From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interpretation of Isaiah 14 as fallen angel in OTP[edit]

"gave Satan an expanded role, interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to him, and presenting him as a fallen angel cast out of heaven[18]" needs expansion and full text citation. An interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 as applicable to "Satan" is at best an outlier in OTP, and needs fixing in specific book and time. It was not carried into mainstream rabbinical Judaism, and evidently unknown to early Christians who continued to use Lucifer as a title of Jesus. I have added (I think restored) the 2 Peter Vulgate use of Lucifer to refer to Jesus as the change in Christian usage of this word is the major point. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What is OTP?
What the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion says of the expanded role that the Jewish Pseudepigrapha assigned to Satan can be read here.
On what grounds do you state as a fact that the word φωσφόρος/lucifer/"morning star" in 2 Peter 1:19 refers to Christ? Esoglou (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Those are great questions. I did a cursory search for OTP on Google and came up empty for the context it's used in. Looking at the KJV of the bible at the relevant verse yield no mention of "morning star" whatsoever. It is just talking about Christ. It references him as the "day star" but that is not the same thing. Christ refers to Himself as the "morning star in Revelation 22:16. That's what I was able to dig up in a cursory search. I guess we will have to wait for In ictu oculi to clarify what s/he is talking about. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Esoglou, OTP means Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, such as the Charlesworth volumes. And yes exactly, as far as I can see that source ODJR says nothing about "Lucifer", but is talking about "(a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)". So specifically which OTP "misinterprets" Is 14:12 prefiguring Tertullian? On Lucifer in Christian usage for example the Anchor commentary series on "Lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19 has a good summary of sources. Or see the refs I've added for the hymns.
Hi User:Jgstokes, thanks, what I meant is that the article needs to better sourcing for a pre-Christian identification of Isaiah's Lucifer with the Job Satan, or with the Gen6 sons of God material. Since most sources account this interpretation to Tertullian a pre-Tertullian Jewish source needs to be documented clearly. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary says: "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)". Isn't the whole idea of the demonic Lucifer based on that same (mis)interpretation of Is 14:12? So in what sense does the Oxford Dictionary say nothing of the figure to which the name "Lucifer" has been given?
I think the Oxford Dictionary is what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Questioning it would require citation of a reliable source that disagrees with it.
Do exegetes all agree that φωσφόρος in 2P 1:19 refers to Christ? The sources indicated here do not treat it as a closed question.
The use by speakers and writers of Latin of the word lucifer to mean the planet or as a description or name for various people does not necessarily exclude their use of the name "Lucifer" (in Latin) also for the demonic figure. The situation is radically different in English. Esoglou (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Esoglou, it's generally true that "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)" but to be of any value in an article we'd need to state which OTP. To be honest I'm a bit surprised by the claim, though since my own copy of Charlesworth is in storage and my current University library doesn't have a copy I can't check it via the index.
Yes, as far as I'm aware, all sources agree that Lucifer in 2P 1:19 refers to Christ or something related to Christ such as Barclay. If there's any source counting the 2Pe1:19 Lucifer as anything other than Christ/something related to Christ it would be interesting to have that alternative view and a source for it - but the one thing the 2 Peter 1:19 isn't is a fallen angel. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Then we agree. I can't imagine that anyone (other than someone who ignorantly took the Latin word lucifer to mean what the English word "Lucifer" usually means) could think that "donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris" referred to Satan/Lucifer. And interpreting the phrase as certainly calling Christ himself the mere morning star and not the bright sun is not unanimous. (I think old Gill rejected that idea and opted for interpreting it as referring to the signs of the return of Christ.) It would be ideal to have indications of what the contributor to the Oxford Dictionary based his conclusion on. But we have to be satisfied with something less than the ideal. Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Then back to this claim that has found its way into the lede that the OTP has a reference pre-Tertullian to Isaiah 14:12 as a fallen angel. I have to say I can't find it in Google Books: for instance. The place you would expect to find a fallen-angel interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 is in the Enochic literature 1 Enoch, Jubilees - and yet there seems no evidence of one there. We could just leave it in the article without proof, even though the citation given doesn't support or document a specific reference, or we find someone whose Charlesworth isn't in storage....? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem then we are left with now is that we are claiming that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the pseudepigrapha ... on the basis of "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ... Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)."}" when (a) the cited quote doesn't claim that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the pseudepigrapha, (b) no other source does, (c) as someone fairly familiar with all the OTP, and with the Is14:12 tradition I doubt it does, I really doubt strongly that it does, but I don't feel confident to delete it without access to Charlesworth. So given that this content probably is wrong, what should we tag it with in the mean time? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Esoglou can I ask what specifically makes you think the contributor to ODJR is claiming that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the OTP? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Dictionary describes successive stages of the picture of Satan: the first stage, as in the Tanakh; the third, in Tannaitic literature; the in-between stage is what you quote, beginning with "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ..." and ending with "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)." What tag can we possibly put on a statement that has that as a basis? Can we actually go further and even delete the statement without first citing some source that contradicts it? It doesn't say that the Pseudepigrapha explicitly quote Isaiah 14:12. It only says that the picture of Satan that emerged in the Pseudepigrapha is based on their misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. Admittedly, harder to pinpoint a quotation for. (Of course, there is no suggestion that the name "Lucifer" or its equivalent in other languages was applied to Satan in the Pseudepigrapha.)
Would there be any help in writings about the Jewish-Christian Ascension of Isaiah? You can judge. I'm no expert.
Or is this of any help? Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The clip from the ODJR only opens a small box for me in Google Books not whole page, are you seeing whole page? The bit I am seeing "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ... Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)."}" does not say that the Jewish picture of Satan that emerged in the Pseudepigrapha is based on their misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As I thought, I've now managed to access Charlesworth Vol.1 and the only references to Isaiah 14 are Christian interpolations. This is what we'd expect as Charlesworth's 2 Enoch contributor says p149 2 Enoch footnote Christian explanations of the origin of evil linked Lk 10:18 with Isa 14 and eventually Gen.3 so vs 4 could be a Christian interpolation. In the Byzantine tradition Satan's revolt took place on the fourth day, not the second as here. Jewish theology concentrated on Gen 6., and this is prominent in the Enoch cycle as in other apocalypses. I will add this to the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, added that in. Looks to me like 4 jobs needed now:

(1) merge all the etymology material into 1 section not 2.
(2) put Judaism before Christianity (even though Lucifer is a Christian interpretation)
(3) check that DSS has nothing
(4) get rid of the incorrect claim that Isaiah 14 is developed in the pseudepigrapha In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It isn't just a "clip". Click on the page number on top and you get the whole page, and indeed all the pages in the Google Books preview. To assist others too, I have now added to the mention within the article a link that goes to the relevant page and not in the form of a "clip". Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Esoglou, scholarship says that Second Temple ideas of fallen angels were based on Genesis 6 not Isaiah 14. If you want to add the claim that pre-Christian Jewish sources interpreted Isaiah 14:12 in relation to the fall of Satan then you need to do it either from Charlesworths OTP or some similarly scholarly expert source, or from a similar source on the DSS. You need to also specifically document the claimed Jewish text which thus interprets Isaiah 14 and cite from it and date it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion surely falls within the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, even if an outweighing source were also cited. But since the lead has been freed from mention of the matter ODJR was cited for and from other material unneeded in a lead, may we now let this discussion die? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming at this without prior involvement at @In ictu oculi:'s request, skimmed the conversation before I got my caffiene, then mainly stared to the problematic part of the article and sources for it while getting caffeinated (instead of fully following the conversation), so some of what I'm going to say is probably going to overlap with stuff already said (but maybe that'll help with other people coming in, dunno, still pretty tired from moving furniture and cleaning the past few days).
Even though I only believed that the Satanic interpretation of Is 14.12 was a post-apostolic Christian invention, ODJR is RS enough that I imagine we'd almost need a retraction from them to actually remove something sourced to them. Schaff-Herzog (which I added a quote for in its citation) also states "Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12), the "day star, fallen from heaven," is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels." Schaff-Herzog does otherwise trace fallen angels to Genesis instead of Isaiah, though, with that quote in context being part of an overall development starting with Enochic interpretations of Genesis (p.399-400). That said, I am dissatisfied with how they do not state which text(s) this happens in (I suppose it's possible the exact text was lost or something, like the Q source).
In Charlesworth, a footnote for 2nd Enoch 29 calls the section a "form of the Lucifer myth" (vol 1, p. 148 of my copy), but mentions likely Christian interpolation. It deals with the creation of angels from fire, one group of angels deviating from serving God to trying to create his own throne next to Him, before God threw him from heaven. Neither text nor footnotes make any connections to Isaiah, however, beyond the footnotes mentioning Lucifer. The introduction to 3 Baruch (p. 658) also discusses the fall of Satanael, saying "he is probably identified with the figure in Isaiah 14:13f, who falls from heaven," citing influence from 2 Enoch. Were I to try and shove OR on the article, I'd use 3 Baruch as an end date for when the Christian interpolation of Satanail in 2 Enoch occured, and suggest that the interpolation could have been by a proto-Christian Messianic group. I won't, but it doesn't leave me opposed to mentioning 2 Enoch as the most likely example while noting that it's still probably Christian interpolation.
TL;DR: mention 2 Enoch as the most probable candidate (or the best example or something), while noting that it's just as likely a Christian interpolation, and cite Schaff-Herzog 399-400 to say that most of academia traces fallen angels to Genesis, with the Luciferian interpretation of Isaiah being a later development. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Can you tell is 3 Baruch the still partly Jewish Slavonic recension or the totally Christianized Greek recension? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for delayed response, been moving Granddad, still need to reacquire some stuff his neighbors borrowed. It's the Greek version. The intro mentions that the author plan(s/ned) on doing a translation of almost different Slavonic version later, but it's not in Charlesworth's OTP v.2. I'll try to see if I can find out if/where the author did the Slavonic, and if I can get ahold of it at some point. If the Luciferian fall is mentioned in the intro or footnotes for the Slavonic, that would give us more reason to mention it and 2 Enoch. My OR comment about interpolation was under the assumption that 3 Baruch's mention of Satanail was Christian, while the 2 Enoch interpolation could have possibly proto-Christian; but (without the Slavonic) I could just as easily see both being shoved in there by early Christians instead of proto-Christians. Since it's not our job to decide, I I'm for putting it all out there and letting God sort it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson, it would be quite amazing if that Slavonic source had anything relating Isaiah's king of Babylon to a fallen angel, rather than vice-versa. As long as we reflect scholarship that the source is heavily Christian interpolated there's no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Gaylord's full and finished translation of the Slavonic appears to be unpublished. Looking through OTP again, I see I slightly misread in my initial distracted skim of the intro: OTP includes an earlier draft of the Slavonic translation in parallel with the Greek, despite labeling and titling itself a translation of the Greek (though Gaylord also says the Slavonic is based on a lost Greek version). The intro later goes on to suggests Samael as the Jewish precedent for Satanael, rather than Isaiah's Lucifer (which it treats as Christian or, if pre-Christian, proto-Christian). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus the Lucifer[edit]

I may be wrong, and when I have time will need to look at article history, but I have the recollection that the information that the Latin word Lucifer was originally understood by Christians as / used in the Vulgate as, a title of Christ was placed more prominently in earlier versions of this article. As it stands there's an out of sequence hint in the lead, then buried down at the bottom of the article. Is it our job to cover this up? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of what is in the section "Latin word lucifer". Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, hidden at the bottom. It should be clearly in lead, it's the original and in the Vulgate main meaning of the term. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
By "the Latin word Lucifer was originally understood by Christians as / used in the Vulgate as, a title of Christ", do you mean that in the Vulgate the Latin word lucifer is used of Jesus? It isn't. And/or do you mean that the Latin word lucifer was originally understood by Christians as a title of Christ, and only later of anybody else? What reliable source says that? None. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Look in Google Books, plenty of sources say it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Then cite one or two that say Christians at first used the Latin word lucifer only of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Originally, that should be easy enough. Okay I will beef up this maybe next week. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Jesus referred to himself as The Morning Star in Revelations 22:16. This article states Lucifer means the morning star, so there is enough evidence to say in the article that Jesus is Lucifer, or at the very least referred to himself as Lucifer. I assume the Bible is acceptable to wikipedia as a reliable source. Here is the quote from Revelations 22:16 (NIV), "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."Arnold1 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxil material[edit]

Ian, thanks for keeping this article on your watchlist and fending off undiscussed additions deletions. But actually I'm thinking that IP deletion of the Taxil stuff has a point, it is massively overweight. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

the name/word "Lucifer"[edit]

I spent the previous 13 years observing the commandments inside the Bible and obeying more than I did before.

I found that in the original English bibles (the bibles that were written before Christopher Columbus was alive) did not have the name/word "Lucifer" in their copies. It wasn't until America was formed that someone removed some words inside their own bible copy and replaced those words with the name/word "Lucifer".

In doing that, they went against God because God said: (Revelation 22:18-19): "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, that are described in this book."

The original English bibles have this in Old Testament: (Isaiah 14:12): "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground and had laid the nations low!"

So, you see, someone removed the words "Morning Star" and placed the word "Lucifer" there and they were not suppose to do that.

The fact is, God never mentioned Satan old name (When he was a heavenly angel) because he lost his place in heaven and therefore, and as "The book of Revelation" says, he is only known as: The Dragon, Satan, The Devil and The Ancient Serpent.

It's a fact, the name "Lucifer" is bogus. Someone invented the name "Lucifer" to give people the impression that they knew more about Satan than others, they were wrong. God commanded: Thou shall not lie. Therefore, those people should not have invented the name "Lucifer" because it's been a lie all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclark1973 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request change in introductory chapter[edit]

As per WP:PIPELINK, I request the part

is generally believed among [[Bible scholar|scholars]] to have [[Attar (god)|a parallel]] in [[Canaanite mythology]].

to be changed into

is generally believed among [[Bible scholar|scholars]] to have a parallel in [[Canaanite mythology]] in the form of the god [[Attar (god)|Attar]].

Thank you. -- (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)