How Art Thou Fallen From Heaven O Lucifer Son of the Morning

To find a Latin word in an English edition of the Old Attestation of the Bible is an anomaly, to say the least. We would look to find two things in an English language edition of the Hebrew Old Testament:

1. English language translations of essentially any Hebrew office of speech except proper nouns (names), including only not express to adjectives, adverbs, common nouns, pronouns, and verbs; but,
2. English transliterations of Hebrew proper nouns (names)

The Hebrew text of Isa. 14:12 according to the Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC) reads:

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חֹולֵ֖שׁ עַל־גֹּויִֽם׃

Here is a view of Isa. 14:12 in the Aleppo Codex:

The 1611 edition of the King James Version translated the Hebrew text of Isa. xiv:12 into English as follows:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O *Lucifer, sonne of the morning: how art thou cut downe to the footing, which didst weaken the nations:

*sidenote: Or, a twenty-four hour period-starre.

Hither is a table that demonstrates the relationship betwixt the Hebrew text and the 1611 KJV (i.e., interlinear):

Masoretic KJV, 1611
אֵ֛יךְ How
נָפַ֥לְתָּ art thou fallen
מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם from heaven
הֵילֵ֣ל O Match
בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר sonne of the forenoon
נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ how are thou cutting downe
לָאָ֔רֶץ to the footing
חוֹלֵ֖שׁ which didst weaken
עַל־גּוֹיִֽם the nations

Thus, the Hebrew word הֵילֵ֣ל was considered to be a proper name (a proper name). But, instead of being transliterated into English language as Heilel, it was really translated into Latin as lucifer, and and then that word was written as a proper noun (proper noun) by capitalization of its initial alphabetic character, i.e. Lucifer.

Friction match is a Latin discussion, not a Hebrew give-and-take. It is formed from the Latin suffix -fer, meaning "begetting" or "bearer," ¹ joined to the root luc-/lux- meaning "light." It means "low-cal-bearer" or "light-bearing." It should not occur in the King James Version English translation of the Old Attestation since the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, not Latin. Then, either הֵילֵל should have been translated into English language every bit "light-bearer" (if information technology is a common noun) or transliterated as Heilel (if it is a proper noun), but certainly not Lucifer.

If it is a common substantive, does הֵילֵל translate into English language as "light-bearer" or into Latin as lucifer?

Some might believe that. St. Jerome thought so. Later on all, when he produced the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, he translated הֵילֵל into Latin every bit lucifer. And, it'due south because of St. Jerome and his Vulgate that lucifer ultimately ended up in the KJV. Well, that answers that question, doesn't information technology? Not so fast.

Information technology's truthful that St. Jerome translated הֵילֵל into Latin as lucifer, simply in his commentary on Isa. xiv:12, he confesses that הֵילֵל meant something else entirely.

In his commentary on Isa. fourteen:12, he wrote,

Noteworthy is the following passage:

in Hebraico, ut verbum exprimamus ad verbum, legitur: Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, ulula fili diluculi.

which translates into English as,

In Hebrew, so that we may limited it discussion-for-word, it is read, "How accept you fallen from heaven! Howl, son of the dawn!"

St. Jerome himself confesses that the Hebrew phrase הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר translates word-for-word (verbum advert verbum) into Latin as ulula fili diluculi, which itself translates into English every bit "Howl, son of the morning!" And, again, information technology was St. Jerome who wrote lucifer in the Vulgate. But, he admits that friction match doesn't express the literal meaning of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל. Ulula does.

Why did St. Jerome state that הֵילֵל translates into Latin literally as ulula?

Most are not aware that the Hebrew discussion הֵילֵל is not really a hapax legomenon (i.due east., a word that only occurs once in the Bible). It actually occurs twice elsewhere:

1. Zech. eleven:two

הֵילֵ֤ל בְּרֹושׁ֙ כִּֽי־נָ֣פַל אֶ֔רֶז אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַדִּרִ֖ים שֻׁדָּ֑דוּ הֵילִ֨ילוּ֙ אַלֹּונֵ֣י בָשָׁ֔ן כִּ֥י יָרַ֖ד יַ֥עַר הַבָּצִיר ^WLC

Howl, fir tree; for the cedar is fallen; considering the mighty are spoiled: howl, O ye oaks of Bashan; for the forest of the vintage is come down. ^{KJV, 1769}

ulula abies quia cecidit cedrus quoniam magnifici vastati sunt ululate quercus Basan quoniam succisus est saltus munitus ^Vul

2. Eze. 21:12 (21:17 Masoretic)

זְעַ֤ק וְהֵילֵל֙ בֶּן־אָדָ֔ם כִּי־הִיא֙ הָיתָ֣ה בְעַמִּ֔י הִ֖יא בְּכָל־נְשִׂיאֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל מְגוּרֵ֤י אֶל־חֶ֨רֶב֙ הָי֣וּ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י לָכֵ֖ן סְפֹ֥ק אֶל־יָרֵֽךְ׃ ^WLC

Cry and howl, son of human being: for it shall be upon my people, it shall be upon all the princes of Israel: terrors past reason of the sword shall be upon my people: smite therefore upon thy thigh. ^{KJV, 1769}

clama et ulula fili hominis quia hic factus est in populo meo hic in cunctis ducibus Israhel qui fugerant gladio traditi sunt cum populo meo idcirco plaude super femur ^Vul

Not merely does the Hebrew give-and-take הֵילֵל occur in both verses, but St. Jerome also translated each occurrence into Latin by the imperative ulula, meaning "Howl!" (from the lemma ululo). And, it was ulula ("Howl!") that St. Jerome confessed was the literal translation of the Hebrew give-and-take הֵילֵל in his commentary on Isa. 14:12. What more needs to exist said?

Is there any other back up besides St. Jerome'south own confession?

Indeed there is. Aquila, who translated the Hebrew Old Attestation into Greek in the early second century A.D. (he died ~132 A.D.), translated the Hebrew phrase הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר into Greek by the phrase ὀλολύζων υἱὸς ὄρθρου, which translates into English language equally "O' wailing one, son of the dawn." The Greek word ὀλολύζων is a nowadays participle conjugated from the lemma ὀλολύζω.

While Aquila did not translate הֵילֵל as an imperative like Jerome (Latin ulula), he notwithstanding understood it to be conjugated from the root יל"ל, meaning "Howl."

In summary, if indeed הֵילֵל was a proper substantive referring to the proper name of an entity, it should accept been transliterated into English, which would have produced the discussion Heilel (or perhaps Helel) in the Rex James Version. On the other mitt, if we are to appreciate its other 2 occurrences in scripture, we should understand it to exist an imperative conjugated from the root יל"ל, meaning "Howl!" The onus is really on those who insist it is a proper name, or fifty-fifty a substantive meaning "calorie-free-bearer," to bear witness why that is so specially in light of its other ii occurrences in the books of the prophets Ezekiel and Zechariah. ²

---

Footnotes

¹ Many other Latin words with the same suffix -fer may be examined [here] using the Perseus search tool.

^two An argument based on cantillation marks does non seem sufficient for Christian expositors. Consider how the cantillation marks of Isa. twoscore:3 in the Masoretic text oppose the common Christian translation of Isa. 40:3. We should empathize that cantillation marks did non exist until, perhaps, the 9th-10th century A.D. They are in fact a tradition.

References

Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum. Vol. two. Oxonii: Eastward Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875. (456)

Jerome (Hieronymus). "Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah" (Commentaria in Isaiam Prophetam.). Volume 5. Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Latina. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 24. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. (165-167)

bowensafectsely.blogspot.com

Source: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20952/in-isaiah-1412-did-the-king-james-translator-make-a-mistake-using-the-term-luci

Share this post