Talk:Lucifer (angel)

Ehhh, needs some work. Lucifer is not literally "Son of the Morning," it's literally more like Light Bearer (Lat. lux,-cis "light;" ferro,ferre,tuli,latum "to carry"). Lucifer was one of the Roman names for Venus, which was called Helel in Hebrew and "dawn-bearer" in the LXX. The text literally addresses Venus, but most modern commentators think it figuratively addresses the king of Babylon (e.g. NET).

In common parlance, it definitely refers to the Devil. But we shouldn't confuse modern eisegesis with responsible scholarly work.--All Fish Welcome 21:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the thoughts. While I can certainly make mistakes, I did check the Hebrew before starting the article and the word used is "Ben" which translates as son. Luficer, as written in Isaiah, would have pre-dated Venus by many hundreds of years. The Babylonian connection has been proposed, and with good reason, for quite some time, but there are elements that make it wanting as a full explanation. For instance the Babylonians were polytheistic, and while it was not uncommon for rulers to claim to be descended from a diety, they wouldn't say they were greater than the head of their pantheon. Just my thoughts. Learn together 21:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Nuts, we both should've checked the English before we checked the Hebrew. Luficer? How do we get this renamed?

In any case, the Helel ben Shachar (Bright Son of the Dawn) is identified with the astronomical Venus, not the goddess Venus; I think I was unclear about that. The NET translators theorize Helel either symbolized the King of Babylon directly or alluded to a Babylonian myth. In the latter case, the mythical Helel attempts to overthrow heaven not unlike the Miltonian Satan. But it was definitely addressed to the king of Babylon, and the pompous theological title--often used, as you said, by Babylonian monarchs--fits right in with the pericope's mocking tone.

In the LXX, Helel was εωσφορος--my Bible software doesn't key that to anything in Strong's, so I had to go to Wikipedia to explain this to me. The Greeks recognized the planet Venus as Eosphoros and Phosphoros, the bringer of the dawn and the bringer of light. Both were sons of Eos, Dawn, so Eosphoros was a good translation of Helel ben Shachar into the Greek idiom. The Romans called Eosphoros "Lucifer," a fairly literal translation from the Greek, and also an idiomatic translation of "Son of the Dawn," for Lucifer was Aurora's son. When translating the Vulgate, Jerome chose to use the existing Latin form. By this point, the name had picked up some Greco-Roman baggage that would not have been present when the autographs were inspired, but I can't say what the effect of that baggage might've been.

So, that is the etymological history. Lucifer=Eosphoros=Bringer of Light=="Son of the Dawn"=Venus; Helel ben Shachar=Shining Son of Dawn=Venus. Lucifer is not a direct translation of the Hebrew "Shining Son of Dawn," but the Greco-Roman appellation of the same astronomical object with the similar idiomatic force.

The identification of Lucifer, by any name, with Satan poses its own problems. There doesn't seem to be a Jewish tradition of Lucifer being Satan (link), and many of the acts or personas traditionally associated with Lucifer/Satan can just as comfortably be filled by other interpretations of the text.

While we're on the subject, Mike Carey's "Lucifer" comic book series is really good, and one should pick it up if one enjoyed the first four volumes of Sandman.--All Fish Welcome 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge

Satan is locked. If it were unlocked an extra section on Lucifer could be added. I wouldn't just do a redirect as the quotes from Isaiah don't exist in the satan article. We should also add in information on when the concepts of Lucifer and satan became equated. Learn together 17:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)