The Amateur Scholar

Is polytheism less violent? Well no.

Zoroastrianism is a bit difficult. We just don’t know much about the earliest formations of the religion. It most likely began with a people called the Aryans, which is where Hinduism also develops from. There are a lot of connections between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, including a lot of similarity in the languages that composed their earliest writings. The main problem though is that Zoroastrianism is understudied, so definitive information is harder (especially as there is so much misinformation from people claiming to practice the religion, but really they are just taking bits and pieces of various religions and throwing them all together). A great source of Zoroastrianism, if you want to dive more into it is an article by Michael Stausberg (who is probably the foremost expert on the religion) titled On the State and Prospects of the Study of Zoroastrianism. Another great source for an over view of the history is Zoroastrians by Mary Boyce, which, even though is was published in 1979, is still often the go to textbook. So, when it comes to what Zoroastrianists thought of polytheism, we can only look at a somewhat later date. Before we jump in there though, there is some debate as to whether Zoroastrianism was truly monotheistic, or if they were polytheists, or practiced a form of dualism, and then only later, more in the modern period, decided to rewrite the narrative. A great source on this Solomon Nigosian’s work, Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research. A conclusion that he reaches is that there is a lot of mystery in the Zoroastrian belief, and its not always straight forward, so there are a lot of differing views. It could be that they are more henotheistic, but some form of worship of a single divine figure was held. Most likely, and Francois de Blois, in an article titled Dualism and Iranian Christian Traditions, shows how this worked, is that there are stages of development within the religion. It goes from more polytheistic to dropping even the dualistic view, and becoming more of a straight monotheism. So to the question. While we can’t look definitely at the development, we can see how Persian rulers, who were Zoroastrianists, treated others. Zoroastrianism really dominated a couple of Persian dyansties, such as the Archaemenias, as well as the Parthian and Sassanian Empires, and would only be overthrown during the Muslim conquest in the seventh century CE. One of the famous Persian leaders, Cyrus the Great, was himself a devout Zoroastrianist. From what we can gather about him, he was quite a tolerant ruler who took to heart to aspect of Zoroastrian law of asha, which is truth and righteousness. It could have been this that made him choose not to force the religion on others, and instead be quite tolerant of other beliefs. This really followed through the Archaemenian empire with other figures such as Darius the Great. Later on, after the conquest by Alexander the Great, and then the eventual return to a Persian empire under the Sasanians, things did change. The Sasanians were far less tolerant. It’s really with the Sasanians, who took power in 224 CE, that Zoroastrianism really changed to be far less tolerant. The religion also underwent large reforms at that time too. As a whole then, from the earliest time period that we know a good deal about Zoroastrianism, that others were polytheistic wasn’t a problem. Most likely, Zoroastrainism began as a polytheistic religion, that became henotheistic, in that they had one god, but accepted that other gods existed, and eventually moved to a dualistic view, which was then adapted into straight monotheism. If we look at Cyrus the Great, he even promoted polytheism a bit by restoring various gods to different cultures. This could suggest that he was a henotheist, or it simply was a good political move. Later on, the religion would reject the idea of other gods, but they still continued to be pretty tolerant. Moving to Judaism, where we have a lot more information. Mark S. Smith is one of the leaders in the field of early Judaism, and the formation of the idea of God. A great work of his is God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Smith really traces the the development of what he calls the “one-god worldview” of Israel. It starts as a polytheism, more of a henotheistic view, which morphs into monolatry, the worship of only one god, to monotheism, where there is only one god. One point that really sticks out with Smith is the argument that Israel, while still moving towards monotheism, as they were still a polytheistic religion, was much more violent and intolerant. The idea wasn’t that all other gods don’t exist, but instead that everyone else was worshiping false gods and the Israelites were going to show just how powerful their god was. And that was often through violence. The change to more tolerance, for Judaism, came as they become more monotheistic. Putting this all more in perspective, John H Walton has a work titled Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. What Walton points out is that Israel really differentiated their god from the surrounding gods. There is no origin story for Yahweh. Many of the qualifiers for Yahweh are eventually stripped away (qualifiers that were used for gods in generals). There is a conscious move to separate Yahweh, and in doing so, the Hebrews, from their surroundings. Part of this may be that Israel was under almost constant attack. Donald Redford, in his boo, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times looks at how Israel was really between a rock and a hard place as Palestine, and the Middle East, was often squashed in between massive nations fighting for control. Finding a way to separate themselves, and really preserve themselves was quite important. Once Israel really does finally formulate the their idea of monotheism, while they did reject other gods pretty much outright, they also became more tolerant of other views. That was partially because they saw themselves as set apart from others. Follow up questions: Very interesting, and thanks for the response! I have a bunch of questions if you don’t mind. As Judaism, since there is much more info available there, started to morph into monotheism, were there any texts that described Yahweh in a polytheistic context? I guess I’m asking, what we’re the original qualifiers for Yahweh that you mentioned were stripped away? Bonus related question, did any other ancient gods in that region have similar qualifiers? In the cultural (or potentially survivalist) shift, was it evolutions in the religion doctrines of Judaism itself (prophets, miracles, etc), or societal leaders that appeared to make the shift behind a single unifying deity (similar to the council of Nicea in attempting to unify Christians/Christianity)? Very good questions. The primary texts with Judaism and Yahweh are the Old Testament texts, and it’s there we see this morphing happening. Mark S Smith has a wonderful book on this called The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Part of this morphing means having to have some background in Canaanite religion, and luckily, with the discovery of what are called the Ugaritic texts, we have a pretty good understanding there. I’m not sure if you’re aware of the Documentary Hypothesis, but the basic idea is that there were multiple sources that put together the Torah. By deconstructing those sources, as much as possible, we can see some layers begin to form. So in the Torah we see various names for God (this doesn’t really show as much in the English as it does in the Hebrew). The main names are El, Elohim and Yahweh. Yahweh would be the name that won out, but El is quite early. El is really two things. First El, with a capital E is in reference to a specific deity. Different places had a god named El, such as the Canaanites. El with a lower case e simply means god. In the earliest accounts, we see the term El being used. Along with El, various qualifiers are given, such as El Shaddai, which is God Almighty, or El Elyon, which is God Most High. There is also other things like El Roi, the God who sees me, or Yahweh Rophe, the God that Heals. As we move along, those sort of qualifiers begin to disappear along with generic terms. So by the time we get to the first century, it’s basically Yahweh. It’s no longer the God who does whatever, but simply God. We do have examples of other gods in that region using the exact same qualifiers. So the name of the Canaanite high god is El. At least at first. Baal then replaces El later. But in Canaanite texts, El is also called things like El Shaddai and El Elyon. This gets a bit confusing when doing early research on the Hebrew god Yahweh as the names cross over (Yahweh is not used elsewhere though). This has led to some fringe scholars, or lay people to argue that Yahweh began as a Canaanite god or even as El, but there really is no evidence of that besides generic names being used. George W.E. Nickelsburg, in Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins may give the best overview of how the evolution moved. If we look at the Hebrew scripture, we do see prophets really pushing it. They are really attempting to push a more unified religion and people. This is often in the face of impeding adversity. There is also a major shift after the return of the Jewish people to Judah after the destruction by Babylon. There you have strong leaders calling for a unity, which had largely already occurred while under Babylonian control as it was either unite or be swept up in assimilation. When they returned to Judah, and set up a ne...

Is there extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus?

Did Jesus Exist? Dan Baker and the Failure of the Jesus Myth

Is the Bering Strait theory still accepted? Well, to a point.

I’m going to go a bit against the grain here and say that yes, the popularity of the Bering Strait theory is losing steam. Since 1997, with the acceptance of an archeological site in Monte Verde, Chile, that dated human occupation back to 14,800 before present (BP), which was a full millennia earlier than it was previously thought humans had been in the Americas, there has been growing debate. A nice overview of it can be found at the National Parks Service website, which I will link here: NPS Bering Strait and alternatives Lets dive into the evidence though, and a bit of the history here. We can begin with Monte Verde. Thomas Dillehay has a great work on this titled The Settlement of America, a New Prehistory. What makes Monte Verde special is that it is widely accepted as an archeological site that does definitely showcase that humans were here before the Last Glacial Maximum. So Monte Verde was discovered in 1975, and in 1977, Dillehay began excavating there. In 1982, radiocarbon dating of items in the site was done, and it was discovered that the site in general went back 14,800 years. It would take another decade and a half though for wide acceptance of this dating, and that occurred in 1997, when 12 other archeologists revisited the site. So why is this important to this discussion? Because various studies have shown that the Monte Verde site is too early for it to have been occupied by individuals who migrated via the Bering Strait. One of these studies, from 2016, titled Postglacial Viability and Colonization in North America’s Ice-Free Corridor, published in the journal Nature, argues that the Bering Strait route only became a viable path around 12,600 years ago, when the first plants and animals started showing up in the area. The authors of this article go on to say that it is unlikely that the earliest migration of humans to the Americas used this route, but that later groups may have used the path. Just a note on the Monte Verde site. In 2015, an article titled New Archeological Evidence for an Early Human Presence at Monte Verde, Chile, was published in Plos One (it can be viewed here. Dillehay was one of the archeologists who went back to Monte Verde and helped author this study. What they discovered is that the site may go back 18,500 years. Interestingly though is that they also discovered the presence of items at the site that aren’t found their naturally. Their argument is that those items were brought to Monte Verde from other people who brought them (or some of them) from far away. Another take away from that article is the landscape of the debate now, that the authors point out in their introduction. They make the claim that the consensus among experts is that humans did arrive in the Americas at least 15,000 years ago. And while it is accepted that some humans would eventually travel to the Americas across the Bering Strait, the old model (the Clovis-first model, that said that the first humans came here via the Bering Strait) “no longer explains the peopling of the New World.” And this all has led to new debates, such as, how many migrations were there? Did the first humans arrive here by land or the coastline? There are other issues though too. In 2010, an article titled Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West was published in American Antiquity. The authors were Charlotte Beck and George T. Jones. One thing that they point out is that the chronology of the Clovis-first model has broken down in recent years. For instance, in 2003, it was discovered that the Ushki site, which had long been held as the earliest site in Western Beringia, which also was seen as a prime candidate for a Clovis ancestor, wasn’t as old as thought; it only dated back 11,000 years. This has caused a dilemma now as it erased the progenitor in Siberia, and has made the Clovis origins more complicated. Another major issue is with the distribution of items associated with the Clovis people. For instance, the fluted point that we know as a distinctive Clovis technology may have actually originated in the east. As Beck and Jones point out though, while that may be the case (based on the distribution density of such items), we cannot be certain until more research is done. One of the arguments that the authors make though is that the distribution of these items, that seem to spread across the continent very rapidly is that the Clovis people weren’t migrating to these new areas, but that they were trading technology with other groups. The key thing here is that it is expected that other groups were here before the Clovis people. They actually emphasize that point, that people were at least in the Intermountain West before the Clovis people were present anywhere. Their suggestion, and a view that they say is growing more probable, is a Pacific coastal route for early North American entry. Now, these authors aren’t claiming to be drawing the entire picture. A main point that they are trying to get across is that the migration process is much more complex that we imagined. We have to consider that it may be that people migrated here in a variety of different ways, and entered the continent at different locations. So to sum up, the Bering Strait theory is losing steam. While it is certain that some people migrated to the Americas through the Bering Strait, it now appears that even before that, people were living in the Americas. Most likely, there were different migrations events into the continents, and the routes were varied as well. However, some of the things Dr. Keene is saying (or more specifically linking to, such as the 6 part article that debunks the Bering Strait theory) aren’t correct either. As I believe this post shows, for instance, the Bering Straight theory isn’t some unshakable idea within scholarship. While it isn’t fully rejected, its accepted that we have to rethink it and acknowledge that it was only part of the migration.

DID JESUS EXIST? DEBATING DAVID FITZGERALD 3

DID JESUS EXIST? DEBATING DAVID FITZGERALD 2

Did Jesus Exist? Debating David Fitzgerald

Jumping back into Satan. Differences between OT and NT depictions.

I addressed this a bit in a post a few days back: Somewhat of a history of Satan The Anchor Bible Dictionary, on the entry about Satan, gives a really good overview of the topic. But basically, what we see in the Old Testament period isn’t really a specific individual, but some individual (generally a terrestrial individual, but there are a few cases of a celestial individual taking part) who is an Adversary. I believe the Anchor Bible Dictionary uses the word Accuser, but the idea really is the same. Generally its used as a common noun, with the exception of 1 Chr 21:1. Here, the term is generally translated as a proper noun, a proper name, but it could also be translated more to “a satan rose up.” The major issues with this passage though is that we get the same story in 2 Samual 24; however, in that version, it isn’t Satan but Yahweh who is the stimulus for a census. Yehezkel Kaufmann, in the Religion of Israel, sums up the major view though that the Biblical religion of Israel couldn’t reconcile the idea that there was some power in the universe that defied the authority of God. So instead, it transferred the idea of evil from a metaphysical world to a moral realm: sin. It is around 300 B.C.E (maybe as late as 200 B.C.E.) though that Satan begins to really develop into what we know of him today, and that corresponds to the Book of Enoch. Philip Harland has a great podcast called Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. He has a series there called the Predecessors of Satan, which is basically a recording of his college lectures on the subject. Its a great source for this subject. What led up to this time period though was the conquest of Israel by Persia (the Persian period is 539-332 B.C.E.). During this period, Satan is beginning to be mentioned more and we can see a forming of the idea. In the book, The Birth of Satan, Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots, the authors argue that this is probably the time period that Satan, as a specific individual who is in opposition to God (so a figure similar to what we think of Satan today), entered ancient Judaism. Specifically, it was the exposure to Zoroastrianism, and their dualist belief. It is a belief in dualism that built the foundation that allowed Satan to enter the religious thought. However, we also have to be a bit careful on how much influence we give to Zoroastrianism. While we can be rather certain that ancient Judaism was influenced by the idea of dualism, many other tenants of Zoroastrianism aren’t present where we would expect to see them. For instance, Nehemiah, which should give us the most evidence of influence, just doesn’t show an awareness to Persian beliefs. There are two main explanations for this: It may that the prophets repressed such views. It also maybe that the works we see as part of the apocrypha just represented the quasi-mythology that was widely accepted throughout the time period. Also, we have to be careful as the writings we have about Zoroastrianism, as Harland points out, are extremely late. Close to 2,000 years after the life of Zoroaster. So whether they reflect the teachings of Zoroaster, or later individuals can be difficult to flesh out. So we see the development of Satan really moving forward at this time, but it probably is in the next 300 years (the intertestemental period that we see the most development. In her book, Origins of Satan, Elaine Pagels makes a really good point. What happens during this period is one conquest after another of Israel. We have the Persian conquest, and the Greek conquest, followed by Romans. This all really left the people of Israel in a state of chaos and division. In that mess, the idea of Satan really develops. One can almost see it as a coping mechanism, or an explanation of why a just God would allow for such disaster. Its not God, but a supernatural being that is opposed to God. During this time you have many of the common ideas popping up in Jewish texts. In the Life of Adam and Eve, Satan is placed in the Garden of Eden, and that Satan and his followers were cast from heaven. In 1 Enoch, you get the idea of Satan being a rebellious angel who was cast into a pit of fire. The Book of Jubilees also follows this idea, and we get the idea that suffering on Earth is caused by Satan and his forces. Its 2 Enoch that really cements a lot though. Satan goes from a high ranking angel, where he tries to overthrow God, fails, and is cast into a bottomless pit. It is here that the term Lucifer really becomes stuck with Satan as well. Its taken from an ancient Canaanite myth, about a god name Day Star (or Morning Star), which is then applied to Satan. This is the ideology that leads into the New Testament period. We have to make a short mention of the Qumran sect though, as they give us a background here. They also appear to have a dualistic view, but it has been modified from what the Persian idea was (there is no equality in their view). They speak of an Angel of Darkness and a Prince of Light. But its not equal forces. Darkness is limited. We see this view in the New Testament as well. The names for Satan expand, and we see some final touches being placed on him. Satan doesn’t have unlimited powers. He can be resisted. God can use him (such as in 1 Cor. 5:5), he is judged (John 16:11), that he is bound (Rev. 20:2) and incinerated (20:10). We basically get the idea that Satan is here to tempt us, the source of evil, and is a great opponent to those who worship God. However, that is only temporary and God will overcome Satan in the end, and Satan will be destroyed. By the end of the New Testament period, the ideas surrounding Satan really have been worked out. It really just a polishing of the ideas after that. The early church fathers really connect the name Lucifer and Satan together. We also get different depictions of Satan as time goes on. But that more changes from generation to generation. Just looking at artistic representation of Satan, we can see this. We also get more discussion on hell; however, that is a pretty debated subject, with many disagreements. Follow up question: This is a compelling narrative, but I don’t see how the boo of Job fits in? My understanding is that Job is thought to be the oldest of OT books, and it describes Satan having many characteristics that you attribute to later periods. Two separate things here, so I will try to deal with both. First, the book of Job being the oldest of the Old Testament works. That is a claim that is often mentioned; however, I don’t think the evidence supports such a claim (and in the scholarship, it is rather debated as well). One of the issues is that dating the book is very difficult as it doesn’t give many internal clues. Avi Hurvitz, in an article titled The Date of the Prose Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered, which was published back in 1976, made a very compelling argument that based on just linguistic evidence, the book can probably be placed around the 6th century B.C.E. This would mean that it wasn’t the oldest book written, but is preceded by works such as Amos, Nahum and Hosea. Just as a note, as I’m always a bit hesitant to use sources that are too dated, in 2009, Ian Young wrote an article titled Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew? He directly looks at Hurvitz study, and examines it anew. Young does shed some light on the subject, and demonstrates that in places, Hurvitz study has some flaws. However, the chronology that Hurvitz set up, that Job is probably from the 6th century or so, held up to the scrutiny. Youngs view is that it is more in line with Early Biblical Hebrew (with some affinities with Late Biblical Hebrew), but that it being written in more of an Early Biblical Hebrew did not change the actual chronology here. A second note, the standard Jewish position (as in, the consensus there), is similar to that of Youngs. The Babylonian Talmud, specifically b. Bava Batra 15a, shows that on both linguistic criteria, and from historical allusions in the work, the book of Job has allusions to nearly every Biblical literature period. Based on that, the view is also that the work is of a later date, sometime before 600 B.C.E and the mid-4th century B.C.E. But since there are allusions to earlier Hebrew linguistic styles, it is thought that the author was purposely writing in that manner. So most likely, Job is not the oldest book of the Bible. It is a debated subject, and the view is often mentioned, but the internal evidence really doesn’t fit such a view. As to how Satan is viewed in Job. One of my favorite commentaries on Job was done by Solomon Freehof, titled just Book of Job: A Commentary. It is a commentary from a Jewish perspective, and highly regarded. The view he takes, and the one that is common in other scholars of Job as well, is that the book of Job is really two books. You have a prologue and epilogue, the prose, which is the earliest section (probably around 600 B.C.E.), and in between the prose, you have the heart of the material. If we look at this prose section, where Satan appears, and in fact, it is in this portion that the term Satan appears most often (the vast majority of mentions of Satan appear in this prose area in Job), what we get is a celestial being, who is part of Gods council. Its not that Satan here is a formal name, but designates more of a role. He is part of the heavenly host, and submits to what God wants. If we read carefully, Satan never does anything here unless God explicitly commands it. In other words, Satan is just a tool of God...

Looking at the Development of Satan

The concept of Satan is one that evolved over millennia and had many various influences. But we can start with those verses you pointed out. Isaiah 14:12. It is true that this is where the name of Lucifer comes from. It was in the Latin Vulgate the we see the term; however, Lucifer, as we think of the term today, is incorrect. The term begins as the O Shining One (or Daystar), which goes to Morning Star (which is still how Catholic translations and commentaries view it), and finally Lucifer. But to understand the text, we need to ignore the later names, and go back to the more accurate translation of Daystar. We also have to be familiar with the Ras-Shamra (or Ugaritic) poems, as there are a number of points of connection between this section in Isaiah, and those poems. Just a note on Ugaritic literature as a whole. It is exceptionally important in Biblical studies as it gives us a look at Canaanite beliefs, and particularly, those beliefs during the time period just before Israelite settlement. What we’ve found are a massive amount of similarities between the two, that have helped in our understanding of Ancient Israel, as well as the formation of the Hebrew religion. What we have in this verse are actually two deities. We have Dawn, and his son, Daystar. They come from Canaanite mythology. We don’t find Daystar in the Canaanite mythology that is available to us, but Dawn is known. Dawn, in Canaanite myth, was a son of El, the high god. From what we can tell from Isaiah though is that he’s talking about a god who wanted to join the head of the pantheon, but fails. We see this say sort of thing in Ezekiel 28. The gist though is that we have an overreaching god who is expelled from “heaven.” Side note: Rabbinic commentators would identify this Daystar with the planet Venus (said to be the morning star). And it is very possible that this god, in Canaanite lore was associated with this same “morning star.” While later translators and commentators, including the church fathers, would associate this figure, Daystar/Lucifer, with the fall of Satan, there is no evidence that the text had to do anything with a Satan figure. Instead, as is clear from the Ugaritic text, we know that Isaiah is referencing Canaanite mythology. Moving on to Ezekiel 28:11-19. This is somewhat similar to the Isaiah passage, as I hinted at before. J.L. McKenzie, in an article titled Mythological Allusions in Ezekiel 28:12-18, argues that these verses are actually a variant form of the creation story in Genesis 2-3. McKenzie argues that it is a Hebrew native tradition that is influenced with foreign mythology, particularly Canaanite mythology. Ezekiel is using this older mythology as an allegory between Tyre and Israel. Tyre had a great relationship with Israel to begin with. In Ezekiel, Tyre is the only neighbor that isn’t presented as positing hostile actions towards Israel. In fact, we don’t have any hostility on the part of Tyre towards Israel recorded in the OT. Tyre was instrumental in building the Temple (1 Kings 5-7), and in Isaiah 23:18, we are told that Tyre would be restored and its merchandise would be seen as sacred. What we are told in Ezekiel 28:5 though is that sinful trade made Tyre fall away from Israel. What Ezekiel is alluding to is that the pact of brotherhood with Tyre gave them a place alongside Israel by association. That’s why we see Tyre being mentioned in the creation story that Ezekiel is referencing. However, what Ezekiel is saying about Tyre is that because of their actions, they are not being cut from God. In both of those verses, there is no allusion to Satan at all. We do have allusions to ancient Canaanite mythology, and interestingly, we get a glimpse of an alternative creation myth. Quickly, with Ezekiel 38 and 39, and reference to Gog, there is no suggestion that he is related to Satan or that those verses are a prophecy regarding Satan. As the New Jerome Bible Commentary explains, the indentification of Gog is probably unimportant (we really don’t know who they are), but that Gog instead symbolizes the powers of “evil” that were threatening Israel. In other words, it just symbolized those groups that were seeking to destroy Israel. And it wasn’t a prophecy for later, but more for something that was happening right then. Jumping finally to Satan. The noun Satan appears 26 times in the OT. 7 of those referred to human individuals. Of the 19 remaining cases, only 3 don’t use a definite article. The other 16 (14 of which appear in Job), literally say the satan. Now, 2 of those 3 instances mentioned appear in Numbers 22:22, 32. There, we have the idea that the Angel of Yahweh is a satan. So out of the 26 mentions of satan, only 1, in 1 Chr. 21:1 is a proper name. In the rest, it is a common noun, meaning something like the Adversary. However, even that passage could justifiably be translated as a satan rose up. It is worth noting that we get the same story in 2 Samuel 24, but there, instead of a satan, we have the stimulus for the census by David being Yahweh. What we have in the OT is a satan who isn’t connected to some other realm, but is connected with sin. This has led Yehezkel Kaufmann to argue in the Religion of Israel that the Biblical religion of Israel couldn’t reconcile the idea that there was some power in the universe that defied the authority of God. So instead, it transferred the idea of evil from a metaphysical world to a moral realm: sin. The idea of Satan really begins to enter into the Jewish ideology more when they are exposed to Persian religion, to Zoroastrianism. We can see in the literature written during that time period, in the apocrvaphyl texts, that references to Satan become much more common. This is probably influenced by the dualism from Zoroastrianism. How far this influence goes is debated. For instance, in the one work of the OT that probably should have the most influence from Zoroastrianism, Nehemiah, we just don’t see the awareness to Persian beliefs. It may that the prophets repressed such views. It also maybe that the works we see as part of the apocrypha just represented the quasi-mythology that was widely accepted throughout the time period. In the NT period, we see the mentions of Satan, or other names used for Satan, really expand. And really we are seeing a parallel to the dualism (or a modified dualism) that we see from Qumran, which is a struggle of massive proportions between the Angel of Darkness and the Prince of Light. But even in the NT, Satan doesn’t have unlimited powers. He can be resisted. God can use him (such as in 1 Cor. 5:5), he is judged (John 16:11), that he is bound (Rev. 20:2) and incinerated (20:10). So to sum up. In the OT, Satan is not a proper name. Simply, Satan just refers to an Adversary, either human or celestial. But it is not a proper individual. Its applied to many. In the Jewish apocrypha, we see an influence of Zoroastrianism-based dualism, and the mention of Satan really takes off. By the NT times, Satan is a proper individual, but the dualism changes a bit, as we see in the Qumran scrolls. And Satan is limited in power, and will be incinerated. The church fathers will expand on this, including passages such as the one about the Daystar, which had nothing to do with Satan to begin with. But its incorporated into the mythology, and the view of Satan continues to evolve.

Could descendants of giants still exist?

If we assume that the Nephiliim were real, we can be fairly certain that they would no longer exist today. We can be certain about that because of the flood. Looking at the build up to Noah’s flood, we are first introduced to the nephilim. They are part of the reason why God becomes dissatisfied with creation, and is seeking to erase it. So part of the reason for the flood was to also get rid of such an “abomination.” We can thus be certain that neither the line of Noah, or his wife, or sons’ wives, were connected to the nephilim. However, the idea of fallen angels, or angels cast from heaven, doesn’t stop at the nephilim. The Enochic pseudepigrapha contains other such stories. Lester L Grabbe has a work that deals with this, called A History of Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. He argues that the idea of women and fallen angels having intercourse is a very old legend in Judaism. The debate is whether this legend informed the story in Genesis, or if the legend comes from the story in Genesis. This idea actually continues through to Early Christianity and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. It isn’t more until the third century that the idea that giants were produced from women and angels having intercourse really were really rejected. It was at this time that the Enochian writings were being pushed out as more heretical. However, it is worth noting that even the early church fathers took the idea of sons of God as being identified as fallen angels. Augustine of Hippo also shows the spread of this idea; however, he attests to it because of his polemic against such an idea. In the third century, with the shift away from the Enochian writings, and this older idea of fallen angels, we see Christianity more adopting the view that the fallen angels were actually the ones led by Satan, and these fallen angels then become seen as demons. So while the Biblical story of the Nephilim end up with them dying in the flood (or that is the implication), the idea of fallen angels and women having intercourse didn’t die out until much later, and then it was partially transformed into the Christian idea concerning Satan and his fall. As for Goliath, I do not believe there are traditions stating that he was the product of a fallen angel. Later Jewish tradition, for instance, found in the Babylonian Talmud, he is said to be the son of Orpah. This is interesting as Orpah is the sister-in-law of Ruth (Ruth being the great grandmother of David). The Jerusalem Talmud states that Goliath had a hundred or so father. The idea is that his mother was impregnated by a whole host of men, who were all his fathers. I think we can see the polemic here. An ungodly birth for sure, but not one from a fallen angel. Now, Goliath was said to be a giant, but it wasn’t unnaturally tall. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and Josephus (I believe this is also true for the Septuagint) puts his height to around 6’9”. Other texts, such as the Masoretic text, put him more at 9’9”. However, scholars generally agree that in this case, the 6’9” is the older and better reading. Follow up question: What about Numbers 13, there are very clearly Giants there (v.22, 28, 32-33) Anakim are a race of Nephalim after the flood. (Deut. 2:10, 20-21) There is some debate here, but first, giants and the Nephilim are not interchangeable. Goliath, for example, was said to be a giant, but was not associated with the Nephilim in anyway. So we have to be careful there not to conflate the to ideas. At the same time, sometimes the term Nephilim referred to giants, even though they weren’t fathered by a fallen angel. Nephilim, at a certain time, seems to have been the term used in regards to giants, even though they weren’t considered to be products of fallen angels. So on to the Anakim. In Numbers, the Anakim are said to be from the Nephilim. They aren’t said to be a race of Nephilm though, just that they are from them. Actually, what is says is that Anak, whose sons are called the Anakim, was from the Nephilim. So it is only talking about Anak himself. Note: There is a Hebrew tradition that states this differently. Where it talks about the Anakim being Nephilim. However, this isn’t found in the Greek, and many scholars believe that it may have been added later, as almost an in text note. But then we start running into problems. So in Deuteronomy, all we are told about the Anakim is that they were tall. We are also told that they are counted as Rephaim, or Emim. We aren’t told much about the Rephaim, except that they were tall (they are never said to be Nephilim though) and that they existed far in the past. The only possible connection with the Anakim and the Nephilim is Number 13:33. Every other mention of the Anakim, while they mention their height, never connect the two. Instead, they are connected to the Rephaim, who, while seen as legendary in their stature but far in the past, are not said to be Nephilim. And the key portion of Numbers 13:33 is a later addition, an added gloss, basically an in text note. Without the gloss, we get that Anak, who the tribe of Anakim descend from, is said to be from the Nephilm. How this actually works isn’t said, because we are introduced to some ancestors of Anak, specifically his father Arba, who isn’t said to be Nephilim, and aren’t related to them, as far as we know. So the information is contradictory at best. The one clear connection is fraught with issues, mainly that it is a later addition, a gloss. What this gloss also implies though is that later on, the term Nephilim was being applied to those individuals who were seen as giants. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, when speaking of Nephilim, talk about how in later translations, the term almost became a generic term to signify various heroic traits. It also mentions that there have been arguments that the original reason for the flood was the Nephilim as a race. The flood was meant to simply wipe them out, but later additions to the text expanded the reason. Either way, at the core of the flood, there was the intention to wipe out the Nephilim. Second follow up: What about Numbers 13, there are very clearly Giants there (v.22, 28, 32-33) Anakim are a race of Nephalim after the flood. (Deut. 2:10, 20-21) There is some debate here, but first, giants and the Nephilim are not interchangeable. Goliath, for example, was said to be a giant, but was not associated with the Nephilim in anyway. So we have to be careful there not to conflate the to ideas. At the same time, sometimes the term Nephilim referred to giants, even though they weren’t fathered by a fallen angel. Nephilim, at a certain time, seems to have been the term used in regards to giants, even though they weren’t considered to be products of fallen angels. So on to the Anakim. In Numbers, the Anakim are said to be from the Nephilim. They aren’t said to be a race of Nephilm though, just that they are from them. Actually, what is says is that Anak, whose sons are called the Anakim, was from the Nephilim. So it is only talking about Anak himself. Note: There is a Hebrew tradition that states this differently. Where it talks about the Anakim being Nephilim. However, this isn’t found in the Greek, and many scholars believe that it may have been added later, as almost an in text note. But then we start running into problems. So in Deuteronomy, all we are told about the Anakim is that they were tall. We are also told that they are counted as Rephaim, or Emim. We aren’t told much about the Rephaim, except that they were tall (they are never said to be Nephilim though) and that they existed far in the past. The only possible connection with the Anakim and the Nephilim is Number 13:33. Every other mention of the Anakim, while they mention their height, never connect the two. Instead, they are connected to the Rephaim, who, while seen as legendary in their stature but far in the past, are not said to be Nephilim. And the key portion of Numbers 13:33 is a later addition, an added gloss, basically an in text note. Without the gloss, we get that Anak, who the tribe of Anakim descend from, is said to be from the Nephilm. How this actually works isn’t said, because we are introduced to some ancestors of Anak, specifically his father Arba, who isn’t said to be Nephilim, and aren’t related to them, as far as we know. So the information is contradictory at best. The one clear connection is fraught with issues, mainly that it is a later addition, a gloss. What this gloss also implies though is that later on, the term Nephilim was being applied to those individuals who were seen as giants. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, when speaking of Nephilim, talk about how in later translations, the term almost became a generic term to signify various heroic traits. It also mentions that there have been arguments that the original reason for the flood was the Nephilim as a race. The flood was meant to simply wipe them out, but later additions to the text expanded the reason. Either way, at the core of the flood, there was the intention to wipe out the Nephilim.