“Ancient” Roots Of Satanism, Pt II – Is Satan From Sanskrit?

How likely are chance resemblances between two languages? Surprisingly, fairly good. Human beings have evolved to be good makers of patterns. However, when looking for similarities, you have to take into account other linguistic factors like loanwords, grammar, syntax, and phonology. Two words being similar or the same does not mean the two languages are related. To analyze a relationship based on resemblances or through the comparative method requires certain steps, not to mention brain power. Sadly, many out there either ignore this requirement.

The most popular allegation is similarity between the Hebrew word שָׂטָן (STN, aka Satan) and Sanskrit ਸਤਿਨਾਮ (sat nam) . These two societies did interact, I’ll grant that. I honestly wish I could take the time to learn Biblical Hebrew and Sanskrit so I could analyze the two languages properly. Until then, let’s use logic for a moment.

Classical Hebrew, the language which is used in the Torah and several canonical editions of the Christian Old Testament, is of the Afro-Asiatic family, and Sanskrit is from the Indo-European family. These are distinct languages with distinct structures and vocabulary. That’s why they’re separate.

Let’s face it, if ‘Ha Sa-tan’ had not been used in the original Hebrew versions of Judeo-Christian literature, we would not be calling our deity Satan and this whole conspiracy theory would not exist. So we owe the word to that language. There’s no two ways about it.

In order for these languages to be linguistically related, the cultures would have to have been more obviously interwoven. There would have to be Indian converts to Judaism in order to influence religious literature to an extent which is alleged. If that were the case, these languages would be a part of the same family. As is easily seen, this is not only historically false but was probably not allowed.

When we deconstruct (שָׂטָן), or STN, the closest we get to Sat is ShT (obvious puns aside) (שָׂט), which, according to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and Google translate, means “that which is despised” or “rebel, apostate”. It should also be mentioned that Hebrew leaves out vowels completely. Mind you, I’m no expert, which means that anyone who has studied Biblical Hebrew could provide more information. So, here is where many would say “Aha! That proves it!”. Sorry, no it doesn’t.

The logic one would use from here would be to say that since the Jews obviously wanted to suppress knowledge, they turned “the truth” ( ਸਤਿ) into “despised, etc.” (שָׂט). First of all, the Jewish people did not want to suppress knowledge; they had their own preferences and reacted to foreigners much the same way as anyone else. They wanted to preserve their own culture and saw anything else as a threat to their strict religious code. This is a simple concept and it happens everywhere.

With that in mind… Are there any other loanwords from Sanskrit to Hebrew? Are there any other concepts that are taken from Sikhism or any other Indian culture? Surely if the writers of ancient texts chose one word out of a whole language to portray their symbol of everything they go against, they would take other concepts as well. Why shouldn’t they? They took freely from other religions. If ‘Sat’ was so significant, then why didn’t the same thing happen with other popular religions?

To dismiss hundreds of years of work from countless scholars who devoted their entire lives to this field, and take a something from a conspiracy theorist is illogical. I’d say that their work is vastly more credible than some punk who spent thirty minutes looking at vocabulary lists. Come on. Use your brain, people.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Literature, Mythology, Religion, Research, Satan and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to “Ancient” Roots Of Satanism, Pt II – Is Satan From Sanskrit?

  1. Steve says:

    I love this post! I studied Languages and Anthropology for my undergraduate degree and often worked on etymology of “foreign” language words. You are absolutely correct, a mistake often made by those “conspiracy thinkers” who attempt to draw conclusions about a word being connect to another is to use the Latinized form of a word whose alphabet is not Latin.

    I do know that ancient interactions were a lot more ubiquitous than what is commonly thought today; moreover, since most documents, if any were produced, are no longer extant for that time frame, it makes it difficult to judge if there were any word borrowing, adoption, etc.; however, spoken language often changes, and rapidly, especially near a confluence of differing languages, which often creates a pidgin or a creole language that may or may not survive, depending on too many factors to list and which may influence the parent languages through word adoption; so, there are many mechanisms by which a word may be adopted, used, changed or otherwise employed that may not be so easily traced.

    Also, concerning the name, “Satan.” It may be true that it is truly a modern movement attached to that specific name; however, what that name represents has certainly been observed in the past. For example, Satan is often connected with the name Lucifer, and in the Judeo-Christian paradigm, they are (almost always) one and the same. Lucifer means, “Light Bringer” and represents this beings attempt to give the light of knowledge to humans.

    This idea of a deity bringing knowledge to humans can be found across the world: Raven giving knowledge to the Inupiaq; Prometheus to the Greeks; Veracocha in South America; Kukulkan in Mexico; etc. (Not) surprisingly, many of these beings were identified with serpents.

    Great post!

  2. I live in South Africa which totally sucks seeing that you want to do the exact same thing i have wanted to do for a F#ck long time is there any way we could perhaps link the two organizations? or perhaps me be a part of your organization even though im here? let me know thanks my blog url http://www.pathofillumination-seeker.blogspot.com

    • chaosgarden says:

      It’s been a long time since I’ve been on here so I apologize for not acknowledging your comment until now. I’ll check out your website and I’ll email you if you have yours listed.

  3. Pingback: An Open Letter To The Joy Of Satan | Sin City Satanist

  4. tjs4satan says:

    Why are you comparing two languages so brutally different and unrelated. Sanskrit predates Hebrew. By thousands of years. Jews have different DNA and a different soul than the gentiles. Scientifically proven.
    through out history they have proven themselves to be parasitic to all of humanity.
    Spiritual Satanism is not a religion by todays definition.

    We do not tell “stories” and made up shit.

    All of Spiritual Satanism is research and proven fact.

    Therefore it is simply a life fact. Do your research.
    Hail Satan

    • chaosgarden says:

      Satan is a Hebrew word. Sanskrit has nothing to do with Satanism yet JoS assumes it does because Maxine is an unscholarly fool. And the rest of you are fools for believing that Satanism (which is a modern concept) predates Christianity. The fact that you are anti-semitic proves that you are a gullible fool. Have fun with that.

      • Rem says:

        You are aware that ‘Satan’ in Sanskrit means truth?
        You are aware that ‘Satan’ has a place named after him?

        Although these are simple posts, they are evident that it predates the Hebrew language. Please provide some details that the Hebrew language predates the Sanskrit language.

        Thank you.

      • chaosgarden says:

        Obviously, you are missing the point. The point is that just because two words look the same doesn’t mean they *are* the same. “Older” does not mean “more right”. You fail at linguistics 101. Try reading this article again.

    • chaosgarden says:

      By the way, I absolutely LOVED how you said it’s “scientifically proven” and “researched and proven fact” but have provided absolutely nothing to back that up. You should be ashamed that you are so easily indoctrinated.

  5. Ken says:

    That’s not even sanskrit you have shown , that is Punjabi .

    • chaosgarden says:

      Regardless, the words are not related. Andrea has no formal education in linguistics and is more concerned with furthering her own delusions. At this point she’s just a psychotic old woman set in her ways.

  6. william says:

    So you rationale is that if Hebrew took the word “Satan” from Sanskrit “satnam” they also would have taken other words, and therefore the words are unrelated?

    It seems to me that your post implies the contrary. The two languages have different stems (Indo-European vs. Afro-Asiatic) and the words are phonetically the same. Does that often happen? Is that true for any other words? You seem to imply that it isn’t true for other words, that this is a unique case. But you imply it’s coincidental? How do you figure there’s just one coincidence on such a conceptually monumental word and no other linguistic cross-over?

    Seems to me you’re doing what you accuse others of doing– furthering your own delusions. Especially since you’re using the anti-Semitism word, hahahaha. Have fun with that, as you say. :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyYQfT2yvU

    • chaosgarden says:

      Oh, lookie. Another JOS kid. I have all of the proof here. I’ll tell you what. If you can find a linguist with PhD accreditation to prove that the JOS is right and I am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will take my site down. Until then, YOUR only source of information on this subject is an angry sociopath woman living with her Nazi husband and a bunch of NS derelicts.

    • noodlewhip says:

      I don’t think his rationale is that the word Satan was taken from Sanskrit, but that it is sourced from Hebrew, an unrelated language to Hebrew.

      However, considering associated meanings with the word Satan as being associated with truth and with the identity as being the one that is despised as being an embraced identity by Satanists in the tone of “hated because Satan is actually this, or that, or a scapegoat, etc”, that the words might actually be related in a root language? Or that Hebrew before the Babylonian Exile, where their language changed at that time and interacted heavily with Aramaic and other languages at the time, that Hebrew itself, because of its change in its history is influenced by languages influenced by Sanskrit? Have you considered that before?

      • chaosgarden says:

        There is no doubt that the languages influenced eachother, but culturally, there is no evidence that the spiritual concept of ‘Sat Nam’ is related to Satan as a spiritual concept in Christian literature. One could also consider that it was only in the new testament that Satan became personified. The Tanakh reads considerably differently.

  7. Aeriki says:

    Well it’s been a few years since you posted this, but I just found it today and I felt I needed to add my little view point.

    It is not that Satan IS derived from Sanskrit rather than Hebrew, but that a better definition for his character can be found in Sanskrit, while still keeping his name ‘Satan’.

    While the Sanskrit ‘sat’ may be desirable, as it means true, good, right, beautiful, wise, venerable, and honest, there is a closer Sanskrit word to the original Hebrew pronunciation, ShTN. That is the Sanskrit ‘śātan’ (shaatan), which means sharpness, destroying, polishing.
    This is not only a better fit than ‘sat’ for Satan sound-wise, but the meanings may be better applied to describe Satan as more than just ‘true’. Satan’s attributes are sharp, as in ‘sharp-witted’, or cunning; destroyer, as in ‘destroyer of illusions or slavery’; and polisher, as in ‘polisher, or cultivator of another’s intelligence’.
    That’s just my thoughts on the matter anyway.

    And I do believe there may be some loan words from Sanskrit to Hebrew in ancient times. Not only were the Hittites Indo-European speakers, but the Mitanni (Ancient Egypt’s sometime enemies, sometime trading partners) were ruled by an Indo-Aryan elite evidenced by some theonyms, proper names and other terminology. There’s no reason not to suppose this influence may present itself in the ancient Hebrew language. Words such as seranim, “lords”, may be related to the Neo-Hittite ‘sarawanas’; kōbá, “helmet”, used of Goliath’s copper helmet, may be derived from the I.E word for copper; baqar, “cow”, may come from the Latin ‘vacca’ (from proto-Indo-European *wokeh).
    I’m sure there’s probably many more, but, like you, I’m no linguist.

    • chaosgarden says:

      Unless you provide proof of your claims, you’re relying on only suspicions and things that look similar. Provide credible academic proof and I’ll adjust my article accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s