Malevolent Inheritance: Biola Professor on The Fall

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called “the man” in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed, and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, “Isaiah,” BKCOT, 1061).

There is a postulated but not attested link between the Hebrew and the pagan record. (following this up revealed that the postulation is thoroughly well founded.)
Isaiah has it that other pagan kings address this pagan king in proverbial terms that draw on Canaanite beliefs.
This is taken by some Christians, it seems, to indicate a double entendre; which is to say that some Christians "would take a clearly poetic passage literally."
The problem remains that where, in the pagan mythology, a minor deity made a failed attempt to elevate himself and take over the mountain of the gods, but got cast down into Sheol, the text in Isaiah has the offender cast down to the ground. and subsequent to his death enters Sheol. The break with the Canaanite tale makes it apparent that the taunt uses the Canaanite myth as an allusion.

Whether or not the composer of the Isaiah passage made this explicit identification, the Greek translators of the Septuagint certainly did, since their translation of Hêlēl ben Šaḥar as Heōsphoros ho prōi anatellōn clearly combines the astronomical identification with Hesiod's, Heōsphoros son of Heōs, the dawn-bringer, Venus. The Greek was in turn rendered by the Latin vulgate as Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, and the name has stuck to the rebel ever since.

This would be the first time I have encountered a claim that the translators were Greek. Until now, the translators have been uniformly stated to have been Greek speaking Jews.
However, you provided enough information to allow for further investigation, which in turn shows that my prior objections to claims that the passage calls on Canaanite mythology were incorrect.



Jewish beliefs would indicate that angels are just other creations; then there is Revelation 12:9 ... "the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" ...

The early Israelites were not Jews and it is a figure of a poisonous serpent that Yahweh instructs Moses to make in order to cure those who have been bitten by poisonous snakes that Yahweh has sent as punishment to the Israelites.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous^[d] serpent, and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” ⁹ So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole, and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

In other Hebrew texts there is clear evidence that the ancient Israelites venerated serpents with the later redactors of those texts commenting on these earlier religious practises that date back to Moses

In the third year of King Hoshea son of Elah of Israel, Hezekiah son of King Ahaz of Judah began to reign. ² He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi daughter of Zechariah. ³ He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, just as his ancestor David had done. ⁴ He removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.^[a] He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan.

Likewise throughout the ANE the snake was a symbol of heath and even immortality. That snakes shed their skins gave these creatures a semblance of immortality and of course in a far earlier text it is a snake that eats the herb of youth and immediately does shed its skin

A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant,
silently came up and carried off the plant.
While going back it sloughed off its casing [Tablet 11 Epic of Gilgamesh]

[tabibito]

The early Israelites were not Jews ...

A slip that you should have identified as such, given the pains I usually take to make the necessary distinctions. However, the translators of the Septuagint included Jews - members of the tribe of Judah, which most assuredly did exist at that time, and in fact for as long as the Hebrews had been an identifiable ethnic group. And yes, the usual accounts (not all) do term the translators Jews - a simple change of term which transposes the current term for Hebrews anachronistically. Anachronistic naming is a quite common practice across a variety of disciplines. In the Bible, and a number of history texts refer to 10th century Japan, for example, for all that the name, Japan (and neither Nihon nor Nippon), then existed.

The rest was an interesting read, but it is not related to whether serpents included dragons or whether Satan was the serpent in the garden of Eden.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A slip that you should have identified as such, given the pains I usually take to make the necessary distinctions.

Sometimes one gets tired of repeating oneself.

However, the translators of the Septuagint included Jews

Hellenised Jews.

The rest was an interesting read, but it is not related to whether serpents included dragons or whether Satan was the serpent in the garden of Eden.

I suspect you may discover that the later association of the serpent in Genesis chapter three with Satan aka the devil is a later Christian idea developed to deal with the importance of this entity and the problem of evil.

[rogue06]

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

That was about as convincing as one of those strings of "ifs" and "mights" that typically lead to the conclusion of ancient astronauts

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[/FONT]
That was about as convincing as one of those strings of "ifs" and "mights" that typically lead to the conclusion of ancient astronauts

I keep forgetting that you prefer unsubstantiated dogmatic statements that offer simple and easy answers to complex issues.

[rogue06]

I keep forgetting that you prefer unsubstantiated dogmatic statements that offer simple and easy answers to complex issues.

You literally built up a claim that relied on an entire series of "mays" and "perhapses" and then sniff disdainfully that its too sophisticated for others to follow.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You literally built up a claim that relied on an entire series of "mays" and "perhapses" and then sniff disdainfully that its too sophisticated for others to follow.

Once again you demonstrate that you do not fully understand your own language.

Claim:
: to assert in the face of possible contradiction
to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
to assert or maintain as a fact:

I offered no personal view on the matter. I gave a quote from another source. And, of necessity, with these ancient texts a degree of speculation and interpretation is bound to occur.

I might ask what you consider your own views on these texts to be?.

[rogue06]

Once again you demonstrate that you do not fully understand your own language.

Claim:
: to assert in the face of possible contradiction
to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it:
to assert or maintain as a fact:

I offered no personal view on the matter. I gave a quote from another source. And, of necessity, with these ancient texts a degree of speculation and interpretation is bound to occur.

I might ask what you consider your own views on these texts to be?.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but what you do is try to see if the idea holds water. You check to see if there is evidence in support of it as well as is there anything that falsifies it.

What you don't do is immediately leap from that assumption to another one and from there yet to another assumption and another.

And that was exactly what you and your source did.

You kept leapfrogging from one supposition to another down a long chain of "maybes." Quite literally a string of "may well have" to "perhaps" to "may possibly be" to "may mean" to a "may be" in that short paragraph. Never once stopping to see if any of those assumptions is anything more than wishful thinking.

No different than this guy

[tabibito]

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but what you do is try to see if the idea holds water. You check to see if there is evidence in support of it as well as is there anything that falsifies it.

What you don't do is immediately leap from that assumption to another one and from there yet to another assumption and another.

And that was exactly what you and your source did.

You kept leapfrogging from one supposition to another down a long chain of "maybes." Quite literally a string of "may well have" to "perhaps" to "may possibly be" to "may mean" to a "may be" in that short paragraph. Never once stopping to see if any of those assumptions is anything more than wishful thinking.

Drawing a conclusion based on a whole string of maybes (and nothing else) is far superior to drawing a tentative conclusion based on a whole string of known facts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but what you do is try to see if the idea holds water. You check to see if there is evidence in support of it as well as is there anything that falsifies it.

What exactly is your expertise in the languages and religions of the ancient near east, and of Greek mythology?

What you don't do is immediately leap from that assumption to another one and from there yet to another assumption and another.

Where exactly have I made any assumptions?

The only person making assumptions with regard to what I have posted, is your good self.

And that was exactly what you and your source did.

I look forward to reading your commentary on those topics which will, of course, include a bibliography and footnotes.

You kept leapfrogging from one supposition to another down a long chain of "maybes." Quite literally a string of "may well have" to "perhaps" to "may possibly be" to "may mean" to a "may be" in that short paragraph. Never once stopping to see if any of those assumptions is anything more than wishful thinking.

Once again I look forward to reading your critique.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Drawing a conclusion based on a whole string of maybes (and nothing else) is far superior to drawing a tentative conclusion based on a whole string of known facts.

Exactly what "whole string of known facts" is the above comment referencing?

[rogue06]

What exactly is your expertise in the languages and religions of the ancient near east, and of Greek mythology?


Where exactly have I made any assumptions?

The only person making assumptions with regard to what I have posted, is your good self.

I look forward to reading your commentary on those topics which will, of course, include a bibliography and footnotes.


Once again I look forward to reading your critique.

Someone seems, as they like to put it, on their back foot this morning.

I'm not arguing from any position of expertise in languages as you now pretend in your desperate flailing attempts.

I'm merely pointing out that you and your source are presenting an argument based on a tissue-paper like web of assumptions. They pour forth one after another without any attempt to validate a single one. One assumption literally flows from another, building a structure from shadow-stuff.

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

You go from "may well have been" into "perhaps" without pause, followed immediately by "may possibly," "may mean" and "may be" without a breath between them. Absolutely no attempt to offer corroboration for anything at any point.

No different an approach than what we see from folks like

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Someone seems, as they like to put it, on their back foot this morning.

I'm not arguing from any position of expertise in languages as you now pretend in your desperate flailing attempts.

I'm merely pointing out that you and your source are presenting an argument based on a tissue-paper like web of assumptions. They pour forth one after another without any attempt to validate a single one. One assumption literally flows from another, building a structure from shadow-stuff.

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

You go from "may well have been" into "perhaps" without pause, followed immediately by "may possibly," "may mean" and "may be" without a breath between them. Absolutely no attempt to offer corroboration for anything at any point.

It would appear that you have yet again made a series of contentions which you are, as usual, unable to support..

Let me clarify for you, given that you have serious problems with both comprehension as well as understanding your own language.

I, i.e. Hypatia_Alexandria have not made any "flailing attempts" at anything. I provided a quote.

A quote upon which you commented with this::

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but what you do is try to see if the idea holds water. You check to see if there is evidence in support of it as well as is there anything that falsifies it.

What you don't do is immediately leap from that assumption to another one and from there yet to another assumption and another.

And that was exactly what you and your source did.

You kept leapfrogging from one supposition to another down a long chain of "maybes." Quite literally a string of "may well have" to "perhaps" to "may possibly be" to "may mean" to a "may be" in that short paragraph. Never once stopping to see if any of those assumptions is anything more than wishful thinking.

If you consider that my source is

presenting an argument based on a tissue-paper like web of assumptions

You are welcome to show, with full citations, where that "tissue-paper like web of assumptions" is in error.

The proverbial ball is therefore back in your court. Either provide your refutation of what is in that quote or cease commenting upon it.

[tabibito]

You are welcome to show, with full citations, where that "tissue-paper like web of assumptions" is in error.

The proverbial ball is therefore back in your court. Either provide your refutation of what is in that quote or cease commenting upon it.

Where are your citations for the following?

Šaḥar in various Hebrew contexts, preserves some of its old mythological meaning as a feminine dawn goddess, and the original of this feminine dawn may well have been the Indo-European goddess Usas, the Hēos of Homer and Hesiod, perhaps blended now with Semitic Ishtar. Her son, Helel, may possibly be the sun itself, and indeed Šaḥar may mean the rising sun, according to an older school of thought, or Hêlēl may be an allusion to the planet Venus, as most modern commentators on the passage believe.

Whether or not the composer of the Isaiah passage made this explicit identification, the Greek translators of the Septuagint certainly did, since their translation of Hêlēl ben Šaḥar as Heōsphoros ho prōi anatellōn clearly combines the astronomical identification with Hesiod's, Heōsphoros son of Heōs, the dawn-bringer, Venus. The Greek was in turn rendered by the Latin vulgate as Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, and the name has stuck to the rebel ever since.[Ibid]

Your first assumption seems to be that the claims in the article do not need to be checked for accuracy.

[rogue06]

It would appear that you have yet again made a series of contentions which you are, as usual, unable to support..

Let me clarify for you, given that you have serious problems with both comprehension as well as understanding your own language.

I, i.e. Hypatia_Alexandria have not made any "flailing attempts" at anything. I provided a quote.

A quote upon which you commented with this::




If you consider that my source is

presenting an argument based on a tissue-paper like web of assumptions

You are welcome to show, with full citations, where that "tissue-paper like web of assumptions" is in error.

The proverbial ball is therefore back in your court. Either provide your refutation of what is in that quote or cease commenting upon it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world I have already shown precisely where those unsupported contentions are on multiple occasions. In the most recent instance they were bolded as well as underlined so they would be all but impossible to miss -- and yet...