Undergoing review is Gustav Davidson’s book A Dictionary of Including the Fallen Angels (The Free Press: 1967). He is described as having been a poet, writer, and publisher who received Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees at Columbia University.
His intro notes:
Some years ago when I started “collecting” angels as a literary diversion…to make a dictionary of them…the Bible was the last place to look for them. True, angels are mentioned frequently enough in both the Old and New Testaments, but they are not named, save in two or three instances.
…the book of Revelation…verse 2, chapter 8 : And I saw the seven angels who stand before God; And to them were given seven trumpets. I laid the book aside and asked myself: who are these seven holy ones that stand before God? Has any biblical scholar identified them? Are they of the order of seraphim, cherubim, principalities, powers?…
Of the seven Revelation angels I had no difficulty in establishing the identity of three: Michael and Gabriel (in Scripture) and Raphael (in The Book of Tobit). The last-named angel, by a happy chance, identifies himself: “I am Raphael,” he discloses to his young charge Toby, “one of the seven angels who stand and enter before the glory of the Lord.” No declaration could be more authoritative or conclusive. And so, with three of the seven angels identified, the problem was to bring to light the remaining four…
The Koran names seven angels…I remembered reading somewhere of an angel called Uriel and that he was a “regent of the sun.” He seemed a likely candidate. I was confirmed in this feeling when I came upon Uriel in Paradise Lost.
Thus, has the two or three instances as Michael and Gabriel with Raphael being apocryphal/deuteron-canonical.
There is also Rev 9’s Abaddon/Apollyon and a perhaps is Rev 8’s Wormwood—assuming that the reference to, “a great star” is to an Angel (which Rev 1 would allow for, given the context, “stars” are Angels”).
Note that within the context of Angels, he noted, “the order of seraphim, cherubim, principalities, powers”: Seraphim and Cherubim are not Angels, they are Seraphim and Cherubim. As for, “principalities, powers” those terms are too vague to be able to place them into categories such as claiming they refer specifically to Angels.
His appeals to the Koran/Qur’an, Paradise Lost, etc. pertains to what he put as, “Virtually all the named angels in this compilation are culled from sources outside Scripture…pseudepigrapha, particularly the three Enoch books, a veritable treasure-trove!” Thus, this is a case of him pulling names from anything written by anyone at any time in any place in any context in any genre.
Let us start with these entries:
Satan—the Hebrew meaning of the word is adversary…
The Old Testament speaks of an adversary, ha-satan. It is a term that stood for an office; it did not denote the name of an angel…
Abaddon (Abbadon, the “destroyer”)-the Hebrew name for the Greek Apollyon, “angel of the bottomless pit,” as in Revelation 9:l0; and the angel (or star) that binds Satan for 1,000 years, as in Revelation 20…
Accusing Angel, The—usually the accusing angel is the adversary (ha-satan), as in Job…
Angel (Hebrew, “malakh”)—the of the word derives from angiras (Sanskrit), a divine spirit…Abaddon / Apollyon, mentioned in Revelation as the “angel of the bottomless pit.” Wormwood, referred to as a star (Revelation 8:11), but to be understood as an angel. And there is Satan, who in the Old Testament is a great angel, one of the most glorious, certainly not evil and with no hint of his having fallen. He goes by his title of adversary (ha-satan). It is only in Christian and post-Biblical Jewish writings that ha-satan of the Old Testament is turned into an evil spirit…
Lucifer (“light giver”)—erroneously equated with the fallen angel (Satan) due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning,” an apostrophe which applied to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (but see under Satan). It should be pointed out that the authors of the books of the Old Testament knew nothing of fallen or evil angels, and do not mention them, although, at times, as in Job 4:18, the Lord “put no trust” in his angels and “charged them with folly,” which would indicate that angels were not all that they should be.
The name Lucifer was applied to Satan by St. Jerome and other Church Fathers. Milton in Paradise Lost applied the name to the demon of sinful pride. Lucifer is the title and principal character of the epic poem by the Dutch Shakespeare, Vondel (who uses Lucifer in lieu of Satan), and a principal character in the mystery play by Imre Madach, The Tragedy of Mun. Blake pictured Lucifer in his illustrations to Dante. George Meredith’s sonnet “Lucifer in Starlight” addresses the “fiend” as Prince Lucifer. Actually, Lucifer connotes star, and applies (or originally meant to apply) to the morning or evening star (Venus). To Spenser in “An Hyrnne of Heavenly Love,” Lucifer is “the brightest angel, even the Child of Light”…
Grigori (egoroi, egregori, “watchers”)-in Jewish legendary lore, the grigori are a superior order of angels…are taller than giants…
Indeed, “ha-satan…did not denote the name of an angel” since besides its generic use, it refers to one individual, the, “ha” (the), who is not an Angel, he is a Cherub (Ezek 28).
He seems to have concluded, “Abaddon…Apollyon…the angel…that binds Satan” since Rev 20 refers to, “an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit” and Rev 9 had noted, “a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” followed by, “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon” so it is not explicitly stated that Abaddon/Apollyon binds Satan and seems more likely that who does is the one holding the keys who seems to be a different character.
Again, no indication of Satan being an Angel, indication he is a Cherub and thus indication of his having fallen (Ezek 28) and also not an, “evil spirit” since Ezek chaps 1 and 10 physically described Cherubim.
The, “(but see under Satan)” reference leads to that at that entry, he noted:
…the 9th-century Bishop Agobard, held that Satan tempted Eve through the serpent. As Langton says in Satan, A Portrait: “In the later Jewish literature, Satan and the serpent are either identified, or one is made the vehicle of the other.”
Originally, Satan (as ha-satan) was a great angel, chief of the seraphim, head of the order of virtues.
While seraphim were usually pictured as 6-winged, Satan was shown as 12-winged.
Since he mashes all references together, it is difficult at times to discern to what he is referring. For examples, “was shown as 12-winged” where: the Bible, Agobard’s claims, Langton’s claims, later Jewish literature’s claims?
Well, he has four wings since he is not a Seraph—“is not a seraph but” is, “a cherub.”
“Lucifer…erroneously equated with…Satan” is not the case. He is just being myopic: he sees, “applied to Nebuchadnezzar” but fails to note the correlation, the dual application (also in Isa 14)—see my post The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.
Satan is also not a, “demon” as per Milton since demons are the disembodied spirits of physically incarcerated Angels, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
The, “Lucifer connotes…morning or evening star (Venus)” is a very complex issue that I tackled in my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology.
Davidson needed to be asked: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Answers to those might help us to understand what the otherwise meaninglessly circular phrase, “taller than giants” might mean.
Let us next consider this entry:
Nephilim (Nephelin, Nefilim)—in Hebrew lore, the nephilim stood for giants of primeval times; also as fallen angels, or their offspring (the “sons of God” who cohabited with the daughters of men, as in Genesis 6). Closely related were the emim (“terrors”), the rephaim (“weakeners”), the gibborium (“giants”), the zamzummim (“achievers”), etc.
[RJ: Enoch I; De Plancy, Dictionnaire Infernal; Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews; Numbers 13:33.]
Head of the nephilim was Helel (q.v.). According to the 9th-century writer Hiwi a1 Balkhi, the nephilim were the builders of the Tower of Babel.
[Rf: Saadiah, Polemic against Hiwi a1 Balkhi, pp. 54-56.]
It may be that, “nephilim stood for giants” in, “Hebrew lore” about which we must ask what is Hebrew lore’s usage of, “giants”? Well, it pertains to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
The dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
As for, giants in Hebrew lore, see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
As for, “also as fallen angels” that would be mistaken since it is a case of, “their offspring”: The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
As for, “Closely related were” there is literally zero indication of that.
Zamzummim is merely an aka for Rephaim and Emim, and Anakim, were like clans of that tribe.
To list, “gibborium (‘giants’)” is triply mistaken: 1) the transliteration is typically gibborim, 2) that is merely a descriptive term, not a people group, meaning mighty, and 3) ergo, the only way Nephilim are closely related to that word is that they are referred to as such—as are Nephilim (Gen 6:4), Nimrod (Gen 10:8), Angels (Psa 103:20), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), some of King David’s soldiers (1 Chron 11:11), even God Himself (Isa 9:6).
Note that Davidson actually cited Numbers 13:33 but it does not even hint about any such thing. In fact, I had to add Anakim to the list—his entry on them reads:
Anakim (-enim? “giants”)—the offspring of fallen angels and mortal women, an issue touched on in Genesis 6. The anakim were so tall that, according to The Zohar, “the Hebrews were like grasshoppers in comparison.” In the latter work, the angels Uzza and Azael are singled out as having begotten children “whom they called anakim.”
The original name of the anakim was nefilim. [Rf. Jung, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan Literature; Deuteronomy 1:28; Joshua 14:12.1 In Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews I, 151, it is related that the anakim “touched the sun with their necks.” This is consonant with the view, often expressed in rabbinic and Islamic writings, that angels reached from Heaven to earth—just as Adam did when he was first formed, and as Israfel did, or does. [Rf. 3 Enoch.]
He surely has, “Anakim (-enim?” due to Deut 2 stating, “Emim formerly lived there [in Ar], a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”
There is literally zero indication of Anakim as, “offspring of fallen angels and mortal women, an issue touched on in Genesis 6”: he might be relying wholly on for some odd reason actually believing a non-LXX version of Num 13:33 for that. Thus, that, “The original name of the anakim was nefilim” is linguistically and biologically incoherent.
The Zohar most certainly relied on the unreliable non-LXX version of Num 13:33 and took what that, “evil report” asserted about Nephilim and (mis)applied it as referring to Anakim.
And you can see how tall-tales become taller and taller with telling and retelling to the point that Anakim, “touched the sun with their necks” ouch!!! They surely needed some out of this world level of SPF sunblock protection. The only contextually relevant thing we are told about Rephaim in general is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
So, very, very, very late-dated, “rabbinic…writings” and very, very, very, very, very, very late-dated, “Islamic writings” are that which they are: folkloric tall-tales.
Thus, I had to add Anakim to the list and while he surely read a version that references Anakim in that verse anyone appealing to it needs to mention that they are relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, it may be that, “According to the 9th-century writer Hiwi al Balkhi, the nephilim were the builders of the Tower of Babel” but that is logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible.
Another entry of interest is:
Og—a descendant of the fallen angels; the son of Ahijah, the grandson of Semyaza, and the brother of Sihon. In Jewish tradition, Og was an Amorite giant slain in the ankle by Moses. In Numbers 21 : 33, Og is king of Bashan who is delivered into the hands of Israel by God. However, there is a legend that Og was in the Flood and was saved from it by climbing to the roof of the ark. Palit (q.v.) is another name for Og. [See Gog and Magog.]
Again, it is difficult to discern to what he is referring by asserting, “Og—a descendant of the fallen angels” since biblically, he was 100% human.
That legend is not only ill-theo-logical, but is anachronistic and based on a category error: 1) Og wasn’t even born until centuries post-flood, 2) he was a Repha but they didn’t exist until centuries post-flood, 3) we are told five times who survived the flood but he is never listed (Gen 7:7, 23; Heb 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20 & 2 Peter 2:5), 4) given that only the eight on the ark were designated for salvation, Noah would not have assisted Og—as the legend has it.
As for, “[See Gog and Magog.]” that entry notes:
Gog and Magog—in the grimoires of Honorius III, ineffable names of God used to command spirits. “The unexpected appearance of Gog and Magog amongst the other holy names of God must be put down,” says Butler, Ritual Magic, “to the ignorance of Honorius.” The Koran (sura 18,95) mentions Gog and Magog as “spoiling the land.”
Well, Butler rightly put the kibosh on the assertion of the Grimoire of Pope Honorius, or Le Grimoire du Pape Honorius, from the 17th-18th century AD. And what the Koran from half a millennia after the time of Jesus has to say is clearly irrelevant—except that it adds more proof that the Koran is just a mishmash of apocrypha, folklore, Rabbinic lore, etc., etc., etc.
Biblically, reference is made to, “Gog, of the land of Magog” (Ezek 38:2) and, “…deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle” (Rev 20:8).
Other references that bifurcate them are, “The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras” (Gen 10:2 and 1Ch 1:5), “I will send fire on Magog and on those who dwell securely in the coastlands” (Ezek 39:6).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply