Lucifer
Lucifer Satan in Tartarus

Canaanite Myths. Isaiah. Origen. St. Jerome.

Paper 67
THE PLANETARY REBELLION
"The problems associated with human existence on Urantia are impossible of understanding
without a knowledge of certain great epochs of the past,
notably the occurrence of the planetary rebellion. Although this upheaval did not
seriously interfere with the progress of organic evolution,
it did markedly modify the course of social evolution and of spiritual development.
The entire superphysical history of the planet was profoundly influenced by this devastating calamity."
Urantia Book p. 754

Lucifer
There was confusion and division that occurred among the celestials at the time of Lucifer's proclamation. What the Urantia Book says about this history is this: that, in brief, Lucifer let his pride blind him to the universe realities of good and evil. There was a "war in heaven" and it affected world events on this planet. Members of the Caligastia 100 became known as the Watchers - both good and bad. Nod became the leader of the rebels and Van the leader of the loyalists. Along with the so called Watchers were a host of other angelic personalities that went astray as well. Some of which we would call demonic. The Sumerians apparently knew of these beings and their origin because in the cuneiform texts both angelic personalities, good and bad, have a derterminitive called the dingir applied to them.

Much that is written about the Watchers is in the context of being fallen, mating with humans and giving them forbidden knowledge. But there is one source that fills in the beginning of this story and that is in the Book of Jubilees."...and he called his name Jared, for in his days the angels of the Lord descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment and uprightness on the earth." (Jubilees 4:15) This verse has been overlooked by many who have written on this subject. But Jubilees does not give the real reason for their fall. This is not the only document to state "good angels gone bad". Here is another:

"Lactantius (A.D. 240-320), in his Divine Institutes 2.15, teaches God sent the angels to earth to teach mankind and protect them from Satan, but that Satan "enticed them to vices, and polluted them by intercourse with women." This is closer to Jub. [above] than Enoch.  The sinning angels, Lactantius continues, could not return to heaven, so they became demons of the air. Their half-breed offspring could not enter hell (hades?), so they became demons of the earth. All of this Lactantius connects with pagan mythology and the occult."
(The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4 by Robert C. Newman copyright 1984 by Grace Theological Seminary)

The corporal staff of 100 really were not much above us. (What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,... Ps 8:4-9) They had been mortals and had graduated from the mansion worlds (in heaven). Most likely none had ever been involved with a rebellion and probably came from normal planets. At this time they are a long way from heaven and have been so for 300,000 years. Now their highest leader, Lucifer, their System Sovereign states his manifesto. There seems to be no repercussions of what Lucifer is promulgating. Basically liberty without license. “The freedom allowed him by the universe rulers apparently sustained many of his nefarious contentions. He defied all his superiors; yet they apparently took no note of his doings”. (Urantia Book p. 605) All of this was passed on to their children. From the very time as babies they knew of the Lucifer Manifesto, it was the very reason why things were the way they were. The Lucifer Manifesto in part states:

 1) God does not exist
2) Christ Michael and the Ancient of Days holds no authority
    Immortality was a natural state
3) Condemned the plan of mortal ascension
    Advocated individual self determination
(For the complete manifesto read in the Urantia Book p. 603-4)
Lucifer's name is mentioned only once in the Bible (KJV) and that is in Isaiah 14:12:
"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!" KJV
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son on Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" RSV
The metaphorical use of "O Day Star" in the RSV is due to the etymological question of origin:

"Here is where we find the name Lucifer. The term Lucifer comes not from the Hebrew or even from the Greek translation (Septuagint), but from the 4th century AD Latin translation of this verse:
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.
But this is not quite as obvious as it sounds even in Latin. The term Lucifer in fourth century Latin was a name for Venus, especially as the morning star, derived from a term meaning "bright light," or the verbal form "to shine brightly." The same word is used in other places in the Latin Vulgate to translate Hebrew terms that mean "bright," especially associated with the sky:
Job 11:17: And your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like the morning.
2 Peter 1:19: You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
It also occurs in the plural (luciferum) in Job 38:32 to refer to an astral constellation. Other forms of the word are used in similar ways to refer to light or the stars. And this reflects the Greek (Septuagint) translation’s use of heosphoros, "morning star" to translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 14:12.

There is some debate about the exact origin of the original Hebrew word helel in Isaiah 14:12. But the strongest possibility is that it comes from a verbal root that means "to shine brightly," as well as "to offer praise" (where we get the phrase hallelu yah). In any case, the noun form is the Hebrew term for the morning star, in most cases the planet Venus. Both the second century BC Greek translation in the Septuagint, and the fourth century AD Latin translation in the Latin Vulgate understand this to be the meaning of the Hebrew word helel."
(http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html) Translation and Ideology: Dennis Bratcher Copyright © 2004

With the RSV the name Lucifer no longer appears within the Bible. Future generations will only know the name of Lucifer from extra biblical sources and not from the Bible itself. Who thought that this is a good idea?

Azazel-Shemyaza
"The Orion Connection...
It is well known from The Book of Enoch that the fallen angels were bound for their transgressions against Man and God and thrown into the earth - with the exception of Azazel, who was bound and thrown into the fiery abyss. However, other versions of this story assert that Shemyaza also suffered a different fate than that of his brothers. That is, he was bound and hung in the heavens as a warning for all to see and remember, as the constellation of Orion. See Enoch's sojourn to the Second Heaven in The Book of Enoch."
(http://www.semjaaza.com/thewatcher.html)

There is confusion on the names of Azazel and Shemyaza. Some scholars believe Azazel is Lucifer and Shemyaza is Satan. Some don't. It seems that the ancients may have had a clearer understanding, at least in some instances, of the differences between the two as reflected in the apocrypha which I believe represents a reemergence of the ancient Hebrew "quasi-mythology". As far as 1 Enoch is concerned, Shemyaza is listed after Azazel in rank. Azazel shows up only after the angels have had intercourse with the women and then is seen as the dominant angel the one with the most authority. Although there is no connection between Azazel and the women, no fornication, he is singled out by the angels Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel as the foremost sinner, for all sins are ascribed unto him alone. A very important point as concerns Isaiah 14:12 which I will get to shortly. Both 1 Enoch and the targum below are in agreement by stating Lucifer and Satan were present together on the planet after the mating with human women. In 1 Enoch 9:7 "And Shemjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to rule over his associates" this is correct, Shemyaza, Satan, is Lucifer's wing man so to speak. The Christian view is that the name Satan applies to Lucifer after his fall. But in the Book of Enoch it is clear that Azazel and Shemyaza are two different personalities for each is bound separately. For Azazel see: 1 Enoch 10:4-6 and for Shemyaza see: 1 Enoch 10:11-12. The Urantia Book supports this idea of being "bound separately" in terms of having different levels of incarceration but only after Christ's ascension. In the following extra biblical material Lucifer and Satan are presented as two personalities.

"Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
   It is difficult to know where to place the targumim. These Aramaic translations of Scripture (often paraphrases or even commentaries) have an oral background in the synagogue services of pre-Christian times, but their extant written forms seem to be much later. Among these, the Targum Pseudo-Johathan [Tg. Ps.-J.] presents at least a partially supernatural interpretation. Although in its extant form this targum is later than the rise of Islam in the 7th century A.D., (see below), our passage is probably one of its early parts:

And it came to pass when the sons of men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and beautiful daughters were born to them, that the sons of the great ones saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, with eyes painted and hair curled, walking in nakedness of flesh, and they conceived lustful thoughts; and they took them wives of all they chose....Shamhazai and Azael fell from heaven and were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the great ones came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same are called men of the world, the men of renown.

  Here the phrase "Sons of the great ones" may reflect a nonsupernatural interpretation, but the reference to Shamhazai and Azael falling from heaven certainly does not. The names given are close to those in 1 Enoch, considering that the latter has gone through two translations to reach its extant Ethiopic version. Notice also that the Nephilim are here identified with the angels rather than their offspring as in Enoch, Jub., and Josephus."
(The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4 by Robert C. Newman copyright 1984 by Grace Theological Seminary)
(Use this URL to download the PDF file: http://www.google.com/#q=Treatise+of+the+Giants&hl=en&prmd=b&ei=3qMcTLeeII_dnAfQuvj6DQ&start=20&sa=N&fp=f6f642595e92e50c)

This is an amazing excerpt from the targum in that both Lucifer and Satan are mentioned in conjunction with the fallen angels (the great ones) and the Nephilim (the men of renown). I did not think that the ancients had gotten this close to what had happened. It is rare indeed to see Satan and Lucifer portrayed together as distinct individuals. These targums are considered as translations or explanations of Hebrew scripture into Aramaic which became popular and even necessary after the return of the Hebrews to Judah from Babylon. It was at this time that there was a shift to speaking Aramaic as the vernacular.
     The reason for the Hebrews being able to return to Judah is because of the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus who entered the city on October 10, 539 BC. Earlier before, in the group of those first captives taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar was a young Daniel and later another famous captive would join him. He was Ezekiel. In the 10th year of King Zedekiah, a vassal king installed by Nebuchadnezzar, another famous captive arrives in Babylon, Jeremiah. At this point there are three important prophets in Babylon. With the coming of Cyrus there is a direct meeting of Judaism with Zoroastrianism. It would have a profound effect on all these Babylonian captives imprisoned for the last 70 years. The seventy years was prophesy. "For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place." Jeremiah 29:10  Roughly speaking a generation is considered 20 years. That means at least two full generations were held captive. In terms of importance the Exile is only second to the Exodus. Some of them by the way stayed in Babylon.
     The Persians would influence Jewish religious thinking from that time forward. First and most importantly was the strengthening and expanding concept of monotheism followed by (my short list) ideas about heaven, hell, angels, immortality, resurrection and Satan as a personality. "Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books." (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/309/zorojud.htm) (Liberal dating for the Book of Job as post-exile, Conservative dating goes back to the time of the patriarchs 1900-1700 BC for Job in which the Satan appears). Lucifer does not come from Zoroastrianism but from much older legends. Where the ancient name for the Latin/Greek-Lucifer, Azazel, comes from is unknown and its origin has been disputed for centuries. It is in the Book of Enoch that we get the most information although Azazel is mentioned as an evil angel in other religious works of antiquity. But how Lucifer and Satan came to be presented as different people in the targum and 1 Enoch is a difficult question. But one thing is certain both the targums and Enoch are post-exile. 

"When the Babylonians conquered Judah, they exiled the royal family, aristocrats, and upper classes. Most of the common people were left behind. When the 40,000 or so returned (many stayed behind), they rejected those they found that had intermarried with others. Many still considered themselves Jews, but were still rejected. They, nonetheless the returning Jews separated themselves from others who became the Samarians. Strife began at once and divided the nation.

 We are told Nehemiah, who followed the Zoroastrian purity code rigidly, was responsible for the transition of the Jewish purity code. The purity laws were no longer restricted to the Temple, but had to be exercised in 'the fields, the kitchen, the bed and the street (Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism Vol. II, p. 190). The Persian King Darius is our hero in the Book of Daniel."

"There is no devil in Judaism and never was. The term "devil" doesn't exist in the Old Testament. The term Satan appears 13 times in the Old Testament mainly in Job and in every case as a servant of God. But the late post-exile Zechariah 3:2 says, "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" This is as close to conflict as they come. The term Lucifer1 (light bearer?) occurs only in Isaiah 14:12, "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!" and I see nothing confrontational in this."
(http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jud_zor.htm)

"It is in Christianity that the doctrine of the Devil is almost identical to the Zoroastrian concept. The Devil, or Satan, is a being who CHOSE to be evil, through pride, just as Zarathushtra's evil spirit chose to do evil; and this devil, as Christians believe, not only roams about attempting to corrupt people, but has corrupted the physical world as well, just as Ahriman does in the later Zoroastrian teachings.

Christianity also adopted Jewish - and Zoroastrian - apocalyptic myths about cosmic battles and the upcoming end of the world into its own doctrine. The Christian book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament canon, is a later example of a form that goes back all the way through its Jewish sources to the distant, ancient worlds of Iran and Mesopotamia."
(http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/zjc3.html)

"Summary
Pre-exile to Babylon, Satan was simply an accuser of God's people whose place was still in Heaven. After the exile, with the influence of Ahriman on Israel's concept of Satan, he had now acquired the ability to lead people astray from God. We also have the beginnings of the idea of Satan deceiving a third of the angels which can be seen to be derived from the belief that Angra Mainyu induced the daevas to choose “worst thinking".

In the 400 years intertestamental period between the Old Testament and Jesus' ministry on Earth, the concept of Satan was developed further. Influenced by apocryphal writings, the concept of Satan as a fallen angel was introduced. Additionally the new ideas of Zoroastrian demonology, previously unknown to Judaism, were also enhanced under the influence of these writings, and demons also came to be understood as fallen angels."
(http://disappearinghead.hubpages.com/hub/The-Evolution-of-Satan-Part-2)

 So, if the above quotes are true, Satan as a person, an active force for evil, became a part of scripture after the return from Babylon. The conservative view as per the Book of Job is that Satan was only an adversary in the pre-exile and only later the evil one. The Liberals would say Satan was always Satan, period (which includes the Book of Job). When discussing Job you need to know on which side of the line the discussion is coming from. You can figure it out by what is said but you do need to be aware of what suppositions the arguments are based on. The dating of the Book of Job is controversial as you can see. The problem with dating Job is that it is dated just after the exile by the liberal interpretation. It is dated much much earlier by the conservatives because of certain textural clues. There you go. Dates can drive me crazy. Its not only the date of authorship that is important but that it also includes a story about Satan. If I had to pick one I would go with the conservatives because in the Book of Job Satan is merely an accuser and not the Devil as he was portrayed later. Also Satan has a conversation about Job with God Himself while in His presence in heaven. It is an issue based again on dates. Is Satan in Job before or after the fall? If he is in heaven then it has to be before the fall but Satan's name should be Lucifer. However if you believe Satan is the name for Lucifer after the fall I ask you, what is he doing in heaven from which he was cast down and then imprisoned? There are two more points here: was Satan known as a person to the ancients during the time of the patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - or was the person of Satan introduced post-exile because of the Persian influence? The dating of the intertestamental period is from 400BC to 1AD which would include The Books of Enoch. Of course, it is 1 Enoch that we get the most close up view of the rebellion which mentions both Lucifer and Satan as the main leaders. But because Enoch is post-exile does not mean that the writer(s) did not draw upon much more ancient material. 

A quick discussion on the intertestamental period: The Book of Enoch was written at this time which is considered apocryphal. In fact almost all of the works considered as aprocryphal or pseudepigraphical were written during this time and are Jewish in origin (except for a very few in Greek). Enoch is considered as the oldest of these works. The Dead Sea Scrolls were also written during this time with most of them in Hebrew but Enoch was written in Aramaic if not others. As you may know, aprocryphal fragments have been found among the text of the scrolls which would include the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Giants, the Second Book of Adam and Eve among others. If you are interested in this subject the following contains the largest amount of links to this literature that I have found: http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/Index.html

As convoluted as this all seems about Job there is an answer to this knotty problem. Satan is not Satan, nor is he Lucifer."...the term “Satan” in Hebrew is a title given to something or someone, which is in opposition, rather than to a particular person himself." (http://www.one-gospel.org/concepts/i_concepts_05.htm) What is being referred to is the term "Ha-Satan" which means "the adversary" among others. This author's clincher (spoiler alert!) is that Satan is really representative of Job's three so-called friends. At its conclusion, "...and indeed the text confirms that Satan was “from the earth” (Job 1:7) You will have to read the article yourself to understand as to why he reached this conclusion. Another source supports this concept of Satan-as-adversary. "In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. [Elaine Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995]" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satan) A third source addresses the Ha-Satan, the adversary, directly. "I would also like to point out that everywhere in the Old Testament the word 'satan' always refers to an external, personal adversary; never does it mean simply "human nature" or "sin personified" (http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/2-1-2ha_satan.htm) This author makes a number of previous points on the use of "satan" as a supernatural adversary and not Satan as used in the New Testament. I hope this clarifies the use of the word Satan as used in Job and in general of the Old Testament for that matter. The difference is whether you apply the Hebrew or the Christian meaning to Satan in this passage. If you want to be historically accurate on the use of Ha-Satan/satan only the Hebrew would apply despite contrary opinions. (See the discussion on Mastema below as a forth answer to this question.)
Job 1:7 
And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou?
Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth,
and from walking up and down in it.
KJV

"The Zoroastrian impact, which was already present in postexilic Judaism, was profound indeed. The prime example here is the intense Christian (and late Judaic) emphasis on a constant struggle between good and evil, which was the essence of the religion found by the Iranian prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathrustra, c. 630–550 B.C.E.). The fully evolved figure of Satan is a classic example of syncretism: a fusion of the Hebrew concept of Lucifer, the "fallen angel," and the Zoroastrian figure Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), who is the evil opponent of Ahura Mazda (Ormazd), the "wise lord" and the embodiment of light, truth, and goodness. Moreover, the late Zoroastrian texts tell of a final conflict between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, during which a messiah-like figure will appear and lead the forces of Good. This, of course, is dramatically reflected in a number of Judeo-Christian apocalyptic texts, from the Book of Daniel to the Book of Revelation. The important thing here is that neither Angra Mainyu nor Lucifer is identical to Satan. Rather, the Judeo-Christian figure is a syncretism of the two otherwise distinct evil entities."
(http://science.jrank.org/pages/11386/Syncretism-Syncretism-in-World-Religions.html)

Although I agree with the above quote that Lucifer and Satan were two different personalities, "distinct evil entities", the scholarly evidence is thin with conflicting points of view and therefore problematic. There is a tremendous difference of opinion about the name Lucifer so much so that it has been removed from the Bible. Lucifer is Latin for "light-bringing" and is also called "day star". The Hebrew Helel means "Shining one" and "day star" (Isaiah 14:12 see below). This is the short explanation of the name/word Lucifer. It is further complicated with which some believe that all of this passage refers to the king of Babylon in regards to pride and falling - no Lucifer, no Satan. Which is interesting in that "day star" in this context refers metaphorically to an actual person and not the star Venus. But that leap is not applied to Lucifer as a person but to the planet Venus itself. In the Latin Vulgate (about 400 AD, St. Jerome) it uses lucifer, lower case. How did the ancients view this? "Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7)." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer) The Sumerians thought so as well.

Satan is also attributed to this passage. But although it is the popular belief it cannot be legitimate. First this passage is pre-exile. Not only is it pre-exile but it is prophesy. At the beginning of the time of the exile Isaiah was no longer alive. Satan as a personality actively perusing evil did not occur until post-exile times, the return from Babylon (as explained above). Second, Satan would not have the authority to "weaken the nations" only Lucifer had that authority as per 1 Enoch. Third, the name Satan does not appear in the text. Although Satan in 1 Enoch is singled out as an important and therefore authoritative angel, the sin of  "weaken the nations" was Lucifers alone.

So where is the evidence that the Hebrew concept of Lucifer is the "fallen angel"? The word "day star" is used elsewhere in the Bible and does not refer to Lucifer. "There are scores of examples of a term used in the Bible as referring primarily to one thing/person, but having a different thing/person in view if the context demands it." (http://bible.org/article/lucifer-devil-isaiah-1412-kjv-argument-against-modern-translations) So did St. Jerome have an understanding that in this instance "day star" was a reference to a person, Lucifer?
Isaiah 14:12-14
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [hêlël ben-shachar - Hebrew/lucifer qui mane oriebaris - Latin]
 How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For you have said in your 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.”
KJV


The controversy over the name Lucifer hinges on the translation Helel = Lucifer. Otherwise as Venus = Lucifer with the emphasis being Latin is today the most popular opinion - Lucifer is Venus. But there is more to it. That would be the second part "ben shachar" which meant in Babylonian mythology that Shachar was known as the God of the Dawn. So actually, the literal translation would be "Helel Son of Shachar" with the understanding that Helel was not a star but the son of a god (making him a god as well). This seemingly little fact has a lot of "history" behind it. Although we have been focusing on the Hebrew/Babylonian aspects we must go further back in time to understand the significance of Shachar. The origin is at least Canaanite from the Ugarit texts from Ras Shamra. To begin with Shachar (Athtar) was the son of El, Ugarit for "king of the universe" and the creator of "heaven and earth". If we are to say Lucifer is Venus then we are speaking in astronomical terms, but if we are to say Lucifer is the son of the god Shachar then we are speaking in terms of genealogy. Looking at Isaiah in full we will see it transcends the astronomical. The god Shachar (Athtar) places the background for the Isaiah passage in the Canaanite myth of Baal and Athtar called by some as the Lucifer-Canaanite Myth. Here it is in part with this notation: of the several translations I have read, this one is the closest to what I believe the ancient author intended and for us the easiest to see "day star" as a god:

Canaanite myth of Baal and Athtar
Let the finest of pigments be ground
  let the people of Baal prepare unguents,
  the people of the Son of Dagan crushed herbs.
The Great Lady-who-tramples-Yam replied:
"Indeed, let us make Athtar the Brilliant king:
  Athtar the Brilliant shall rule!"
Then Athtar the Brilliant went up into the uttermost parts of Saphon;
  he sat on the throne of the Valiant Baal.
But his feet did not reach the footstool;
  his head did not come up to the top.
Then Athtar the Brilliant said:
"I shall not rule in the uppermost parts of Saphon!"
Athtar the Brilliant came down,
  he came down from the throne of Valiant Baal,
and ruled in the earth,
  god of it all.

(Nicolas Wyatt, The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit, The University of Edinburgh, 2002)

Information about the Baal and Athtar myth is from a pdf file called The Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12-15:
A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material by Michael Heiser, Liberty University (2001)
(http://logos.academia.edu/MichaelHeiser/Papers/1041146/The_mythological_provenance_of_Isa._XIV_12-15_a_reconsideration_of_the_ugaritic_material)
"The second point is that the scholarly community almost universally rejects the being identified as helel ben shahar in Isaiah 14 as being the king of Babylon directly. There is a figure in contemporary Canaanite religion which resembles Helel in Isaiah 14. That figure is ‘Athtar. At one point in Canaanite myth, ‘Athtar attempts to sit in the throne of Ba’al, the king of the gods. He fails in his attempt, and instead descends to the earth to rule there. ‘Athtar is known in southern Arabian inscriptions as Venus, or the Day Star. More than this though, is the account in Isaiah. The “stars of God” is a reference to the divine assembly–all of the divinities of heaven. The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north (in the original Hebrew) is equivalent to Canaanite phrases describing the dwelling place of Ba’al. So, in effect, we have in Isaiah a description of a divinity who wants to seize the throne of Ba’al and rule the heavens. Of course there are differences as well as similarities, but I find this argument to be fairly convincing myself."

"There is no basis in Isaiah’s charges as they would apply to the Babylonian king. It is primarily on the similarities between the Isaiah text, and text covering the Ba’al/’Athtar myth that this connection is drawn. (For bibliographic references and a description of the related scholarly arguments I recommend this article (the most recent on the subject that I am aware of): “The Mythological Provenance of Isa. XIV 12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material” by Michael S. Heiser, in Vetus Testamentum, 51/3 [2001], p. 354-369).

At the same time, this concept is, interestingly enough, seen in the New Testament. Jesus claims that he saw Satan “fall like lightning from heaven” and in John and Paul we find Satan described as the “God of this world.” It was these references (among others) that led the early fathers of the Christian church to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form a lasting opinion. And when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition has been followed ever since."
(http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/ask-the-apologist-lucifer-and-satan)

More on the connection between Canaanite religion and the Bible:

Paraphrasing from Mark S Smith's "Recent Study of Israelite Religion in Light of the Ugaritic Texts": there has been tendencies of scholars to overlook or suppress continuities between the early religion of Israel literary traditions shared with many of the so-called Canannite sources. John Day (Ugarit and the Bible) answered the question of "do the Ugartic and the Bible share the same canaanite mythology and religion? To which he answered, "yes" (with local variations).
(Mark S. Smith, Recent Study of Israelite Religion in Light of the Ugaritic Texts, New York University)
Both works of Nicolas Wyatt and Mark S, Smith are part of a collection entitled Symposium "Ugarit at Seventy Five" Copyright 2007 by Eisenbrams  (www.eisenbrauns.com)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=3xbHT7ZiAtUC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Baal+and+Athtar+translation&source=bl&ots=9i2kBvV84j&sig=
KstzRREg5Fjk-IlJ7hFPXehwJp4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Oq4EUJDQEoPKqgGVp8S-CA&sqi=2&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Baal
%20and%20Athtar%20translation&f=false)

As we have seen from the comments above the legend of Lucifer can be found within the traditions of the Canaanites. The Romans did not invent the name Lucifer. Most arguments on the interpretation of Lucifer is based on Helel as the planet Venus. When mentioning the earlier Greek name for Lucifer the term "phosphoros" or "heosphoros" is used as the day star. But the Greeks apparently knew the name Lucifer as it applies to the fallen one. The Greek theologian Origen seems to be the first to use Lucifer as a proper name as regards Isaiah 14. His writings were very familiar to St. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate. "Actually, Lucifer is first mentioned (under that name) in the writings of Origen (end of the second century) some two hundred years before Jerome puts it into his Latin text. Tertullian and others of the early fathers of the church also discuss Lucifer, so the connection between Lucifer and Satan was established some time prior to the end of the second century." (http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/ask-the-apologist-lucifer-and-satan) I read the translation of the part of Origen's De Principiis (On the Principles) that pertains to this discussion. Origen a Greek Christian scholar quotes Isaiah and uses the word Lucifer. Further in the paragraph he goes on to say, "Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer...". What also I found important was the argument against the understanding that  Lucifer was a being of the nature of darkness, "For at one time he was light". There is a Roman translation of Origen but only Book III and Book IV. What I have quoted is from Book I 5:5 which is from the Greek. I have looked at four translations and they all use the name Lucifer. So my question is this: where did Origen get Lucifer from which is supposedly a Roman word? That answer may lie in a pdf  that I downloaded. Origen had access to the Serapeum "daughter library" to the great Library of Alexandria because he was living in Alexandria, Egypt.  It was the Library of Alexandria that once held the writings of the ages. It was commissioned by Ptolemy, the Greek King of Egypt. During one of Caesar's wars the great Library caught on fire and burnt to the ground but the Serapeum was spared. Unfortunately, this library, dedicated as the Temple of Serapis, which had stood for more than six centuries, was demolished in 391 AD by Theophilus of Alexandria. Origen uses the name Lucifer directly quoting Isaiah and referring to him as a fallen angel. A contemporary of St. Jerome was St. Augustine. And why this is important is because both use Lucifer as a proper name in reference to the fallen one. Note that Origen uses the phrase "who was formerly Lucifer" which means he was aware of how the name Satan was being applied at that time. Origen was also familiar with the Book of Enoch, where I assume his understanding of the name Lucifer came from.  St. Jerome and St. Augustine most assuredly had read Enoch as well. So it seems the discussion of the origin and fate of Lucifer was one of those hot topics of the time.
Book two ORIGEN, Origens Main Sources P.63
"2. He referred to some of the extra-canonical books, such
as Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, the Prayer of Joseph, Ezra and several other Jewish
apocrypha, including perhaps the Book of Jubilees. According to
Harnack, since Origen knew these he ought also to have known all
the Jewish apocryphal works listed by Nicephorus in his
Stichometria. In addition he often quotes from unnamed Jewish
apocry pha which do not seem to have survived."
•Emphasis added•
Lectures in Patrology, The School of Alexandria, Book two ORIGEN, Fr. Tadros Y. Mataty of St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church, 1995
De Principiis  
5. Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power.
The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven!
He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. You indeed said in your heart,
I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne;
I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north;
I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High.
Now shall you be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth.
Book I, Chapter 5. On Rational Natures. Paragraph 5
Origen
Origen did in fact write that he was familiar with the Book of Enoch. A contemporary of his was Tertullian another early Christian scholar and defender of the church. He is often referred to as agreeing with Origen about Lucifer/Satan as the devil. Here is that Tertullian passage:
Against Marcion
There is another being to whom they are more applicable and the apostle knew very well who that was.
Who then is he? Undoubtedly he who has raised up "children of disobedience"
against the Creator Himself ever since he took possession of that "air" of His;
even as the prophet makes him say: "I will set my throne above the stars;.. will go up above the clouds; I will be like the Most High."
 This must mean the devil, whom in another passage (since such will they there have the apostle's meaning to be)
we shall recognize in the appellation the god of this world.
Book 5 Chapter 17
Tertullian
Just to remind the reader these concepts as documented were written about 200 years before St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate. So do not be fooled into believing it is St. Jerome's fault on the use of Lucifer in the Bible. Blame Origen (then blame Enoch). Origen and Tertullian were highly educated, intelligent scholars and quite aware of other traditions, especially Origen. They were living in a world where there was a great war of words between the earliest church fathers and the Gnostics. (There are recorded instances of out right fighting between the Gnostics/Pagans and Christians).  Not to mention the martyrdom of their day. Origen knew his stuff. He is most known for his Hexapla, a 50-volume edition of Hebrew Scripture. Tertullian is known as the father of Latin Christian theology. He was a lawyer too. He wrote the first argument for the rights of Christians in the court of law. You could be executed for just confessing that you were a Christian. Although Origen and Tertullian were defenders of the faith their paths to it were worlds apart. But that you will have to follow up on your own. I hope I have given you a historical and cultural context to understand this passage of Isaiah's in regards to the legend of Lucifer as the mighty but fallen angel. All of these biblical scholars Origen, Tertullian, St. Augustine and St. Jerome are acknowledged as top leaders and scholars of the highest degree who recognized that it was Lucifer and no other in the Isaiah passage. That's good enough for me. Whether you chose to believe my conclusion or not is up to you. You certainly can find many detractors out on the Internet.

The last part of finding Lucifer is in this lamentation from Ezekiel which contains resemblances to Isaiah's taunt-song. Both prophets are seemingly railing against these kings but it is also a vehicle for the Lucifer legend. In neither case can the king "be a cherub" or "ascend above the heights of the clouds". The question of Lucifer in these texts is answered in that he is being used as a parallel comparison for "pride goeth before a fall". Enoch is written between Ezekiel and Origen and I do not have a problem with believing St. Jerome was continuing the tradition. The vast majority of pages on the web written on this subject obsess over one word. They do not put it into a larger framework, a context of what was understood of the author's awareness of very ancient events. What Enoch has to say is relevant because the book is obviously drawing upon an understanding that was current at the time. During the time of the book's composition the legend would have been known and understood; the legend therefore would have been a known resource for both prophets to reference and apply. The inclusion of the legend within the story line may have been used because there was a common understanding of the legend as applied here, or it was the use of "intertextuality". "What academics heralded not too long ago as "intertextuality" -- an author's practice of alluding to older texts by engaging their original meaning, then placing them within a new context and endowing them with a renewed significance--has been the linchpin of Jewish literature since the writings of the prophets."
 (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2000/03/In-The-Beginning-The-Prophet-Was-Poet.aspx)

It is important to understand that the Book of Enoch during the intertestamental period was not considered as apocryphal. It was highly regarded and widely read. Enoch was banned, or as some say discredited, at the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD which is 110 years after the death of Origen (254 AD). It was around 400 AD when St. Jerome finished his writings. So as you can see the writing of the Latin Vulgate occurred just after the disallowing of Enoch from inclusion in the biblical canon. But by its sheer force of authority it was believed a true part of history long after these events transpired. In fact it is still considered as canon in the Coptic Bible today.


Ezekiel 28:11
Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

12  Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond,
the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets
and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God ;
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence,
and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane
out of the mountain of God : and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom
by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground,
I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick;
therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee,
and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 19  All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
There are as many who believe this passage is about Lucifer as it is about Satan. My belief is on the side of Lucifer. A very short commentary on who is believed to be who can be stated as: those who say Satan can use the Garden of Eden as their argument. Those who say Lucifer can use the "cast down" argument. The "cast down" argument parallels the "fallen from heaven" of Isaiah which names Lucifer, not Satan. The argument of being pre-exile cannot be used as Ezekiel had been captive in Babylon which could include the Persian influence. But the verdict of 1 Enoch still stands. It was Lucifer not Satan that all sin was ascribed to concerning the origin of the rebellion and the defilement of the angels with the women of earth. This seems to be another case where the concept of intertextuality can be applied.

The most outstanding contributor to the  understanding of the Lucifer/Satan problem is that of the strong influence of Zoroastrianism itself. What it teaches is the concept of dualism that there are two great forces in the universe, Good and Evil, Truth and Lies, Light and Darkness. This concept does not leave room for two sources of evil, just one - Satan. But it does underscore the fact that the Book of Enoch does not draw upon the Persian influence and therefore must be referencing the much more ancient traditions of Lucifer's and Satan's fall from grace.

"There are, however, many other, more legitimate sources that do not recognize Lucifer as Satan. A short list would include Matthew Henry’s Commentary, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and The Collegeville Bible Commentary, to name but a few."
(http://hell-fact-or-fable.com/2010/04/the-lucifer-myth-2/)


The Urantia Book is very clear that Lucifer and Satan are two different personalities. In the Urantia Book Lucifer is mentioned as coming to Earth with Satan during the days of Jesus and perhaps earlier. Lucifer has since been arrested on the authority of the Ancient of Days who Lucifer in his manifesto claimed they had no authority. As far as we know he is still incarcerated and Satan is "detained" on the prison world. Is there any trail that the god Azazel is Lucifer?
the peacock angelThe Peacock Angel illustrated
The Kurdish Religion of Yezidi
"As a branch of the Cult of Angels, Yezidism places a special emphasis on the angels. The name Yezidi is derived from the Old and Middle Iranic term yazata or yezad, for 1 angel, rendering it to mean "angelicans." Among these angels, the Yezidis include also Lucifer, who is referred to as Malak Tâwus ("Peacock Angel"). Far from being the prince of darkness and evil, Lucifer is of the same nature as other archangels, albeit with far more authority and power over worldly affairs. In fact, it is Malak Tâwus who creates the material world using the dismembered pieces of the original cosmic egg, or pearl, in which the Spirit once resided.

In the beginning God [which must mean the Universal Spirit] created the White Pearl out of his most precious Essence; and He created a bird named Anfar. And he placed the pearl upon its back, and dwelt thereon forty thousand years. On the first day [of Creation], Sunday, He created an angel named 'Azâzil, which is Malak Tâwus, the chief of all...."
(http://www.semjaaza.com/thewatcher.html)

"The Yezidis have a distinctive religious system, the origins of which remain unclear. Scholars have discerned elements resembling those of the Manichaean, Zoroastrian, Mandaean Gnostic, Jewish, Christian (especially Nestorian), and Muslim (especially Sufi) traditions, but there is no evidence that the Yezidi religion represents an offshoot of any one of them. Only those born into the Yezidi community can belong to the religion; the Yezidis do not appear to accept converts.

The branding of the Yezidis as "devil worshipers" has, in fact, a basis in their religious practices, although they are nothing at all like the satanic cults one associates with this label. Yezidi theology recognizes a fundamental distinction between two principles: the good principle is represented by God (Khude), a deus otiosus who created the world but does not participate in its daily affairs. It is to the evil principle that takes an active role in worldly matters that prayers and offerings are made. This second deity, associated with the Devil, is Malak-Tâ'ûs or Malek-Tauz, the "Peacock Angel"—a fallen angel punished by God for rebellion against divine authority. One of the core elements of Yezidi religious practice is the propitiation of the evil principle through worship and offerings in order to insure good fortune and happiness in the world. (According to some Yezidi informants, God is so good that he has no need of worship, whereas the Peacock Angel is so evil as to require constant appeasement [Badger 1852, 126].)"
(http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Yezidis-Religion-and-Expressive-Culture.html)

Read more: Religion and expressive culture - Yezidis http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Yezidis-Religion-and-Expressive-Culture.html#ixzz1yZqbdc8g

It has been said that the Yezidis trace their origins back to Mesopotamia ca. 4000 BC and that their calendar is at the date of 6762 (this year of 2012). So they lay claim as to being the worlds oldest religion. In the illustration of the peacock you can see the Sumerian cuneiform symbol for the dingir.

"Shemyazaz (also known as Semjaza, Shemyaza, Samyaza, and Shemhazai) is a fallen angel of Hebrew and Christians tradition that ranked in the heavenly hierarchy as one of the Grigori (meaning "Watchers" in Greek). His plan to thwart the Messiah's Coming by corrupting the seed of men is known mostly by passages in the Book of Enoch and in Genesis 6:4. The name 'Shemyazaz' means 'infamous rebellion', (the combination of 'shem' [meaning 'name' or 'fame' {whether positive or negative}] + 'azaz' [which means 'rebellion' or 'arrogance' as a negative particle]), which is fitting since he was originally the most powerful angel in heaven but then he sinned by rebelling against God.

Shemyazaz is most likely another name for Satan. Satan was originally an entity that was created in the service of God; he was the caretaker of the throne of God but later he fell from heaven because of his pride according to Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-18. Jesus states that he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning in Luke 10:18. Shemhazai (meaning 'heaven-seizer') is alternately described as being suspended like a star between heaven and earth and being hurled to Sheol according to some Jewish myths."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhazai)

Satan
There is no origin for Satan in the Bible. His first appearance as far as some biblical scholars are concerned is as the serpent in the Garden of Eden only later identified as Satan the evil one (Revelation 12:9). In the Old Testament the name Satan was an adversary (Ha-Satan) and not as a definite person bent on evil. It was at the time of the last of the OT to the first books of the New Testament that Satan became the evil one. This is when the influences of Zoroastrian beliefs appeared in Jewish writings and Ahriman as (the great) Satan. Zoroaster's Satan is not created as well and may help to explain the no-origin of the Christian Satan along with the emphasis that he is the greatest opposer to God.

Part of the problem of researching Satan is that he is also considered as Lucifer. So the issue is - are we speaking of just Satan as Satan or are we speaking of Satan as Lucifer? My approach is that Satan and Lucifer are different entities. Many scholars will not even mention the Book of Enoch in reference to Satan. Most likely because it is apocryphal and not a part of Orthodoxy. I find the Book of Enoch a good reference but I do not believe everything written in it is true. My concern is not with the rise of Satan as the Devil but with Satan as second in command to Lucifer. Satan was in partnership with Lucifer in the cause of the rebellion. (Calagastia had been assigned to this planet at a time before the rebellion.) So in the end it is the synthesis of the two personalities I have been trying to separate. Although ultimately Satan is Lucifer in Christian dogma he deserves his own infamy, his own place in this terrible history.

Zoroastrianism
"The Scythians in the plains of Northern Asia, the most dangerous neighbors of Persia, worshiped their highest deity under the symbol of a serpent, and it was natural that the snake Afrasiâb, 2 the god of the enemy, became identified with the archfiend Ahriman." (History of the Devil by Dr. Paul Carus. First published 1900, Republished 2008 Forgotten Books)

"Zoroaster taught that Ahriman was not created by Ahura, but that he was possessed of independent existence. The evil spirit, to be sure, was not equal to the Lord in dignity, nor even in power; nevertheless, both were creative, and both were original in being themselves uncreated. They were the representatives of contradictory principles. And this doctrine constitutes the dualism of the Persian religion, which is most unmistakably expressed in the words of the thirtieth Yasna. 3"
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/evil/hod/hod07.htm)

If you look at the imagery of this Persian religion you will see the familiar icons from Sumeria (and Babylonia & Assyria). They would include the Tree of Life with the figure of Ahura Mazda as the winged disk floating above, the two winged genii and the eight pointed star. It is just another example of the far flung influence of the pre-Sumerians (Andites) that radiated out from Mesopotamia. This may have helped in the assimilation of the Zoroastrian ideals by those long ago Babylonian captives because of its familiarity and indicating a common root to both the Persian and Jewish religions.

Caligastia  
Aeshma
An interesting fact for readers of the Urantia Book is that Satan is identified as Ahriman and just as important he has a direct subordinate named as the demon Aeshma (Dæva). One of his epithets besides  "malignant", "ill-fated" and "of the bloody mace" is "having his body forfeited" which for scholars is uncertain, a strange epithet that defies description. This could be a reference to Caligastia for in the chain of command this would make sense and especially "having his body forfeited". Aeshma is made commander of the dark forces by Ahriman. (The encyclopedia of  Demons & Demonology, Rosemary Ellen Guiley, copyright 2009 by Visionary Living, Inc.).

I see one great problem with the Zoroastrianism, the concept that Satan is the Evil One. Just as he has become confused with Lucifer in the Judeo-Christian tradition I believe the same thing happened in the Persian religion. The great evil really pertains to Lucifer. In the Urantia Book there are more connections between Lucifer and Caligastia than Caligastia with Satan. "Lucifer elevated Caligastia to a position on his personal staff..." (UB p. 741) It seems Caligastia was appointed by Lucifer but may have reported to Satan, Lucifer's first assistant. But his commission as a Planetary Prince was approved by the Constellation Fathers. It was Caligastia who chose the 100 himself. So those who remained loyal were going directly against their "boss" who was supported in full by his boss - Lucifer. Apparently Caligastia, the Devil, may still with us today but shorn of all authority.  That would surprisingly dovetail with the Book of Jubilees. He was not judged and according to Jubilees not at least until the Day of Judgment. This is spot on.

Enoch was right. Lucifer was the one responsible. In regards to the Watchers, the first book of Enoch, he seems to have a very good understanding of the rebellion. Since there is a remarkable degree of detail, does this imply that it was generally understood by the Hebrews as such? They had to have known something for the author(s) of the Book of Enoch wrote about it. There is a better fit to the Persian story if Lucifer is understood as the great evil. Some of the responsibilities of Azazel are given over to Shemyaza and that may indicate a confusion that eventually lead Zoroaster to conclude it was Satan who was ultimately responsible. Not only that but as a rule it was Satan who conferred with Caligastia for all those thousands of years. Lucifer did come to this planet and most likely in conjunction with Satan. All three were here together at the time of Christ. At the time just before of Christ's ascension the rebellion was terminated: "Get you behind me, Satan." Despite my belief that the name of Lucifer should be used I will stay with Satan as the evil one for the rest of this page.

We have a number of indicators that Aeshma could be Caligastia. First he is the commander of the dark forces directly under Ahriman, second the epithet "having his body forfeited", third is his connection to the spirit of lust and forth he is considered a fallen angel. To put this another way, Caligastia who was the original Prince of Urantia was directly under Lucifer (Ahriman, or Satan if you prefer) and head of the 100 and who lost his divine authority at the time of the rebellion which then precipitated the sexual relations with humans. All of these markers are in one way or another associated with both Aeshma and Caligastia.

These descriptions of Ahriman and Aeshma are from sacred literature composed in the ancient Iranian language of Indo-Iranian called Young Avestan. I did not think too much about this until I read about its link to the Indo-Aryans. That got my attention.

"At some time between 2500 and 2000 B.C., a group or groups of nomadic Indo-European speaking peoples of Southeastern Russia and Central Asia migrated to the regions just north of the Iranian plateau. As they settled the region, the proto-language of Indo-Iranian gradually divided into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. By ca. 1500 B.C., various tribes from the Indo-Aryan group began to penetrate the Indian subcontinent; a small number also headed west."
(http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-0-X.html)

Its the Central Asia part that is important. When we speak of ancient (real ancient) Central Asia, like Turkmenistan, we are speaking of the Andites who migrated out from Mesopotamia and settled this region as their kinsmen continued into China and India. And by the way there is a connection between the writings of ancient Iran and of Vedic India. So we have this story of a very ancient people coming from the Russian steppes and Turkmenistan of Indo-Aryan heritage (and the later appearing Mesopotamian imagery) which came to be associated with Zoroastrianism which includes Aeshma. The area of the Russian steppes starts just north of the Caspian Sea and is another of the avenues for the Andite migration heading east across southern Russia into Mongolia.

"The Latinized version of his name may be derived from the Hebrew, Ashmedai or Shamad ('to destroy'), and it is among the Jews that Asmodeus achieved his highest degree of power. He belongs to the order of the Seraphim, the highest order of angels, from whence he fell. He is the son of Naamah and Shamdon. In his female incarnation, Asmodeus is the spirit of lust and the beautiful sister of Tubal-Cain. Often portrayed as an ugly man endowed with a pair of large wings, Asmodeus inspires men with such lust that they betray their wives. "
(http://www.perillos.com/asmodeus_7.html)

As for the Greek Asmodeus I do not think this demon is connected directly to Aeshma which is the overwhelming opinion (which I consider a copy and paste methodology of research). Asmodeus is much more like a "local demon" rather than of the cosmic stature of the Persian Aeshma. I think it is a matter of confusion. The connection is mainly by the inference of lust. It was under one of his other names, Belial (which some use the name Asmodeus), that he has his most powerful background of deceit and iniquity found particularly in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Mastema
There is another candidate for Caligastia named as the demon Mastema from the Book of Jubilees. The different ways Mastema has been portrayed makes it difficult to pin him down so I will use a broad definition to define who he was. In the Urantia Book Caligastia is called "Prince Caligastia" which is the same appellation used in Jubilees as "Prince Mastema". He has been compared to Satan because of his role as an adversary. An account in Jubilees mirrors the story where Satan afflicts Job. But in Job Satan is considered as an adversary and not as Satan himself. Mastema could easily fill this role. I believe that the probability is very high. "Jubilees implies that Mastema is subservient to God. His task is simply to tempt men to sin and if they do, he accuses them before the Throne of God. He does not initiate the process of sin, but Mastema and his spirits then lead them on to greater wrongdoing. This is related to the Biblical function of Satan, where men can achieve righteousness if they are tempted and resist." (http://www.demonicpedia.com/general/mastema/) The story of Mastema in Jubilees and the story of Satan in Job are similar. In Jubilees Mastema is also a fallen angel and is the "leader of the spirits" but unlike Satan, the Book of Jubilees does not portray Mastema as directly opposing God which is the traditional role of Satan and Lucifer. So Mastema is not Satan or Lucifer although some make that mistaken assumption. In fact unlike Satan and Lucifer Mastema is not judged (although he could be at the Day of Judgment). This clearly separates him from the other two. He has been, however bound in Egypt in one passage in Jubilees "15. And on the fourteenth day and on the fifteenth and on the sixteenth and on the seventeenth and on the eighteenth the prince Mastêmâ was bound and imprisoned behind the children of Yisrayl that he might not accuse them." Here Mastema is bound like Azazel and Shemyaza but his bondage is only for a very short time. Which also means he was free to roam for a long time - not bound like Satan or Lucifer. When taken together the Persian Avestans and the books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees we end up with three top demonic personalities: Lucifer, Satan and Aeshma/Mastema as Caligastia.

There is a very interesting segment from a book by Norman Cohn, COSMOS, CHAOS AND THE WORLD TO COME, 1993, in which he sees the Devil in the garden of Eden not as Satan but as "only _one_ of the angels". He references the Book of Jubilees:

"In this Mastema one meets, for the first time in a Jewish
     context, with a supernatural being who is a personification of
     enmity to God and of active opposition to God's plan for the
     world - in fact with that terrible power who, as the Devil,
     was to play so large a part in Christian experience." (p.182)
In the above quote Cohn identifies Mastema with the Devil in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis the Devil is not called Satan he is called a serpent. The Urantia Book says it was Caligastia who was in the Garden of Eden and did contribute to the fall of Adam and Eve. The nature of Mastema in Jubilees does match the Devil in Eden. He is an adversary against man rather than an adversary against God. The "Prince of Mastema" means the "Prince of Enmity" which is a very important definition because in Genesis  3:15 it is stated: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." As scripture states there is an "enmity" between the Devil and mankind which is what Cohn alludes to in the above quote. Also the "serpent" as Mastema fits in with the pre-exile understanding that this is not a reference to Satan as we believe him to be today but a reference to some other type of celestial. So there are a number of connections to Caligastia from the Bible and the apocrypha. When writing this page I did not think I would find any references to Caligastia at all. I assumed he had been overwhelmed by the post-exile Satan-as-Devil belief and since he was third in line would easily be confused with Lucifer, Satan or some other demon. Luckily, my assumption was wrong.

"Daeva (daēuua, daāua, daēva) in Avestan language meaning "a being of shining light", is a term for a particular sort of supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics."

"Although with some points of comparison such as shared etymology, Indic devá- is thematically different from Avestan daēva. In the RigVeda (10.124.3), the devas are the "younger gods", in conflict with the asuras, the "older gods". There is no such division evident in the Zoroastrian texts."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeva)

Belial
One last thing. Caligastia and Melchizedek. There is a mention of Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scrolls regarding Belial who is Mastema.  Here is part of the quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls:
"This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke [through Isa]iah the prophet,
who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountain are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace,
who brings good news, who proclaims salvation: it is concerning him that it is written ... [To comfort
all who mourn, to grant to those who mourn in Zion] (Isa.1xi,2-3) To comfort [those who mourn: its
interpretation], to make them understand all the ages of t[ime] ... In truth ... will turn away from Belial ...
by the judgement[s] of God, as it is written concerning him, [who says to Zion]: your ELOHIM reigns.
Zion is ..., those who uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking [in] the way of the people.
And your ELOHIM is [Melchizedek, who will save them from] the hands of Belial ."
•emphasis added•
DSSE, 301
11QMelchizedek II.11-25 (Kobelski, 8f)

The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, Gregory Charles Jenks, (BZNW 59; Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991) p.146
Belial is also mentioned in other apocrypha including the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Gospel of Bartholomew. In Greek his name is Beliar. Sometimes called the King of Hell his ties are with fornication, lies and arrogance. He is also known as the Deamon of Sodomy. That should tell you something.
In conclusion I believe Aeshma, Mastema and Belial are three of the ancient names for Caligastia separated only by forces of time and culture. The similarities point to a common legend for both Hebrew and Persian and that common origin is the Andite legend of the Lucifer rebellion.

This is all very interesting. In a number of ways. So much comes together: the Lucifer legend Canaanite/Hebrew/Persian, the apocrypha, the early Greek and Roman theologians, demons of the Old Testament and finally Melchizedek the Priest King of Salem. Melchizedek is very important. Two things about the mysterious Melchizedek. One, according to Hebrews 7 he had no mother and no father, he was a celestial (also called a divine being in the DSS). The Urantia Book is also in agreement. Melchizedek volunteered to personalize on this planet, a mission to keep the truth - which was fading - of the one God alive. Two, he knew Abraham face to face and made the covenant with him. So where did this take place? Canaan. Where did the Watchers descend? Canaan. Nephilim? Canaan. Shared origin of Hebrew and Canaanite religions? Canaan. This is the biblical point of view, the Urantia Book would shift some of this over to Mesopotamia which is almost next door. Where was Abraham from? Mesopotamia. The antediluvian Patriarchs? Mesopotamia. Where were the Hebrews taken captive? Mesopotamia. Real location for the fall? Mesopotamia with the later descendants of the Nephilim migrating with their legends to Canaan. Since there is no date in the Bible for the rebellion although some biblical scholars place it before Adam and Eve (and they would be correct) that information could have been "updated" by Melchizedek. It is for the same reason I made about Cain and the Garden of Eden. It is the time line and the relative accuracy of the material. The Sumerian material is much degraded because of the vastness of time but the biblical/apocrypha seems "fresher" which I attribute to Melchizedek. Its just my guess but it addresses why this biblical material seems more on target. There is a curious sentence in the Urantia Book that states: "Melchizedek remained all but silent as to the status of Lucifer and the state of affairs on Jerusem." (P. 1016) You will notice that it says status of Lucifer implying, in my view, that Abraham did know about Lucifer and the rebellion. It was a major contributing factor as to why Melchizedek came here in the first place. Most of this story line I have put together is from Scripture (plus some auxiliary sources). It boils down to interpretation which there seems to be a lot of out there.

EtanaThe starting point for all of this material coming together is at the beginning of the post-exilic period which includes the targums. Something happened in or was brought back from Mesopotamia that affected the situation upon their return to Judah. It is a mystery but may have something to do with some of the "apocalyptic myths about cosmic battles". Assimilation of Persian religious beliefs and Babylonian culture over two generations are definitely part of the equation. Scholars focus on the rise of the dominance of Satan but not the reemergence of the much older legends. The Persian conflict of good and evil may have the same Andite origin of the story as carried into India where it became the principle of Yin Yang, the balance of the forces negative and positive. Or the mythological battle of the Chinese Phoenix and the Dragon. This story may have evolved from the Sumerian Myth of Etana which is the story of the conflict of the eagle and the snake. It seems to be actually two connected stories. One about the conflict and the second about Etana, a Sumerian king, who is carried to heaven by the (rescued) eagle in Etana's search for the plant of birth. There are some scholars who believe this myth is connected to the Eden story. I would agree. As tangential as it seems there are enough clues that this could be true. The list would include Utu, Inanna, the Tree of Life motif, heaven, a serpent with the ever present eagle and the conflict which involves a fall of sorts (for the eagle) directly caused by a snake. The second half of the story is bridged by the eagle who flies the kingly figure, Etana, to heaven. One of the gods he sees there is Inanna. He gets to heaven on the back of the eagle which I believe is a symbolic reference to a seraphim much like Inanna's Boat of Heaven. This Boat of Heaven as the winged disk was always associated with the Sumerian Tree of Life and hovered just above it (like an eagle). And if you have read more of this web site you will see the connection of the Garden of Eden with the Lucifer rebellion. These two legends seem to be even more entwined than the serpent and the bird. It does seem strange that looking at the time of the intertestamental period when the apocrypha was written that it includes not only the legend of the fall, all three main celestials involved but Melchizedek as well. That to me seems too coincidental and I bet there is another story buried somewhere among those ancient texts.

"But  this war in heaven was very terrible and very real.
While displaying none of the barbarities so characteristic
of physical warfare on the immature worlds, this conflict was far more deadly;
material life is in jeopardy in material combat, but the war in heaven
was fought in terms of life eternal."
Urantia Book p. 606



The illustration at the top of the page depicts Lucifer in chains in Tartarus.
It shows Lucifer both as an angel in white with the traditional wings and includes
the Medieval rendering with the hoofs and horns which were inherited from the goat figure of Pan.
The demons of hell are shown standing under him.

IntroductionThe Anunnaki

free webpage counters