How Lucifer became the devil.

[Old_Scratch]

In this topic I'm discussing the name of Lucifer as a synonym for Satan, and the fallen angel story associated with said name in an attempt to discover it's roots.

As we know, the famous story of an angel called Lucifer who rebelled against god and became Satan is nowhere in the bible. Likewise Lucifer is never used to refer to Satan. So why is it part of Christian tradition?

The story seems to be linked to a particular interpretation of passages in Isaiah 14:3-20. This is evident in the way it's translated in the Douay-Rheims and King James versions of the bible. By reading the passage though, it's obvious that it's about the king of Babylon. Babylon itself is described in a similar manner in other passages.

I find it hard to believe that early Christian scholars would have mistranslated, or misunderstood this passage. I think that it wasn't a misunderstanding, but a purposeful misinterpretation.

The story of rebellious angels would have been familiar to the early Christians, possibly from non-Christian myths, but more likely from apocryphal books, such as the second book of Enoch. Christians might have liked the rebel angel idea to explain Satan, especially since Satan has absolutely no back story in the bible.

So, it appears that what they did was search through the bible to find a passage that they could misinterpret and use to make the angelic rebellion story part of Christian tradition. They found this in Isaiah, and used other passages from different books to loosely back it up.

I have evidence of this in the name of Lucifer. While angelic rebellions would have been known to the early Christians, a demonic figure known as Lucifer was not. He appears to be an invention born specifically out of that Isaiah passage. The Latin term Lucifer could be used as a name, and since the morning star is the subject of the verse, they chose Lucifer as the name of the devil. It fit together nicely.

I said earlier that the Christians didn't initially consider Lucifer to be Satan, so I put together a little time line to help illustrate this point. Lucifer was known to the Romans as the morning apparition of the planet Venus. This is described by Pliny the Elder in The Natural History, second book. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Lucifer means "light bringer" and Venus rises before the sun, essentially bringing the light with it as it rises.

The meaning hadn't changed by the time of the writing of the new testament. This is evident in the book of Revelations where Jesus describes himself as the morning star. Some scholars may have started associating Lucifer with Satan, but it still isn't a widespread belief by the 4th century AD. I know this because of the existence of the 4th century Saint Lucifer, who was the bishop of Cagliari. It's highly unlikely that Catholic parents would name their son Lucifer if the name was synonymous with the devil.

I am unable to find textual evidence of the evolution of Lucifer for another thousand years though. The next time I was able to find the usage of the name was in Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy. Here we see the devil, who is named Lucifer, and is found in the ninth circle of hell, which is reserved for traitors. So, the Lucifer story appears to be well established by the 15th century.

It would seem that Lucifer and his downfall became popularized sometime between the 4th and 15th centuries. Ultimately it was romanticized and embellished in John Milton's Paradise Lost, which is probably the version of the devil which most people are familiar with today.

So that's what I could piece together about the origins of a popular Christian tradition that isn't found anywhere in the Christian canon.

Feel free to comment, discuss, correct, or add to any of my conclusions.

[Bokks]

This is actually a very well done piece, great job with it!

The only thing that I have to add is that the name Lucifer literally means "Morning Star", most translations of works from times earlier in Christian theology come with that translated name.

This also shows some reflection to the possible changing of pre-existing pagan religions with a great deal of connection to--as you have said--Venus, where the previously held "Morning Star" would have had significant importance in it's preceding the sun on each day.

[Old_Scratch]

Thank you, and thanks for the correction!

EDIT: I used the definition of Lucifer from the Oxford Universal Dictionary, which defines it both as "light-bringing" and "used as proper name of the morning star". It is a modern English dictionary though, and I can see where it might not match up perfectly with the ancient meaning.

[il padrino]

Thank you, and thanks for the correction!

EDIT: I used the definition of Lucifer from the Oxford Universal Dictionary, which defines it both as "light-bringing" and "used as proper name of the morning star". It is a modern English dictionary though, and I can see where it might not match up perfectly with the ancient meaning.

it also means "light-bringer" in latin,so your dictionary is correct.

[Da Skinna]

He's the guy that wanted more knowledge than God wanted him to have, ain't he?

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Wasn't Lucifer the Light-Bearer a deity in some Hellenic religions?

The next time I was able to find the usage of the name was in Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy. Here we see the devil, who is named Lucifer, and is found in the ninth circle of hell, which is reserved for traitors. So, the Lucifer story appears to be well established by the 15th century.

Not neccesarily true as Dante had alot of original ideas in the Commedia that others had not had before. such as the 7 deadly sins.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Not neccesarily true as Dante had alot of original ideas in the Commedia that others had not had before. such as the 7 deadly sins.

Both Lucifer and the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins pre-date Dante by centuries. The schematic of the Seven Deadly Sins had been used as a way of examining a penitent's conscience in confession for hundreds of years before Dante was even born.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Both Lucifer and the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins pre-date Dante by centuries. The schematic of the Seven Deadly Sins had been used as a way of examining a penitent's conscience in confession for hundreds of years before Dante was even born.

True but the seven deadly sins were not completely clarified before Dante, as they were not told in the bible in full.

[Old_Scratch]

I made a little mistake. I was incorrectly comparing the Vulgate to the NRSV bible. It would be better to compare it to the Douay-Rheims, since it's the English translation of the Vulgate. So, I compared the two and every mention of lucifer in the Vulgate is translated as "day-star" in the D-R with the sole exception of Isaiah 14:12, which remains Lucifer.

Certainly the connection between Isaiah 14:12 and the story of a rebellious Satan would have been known and written about at least by the 3rd century, as you pointed out, but it seems to me that it didn't reach widespread popularity or acceptance until after the Vulgate was written. Especially the belief that Helel, Phosphoros, or Lucifer was synonymous with the devil since it didn't affect the way Jerome translated it in the Vulgate.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

True but the seven deadly sins were not completely clarified before Dante, as they were not told in the bible in full.

Still wrong. Since there is about 1100 or so years between the formation of the Bible and Dante's time, there was plenty of time for the Seven Deadly Sins to be "completely clarified". They were first catalogued, in precisely the order that Dante later used them, by Gregory the Great in the Sixth Century. That's long before Dante. Along with the Ten Commandments and the Five Wits, they were used as frameworks for confession and penitential meditation for centuries before Dante was even born.

[Mímirswell]

Some scholars may have started associating Lucifer with Satan, but it still isn't a widespread belief by the 4th century AD. I know this because of the existence of the 4th century Saint Lucifer, who was the bishop of Cagliari. It's highly unlikely that Catholic parents would name their son Lucifer if the name was synonymous with the devil.

Right, because at that time, the Vulgate (Latin translation) didn't exist, instead the Septuagint (Greek translation) was the bible of choice in regards to the old testament. Jerome (the writer of the Vulgate) translated the Hewbrew helel ben shahar to the Latin lucifer qui mane oriebaris in his Vulgate. In fact, it is highly probable that his rivalry with Saint Lucifer over the topic of Arianism influenced his choosing of the word lucifer. Jerome was highly polemic and very aggressive towards his enemies (within the Church) so such an action would not be uncharacteristic of him. So yes, while the word Lucifer wasn't associated yet with Satan, Hêlēl already was.

Origen in his comentaries of Ezekiel and Isaiah was the earliest extant work (~210 CE) to assert that Ezekiel's Prince of Tyre, Isaiah's Hêlēl, and Job's Leviathon were all incarnations of Satan. Tertullian, writing concurrent to Origen, in his Adversus Marcion goes further reconciling the "guardian cherub" referenced by Ezekiel by depicting Satan as a fallen angel.

It would seem that Lucifer and his downfall became popularized sometime between the 4th and 15th centuries. Ultimately it was romanticized and embellished in John Milton's Paradise Lost, which is probably the version of the devil which most people are familiar with today.

Well yes, the Catholic Church used the Vulgate during this period so every church member would naturally associate Lucifer and Satan as the association propagated by two very influential early Christian philosophers made the connection incontrovertible. It should also be said that the title of Paradise Lost may be a reference to Tertullian's lost work De paradiso which he references in Adversus Marcion.

Of course, Jerome should have considered the reference to Christ as lucifer (source of light) whilst he was attacking his enemies, particularly this quote from Revelation 22:16:

Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum,
Christus Filius tuus qui

However, it's unlikely he thought that Lucifer would catch on anymore than Leviathan did as a common alias of Satan.

[Old_Scratch]

Right, because at that time, the Vulgate (Latin translation) didn't exist, instead the Septuagint (Greek translation) was the bible of choice in regards to the old testament. Jerome (the writer of the Vulgate) translated the Hewbrew helel ben shahar to the Latin lucifer qui mane oriebaris in his Vulgate. In fact, it is highly probable that his rivalry with Saint Lucifer over the topic of Arianism influenced his choosing of the word lucifer. Jerome was highly polemic and very aggressive towards his enemies (within the Church) so such an action would not be uncharacteristic of him. So yes, while the word Lucifer wasn't associated yet with Satan, Hêlēl already was.

Interesting, but if the proper name of the morning star was widely accepted as Satan, then would it matter what language it's in? If Saint Lucifer, or anyone who knew him understood Hebrew or Greek and believed that helēl ben-šāhar, or Phosphoros was synonymous with Satan, then they would have known that the Latin word Lucifer was the same thing, making St. Lucifer's naming unlikely. As you said, the idea existed, but perhaps it wasn't very wide spread? Or was Lucifer not associated with Helel at the time, even though they meant the same thing?

Origen in his comentaries of Ezekiel and Isaiah was the earliest extant work (~210 CE) to assert that Ezekiel's Prince of Tyre, Isaiah's Hêlēl, and Job's Leviathon were all incarnations of Satan. Tertullian, writing concurrent to Origen, in his Adversus Marcion goes further reconciling the "guardian cherub" referenced by Ezekiel by depicting Satan as a fallen angel.

I don't know enough about Origen or Terullian to comment on their work specifically, but would it be safe to assume that they were taking a non-Christian belief and making it fit any way they could into the scheme of the bible, and in doing so they invented the connection between the morning star and the evil Satan? I could be wrong, but as far as I know, helēl wasn't a supremely evil being to Jewish doctrine at the time that Isaiah and Ezekiel were written.

[Mímirswell]

Interesting, but if the proper name of the morning star was widely accepted as Satan, then would it matter what language it's in? If Saint Lucifer, or anyone who knew him understood Hebrew or Greek and believed that helēl ben-šāhar, or Phosphoros was synonymous with Satan, then they would have known that the Latin word Lucifer was the same thing, making St. Lucifer's naming unlikely. As you said, the idea existed, but perhaps it wasn't very wide spread? Or was Lucifer not associated with Helel at the time, even though they meant the same thing?

Lucifer means light bringer in latin at that period, not the morning star. The latin phrase for morning star includes the word lucifer but it could be said many different ways. So no, it was perfectly acceptable (as a Christian) to use lucifer as a name as it had no clear association with helel, which was associated with Satan at that point.

I don't know enough about Origen or Terullian to comment on their work specifically, but would it be safe to assume that they were taking a non-Christian belief and making it fit any way they could into the scheme of the bible, and in doing so they invented the connection between the morning star and the evil Satan? I could be wrong, but as far as I know, helēl wasn't a supremely evil being to Jewish doctrine at the time that Isaiah and Ezekiel were written.

They were synthesizing the old testament and new testament into a more consistent theology. Early christianity was an eclectic very philosophical endeavor which grew out of the isolation of various communities (greek, coptic, jewish, romans, etc.). Origen (greek) was originally a neo-platonist and pythagorean before converting and Tertullian (berber) was actually a montanist. But yes, helel is a reference to a caanitte/babylonian deity (Ashtoreth/Ishtar were goddesses who were symbolized by Venus, the day-star ) not a supreme evil in Judaism. Given the prophecy was referring to a Babylon, I think Ishtar is a better symbolic inference being drawn.

[Old_Scratch]

Lucifer means light bringer in latin at that period, not the morning star. The latin phrase for morning star includes the word lucifer but it could be said many different ways. So no, it was perfectly acceptable (as a Christian) to use lucifer as a name as it had no clear association with helel, which was associated with Satan at that point.

This is all great information, thanks. You're right about the use of the word lucifer. In the Latin version of The Natural History, Pliny uses a word with "luciferi" to describe the morning star. Similar, but not the same.

I did go on to check the Vulgate though and along with it's usage in Isaiah, Jerome uses the word "lucifer" to refer to the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19, and the morning itself in Job 11:17. There are three other references here, but I don't have time to investigate them at the moment. It would appear though that Jerome didn't attach any evil significance to the word lucifer, and simply used it as the closest translation from Greek.

Jerome didn't make a distinction between the the Isaiah reference and the other times the word is used. So, the usage of the word didn't seem to change between the Greek and Latin translations, but if we move ahead over a thousand years and compare this to the English Douay-Rheims version we see that the word is used as a separate concept from the other places Jerome used it. They kept the Latin word Lucifer in Isaiah, but properly translated the other instances to English.

So, I don't see how Helel was widely accepted as the devil at the time of Jerome. If it was I think we would have seen the word preserved to distinguish it from the other uses as we see in the Douay-Rheims and King James versions. Jerome would have used Helel in Isaiah, and lucifer for the other references.

[Mímirswell]

So, I don't see how Helel was widely accepted as the devil at the time of Jerome. If it was I think we would have seen the word preserved to distinguish it from the other uses as we see in the Douay-Rheims and King James versions. Jerome would have used Helel in Isaiah, and lucifer for the other references.

I am not being clear. Helel is simply a hebrew word, not a name. Ezekiel and Isaiah are prophecies and were considered references to Satan, not other names for him so Jerome would have no reason to transcribe the name exactly, hence the translation to lucifer qui mane oriebaris. I do think his choice of Lucifer was a subtle jab at his enemy but not an intent to make the name Lucifer synoynmous with the Satan.

If Lucifer wasnt Satan, then who was it?

Isaiah was a prophet in the 8th century BCE. His prophecies involve the various kingdoms surrounding Israel. This one in particular was about Babylon.

[Ummon]

On-topic links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatro...atron.27s_Cube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_group

[ShADoW]

If Lucifer wasnt Satan, then who was it?

[Hermetica]

If Lucifer wasnt Satan, then who was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_(morning_star)

The whole problem of trying to pin this down is the transliterations and translations over the centuries and such. An example is Jesus himself, if you ask for Jesus in Roman Age Judae they would not know what to say. This is caused by the fact that Jesus is actually a Latin name given to Yoshua bin Yosef, Joshua son of Joseph, and finally Jesus son of Joseph.

According to the Bible, the fall of the Adversary is portrayed in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. However, the connection between Isaiah 14:12-14 and the fall is mostly based on mistranslation and tradition. The King James Version (KJV), popular among most Christian sects, reads:
"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" (Isaiah 14:12:-14). The word "Lucifer" was inspired by the Latin Vulgate, a translation that the authors of the KJV adhered to in several occasions to elucidate Christian traditions (see KJV, "The Project"). Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus. The word Lucifer was the direct translation of the Septuagint Greek heosphoros, ("dawn-bearer"); (cf. Greek phosphoros, "light-bearer") and the Hebrew Helel, ("Bright one"). The word does not specifically refer to Satan. To the contrary, in context, Isaiah 14:12-14 actually refers to one of the popular honorific titles of a Babylonian king (see Isaiah 14:4 for context); however, later interpretations of the text, and the influence of embellishments in works such as Dante's The Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, led to the common idea in Christian mythology and folklore that Lucifer was a poetic appellation of Satan (see Lucifer for more information).
Ezekiel 28:12-19, in context, refers to the King of Tyrus (see Ezekiel 28:2 for context). The passage, however, is popularly attributed as a reference to, or allegory of, Satan, and even by some commentators, an allegory of the fall of Adam.
Many Christian teachings are built upon later Jewish traditions that the Adversary and the Adversary's host declared war with God, but that God's army, commanded by the archangel Michael, defeated the rebels. Their defeat was never in question, since God is by nature omnipotent, but Michael was given the honour of victory in the natural order; thus the rise of Christian veneration of the archangel Michael, beginning at Monte Gargano in 493, reflects the full incorporation of demons into Christianity.
According to tradition, God then cast God's enemies from Heaven to the abyss, into a newly created prison called Hell, where all God's enemies should be sentenced to an eternal existence of pain and misery. This pain is not all physical; for their crimes, these angels, now called demons, would be deprived of the sight of God, this being the worst possible punishment.
An indefinite time later (some biblical scholars believe that the angels fell sometime after the creation of living things), when God created the earth and life, the Adversary and the other demons were allowed to tempt humans or induce them to sin by other means. The first time the Adversary did this was as a serpent in the earthly paradise called the "Garden of Eden" to tempt Eve, who became deceived by Satan's evil trickery. Eve then gave Adam some of the forbidden fruit and both of their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil.

[StalkAndStrike]

Devil= someone to blame human misdeeds....satan isnt a person, satan is in every person, thats what we are so afraid of

[Edratman]

Old Scratch

Very well done. 12 years of Catholic school and this is the first I heard anything like this. Amazing.