Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
6,997
edits
Blavatsky H.P. - The History of a Planet: Difference between revisions
Blavatsky H.P. - The History of a Planet (view source)
Revision as of 14:29, 21 March 2024
, 21 Marchno edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
Besides which, the Devil had no horns before the fourth century of the Christian era. It is a purely Patristic invention arising from their desire to connect the god Pan, and the pagan Fauns and Satyrs, with their Satanic legend. The demons of Heathendom were as hornless and as tailless as the Archangel Michael himself in the imaginations of his worshippers. The “horns” were, in pagan symbolism, an emblem of divine power and creation, and of fertility in nature. Hence the ram’s horns of Amon, of Bacchus, and of Moses on ancient medals, and {{Page aside|27}}the cow’s horns of Isis and Diana, etc., etc., and of the Lord God of the Prophets of Israel himself. For Habakkuk gives the evidence that this symbolism was accepted by the “chosen people” as much as by the Gentiles. In Chapter iii, 3-4, that prophet speaks of the “Holy One from Mount Paran,” of the Lord God who “came from Teman,” and whose “brightness was as the light,” and who had “horns coming out of his hand.” | Besides which, the Devil had no horns before the fourth century of the Christian era. It is a purely Patristic invention arising from their desire to connect the god Pan, and the pagan Fauns and Satyrs, with their Satanic legend. The demons of Heathendom were as hornless and as tailless as the Archangel Michael himself in the imaginations of his worshippers. The “horns” were, in pagan symbolism, an emblem of divine power and creation, and of fertility in nature. Hence the ram’s horns of Amon, of Bacchus, and of Moses on ancient medals, and {{Page aside|27}}the cow’s horns of Isis and Diana, etc., etc., and of the Lord God of the Prophets of Israel himself. For Habakkuk gives the evidence that this symbolism was accepted by the “chosen people” as much as by the Gentiles. In Chapter iii, 3-4, that prophet speaks of the “Holy One from Mount Paran,” of the Lord God who “came from Teman,” and whose “brightness was as the light,” and who had “horns coming out of his hand.” | ||
When one reads, moreover, the Hebrew text of Isaiah, and finds that no Lucifer is mentioned at all in Chapter xiv, 12, but simply <big>'''הילל'''</big> Hillel, “a bright star,” one can hardly refrain from wondering that educated people should be still ignorant enough at the close of our century to associate a radiant planet—or anything else in nature for the matter of that—with the DEVIL! <ref>The literal words used, and their translation, are: “Aïk Naphalta Mi-Shamayim Hillel Ben-Shahar Nigdata La-Aretz Cholesch Al-Goüm,” or, “How art thou fallen from the heavens, Hillel, Son of the Morning, how art thou cast down unto the earth, thou who didst cast down the nations.” Here the word, translated “Lucifer,” is , Hillel, and its meaning is “shining brightly or gloriously.” It is very true also, that by a pun to which Hebrew words lend themselves so easily, the verb hillel may be made to mean “to howl,” hence by an easy derivation, hillel may be constructed into “howler,” or a devil, a creature, however, one hears rarely, if ever, “howling.” In his Hebrew and English Lexicon, Art. , John Parkhurst says: “The Syriac translation of this passage renders it | When one reads, moreover, the Hebrew text of Isaiah, and finds that no Lucifer is mentioned at all in Chapter xiv, 12, but simply <big>'''הילל'''</big> Hillel, “a bright star,” one can hardly refrain from wondering that educated people should be still ignorant enough at the close of our century to associate a radiant planet—or anything else in nature for the matter of that—with the DEVIL! <ref>The literal words used, and their translation, are: “Aïk Naphalta Mi-Shamayim Hillel Ben-Shahar Nigdata La-Aretz Cholesch Al-Goüm,” or, “How art thou fallen from the heavens, Hillel, Son of the Morning, how art thou cast down unto the earth, thou who didst cast down the nations.” Here the word, translated “Lucifer,” is <big>'''הילל'''</big>, Hillel, and its meaning is “shining brightly or gloriously.” It is very true also, that by a pun to which Hebrew words lend themselves so easily, the verb hillel may be made to mean “to howl,” hence by an easy derivation, hillel may be constructed into “howler,” or a devil, a creature, however, one hears rarely, if ever, “howling.” In his Hebrew and English Lexicon, Art. <big>'''הל'''</big>, John Parkhurst says: “The Syriac translation of this passage renders it <big>'''אילל'''</big> howl, and even Jerome on the place observes, that it literally means howl. . . . ‘Therefore,’ says Michaelis, ‘I translate, Howl, Son of the morning, i.e.; thou star of the first magnitude’.” But at this rate, Hillel, the great Jewish-sage and reformer, might also be called “howler,” and connected with the devil!<br> | ||
{{HPB-CW-comment|[There exist divergent views among scholars concerning the Hebrew term which is sometimes spelt hillel, and sometimes hêlçl and even hailal, according to the interpretation of the vowel-points. The Hebrew expression in Isaiah, xiv, 12, hêlel bên shâhar, appears in the Greek Septuagint as <big>'''ὁ Εωσφόρος ὁ πρωῒ ἀνατέλλων'''</big> and in the Latin Vulgate as Lucifer qui mane oriebaris, conveying the idea of “early rising,” both in Greek and in Latin. The Hebrew expression bên shâhar definitely means “son of the dawn.” The Vulgate translates by the word Lucifer the Hebrew term bôqer, “light of dawn” (Job, xi, 17), the expression mazzârôth, “the Signs of the Zodiac” (Job, xxxviii, 32), and even shâhar, “the dawn” (Ps., cx, 3). Besides using the word Lucifer in connection with the King of Babylon, in the above-mentioned passage from Isaiah, the same term is used by the Vulgate in connection with the High-Priest Simon, son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus, 1, 6), and is applied to the “glory of Heaven” (Apoc., ii, 28), and even to Jesus Christ himself (II Peter, i, 19; Apoc., xxii, 16). In the Exultet (liturgy of Holy Saturday), the Church uses the title of Lucifer in connection with its Saviour, and expresses the hope that this “early morning Lucifer” will find the Easter-candle burning bright, he who knows no decline and who, returning from Hell, sheds his brilliant light upon mankind.<br> | |||
{{HPB-CW-comment|[There exist divergent views among scholars concerning the Hebrew term which is sometimes spelt hillel, and sometimes hêlçl and even hailal, according to the interpretation of the vowel-points. The Hebrew expression in Isaiah, xiv, 12, hêlel bên shâhar, appears in the Greek Septuagint as | |||
Hêlçl is derived from hâlal, “to shine” (Arab. halal; Assyrian, elêlu). The Syriac version of the Old Testament and the version of Aquila derive it from yâlal, “to lament,” and St. Jerome agrees with this derivation (Comm. in Is., v, 14, in Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIV, 161), making of Lucifer the principal fallen angel who is supposed “to lament” the loss of his original glory, bright as the morning star. Other Fathers of the Church 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). Present-day scholars agree with H. P. B. that the supposed derivation from yâlal, “to wail,” “to howl or lament,” is untenable.<br> | Hêlçl is derived from hâlal, “to shine” (Arab. halal; Assyrian, elêlu). The Syriac version of the Old Testament and the version of Aquila derive it from yâlal, “to lament,” and St. Jerome agrees with this derivation (Comm. in Is., v, 14, in Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIV, 161), making of Lucifer the principal fallen angel who is supposed “to lament” the loss of his original glory, bright as the morning star. Other Fathers of the Church 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). Present-day scholars agree with H. P. B. that the supposed derivation from yâlal, “to wail,” “to howl or lament,” is untenable.<br> | ||
The passage in Isaiah, xiv, 12, discussed by H. P. B., is transliterated as follows by present-day standards: Aik nafaltah mi-shamayim hailal ben-shâhar nig’datah la-ares holesh ’al-goyim. The translation of this verse, according to King James’ Bible is; however, “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Some scholars translate “cast lots over nations,” instead of “weaken.”—Compiler.]}}</ref> | The passage in Isaiah, xiv, 12, discussed by H. P. B., is transliterated as follows by present-day standards: Aik nafaltah mi-shamayim hailal ben-shâhar nig’datah la-ares holesh ’al-goyim. The translation of this verse, according to King James’ Bible is; however, “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Some scholars translate “cast lots over nations,” instead of “weaken.”—Compiler.]}}</ref> | ||