Angels, Elohim, and the Shadowed Names: A Comparative Study

Angelology, Demonology, Elohim, Hebrew Mythology, Moncure Daniel Conway, Theophoric Names 0 comments

“The Refracted Elohim”

AI-generated picture by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano in October 2025

📜 Introductory Note to the Reader

I must clarify that I am not a scholar in religious history but rather an enthusiast in mythology. Having been raised in the Catholic tradition, I have always found the Jewish and Catholic angelic narratives fascinating in how they blend linguistics, theology, and mythic imagination. This essay, therefore, approaches the topic as a reflective exploration, not as a doctrinal or theological treatise.

My intention is to recognize the significance of Moncure Daniel Conway’s Demonology and Devil Lore (1879) as a foundational work that sheds light on how the Elohim, once part of a divine council, evolved through reinterpretation into the more dichotomous figures of angels and demons known today. Understanding Conway’s argument helps us grasp how mythology and theology continually interact, redefining the boundaries between the sacred and the profane.

Angels, Elohim, and the Shadowed Names: A Comparative Study

📜 Abstract

This essay examines the linguistic, theological, and mythological significance of the “-el” suffix in angelic names within Hebrew and Christian traditions, as well as Moncure Daniel Conway’s interpretation of how ancient deities (Elohim) were redefined through the lens of monotheism. By analyzing examples such as Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel, Samael, and Azazel, the paper reveals how divine attributes—strength, light, beauty, and even exile—are embedded in angelic nomenclature. Drawing upon Conway’s Demonology and Devil Lore, the essay explores the demonization of figures like Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh, and Milcom as part of a historical process of theological reclassification. Ultimately, this comparative approach underscores how naming conventions, mythology, and religious reinterpretation together illuminate humanity’s evolving conception of divinity.

📜 Keywords:

Angelology, Elohim, Moncure Daniel Conway, Demonology, Theophoric Names, Hebrew Mythology

📜 Resumen

El presente ensayo examina el significado lingüístico, teológico y mitológico del sufijo “-el” en los nombres angélicos dentro de las tradiciones hebrea y cristiana, junto con la interpretación de Moncure Daniel Conway sobre la transformación de los antiguos dioses (Elohim) a través del monoteísmo. A partir de nombres como Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel, Samael y Azazel, se muestra cómo los atributos divinos —fuerza, luz, belleza e incluso exilio— se integran en la onomástica celestial. Basándose en Demonology and Devil Lore, el texto explora la demonización de figuras como Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh y Milcom como resultado de un proceso histórico de reinterpretación teológica. En conjunto, este análisis comparativo resalta cómo los nombres, los mitos y la evolución religiosa revelan la manera en que la humanidad redefine lo divino.

📜 Resumo

Este ensaio analisa o significado linguístico, teológico e mitológico do sufixo “-el” nos nomes angélicos das tradições hebraica e cristã, juntamente com a interpretação de Moncure Daniel Conway sobre a transformação dos antigos deuses (Elohim) no contexto do monoteísmo. A partir de exemplos como Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel, Samael e Azazel, observa-se como atributos divinos —força, luz, beleza e exílio— são incorporados à linguagem dos nomes celestes. Com base em Demonology and Devil Lore, o texto discute a demonização de figuras como Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh e Milcom como parte de um processo histórico de reinterpretação teológica. No fim, esta leitura comparativa mostra como a mitologia e a linguagem refletem a evolução da ideia humana do divino.

Introduction

In religious and mythological traditions, names often encode belief about power, identity, and relationship with the divine. In Hebrew and Christian angelology, many celestial beings’ names end in “-el”, linking them to El (God). But some names such as Samael, Azazel, etc., bear darker connotations. Simultaneously, in Demonology and Devil Lore, Moncure Daniel Conway argues that many gods once counted among the Elohim were later reinterpreted as demons in monotheistic tradition we see today in religion nowadays. The sole intention of this essay, my blog post #486, intends to shallowly explore how angelic names function theologically, to examine particular names (e.g. Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel), and to situate Conway’s perspective on the transformation of other Elohim (such as Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh, Milcom) into demonological beings.

Theophoric Names and the “-el” Suffix

In Hebrew, El (אֵל) is a common term for “God” or “mighty one.” In the context of angelic names, “-el” functions as a theophoric suffix, that is, a marker that ties a name to God. Thus, names like Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel etc., can be read as short expressions or “sentences” about God:

● Michael (מִיכָאֵל) = “Who is like God?” (a rhetorical question implying none)

● Gabriel (גַּבְרִיאֵל) = “God is my strength”

● Raphael (רְפָאֵל) = “God heals”

● Uriel (אוּרִיאֵל) = “Light of God” or “God is my light”

● Jophiel / Iophiel (יוֹפִיאֵל) = “Beauty of God”

● Fanuel / Phanuel (פְּנוּאֵל) = “Face of God” or “God has turned / turned toward”

These names not only designate beings but also express a function or attribute (“healer,” “light,” “beauty,” etc.). The suffix “-el” anchors their identity to the divine; they are not autonomous gods but beings whose authority or being is derived from God.

Special Cases: Samael, Azazel

● Samael (סַמָּאֵל) is commonly interpreted as “poison / venom of God,” or “blindness of God.” This negative-sounding element reflects his more ambiguous or adversarial role in some Jewish and mystical sources (angel of death, accuser).

● Azazel (עֲזָאזֵל) has a more complex etymology: sometimes rendered “strong one of God” or connected to the Hebrew azael, azazel, meaning “scapegoat.” In Leviticus 16, one goat is sent by the community “for Azazel” into the wilderness (symbolically carrying away sins). In later Jewish lore (e.g. Book of Enoch), Azazel becomes a fallen angel who teaches forbidden knowledge, and in Christian/demonological tradition he becomes a demon leader.

Because their names still include “-el,” we see that in early mythic/angelic cosmologies, even adversarial beings were originally part of the same Elohim structure before later being recast as demonic forces.

The Elohim, Demonization, and Moncure D. Conway

Moncure Daniel Conway (1832–1907) was a 19th-century American writer, thinker, and scholar who, in his two-volume Demonology and Devil Lore (1879), traces how beliefs in gods, demons, and spirits evolved across cultures over the centuries.

A central claim of Conway’s is that many gods or divine beings (Elohim) of earlier polytheistic or henotheistic systems were eventually reinterpreted as devils or demons once monotheism became dominant. In his publications, Conway uses historical, comparative, and folkloric evidence to show that the gods worshiped by nations neighboring Israel, such as Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh, Milcom, were originally divine Elohim in their own traditions. Over time, in the theology of Israel and later Christianity, these figures were recast or re-interpreted as false gods, evil spirits, or demonic powers.

This transformation is not merely a shift in classification, but a reorientation of theological meaning:

● What was once a god of fertility (Baal), war (Milcom), or foreign worship (Chemosh) becomes a demon or devil in polemical narratives.

● The names survive, but their status is inverted: once an Elohim, now a demon.

● This supports Conway’s broader thesis: demonology is the history of defeated gods, as monotheism asserts supremacy, the pantheon is reinterpreted.

Thus, when we see angelic names ending in “-el,” it evokes a prior cosmological structure in which many beings, good, neutral, or evil, were part of the heavenly council of Elohim. Only later do we see the strict bifurcation (angel = good; demon = evil) more fully enforced.

Comparative Dynamics: Biblical, Mystical, and Demonological Traditions

To make the shift clear, let us consider three layers:

1. Biblical / Canonical tradition

o The Hebrew Bible introduces “Elohim” plural in grammar, occasionally used to denote gods of other nations or divine council members (e.g. Psalm 82:1).

o Names like Michael and Gabriel appear (e.g. in Daniel) as positive, divine agents.

o Figures like Azazel (in Leviticus) appear in ritual contexts.

2. Mystical / Apocryphal expansions

o In the Book of Enoch, Uriel, Fanuel, and others become archangels, while Azazel and Samael are fallen.

o Kabbalistic and medieval angelology elaborate dozens more names, functions, and hierarchies (e.g. Metatron, Raziel, etc.).

o The “-el” suffix remains standard in new angelic names, underscoring the continuity of the divine-name tradition.

3. Demonological reinterpretation (as per Conway)

o Former gods become devils (Dagon, Astaroth, Chemosh, Milcom).

o Angels are purified; adversarial beings are vilified.

o The narrative of divine testing (e.g. Satan in Job) is recast as theological mythology rather than literal cosmic warfare.

Implications & Reflections for Comparative Theology

● Name as theology: Angel names are not random; they encode a claim about how those beings relate to God.

● Continuity beneath change: The persistence of “-el” in names like Samael and Azazel reveals a deeper surfeit; these beings, even in their corruption, remain tied to God’s sphere, not independent deities.

● Demonization is interpretive: Conway’s approach reminds us that labeling something as “evil” is often a religio-cultural reclassification rather than an ultimate ontological judgment.

● Comparative reading: By comparing the ideology of the Hebrew Bible, later Jewish mystical texts, Christian tradition, and Conway’s historical anthropology, we can see how the tradition shifts categories, from polytheistic or henotheistic cosmos to strict monotheism with a dichotomy of angels and demons.

Conclusion

The prevalence of “-el” in angelic names provides a linguistic window into early theologies: these beings were understood as participants in a divine order, not independent gods. The names Uriel, Jophiel, Fanuel (and even Samael, Azazel) show how attributes (light, beauty, presence, poison, exile) were integrated into that divine vocabulary. Moncure Daniel Conway’s work highlights how, as monotheism ascended, many other Elohim (Dagon, Chemosh, Milcom, Astaroth) were reinterpreted as demons, thus rearranging the cosmic taxonomy. Studying names, mythic shifts, and theological reclassification together helps us trace how human religious imagination transforms divine plurality into monotheistic unity.