Talk:Fallen angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occult (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Out of place?[edit]

I dont think detailed information about the chiefs of the groups of tens of 1 Enoch's Watchers is helpful here. It's enough to give that information in the article on these "Watchers". Esoglou (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your input on that. I will move it back. I wanted to see how it would look and if it was better. It just seemed to me better... but its more or less my POV. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Section merge: Grigori into Watchers[edit]

"Grigori. These are the Watchers... of whom we have so full accounts in 1 En." - Charles, edited, in conjunction with many scholars, by R.H. (2004). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English : with introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press. p. 439. ISBN 0974762377. 

On this page only, I'm merging Grigori into Watchers section, since they are the same beings. On the Watchers page, it is appropriate that they remain separate sections for textual distinction, but it is not necessary here. By having two sections on this page, also suggests they are separate beings, even if it is stated otherwise. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Falsifying quotations[edit]

User:‎Esoglou, in regards to:

(diff | hist) . . Fallen angel‎; 18:39 . . (+442)‎ . . ‎Esoglou (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Watchers who fell: please don't falsify quotations by inserting words of your own into them)

Could you elaborate more on this accusation against me?

I italicize the text because there are various versions. If you are going to put quotes than you need to specify which version its coming from. Quite honestly, the entire paragraph is unnecessary and can be summarized in one sentence, and that's where this is going... All this detail is getting way overblown. As editors, we prepare summaries of the information... not quotes all over the place. If you are going to get stuck on quotes... then provide the version that its coming from, please.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I referred to the insertion of "(fifth heaven)" into "out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless" (2 Enoch 29:1-4). Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I won't do that anymore. I'm sorry if that caused a problem. You are right, I should have at least had a source for it. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: Watchers[edit]

  • Objective: To prevent edit warring
  • Goal: Come to resolution of each sentence, line by line and/or item by item.
  • Editors: User:jasonasosa versus User:Esoglou
  • Discussion: Open discussion concerning Watchers in 1 Enoch and Grigori (Watchers) in 2 Enoch

Paragraph 1[edit]

The Watchers mentioned in the Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, also known as the First Book of Enoch, are viewed as fallen angels who intermarried with human beings during the Antediluvian period before the Flood.[1][2] The Watchers in the Book of Enoch are paralleled to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4.[3]

I propose to strike out reference #[1] because it does not provide page number. The Zondervan reference is sufficient.
ref#[1] Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol.1 Doubleday
I do not object to the contents of this paragraph. It should stay as is.
User:Esoglou, do you have any objections?
-Jasonasosa (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the first sentence is inaccurate. Not all the Watchers mentioned in the Book of Enoch intermarried with human beings. Some (the majority, I suppose, but I think 1 Enoch does not specify) were faithful. "In 1 Enoch 12:3-4 Enoch is asked by the faithful Watchers of the heavens to go to their rebellious brethren in order to announce God's upcoming punishment for the iniquities they committed on earth" (Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, p. 54). And indeed this chapter of 1 Enoch a) presents Enoch as a righteous man; and b) says "his dwelling place as well as his activities were with the Watchers and the holy ones". These Watchers ask Enoch to "go and make known to the Watchers of heaven who have abandoned the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women ..." Note "the Watchers of heaven who have", not "the Watchers of heaven, who have". The faithful Watchers thus speak of some Watchers, by no means all, as having defiled themselves.
In the light of how the first sentence is corrected, the second sentence will require new consideration.
(As a by-the-way remark, not for discussion at this point, I will say that, when compared with 1 Enoch, the internal logic of 2 Enoch shows up as faulty, and interpreting one part of 2 Enoch in the light of another is risky.) Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
PROPOSAL 1: (For review); Please Note: I've taken the html (ref) tags out so we can see the sources on this page.
In the Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch, a fallen angel motif is given in Chapters 6-36, concerning Watchers who came to the earth and corrupted mankind. They married and had intercourse with human women, (Charlesworth 2011, p. 5) (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011, p. 1389) a narrative often parralleled with the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. (Wright 2004, p. 20)
(End subsection)
Grigori (New sub-section)
END PROPOSAL 1
Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. This new par. does not subject all Watchers to being "fallen", noting your concerns about faithful Watchers while still being able to tie into Gen 6.
  2. It specifically identifies the fallen Watchers of Ch. 6-36.
  3. The Charlesworth reference is updated with a page num.
  4. A new subsection to address the Grigori, noting your concerns about the riskiness of Enochian book discussions in same subsection.
Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Charlesworth, p. 5 does not use the word "Watchers" and speaks instead of "fallen angels". It says that chapters 6-36 are not the only parts of the book that concern the fallen angels: there is information about such angels also in the Dream Visions part (chapters 83-90). It is not certain that the "sons of God" in Gen 6:1-4 were fallen angels (see the New American Commentary, vol. 1A (Genesis 1-11:26), pp. 321ff, which comes down on the side of the view that the "sons of God" in that passage were not meant to be understood as angels). A study dedicated precisely to fallen angels and Enochic literature also reports the Jewish rabbinical view that the "sons of God" were humans, not angels (see pp. 206ff. of Annette Yoshiko Reed's Fallen Angels and the History Of Judaism And Christianity). So is there any reason to say more than that the Book of Enoch speaks of fallen angels among those it calls Watchers, that it presents them as having had intercourse with women and having corrupted mankind as in the Gen 6:14 account of the actions of the "sons of God", and that it says that, at the request of other Watchers, Enoch interceded on their behalf but in vain? Referring to chapters 6-36 is unnecessary and wrongly suggests that the book mentions fallen angels only in those chapters, and it should not be suggested that Gen 6:1-4 makes the "sons of God" out to be (fallen) angels, like those described in 1 Enoch.
PROPOSAL 1-B: (For review): Please Note: ISBN#s for sources listed below are on main page under Fallen angel#References
The Jewish pseudepigraphic Book of Enoch presents a fallen angel motif concerning Watchers (Reed 2005, p. 2) who came to the earth and corrupted mankind. They married and had intercourse with human women, (Charlesworth 2011, p. 5) a narrative commonly parralleled in Christian theology, with the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. (Wright 2004, p. 20)(Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2011, p. 1389)
(End subsection)
Grigori (New sub-section)
END PROPOSAL 1
Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Using Reed, p.2 to connect Watchers with fallen angles supported by Charlesworth, p.5
  2. Removed "Chapters 6-36" so as to not lock in fallen angels into those Chapters alone.
  3. Specifying "in Christian theology" to keep to scope. Judaism's view of "Sons of God" is not in scope of this article. Though Sethian theory takes a minor role in Chrisitian theology, it is more prominent in secular theory, which is also out of scope of this article. These subjects are discussed on Sons of God article, well within scope there.
  4. Mention of Enoch is out of scope of this article. (Topic: Fallen angels only)
  5. Deciphering between evil and good angels is out of scope of this article. Scope of this topic is discussed on Watcher (angel) page.
  6. "Generally, the Watchers are paralleled with the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4" - Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits, 3161486560, p.20. Proposal 1-B specifies only fallen angel Watchers to be connected with Gen 6... does not suggest faithful ones.
Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Generally, the Watchers are paralleled with the sons of God in Genesis 6:-14": Wright says this in relation either to the Book of the Watchers or, in my opinion more likely, in relation to "a well-known subject in early Jewish literature", certainly not "in Christian theology", an idea explicitly denied by Reed's Fallen Angels and the History Of Judaism And Christianity. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsection: Grigori[edit]

Paragraph 1[edit]

Unlike the Book of Enoch, the Second Book of Enoch tells of angels who were "thrown out from the height". Chapter 18 of this Jewish pseudepigraphon speaks of "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light", (ref name=2En18 2 Enoch 18:1-7 in The Forgotten Books of Eden and in many other editions)and whom it locates in the fifth heaven. These Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(Orlov 2011, p. 164) Of these, some "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne" and there married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(DDD 1998, p. 893) (ref name=2En18)

Notes from Jasonasosa (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC) on current content

  1. I don't know why "Unlike the Book of Enoch" keeps popping up. It doesn't even make sense...
  2. The "many other editions"/versions, need to be clearly stated. Hyperlinking this way is not wiki standard... in fact, I may have to bring in User:Dougweller in on this one.
  3. On this page, we should avoid discussing about where the Grigori are located. It suggests that they are only located in fifth heaven, when really they are scattered in different realms. Such talk should belong on the Watcher (angel)#The Grigori page, because really its kind of off topic from the fall.
  4. Somehow the DDD,893 got misapplied to the end. That page only supports that 200 princes fell or in another words "turned aside from the Lord"; It doesn't belong here.

PROPOSAL 2: (For Review)

The Second Book of Enoch tells of Watchers who were "thrown out from the height".(2 Enoch 29:7) Chapter 18 refers to them as "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light". Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(ref name = "Orlov,164">Orlov 2011, p. 164) The Grigori who "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne", married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(2 Enoch 18:1-7, translated by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr)

Please review. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent (no need to talk of how many went down), except for some minor points.
The Second Book of Enoch tells of Watchers angels (the mention of the throwing out does not identify them as Watchers) who were "thrown out from the height"(2 Enoch 29:7). Chapter 18 refers to them as (chapter 18 does not mention any as thrown out) "the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light". Grigori are identified with the Watchers of the Book of Enoch.(ref name = "Orlov,164">Orlov 2011, p. 164) The Grigori who "went down on to earth from the Lord's throne", married women and "befouled the earth with their deeds", resulting in confinement under earth.(2 Enoch 18:1-7, )
Cool beans. Jasonasosa (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry: as is obvious, I wrongly thought this was to be the whole section on the Grigori. I also left uncompleted my alteration of the last citation. I was going to insert "in The Forgotten Books of Eden" in place of "translated by Rutherford H. Platt, Jr", since it is not clear that the translation was by him. But perhaps there is no need to specify. Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We would never just link to a Google search in this way. We link to real individual sources that editors are expected to have verified meet our criteria at WP:RS. And as an aside, snippets won't do, who knows if that next sentence you can't see says "Of course, what I just wrote is nonsense". Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 2[edit]

Most sources quote 2 Enoch as stating that those who descended to earth were three,(ref)Sources presenting one version of 2 Enoch and sources using a different version(/ref) but Andrei A. Orlov, while quoting 2 Enoch as saying that three went down to the earth,(ref)Andrei A. Orlov, Dark Mirrors (SUNY Press 2011 ISBN 9781438439518), p. 93(/ref) remarks in a footnote that some manuscripts put them at 200 or even 200 myriads.(ref name = "Orlov,164"/) In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalypic Literature and Testaments edited by James H. Charlesworth, manuscript J, taken as the best representative of the longer recension, has "and three of them descended" (p. 130), while manuscript A, taken as the best representative of the shorter recension, has "and they descended", which might indicate that all the Grigori descended, or 200 princes of them, or 200 princes and 200 followers, since it follows the phrase "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train" (p. 131).

  1. As User:Dougweller noted above for Par.1, linking Google searches, snippets and such do not meet criteria for WP:RS.
  2. In Charlesworth work, manuscripts J and A are his own identifiers... Those terms are not used or recognized by other analysts. Charlesworth just used those letter names to make it easier to make comparisons between the shorter version and the longer recension.
  3. "which might indicate that all the Grigori descended," based on blah blah blah... sounds like WP:OR
PROPOSAL 2-2:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth. In later accounts, in particularly from 2 Enoch 18:3, the number is exaggerated(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) from as many as 200 hundred thousand to 200 myriad.(ref name = "Orlov,119">Orlov 2011, p. 119: Dark Mirrors, p. 119</ref) Platt's version only indicates that three Grigori went down,(ref>Platt 2004 Reprint, p. 226</ref) while other manuscripts list the original number at two hundred.(ref name="DDD,893">DDD 1998, p. 893</ref)
END PROPOSAL 2-2
Please review, thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have read this just before going out and will not be able to comment at greater length until tomorrow. But I can point out the major defect: Orlov does not say that 200 myriads went down to the earth (your synthetic interpretation). Instead he quotes the phrase about the 200 myriads who "turned aside from the Lord": 200 myriads who sinned and were fallen angels in that sense. Other sources explicitly quote 2 Enoch as saying that the number of Watchers/Grigori who descended to the earth were three. I hope that is clear enough. Esoglou (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll get this cleared up. No worries. I know what you are saying. I'm not stuck on this proposal anyway. We just have to figure out a way to make it more clearer about the relationship of those who turned aside and those who descended to earth, or if they are one in the same... or not. Jasonasosa (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Orlov does use the word "descended" in reference to 200 myriads, which implies going down to earth. "Some manuscripts of 2 Enoch render 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended. The shorter recension of 2 Enoch 18:3 translates 'These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train' - Anderson, 2 Enoch 1.131"(ref>Orlov, Andrei A. (2009). "The Watchers of Satanail" (PDF). Essay. Gorgias Press: 15, Footnote #40. </ref) which is used in his book Dark Mirrors, p. ix, 92, 119-120. Based on this information I've revised Proposal 2-2B as follows:
PROPOSAL 2-2B:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth.(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) Some manuscripts of 2 Enoch render 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended.(ref name = "Orlov,119">Orlov 2011, p. 119: Dark Mirrors, p. 119</ref) The shorter recension of 2 Enoch 18:3 translates "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train" - Anderson, 2 Enoch 1.131(ref>Orlov, Andrei A. (2009). "The Watchers of Satanail" (PDF). Essay. Gorgias Press: 15, Footnote #40. </ref) Platt's version only indicates that three Grigori went down.(ref>Platt 2004 Reprint, p. 226</ref)
END PROPOSAL
Please review. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Dude (does this mean "friend"? It is not part of my vocabulary), please have patience with me. I have had other things to do, and indeed have other things to do just now, but I will try to give you a rapid response. As far as I can see, my comment on Dark Mirrors was correct. However, in The Watchers of Satanail, Orlov interprets the text as making a "reference to the number of the descended Watchers as two hundred (myriads)", explaining: "Some mss. of 2 Enoch speak about 200 descended Watchers, others 200 myriads descended Watchers". The text he is commenting on and which he quotes on the previous page is that of the longer recension of 2 Enoch, which, as he quotes it, says that "three of them descended to the earth". A more accurate presentation seems to be:
Early Enochic accounts often use the numeral "two hundred" to refer to the number of them who descended to earth.(ref>Orlov 2011, p. 92</ref) Andrei A. Orlov quotes the longer recension of 2 Enoch as stating that, of the Grigori, "three of them descended to the earth", but understands it as referring to 200 or, according to some manuscripts, 200 myriads (2 million) descended Watchers. He quotes the shorter recension as saying: "These are the Grigori, 200 princes of whom turned aside, 200 walking in their train, and they descended to the earth" ...
Please don't insist on the altogether misleading "Platt's version only indicates that three ..." The mention of three descending is found not only in what you call Platt's version but also in F. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.130-132., which Orlov quotes, and which is the text in what I have been calling "the Charlesworth book". You will find the same text of chapter 18 of 2 Enoch in R.H. Charles. It is arrant nonsense to say the longer recension of 2 Enoch says anything other than that three of the Grigori descended to the earth. Esoglou (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(Pending response) from Jasonasosa (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer[edit]

A lot of changes in this article since Jan 1st. But just looking specifically at the "Lucifer" section, not sure everything is an improvement. Lucifer was a title of Christ up till the 3rd or 4th Century, and what 100% hard evidence is there in any Jewish source that any Jewish writer identified Isaiah's Morning Star with a fallen angel? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there have been quite a lot of changes since 1 January, and I too am not at all sure that everything is an improvement. But I wonder what source says Lucifer was a title of Christ (since when?) until the 3rd or 4th century. The title Lucifer could have been used of Christ after people began to write of him in Latin. The word "lucifer" (Latin for "morning star") appears only three times in the late 4th-century Latin Vulgate (Job 11:17, Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19) and not as a title of Christ. So what were the earlier writings in which the word was used of Christ? I presume that Adele Berlin and Maxine Grossman are Jewish writers, I mean the editors of The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, which says that the Jewish writers of Jewish pseudepigrapha did "misinterpret" Isaiah 14:12 as referring to Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel. Esoglou (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
User:In ictu oculi, Lucifer as a title of Christ would be out of the WP:SCOPE of this article. Such topic is best discussed at Lucifer. The scope of Lucifer in this article is with the POV that he is a fallen angel: whether from the POV of being Satan, the POV of being an unnamed angel wearing Lucifer as a title, or the POV of having the name Lucifer, who happens to be a fallen angel (Not necessarily Satan). Therefore, there is no 100% hard evidence of who Lucifer is... Maybe the layout of this article is deceiving, and needs to be changed so as to not confuse the audience into thinking that it is a cold hard fact that Lucifer is Satan or a fallen angel. It must be made clear that this is interpretation / POV. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Esoglou - Lucifer/Phosphorus in 2 Peter 1:19 is taken as a reference to Christ in very early Christian texts, from the Greek and old Latin before the Vulgate. Pre-Lucifer of Cagliari evidently.
The entry for Berlin only says "revised Sarah L Schwartz" that doesn't tell us who/when wrote p651 but the bracketed text (a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12) in "Satan's expanded role describes him as ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12). Satan is rarely ... " is not supported by any evidence. Where in Charlesworth's OTP or the DSS is there any such interpretation of Is. 14.12. As far as I know the misreading of Is. 14.12 has no Jewish evidence, but is of Christian origin. That "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" may be the editor's comment, or forward-looking or who knows. It's a fairly major innovation to be claiming in the article text that Judaism rather than Christians were responsible for the Is. 14.12 reading.
Hi Jasonasosa - why? no, Lucifer as a title of Christ is not outside the scope of this article. If 4th Century Christian reinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12 is relevant in the (non-Jewish) section of the article, then that this is a later Christian reinterpretation/development also goes in. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is about fallen angels... to include Christ would be to suggest him as a fallen angel. It is defiantly out of scope. That subject belongs on the Lucifer page. I had put the reference on that page at one point, but User:Esoglou omitted my edit entirely. I had not disputed it yet, because I've been planning on gathering more information about how Lucifer ties into Christ as a title or description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonasosa (talkcontribs)
In ictu oculi may disagree with the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and complain that it gives no source for one of its statements, but it is, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source.
What "very early Christian texts" interpreted 2 Peter 1:19 as a reference to Christ? If any of them did in Greek, why do you suggest that φωσφόρος (lower case) means "Lucifer" (upper case). Surely it means instead "morning star", the Latin for which is "lucifer" (lower case). Not even the King James Version translates φωσφόρος as Lucifer, though it (unlike more up-to-date translations) used "Lucifer" to translate the Hebrew word in Isaiah 12:14 that in Greek appears as ἑωσφόρος, not φωσφόρος. Why does the name of Lucifer of Cagliari suggest to you that Christ was called Lucifer before the time of Lucifer of Cagliari? Certainly, Christ is today called "morning star" (in Latin, lucifer), but certainly not Lucifer, in the Roman Rite Easter Vigil liturgy, but that is later than Lucifer of Cagliari.
(I have corrected a mistake that I made: the Vulgate uses the word "lucifer" (morning star), not the name Lucifer, three times in the nominative and vocative cases, but also twice in the accusative.) Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, see Augustine's Tractate on John 35 for example - with the Christ-Lucifer arising in Christian's hearts. More to the point would be to ask which early Christian texts interpret 2 Peter 1:19 and don't connect the Lucifer there with Christ? References to the 2 Peter Christ-Lucifer will still common long after Origen became the first to identify the Isaiah Lucifer with Satan. They are today too, in any Catholic or Protestant commentary on 2 Peter.
As for a reliable source this brief bracketed statement "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" in a brief dictionary entry on Satan - author unknown - in the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion may not pass WP:IRS as the "best such source" or "source reliable for the statement" ...
Can I ask who added the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and made the conclusion currently in the article?
Richard L. Rubenstein The Religious Imagination A Study in Psychoanalysis and Jewish Theology, 1968 cites "Is.14:12-14. 20. Bernard Bamberger, Fallen Angels (Philadelphia: Jewish Publishing Society, 1952), pp. 9 ff. 21. For rabbinic interpretations of Isaiah 14:12-14 as referring to Nebuchadnezzar, cf. Mekilta Shirata (Ed. L.), Vol. II, 18, 1.84-86; p." The relevant quote in Bamberger is Bernard Jacob Bamberger Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan's Realm Page 109 2006 "This verse, we have seen, was held by Christians to describe the fall of Satan; perhaps the rabbis introduced it here to preclude such a dangerous interpretation. As they understood it, the first sentence refers to the discomfiture of Babylon's heavenly champion, the second to the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar. In a similar way they understood the third proof text: "My sword hath drunk its fill in heaven;"
That confirms that "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" is probably simply what it looks like, an editorial note in the brief Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion entry on Satan, expressing the Jewish view, namely "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" = "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" it doesn't mean that any Jewish source considers Is.14.12 to be about fallen angel Satan in the later Christian sense. This is a 4th-5th century Christian innovation - see any standard academic study of Satan.
Marc Michael Epstein Dreams of Subversion in Medieval Jewish Art and Literature 1997- Page 141 "The earliest [i.e. Jewish] source for the fall of Satan is 2 Enoch 29:4-5: "One from the order of the archangels [identified as 'Satanail' in manuscript P) deviated, together with the division that was under his authority ...This angel was called Lucifer by the church fathers, due to a misapplication of Isaiah 14: 12. See Davidson 1967: 176. 19. Bereshit Rahbah 19:1 (Midrash ...
That confirms again that "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" = "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" an inserted bracketed comment, relating to Christian belief not Jewish. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the Lucifer section to after Revelation, added Origen as the originator, and placed a dubious tag on two statements - one being this idea based on "(a misinterpretation of Is. 14.12)" that there is any mention in the Pseudepigrapha of Isaiah 14:12. I don't have either Charlesworth's OTP or DSS to hand at the moment but I am pretty certian Isaiah 14:12 doesn't even appear in the indexes, and if it did it would be in terms of general cosmology consistent with Bamberger above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In Wikipedia you must stick to what reliable sources say, not write on the basis of your own ideas.
Augustine's Tractate 35 on John is given on pages 204-207 of this source, where it is divided into 9 sections. In which section does Augustine speak of "Christ-Lucifer"? I cannot find it. In fact the only mention of Lucifer that I find in all the tractates is on page 21 of the same source, where Augustine speaks, not of Christ, but of an angel who became a devil and whom Augustine links with Isaiah 14:12. In any case, the writings of Augustine, who became a bishop in 395, were not "very early Christian texts". It is no good making claims such as "Lucifer was a title of Christ up till the 3rd or 4th Century", if you cannot produce reliable sources that support them.
Your claim that only as "a 4th-5th century Christian innovation" was Isaiah 14:12 interpreted as referring to a fallen angel (do I misunderstand you?) is contradicted even by a source that you yourself have quoted above: "The earliest [i.e. Jewish] source for the fall of Satan is 2 Enoch 29:4-5". Most scholars place that Jewish writing long before the fourth century. Whether as an editorial note or not, the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion does say the Jewish writers of Jewish pre-Christian pseudepigrapha did the linking of Isaiah 14:12 with the idea of Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel. The Jewish Encyclopedia, also, says that what it calls the Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan "in the pre-Christian century". Not one source contradicts these sources. You seem not to have understood that Bamberger is speaking not of pre-Christian Judaism, some strands of which understood Isaiah 14:12 as referring to Satan, but of later Rabbinic Judaism.
If, as you say, Origen was the first Christian to identify the morning star of Isaiah 14:12 with Satan, he may have called Satan Morning Star (ἑωσφόρος, φωσφόρος in Greek), but he did not call Satan Lucifer: Latin was not the language in which he wrote. Esoglou (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The mini article in ODJR is less than a page, is badly written and does not say what you are reading that "the Jewish writers of Jewish pre-Christian pseudepigrapha did the linking of Isaiah 14:12 with the idea of Satan cast out of heaven as a fallen angel." This is you reading this not the mini article saying it.
In any case we don't need to go to an ambiguous passing comment in a short dictionary entry when we have reference works like Charlesworth. If anyone wants to substantiate anything relating to the OTP then Charlesworth is the first place to look. And this claim isn't there.
Augustine is not Jewish. Origen is not Jewish. The problem here is the claim that theses Christian teachings were found in Jewish pseudepigrapha. This is the problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Jewish pseudepigrapha.. Lucifer" claims[edit]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────User:Esoglou In any case the article needs a rewrite to remove effectively fraudulent claims that the Christian identification of "Lucifer" with fallen angel was found in Judaism.

In Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, he appears as the chief evil figure, "ruler of a demonic host, influencing event throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel". ref name=ODJR/ Later texts present him as destined to be conquered by the angels or the messiah. ref name= ODJR {{bibleverse||Ezekiel|28:11-19]], which speaks specifically of the king of Tyre, and calls him a "cherub", has been applied to Satan by those who interpret Isaiah 14:12 as referring, not to a king of Babylon, but to a being called Lucifer or Satan. ODJR

I've cut out this section as it is anachronistic, mish-mashing Christian myths back into Judaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion surely falls within the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. What it explicitly states surely merits mention in Wikipedia, even if an outweighing source were also cited, something that has not been done.
You have put "Hebrew Bible" under "Primary sources". If nothing in it was ever presented as related to a fallen angel, it is not a primary source for that idea. So I have added an indication of how it has been presented as such. The ODJR says that treatment of the Hebrew Bible is found in Jewish apocrypha. We cannot, as you seem to do, attribute to the ODJR a statement that the passages (plural) in question were part of the original text of those Jewish apocrypha. Patmore, who also merits citing, says the idea of the fall of Satan is found in apocrypha (plural), without qualifying them as Jewish, Christian, or mixed, and also in rabbinic literature. Esoglou (talk)
Yes the Gen 6:1 fall of the angels is found in the pseudepigrapha
No the Isaiah 14 fall of Lucifer is not found in the pseudepigrapha
This is the point.
We'll talk more later. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
By all means add, with citation, the information that no pseudepigraphon says Is 14:12 is about a fall of Satan (unless the document is in Latin, it will not use the name "Lucifer"). ODJR does not say any pseudepigraphon cites Is 14:12 for the fall of Satan: only that the idea of the fall of Satan arose from a misinterpretation of Is 14:12. I think Is 14:12 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible that speaks of someone falling from heaven. The verse that comes nearest to doing so is Is 34:4. Gn 6:2 and the apocrypha inspired by it seem to speak instead of a voluntary arrival on earth, not of being cast down or falling. Am I wrong? Unless you understand "fall" metaphorically, Is 14:12 may be the only verse of the Hebrew Bible that could have inspired the idea of a fall of Satan. If that is so, ODJR may be right. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've removed this from "Hebrew Bible" (CAPs for the reason why)

Historically, some passages of the Hebrew Bible have been interpreted BY CHRISTIANS as referring to Satan as a fallen angel. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as "ruler of a demonic host, influencing event throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel", and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. It expresses no judgment on whether the appearances in Jewish pseudepigrapha of this picture of Satan were in the original texts or were Christian interpolations.
  • The pseudepigrapha isn't the Hebrew Bible we don't need to say what the pseudepigrapha does in the Hebrew Bible section, we can say in the pseudepigrapha section. But using a decent source, Charlesworth not ODJR in this case: it is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is14:12 when no Jewish source does. Frankly that looks incompetent. If we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha we need more competent sources - which we have, so don't need to use ODJR's passing reference at all.
  • I've removed the Christian material on Ezekiel 28 from Hebrew Bible too and reinserted in the Christian section. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW - the title of this article is fallen angel not fallen Satan. The fall of Satan based on Jesus "beheld Satan fall as lightning" is a Christian idea, the fall of angels in Gen 6.1 is a Jewish pseudepigrapha idea. No Jewish pseudepigrapha or DSS text uses "fall" of Satan nor counts Satan as one of the Gen 6.1 angels. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved "Hebrew Bible" ahead of "Second Temple period"[edit]

The first section should be in chronological order. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

In ictu oculi, I keep saying that the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion is a reliable source for the sentence: "The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that Satan appears in Jewish pseudepigrapha, especially apocalypses, as 'ruler of a demonic host, influencing events throughout the world, cast out of heaven as a fallen angel', and ascribes the idea of Satan as a fallen angel to a misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12"; and that, if you wish, you may add to it a citation of some source that outweighs it. You keep removing the sentence on the grounds that what the ODJR states "is a short entry in a tertiary source and shouldn't even be mentioning Is 14:12 when no Jewish source does", and that, "if we want to say something about fallen angels in the pseudepigrapha, we need more competent sources".

Should we bring the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see what others think? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi, I see you have been quite active on Wikipedia since I posted the above yesterday morning, but have not replied here. Perhaps it is indeed best to consult others. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This section is getting distorted. Why does the Hebrew Bible section have links to the King James Bible? Also, the Oxford Dictionary Jewish Religion does not strictly support the initial sentence. It talks about how Satan is described (which we can and should include), but it doesn't say Satan is specifically not an angel or fallen in that citation; there is some WP:OR going on here. We should be summarizing what the sources say, not adding interpretation of our own. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But since discussion on a matter closely related has not yet been formally closed (although consensus seems to be emerging), I have thought it best to wait a little more. Still, there is good reason to indicate what are three places referred to. The Bibleverse link to any one English version provides a link that leads also to, I have forgotten how many, other English versions. But if you prefer to have the reader search among the even more numerous versions in various languages, that can be arranged too, as you see. Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't say that I know which primary texts should be linked for this, if any. I'm not suggesting we should send a reader on a wild chase. Not knowing what text the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion was ultimately basing their interpretations on means that we could be pointing to a translation or tradition or historical era directly at odds with what they're saying. It would be less of an issue if the sentence was more like Satan is mentioned in the Hebrew bible in three places (a, b, c). but as it stands, we're connecting our suggested links to specific interpretations of those passages. I won't futz with it now, as it might be re-written or re-structured to remove my concern...
Because regardless of how the discussion turns out, that encyclopedia entry is built on other mostly available secondary sources; [1] [2] [3] [4]. Ultimately we can probably improve this section to better reflect what the academic sources say, with better balance and context rather than picking out a single argument or a single interpretation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)