Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs (וּשְׂעִירִים) shall dance there.
Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr (וְשָׂעִיר) shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
D.A. Waite, Jr.'s "4,114 Definitions from the Defined King James Bible," provides the following definition for satyr:
in mythology: a minor woodland deity (companion of Bacchus) depicted as having the pointed ears, legs, and short horns of a goat, the head and body of a man, and a fondness for unrestrained revelry and lechery.
By contrast, Philip P. Kapusta's "A King James Dictionary," defines Satyr as "He-goat."
BibleHub and BlueLetterBible offer, as one option, "satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)."
Will Kinney (responding to John Ankerburg) has written (link to source):
SATYRS
The word translated as satyr is the Hebrew word sa’ir #8163. It has several meanings, including “hairy” – “Esau my brother is a HAIRY man” Genesis 27:11; “goat” – “lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT” Leviticus 4:24; “devils” – “they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS” Leviticus 17:7; “satyrs” – “and SATYRS shall dance there” Isaiah 13:21, and “rough” – “the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia” Daniel 8:21.
The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.
Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there.”
Isaiah 34:14 “The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”
Not only does the King James Bible use the word satyr in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions. The Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX) – Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.
The satyrs are mentioned four times in the Greek Septuagint version. In Isaiah 13:22; 34:11 and 34:14 we read: “satyrs shall dwell in it…devils shall dance there and satyrs dwell there…and devils shall meet with satyrs…there shall satyrs rest.”
Revised Standard Version 1952
Leviticus 17:7 “So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for SATYRS, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations.”
Not only does the RSV translate this word as Satyrs in Leviticus 17:7, but so also do the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.
2 Chronicles 11:15 “and he appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the SATYRS, and for the calves which he had made.”
Isaiah 13:21 “But wild beasts will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures; there ostriches will dwell, and there SATYRS will dance.”
What about a modern “evangelical” version? Well, surprise! Let’s take a look at the New American Standard Version 1972-1995 Update.
2 Chronicles 11:15 “He set up priests of his own for the high places, for the SATYRS and for the calves which he had made.”
Smith’s Bible Dictionary: Satyr: Isaiah 13:21; 34:14. The Hebrew word signifies “hairy” or “rough,” and is frequently applied to “he-goats.” In the passages cited it probably refers to demons of woods and desert places. Comp. Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15.
Even among the various other modern versions there is little agreement on how to translate this term. What we see in the various versions is a wide variety of translations that include the following: “shaggy creatures (Rotherham), goats, goat-demons (NRSV), goad idols (ESV), demoniacs, hairy ones (Darby), demons (New English Bible 1970), wild goats, and evil spirits (Bible in Basic English 1970).
...
So, regarding the correctness of the translation of SATYR, Mr. Ankerberg can think what he wants, but there are a lot of Bible scholars who differ with his opinion. Again, the Bible versions that sometimes translate this Hebrew word as SATYR include both Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the Geneva Bible, Moffatt’s New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the New American Bible 1970, Jerusalem Bible 1966, and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Webster’s 1833, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the NASB – New American Standard 1995 Update version. ...
The word in question does come from a root meaning "hairy." (this is from HALOT)
Here are the main problems with Will's response/argument:
1) While I appreciate that Will knows what word the King James translators were trying to translate, nevertheless his usage information obscures the distribution of the semantic range, even taking the KJV as a guide (source):
The KJV translates Strong's H8163 in the following manner: kid (28x), goat (24x), devil (2x), satyr (2x), hairy (2x), rough (1x).
Notice that of the 59 uses, three are adjectival ("hairy/rough"), and of the 56 that are nouns, 52 are some form of goat. That leaves the two places where the word is mistranslated as "satyr" (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14) and the two places where the word is mistranslated as "devils" (Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15):
Leviticus 17:7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
2 Chronicles 11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.
We can discuss the correct reading of those passages another time. Nevertheless, for now we turn to the two "satyr" passages.
2) Will's claim about what the satyr "seems to be" is mostly wishful thinking. Will claims:
The word satyrs is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.
Let's actually examine the Satyr passages in context.
1) Isaiah 13:17-22
Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
This is the true (and already fulfilled) prophecy of the Medes' destruction of Babylon. While I would argue that there are number of mistranslations in this passage (such as "wild beasts of the islands," which should be "hyenas" and "dragons," which should be "jackals"), still even with the mistranslations, it is already abundantly apparent from the context that the word mistranslated as "satyrs" is one of the litany of wild animals.
There is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon. The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context. There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon.
Let's look at the next verse in context:
2) Isaiah 34:1-17 (the entire chapter)
Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. And he hath cast the lot for them, and his hand hath divided it unto them by line: they shall possess it for ever, from generation to generation shall they dwell therein.
Once again, there are multiple mistranslations in the passage, such as "unicorns" for "Reems" (i.e. wild oxen), "dragons" for jackals, and "wild beasts of the island" for hyenas. Nevertheless, once again from the context we can see that the so-called "satyr" is amongst a list of wild animals that will inhabit the wasteland in the aftermath of the destruction.
Contrary to Will, there is nothing from the context to tell one that this is hairy, that this is goat-like, that this is a devil or that this is a demon. The fact that this is a hairy animal (i.e. a goat) comes from the etymology of the word itself, not from the context. There is nothing contextual to suggest a devil or demon.
What justification can be there be for throwing in the name of a mythical animal from Roman mythology? The Hebrew word שָׂעִיר (śāʿîr) does sound a bit like "satyr," particularly with an accent prone toward T-glottalization (i.e. replacing a central "T" sound with a glottal stop).
This seems to be a false cognate.
Will points out that some other translations have agreed that the word in Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14 should be satyr(s), in one of two ways: some translations used "satyr" in those places (e.g. KJ21, BRG, GNV, JUB, AKJV, NABRE, RSV, and RSVCE) and some translations have used "satyr" either in other places generally or in other places that the same Hebrew word is used.
The Jewish Bible uses "satyrs" at Isaiah 13:21 and "satyr" at Isaiah 34:14 despite correcting other mistranslations. Why? The reason is that there is Jewish tradition that these animals are, in fact, demons (see Rashi's commentary at the links).
Moreover, the Etymology of "satyr" is an interesting reading (link to source).
satyr (n.)
late 14c., satire, "one of a type of woodland deities part human or animal; demigod or spirit of the air or woods, companion of Bacchus," from Old French satire and directly from Latin satyrus, from Greek satyros, a word of unknown origin. "The etymology of [satyros] is unknown. A number of hypotheses have been proposed, but none of them makes sense ..." [Beekes].
In pre-Roman Greek art, a man-like being with the tail and ears of a horse; the conception of a being part man part goat is due to Roman sculptors, who seem to have assimilated them to the fauns of native mythology. In some English bibles the word is used curiously to translate Hebrew se'irim, a type of hairy monster superstitiously believed to inhabit deserts.
In Middle English the word could mean also a kind of ape supposed to live in Africa or Arabia (late 14c.), after a use of Greek satyros, and the name was later applied by zoologists to the orangutan (1690s). From 1781 as "very lecherous or lascivious person." Related: Satyress.
Perhaps more interesting than this is commentary by a Christian scholar who inherited the King James translation and was also familiar with Jewish tradition.
John Gill explains (Commentary on Isaiah 13:21):
and satyrs shall dance there; a sort of monstrous creatures with the ancients, painted half men and half goats; the upper part of them like men, except the horns on their heads, and the lower parts like goats, and all over hairy; and the word here used signifies hairy; and is used for goats, and sometimes for devils, either because they have appeared in this form, as Kimchi says, to them that believe them; or because they, by their appearance, inject such horror in men, as cause their hair to stand upright: hence the Targum, Jarchi, and Kimchi, interpret it of devils here; and so the Septuagint version, and those that follow it, the Syriac and Arabic, render it, "and demons shall dance there": with this agrees the account of mystical Babylon, Revelation 18:2.
John Gill again (Commentary on Isaiah 34:14)
and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; or the "hairy" one [FN r]; from which word the goat has its name; and these creatures are described by the ancients as half goats and half men; of which Isaiah 13:21. The Targum renders it demons; and with this well agrees the account of Babylon or Rome as fallen, that it shall be the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, Revelation 18:2:
[FN r: שעיר "pilosus", a שער "capillus."]
Gill's comments here acknowledge the indebtedness to Jewish tradition. Gill makes an interesting comparison to Revelation 18:2 (a place where this is an interesting textual issue that we've talked about elsewhere), which mentions fallen Babylon as having become the habitation of devils and foul spirits. This is, perhaps, the strongest argument one could mount for a demonic interpretation of Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14. On the other hand, if this argument is accepted, then it at least equally dictates in favor of translating Lilith (a night demon in Jewish tradition) in place of "screech owl" in Isa 34:14. Gill again:
By the name "Lilith", it appears to be a night bird, which flies and is heard in the night. The Jews call a she demon by this name, which, they say [FN s], has a human face, and has wings, and destroys children as soon as born; and therefore the Jews, especially in Germany, write upon the four corners of the bed of a new mother, Adam, Eve, out Lilith [FN t]; the same with the Lamia of the Romans; and so the Vulgate Latin here renders it.
[FN s: T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 24. 2.]
[FN t: Vid. Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. col. 1140.]
But, of course, the woes of "mystical Babylon" to which Gill appeals may be paralleled by the actual animals that inhabited actual Babylon, without appeal to a secondary meaning.
One assumes that the King James translators were likely influenced by Calvin's commentaries.
Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 13 (source):
It will not be amiss to explain what follows about Satyrs or Pans, who are called by the French, according to the various dialects of the provinces, sometimes Luittons, sometimes Follets, and sometimes Loups-garouz. As Satan deludes men by various tricks, so he gives to them various names. It is certain that ציים (tziim) is often used in Scripture for devils; and it is derived from ציה, (tziyah,) which means dryness, or, a desert, as איים (iyim) is derived from אים, (ayam,) which means to terrify. The Devil performs strange tricks by means of Fauns and Satyrs, and on that account their names are given to him.
The design of the Prophet is to show that the solitude will be so great, that not only will the place be deserted by men, but even the devils will there deceive by their tricks; for the devils avail themselves of the tendency of solitary places to produce terror. As enemies and robbers, by sallying forth from concealed lurking-places, frighten men the more, so devils take advantage of the night and the darkness, and of places distant from the view of men, that they may be able to excite greater terror in those who are naturally timorous.
Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 34 (source):
14. And the wild beasts shall meet with the satyrs. These animals are thought by some commentators to mean fauns, by others screechowls or goblins, and by others satyrs; and it is not fully agreed what is the exact meaning of the Hebrew words; but it would serve no good purpose to give ourselves much uneasiness about them, for it is quite enough if we understand the meaning and design of the Prophet. He draws a picture of frightful desolation, as if he had said that Idumea shall be destroyed so as to be without inhabitants, and instead of men it shall be inhabited by frightful beasts. This reward is most justly reaped by the ambition of those who built costly palaces to be, as we have already said, monuments of their name and reputation. Yet this is also a punishment threatened against the cruelty of a wicked nation, which was eagerly bent on the oppression of neighbours and brethren.
Though we cannot absolutely determine whether the Prophet means witches, or goblins, or satyrs and fauns, yet it is universally agreed that these words denote animals which have the shape of men. We see also what various delusions are practiced by Satan, what phantoms and hideous monsters are seen, and what sounds and noises are heard. But of these we have already spoken under the thirteenth chapter.
Thankfully, the universal agreement about the meaning of the words, thankfully, has long since lapsed, if it ever was universal.
No comments:
Post a Comment