on Isaiah 14.

If, however, you choose to transfer the account of evil from man to the devil as the instigator of sin, and in this way, too, throw the blame on the Creator, inasmuch as He created the devil — for He makes those spiritual beings, the angels— then it will follow that what was made, that is to say, the angel, will belong to Him who made it; while that which was not made by God, even the devil, or accuser, cannot but have been made by itself; and this by false detraction from God: first, how that God had forbidden them to eat of every tree; then, with the pretence that they should not die if they ate; thirdly, as if God grudged them the property of divinity. Now, whence originated this malice of lying and deceit towards man, and slandering of God? Most certainly not from God, who made the angel good after the fashion of His good works. Indeed, before he became the devil, he stands forth the wisest of creatures; and wisdom is no evil. If you turn to the prophecy of Ezekiel, you will at once perceive that this angel was both by creation good and by choice corrupt. For in the person of the prince of Tyre it is said in reference to the devil:

Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus says the Lord God: You seal up the sum, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty (this belongs to him as the highest of the angels, the archangel, the wisest of all); amidst the delights of the paradise of your God were you born (for it was there, where God had made the angels in a shape which resembled the figure of animals).

Every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle; and with gold have you filled your barns and your treasuries. From the day when you were created, when I set you, a cherub, upon the holy mountain of God, you were in the midst of stones of fire, you were irreproachable in your days, from the day of your creation, until your iniquities were discovered. By the abundance of your merchandise you have filled your storehouses, and you have sinned, etc.[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]

This description, it is manifest, properly belongs to the transgression of the angel, and not to the prince's: for none among human beings was either born in the paradise of God, not even Adam himself, who was rather translated there; nor placed with a cherub upon God's holy mountain, that is to say, in the heights of heaven, from which the Lord testifies that Satan fell; nor detained among the stones of fire, and the flashing rays of burning constellations, whence Satan was cast down like lightning. Luke 10:18 No, it is none else than the very author of sin who was denoted in the person of a sinful man: he was once irreproachable, at the time of his creation, formed for good by God, as by the good Creator of irreproachable creatures, and adorned with every angelic glory, and associated with God, good with the Good; but afterwards of his own accord removed to evil. From the day when your iniquities, says he, were discovered, — attributing to him those injuries wherewith he injured man when he was expelled from his allegiance to God — even from that time did he sin, when he propagated his sin, and thereby plied the abundance of his merchandise, that is, of his Wickedness, even the tale of his transgressions, because he was himself as a spirit no less (than man) created, with the faculty of free-will. For God would in nothing fail to endow a being who was to be next to Himself with a liberty of this kind. Nevertheless, by precondemning him, God testified that he had departed from the condition of his created nature, through his own lusting after the wickedness which was spontaneously conceived within him; and at the same time, by conceding a permission for the operation of his designs, He acted consistently with the purpose of His own goodness, deferring the devil's destruction for the self-same reason as He postponed the restitution of man. For He afforded room for a conflict, wherein man might crush his enemy with the same freedom of his will as had made him succumb to him (proving that the fault was all his own, not God's), and so worthily recover his salvation by a victory; wherein also the devil might receive a more bitter punishment, through being vanquished by him whom he had previously injured; and wherein God might be discovered to be so much the more good, as waiting for man to return from his present life to a more glorious paradise, with a right to pluck of the tree of life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Kirk DiVietro PDF

Did the King James Bible borrow from the Latin Vulgate?

Much is made of the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. We are told that the King James translators used the Vulgate in translating this verse and this name. Let us understand that if a word is an accurate translation of a given Greek or Hebrew term then if it appears in more than one translation without there being any direct dependence of the one on the other. This is especially true if the word has already gained wide usage in English, having its own English meaning. This is the case with the word Lucifer.

1743785480108.png


This is an interlinear of the Isaiah passage. The Hebrew is certain. There arc no variants to consider. The question is, does the Hebrew say morning star or does it say Luciferl Lucifer is not a transliteration of the Hebrew like many of the proper nouns of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name is an interpretation of the Hebrew noun. Since Hebrew does not have capital and lower case forms the identification of Halal as a proper noun is due to grammar and context.

The context demands that it be seen as a proper noun. The halal is being directly and vocatively addressed. It is a personification. The person being addressed is king of Babylon. Most interpreters look behind the human king to see the spiritual king and see Satan. From the statement of Jesus we know that he is the one who ‘fell from heaven'. Interpreters sec this passage along with Ezekiel 28 as the biblical description of that fall. It is only appropriate then that the word be translated as a name.

Why did the King James translators use the name Lucifer? Did they simply look to the Vulgate
translation and adopt its translation? Since they were rabidly anti-catholic this is hardly probable.
Instead we look to the instruction given to them. The first three rules apply


1. The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed and as
little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

The first instructed them to make the "Bishop's Bible, "so called, the basis of their work,
altering It no further than fidelity to the originals required. In the result, however, the
new version agreed much more with the Geneva than with any other; though the huffing
king, at the Hampton Court Conference, reproached it as "the worst of all."

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained
as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

The second rule requires that the mode then used of spelling the proper names should
be retained as far as might be.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated
"congregation." (The Greek word can be translated either way.)
The third rule requires "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, "such as "church " instead of
"congregation.”

A simple survey of the versions of the English Bible prior to the KJV shows that the name Lucifer
was in common biblical tradition and in ecclesiastical use.

1 Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

1743802105282.png


Reading sermons and Christian writing of the same period has allusions to Lucifer. By the time that
the King James Bible was translated there was over 200 years of its use among English Christians.
Most modem words and titles do not have a history that long! Should we say that anyone using the
name William is borrowing from Chaucer? Or, that someone using the word Caesar is borrowing
from Shakespeare? NO. These words have established usage and meaning independent of their first
appearance in formal literature. It is absurd to ignore this fact. The King James translators used the
word Lucifer because that was the common understanding of the passage.

Further, the name Lucifer means “light carrier”. The greek Septuagint translates it HaXaX 6
eojo^os* Heopheros, poo - dawn morning (f>epco - carrier. This was the meaning to contemporary
Greek speaking Jews. The Greek in Revelation 22.21 actually says MORNING STAR (opGii'o?
dorqp orthinos - early morning astar - star). If the Septuagint Jews had considered Halal the
morning star they would no doubt have used this translation. Who would be more qualified to
translate the Hebrew, those who actually spoke both languages or us, 2000 years later?

The Vulgate translation was not made in a vaccum. It no doubt leaned on the Septuagint translation
and why? Because Lucifer has the same meaning. The word morning star does not come from a
literal translation of Halal. It is just as interpretative as Lucifer and more misleading.

Why is this issue raised if it has no real basis in fact? There are two possibilities. The first is a
concession to those who do not believe in a literal personal devil. Removing the proper name
Lucifer and substituting morning star makes the statement a metaphor and open to this less literal
interpretation. Secondly, calling Satan the morning star, no matter what sophistry is introduced to
support the translation, impunes the identification of the Lord Jesus as the true morning star.2
Finally, the charge that the KJV translators depended on the Vulgate in this translation is an attempt
to denigrate the KJV. It is intellectually dishonest. It is unwarranted by fact or tradition.

2 Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top