The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12


#1

Lucifer
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)
The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).
newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm

YISHEYAH (Book of Isaiah) Chapter 14
4 that thou shalt take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased! the exactress of gold ceased! 5 HaShem hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of the rulers, 6 That smote the peoples in wrath with an incessant stroke, that ruled the nations in anger, with a persecution that none restrained.
breslov.com/ref/Isaiah14.htm
14 JPS

The word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism.

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name “Lucifer.”

The scholars authorized by … King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated … largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, “Day star, son of the Dawn,” as “Lucifer,” and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall,

That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in 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.”

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say ‘Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God’…"

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: “heleyl, ben shachar” which can be literally translated “shining one, son of dawn.” This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as “heosphoros” which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation “lucifer” arise? This word comes from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, “lucifer” actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah’s original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed ‘ancient record’, he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn’t copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that “Lucifer” means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith’s incorrect interpretation of the word “Lucifer” which only appears in Isaiah.
lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml


#2

Hi
This is a misunderstanding of the Jewish and Christian Clergy, sort of combined. The devil was alway a devil from the very beginning and the angels were always angels, according to the scheme of life as designed by GodAllahYHWH. I little thinking would reveal this, no compulsion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.


#3

#4

The Christian faithful have always seen in the Isaiah text a thinly veiled allusion to the fall of the holy angel who became the Devil through Pride.

Hence, the name Lucifer has been given to the angel who fell and became Satan the Devil.


#5

The Apostles did not call him Lucifer - As a Matter of Fact No Christian called him Lucifer before Jerome put it in his book


#6

Well, the apostles didn’t call him that in writing, to be sure.
We don’t know if they taught it orally, and I seriously doubt that Jerome made it up out of thin air and put it in his book solely of his own volition. Besides, calling the pre-fallen Devil by the name LUCIFER is, I believe, universal in both the eastern and western Church. Personally, I couldn’t care less what the Devil’s original name was before he fell.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+


#7

Lucifer
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm


#8

so what does this all mean to you and what is it supposed to mean to Catholics (IYO)?
Ravyn


#9

Do Not accept doctrines created using a single mistranslated word in the Bible


#10

oh. ok.
I don’t think it is as important to Catholics as it would be to Protestants because of the Sola Scriptura thing. But I am wondering how the Lucifer idea is recorded in the Catechism? I am newly converted and I don’t know alot about what is considered ‘official’ Church teachings and what is tradition( with a small “t”) and what is dogma. Guess I will look it up. I have a few things on my list to research.
Ravyn


#11

Does the Church Still Teach That

Host - Fr. Shannon Collins, CPM ( Fathers of Mercy )
Join Fr. Shannon Collins of the Father’s of Mercy as he brightly reasserts age old Church teachings in his series, “Does the Catholic Church Still Teach That?” Fr. Collins profiles the failure of modern catechesis and defends teachings such as The Last Four Things, Purgatory, Predestination, Christ as Universal Savior, Outside the Church No Salvation, The Devil, The Anti-Christ, Transubstantiation, Confession, Objective Superiority of Celibacy, Marian Devotion, and Holy Mother Church. You may be surprised as you learn, perhaps once again, that the Catholic Church has taught and will always continue to teach these valuable lessons of eternity

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/series_index.asp


#12

thanks!
Ravyn


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.