Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors



The Archangels


Copyright (c) 1982 by Dwardu Cardona

Editor's Note: The present article is meant to be read immediately after "Jupiter - God of Abraham", Part III which appeared in KRONOS VIII:1. It is also somewhat independent of that series. - LMG

1. The Cities of the Plain

Immanuel Velikovsky was of the opinion that the thunderbolt which struck the Biblical Cities of the Plain, as described by Josephus,(1) resulted from an interplanetary discharge originating from Jupiter that occurred at the time.(2) James E. Strickling, while stressing Jupiter's activity during this period, left the issue undecided in that he could not come to a conclusion as to whether the discharge issued from Jupiter or its "devilish daughter"(3) Athene/Venus. Martin Sieff seems to have had no doubts that the destruction was caused by Venus.(4) Brendan O'Gheoghan has also favored Venus,(4a) while Patten, et al. have blamed every Biblical catastrophe - with the exception of the Noachian Deluge on the recurrent fly-bys of Mars.(5)

Obviously, the above hypotheses cannot all be correct. It behooves us, therefore, to examine them all in detail before a choice between them can be made.

2. Gabriel

I have elsewhere shown that Patten et al.'s hypothesis, which singles out Mars as the cause of the Sodomitic destruction, suffers from lack of evidence.(6) O'Gheoghan who called their work an "otherwise excellent account of the early catastrophes" likewise bemoaned this lack of evidence,(7) and wrote that there seems to be "nothing to implicate Mars from either Jewish legend or any other old source".(8) However, it was he who provided a referential clue to support Patten et al.'s hypothesis.(8a) The datum in question comes from a Jewish legend in which it is stated that it was the archangel Gabriel who "with his little finger .... touched the rock whereon the sinful cities were built, and overturned them".(9) Though O'Gheoghan reminded his readers that Gabriel had already been identified with the planet Mars, he did not follow this lead. That he did not was due to his having favored Venus as the agent of destruction concerning which, he informed us, there seems to be "adequate evidence".(10)

Let us, temporarily, leave Venus aside. What can be said of Gabriel as the planet Mars? According to Joshua Trachtenberg:

"An old tradition, dating back at least to Geonic [or Gaonic] times, had it that there are seven archangels, each of whom is associated with a planet "(11)

"The seven archangels, in particular, were believed to play an important part in the universal order through their association with the planets and the constellations."(12)

The same author also wrote that there are different versions as to which archangel was associated with which planet. The archangel Gabriel, with whom we are first concerned, was sometimes associated with the Moon, and sometimes with the planet Mars.(13) Origen made Gabriel, very much like the Greek Ares and/or Roman Mars, an angel of war.(14) Velikovsky also directed attention to the fact that, while the Romans claimed Mars as the founder of Rome,(15) Jewish tradition casts Gabriel in the same role.(16)

In view of all this, it is strange that Velikovsky opted for Jupiter, for which he presented no direct evidence, in favor of Mars as the agent of the Sodomitic destruction. Having accepted Gabriel as Mars in the annihilation of Sennacherib's army,(17) his omission of Gabriel's role in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah smacks of inconsistency and selectivity.

At this point, if Gabriel is accepted as the personification of the planet Mars, then the destruction of the Cities of the Plain, Velikovsky and O'Gheoghan notwithstanding, will have to be attributed to that planet and Patten et al., despite their own lack of evidence, will have proven to be correct.

3. Michael

Gabriel was not alone when he visited Sodom just as he was not alone when he visited Sennacherib's army. With him, on both occasions, went the archangel Michael.(18) What planet, if any, was Michael associated with? On what he considered sufficient evidence, Velikovsky concluded that Michael was the personification of the planet Venus.(19)

Did Venus accompany Mars in the destruction of the Cities of the Plain? Actually, Jewish legend does not blame the Sodomitic catastrophe on Michael; it is merely stated that Michael accompanied Gabriel to Sodom to act as protector and saviour to Lot.(20) But, if Michael was truly Venus, his presence in, or above, Sodom should not be ignored. What, then, are we to conclude - that both Venus and Mars were involved but that the actual destruction resulted from Mars?

In the case of Sennacherib's army, Velikovsky accepted just such a state of affairs. He wrote:

"Those rabbinical sources which ascribed [the annihilation of Sennacherib's army] to both archangels were not wrong. Venus pushed Mars toward the earth, and thus both were instrumental in the destruction."(21)

Why, then, did he not accept the similar circumstances which the same rabbinical sources ascribed to the Sodomitic catastrophe? Consistency of planetary identification dictates that he should have.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that he was well aware of the evidence presented above, just as he was of Velikovsky's identifications, O'Gheoghan still favored Venus as the sole agent of the Sodomitic destruction. Gabriel's role as Mars was discounted.

What reasoning led O'Gheoghan to this conclusion?

4. Celestial Twins

Before answering that last question, it is necessary to backtrack a little. Velikovsky's identification of the archangel Michael as the planet Venus was based on the traditional role that Michael is made to play in the events of the Exodus.(22) But, without wishing to go into too much detail, Michael is not there made to play a destructive role. The "familiar image of the Archangel Michael slaying the dragon," which Velikovsky presented as a depiction of "the celestial struggle at the Sea of Passage,"(23) is not acceptable, for nowhere is it stated that Michael's slaying of the dragon (his overthrow of Satan, actually) took place at the Sea of Passage, let alone during the Exodus. In fact, as in the Sodomitic story, Michael's role in the events of the Exodus is that of protector and saviour. Moreover, Gabriel played just as conspicuous a part in the Exodus events(24) and this, too, Velikovsky omitted. If we are to accept Velikovsky's identifications, we will have to admit that Mars also played an important role in the Exodus catastrophe. What, then, of Velikovsky's contention that Venus did not move Mars from its orbit until "the ninth or eighth century before this [present] era"?(25)

So many identical or closely associated Biblical events are attributed to both these two archangels that one begins to think of them as celestial twins acting in unison. As O'Gheoghan pointed out, "both archangels get involved in catastrophic events .... and in their involvement they are rarely seen acting separately".(26) Velikovsky, for instance, pointed out that Michael is considered "the forerunner of the Shehina [Shekina] or God's presence".(27) But this is an attribute of Gabriel also.(28) And while it is stated that Michael alone bears the title of "prince",(29) Gabriel is also called "prince" of the angels.(30) Both were said to be present when god proclaimed the new moon.(31) Both failed in their attempt to capture Behemoth.(32) Both were said to have wrestled with Jacob,(33) and to have appeared to Moses;(34) and while Gabriel was said to have taught the latter how to fashion the menorah,(35) Michael was said to have beaten out the golden plates of its pattern.(36)

Some may counter that, as Velikovsky pointed out, "Michael is said to be made of fire"(37) while Jewish legend states that Gabriel was made of snow.(38) And so the difference between the two archangels is supposedly stressed. Other Jewish sources, however, reverse this dictum by stating that it was Michael who was made of snow while Gabriel was made of fire.(39)

It was because of all this that O'Gheoghan was led to suggest that Michael and Gabriel "might present the aspects of Venus only". He would then have "Michael as the protective and peaceful Evening Star .... and Gabriel as the warlike and destructive Morning Star ...."(40) He was thus following an even earlier suggestion put forward by Michael Start, who wrote:

"....there seems to be a different attribution of love to the evening and terror....to the morning manifestations [of Venus] .... We might deduce that the planet was in the 'morning' position during its approach to the Earth, during which tectonic and meteorological disturbances would become more and more intense, and in the 'evening' position whilst receding, leaving showers of milk and honey in its wake."(41)

I will let pass Michael Reade's critique of what he called "Mr. Start's neat but doubtless over-simplified picture of the ancient celestial scene"(42) for I am not, in this paper, really concerned with the general past behavior of the planet Venus. Martin Sieff, on the other hand, accepted Start's suggestion, adding that an example "of daytime (outside) fly-bys" by the proto-planet Venus would be "the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the morning".(43) O'Gheoghan bolstered this combined suggestion by stating that:

"One theme runs true throughout: Gabriel is the destructive force in these events. Michael is often implicated but less usually as the destroyer."(44)

O'Gheoghan also noted that this seems to have been Ginzberg's conclusion:

"On the function of the....archangels, it may be observed that Origen.... considers Michael as the angel of prayer....and Gabriel as the angel of war. The latter is also the view of the Rabbis...."(45)

Were we to accept O'Gheoghan's suggestion, needless to say, we would also have to accept that the "blast" which annihilated Sennacherib's army issued from Venus rather than Mars. But can we accept it?

We have already noted that Michael was not the destroyer during the Exodus. Was Gabriel?

O'Gheoghan believed so:

"It might be added that Gabriel was the destructive force in the Exodus catastrophe: it was he who was eager to drown the Egyptians at the Red Sea, and he who kept the waters of the Red Sea from drowning Israel."(46)

Nevertheless, "eager to drown" is not the same as "drowning". Nowhere is it stated that Gabriel succumbed to his eagerness. Keeping the waters "from drowning Israel", meanwhile, is hardly a destructive act; it is, on the contrary, a downright protective one.

What else can we learn from Jewish legend? It is written, for instance, that Gabriel delayed the one great punishment decreed by god for Israel; that he assisted and cared for Abraham; that he protected David's companions as well as Eliezer; that he assisted Jacob and aided Joseph.(47) We can see therefore that, Origen and the Rabbis notwithstanding, Gabriel was just as protective as Michael - and, in fact, O'Gheoghan admitted that Gabriel, like Michael, was considered the guardian angel of Israel. (48)

What of Michael's peaceful qualities? He might not have acted destructively during the Exodus or at Sodom but did he not always according to tradition burn in fire an adulterous couple? Did he not destroy Israel's own temple? Was he not involved in the annihilation of Sennacherib's army? Was it not said that it was he who destroyed Babylon? Did he not slay Jannes and Jambres, the two sons of Balaam?(49) Was he not, therefore, as destructive and as warlike as Gabriel?

How, then, can it be accepted that Gabriel and Michael were respectively the warring and peaceful aspects of Venus?

If we are going to form a hypothesis that Michael and Gabriel personified one and the same planet, it would be more logical to opt for Mars having been that planet. Gabriel, at least, was definitely associated with Mars whereas nowhere, except in Worlds in Collision, is Michael identified as Venus.

As we shall soon see, even this last argument proves to be false. To begin with, it was quite fashionable to blame Biblical catastrophes on Gabriel and/or Michael. There was also a certain amount of rivalry between these two archangels "which is often met with throughout Jewish literature".(50) Thus, they are often seen vying to receive credit for the same event. This is accounted for by the fact that the Babylonian Haggadah gives preference to Gabriel, while the Palestinian prefers Michael.(51)

"Originally these two angels belonged to two different traditions: one considered Michael the guardian angel of Israel, while according to the other ....Gabriel occupied this position."(52)

The preference of one archangel over the other was merely due to sectarian bias.

5. Sammael

In his attempt to identify Michael as Venus, Velikovsky stated that, "as Lucifer, Michael falls from heaven".(53) He thus compared the archangel to Satan as Venus, "the fallen star".

But where is it stated that Lucifer was another name for Michael, or that Michael ever fell from heaven? In Jewish myth, it is Sammael who falls, while god himself kept Michael from being torn down from heaven.(54) It is, in fact, Sammael who is the Satan of the Jews.(55)

Like Gabriel, Sammael was also considered the angel of Mars.(56)

Thus, in contradiction to Velikovsky's scenario, one could easily assume that it was Mars, rather than Venus, which was cut down from heaven and laid low.(57)

6. Hamon

Still keeping to the assumption that Michael and Gabriel personified one and the same celestial luminary, O'Gheoghan tentatively put forward another suggestion that "maybe at one time [both archangels] represented the aspects of Venus, and at another those of Mars".(58) But, with reasoning like this, why can't we say that, at yet another time, they both could have represented aspects of Jupiter?

Gabriel's association with Mars, for instance, was believed in only by a small minority.(59) In Jewish angelology it is Sammael/Satan who is most popularly associated with this planet.(60) Gabriel was most commonly believed to have been in charge of the Moon.(61)

Michael, on the other hand, was presented as the angel of the Sun,(62) sometimes of Mercury,(63) and at other times of Saturn.(64) Other than Velikovsky, no one has ever identified Michael as the planet Venus and, as I have now shown, this identification is unfortunately based on an incorrect premise.

The archangel most commonly associated with Venus was Amiel.(65) A few associated it with Hasdiel.(66)

Individual archangels, like ancient kings, were given more than one name. Sammael, who was Satan, the guardian angel of Egypt, was also called Mastema.(67) Michael, called the Prince or Angel of the Face, also bore the names Palit, Metatron, and Zagzagel.(68) As Metatron, he bore seventy other distinct names.(69)

As for Gabriel, Velikovsky pointed out that another name for this archangel was Hamon. He used this identification to strengthen his belief that it was Mars which was the direct cause of the annihilation of Sennacherib's army. He rediscovered this clue in an utterance of the Prophet Isaiah:

"At the noise of the tumult the people fled; at the lifting up of thyself the nations were scattered."(70)

As Velikovsky indicated, in Hebrew, the word translated as "tumult" is "hamon".(71) Bob Forrest, a recent critic of Velikovsky, objected to this:

"The Hebrew word for 'tumult' used here is 'hamon'; 'Hamon' is an alternative name for the angel Gabriel; Origen refers to Gabriel as the angel of war; and from the angel of war to the familiar Mars, god of war, is but a short step. Thus, according to V, Is. 33:3 [cited above] refers indirectly to Mars!

"According to Robert Young's 'Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible', the word 'hamon', which can variously mean multitude, noise, stone, is used in [other sections of the Bible]. In each case the word clearly refers to just plain, ordinary noise, din or hubbub."(72)

Forrest, however, is neither fair nor accurate. In the first place,

Velikovsky's identification of Gabriel as Mars was not dependent on Origen's reference to this archangel as the angel of war. Rather, it was based, as we have seen, on Jewish material which associates Gabriel directly with that planet.

In the second place, the rendition of "tumult/hamon" as "Gabriel/Hamon" was not Velikovsky's. As he himself indicated, it was an "insight" of Jerome's which, in turn, was based on older sources.(73) Forrest, who claimed to have checked all the Ginzberg legends cited by Velikovsky, missed this or else he wilfully suppressed it for Ginzberg's words are quite clear:

"[Jerome] states that Jewish tradition considers Hamon, 'noise' (comp. Is. 33:3), to be the name of the angel Gabriel. This is corroborated by Aggadat Shir 5, 39. According to Sanhedrin, the angel clapped together his wings, and the noise caused by it was so terrific that the Assyrians [under Sennacherib] gave up their ghosts."(74)

But isn't there a concealed contradiction in the identification of Gabriel/Hamon as Mars? In a later work of his, Velikovsky had more to say about Hamon:

" ....Baal Hamon is supposed to be another name for....Baal Gad."

"In this connection it can be said that, according to the Talmud, Gad was the name of the planet Jupiter....and Hamon was supposed to be a Syrian form of the name Amon who, according to the Greek authors, was Zeus-Jupiter."(75)

Once again, Velikovsky's consistency in matters of planetary identifications comes into question. In his name as Hamon, Gabriel should have been identified, by Velikovsky at least, as the planet Jupiter an identification he could then have utilized to strengthen his case for a Jovian destruction of the Cities of the Plain. Needless to say, this would also have intimated that the annihilation of Sennacherib's army was due to a "blast" from Jupiter rather than Mars (or Venus). It would also have led to the suspicion that Jupiter, too, was involved in the catastrophe of the Exodus.

Notice, however, that the word "supposed" is twice used by Velikovsky in his attempted identification of Hamon as Jupiter through Gad and Amon. Is it possible that he was not quite convinced of this double-headed equation?

I, for one, am not. It is said that all roads lead to Rome; and, whether we like it or not, all mythological avenues eventually lead to Saturn. I am about to propose that the identification of Gad and Amon as the Semitic Baal Hamon may be nothing but a mistaken supposition which could have been fostered by the ancients themselves. My proposition is backed by ample evidence which could be used to indicate that Baal Hamon was a Saturnian, rather than a Jovian, deity. However, this subject deserves a paper of its own (and elsewhere the evidence shall be presented in full); meanwhile the equation has already been supplied by W. F. Albright who not only identified Baal Hamon as El,(76) who was Saturn.(77) but also directly with "the holy lord Saturn" himself.(78)

So what are we now to believe that it was Saturn, as Gabriel/Hamon, which was responsible for the destruction of the Cities of the Plain? And was Saturn, as the same archangel, also involved in the Exodus catastrophe as well as the annihilation of Sennacherib's army? What are we to make of the real identity of Gabriel? Was he the personification of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn? With so many possible identifications at our disposal, what can we be certain of?

7. Kemuel

As if all this were not enough, I must now introduce an entirely different Jewish tradition which blames the destruction of the Cities of the Plain not on Gabriel but on an archangel named Kemuel. It is stated that "eighteen thousand destroying angels, under the leadership of Kemuel, came down and destroyed the sinful cities in a moment".(79)

As far as can be determined, it is not stated anywhere that Kemuel was the archangel of any particular planet.

8. Angels and Archangels

At this point one feels justified in asking: Did the archangels really personify the planets of the Solar System? Let us re-examine the evidence.

The archangels did not receive their individual names until Babylonian times. Up until then, they were beings without name and, therefore, without individuality. It was only in the post-Exilic age that the names of three of them Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael were "revealed". Previous to the Books of Daniel and Tobias, these names were unknown.(80) It is not stated in these books that these archangels were associated with the planets.

As we have already seen, the idea of "planetary" angels dates from Gaonic (Geonic) times that is, somewhere between the 6th and 11th century A.D. It is nowhere found alluded to in earlier literature.

It could be argued that the Geonim were concerned with safeguarding tradition and that, therefore, this tradition could still have been an archaic one. Be that as it may, it is not actually found in Gaonic literature that the archangels personified the planets. All that the Geonim passed down was the belief that certain archangels had been allotted the guardianship of the heavenly bodies. Thus the archangels were associated with, but not identical to, the planets. Gabriel was the angel of the Moon and/or Mars. It is not stated that he was Mars. So, also, with the rest of the archangels.

It must not, above all, be forgotten that, according to Jewish lore, just about everything god created was allotted a guardian angel. Thus we read of the angel of the Sun, the angel of the Moon, the angel of the Pleiades, and the angel of Orion. But we also read of the angel of the water, the angel of the rivers, the angel of the mountains, the angel of the hills, the angel of the deserts, and so forth.(81) To continue to believe that the archangels were planets would entail the burden of the many inconsistencies and contradictions enumerated and expounded in the foregoing pages.

A point of clarification is required here. In a previous paper, this writer accepted the association of Zadkiel with the planet Jupiter.(82) Lest it be suspected that this acceptance was the result of selectivity, allow me to defend my case.

Unlike Gabriel and the other archangels, Zadkiel was not burdened with contradictory guardianship of alternative planets. His sphere encompassed Jupiter and no other planet. Unlike Gabriel and the other archangels, Zadkiel's name is philologically identical to the name of the planet he is associated with. In Hebrew, the planet Jupiter is known as Zedek - and Zadkiel merely translates into Zedek-El, i.e., Jupiter-god. Even so, I did not state that Zadkiel was Jupiter but only that he was the angel of that planet. Zadkiel's teaching of Abram seems merely to have been a metaphoric rendition of Abram's obsession with his study of Jupiter's activity. No more than that was intimated.

Discarding the notion that the archangels personified the planets somewhat damages the thesis of Worlds in Collision. The catastrophe of the Exodus, of course, remains unaffected. The annihilation of Sennacherib's army, on the other hand, is now deprived of its Martian overtones. When to this is added the fact that neither the Hindu god Indra nor his accompanying Maruts had anything to do with Mars,(83) it becomes obvious that the Martian connection with the assumed cosmic upheavals of the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. is considerably weakened.

As for the destruction of the Cities of the Plain, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was caused by the planets Mars and/or Venus. Whether this particular ruination can be attributed to Jupiter is a topic reserved for another paper.(84)

9. The Seven

Whence the belief in angels and archangels?

Despite everything that has been stated so far, the idea that angels and archangels were conceived as some sort of celestial phenomena seems to be consistent with ancient belief. Individual archangels, like Gabriel and Michael, might not have been planets but as the nameless "host of the Lord" they might have collectively originated in answer to some celestial apparition. For instance: One of the most persistent traditions in both Jewish and Jewish-derived Christian theology is that which concerns itself with the rebellion of the angels. This momentous event is clearly explained in Jewish sources as having really been a "rebellion of stars".(85) By stars is not necessarily meant suns. With the obvious exception of Sun and Moon, all celestial bodies were, at one time or another, alluded to as stars by ancient man. Without jumping to any conclusions, let us then ask: What type of stars that is, heavenly bodies could the angels have been?

In the Old Testament, the archangels are called seraphim and cherubim. Jewish sources supply various other class-names.(86) But, because of their primary function in Biblical events, mere angels are often alluded to simply as mal'ak, which is Hebrew for "messengers". Our own English word "angel" is derived from the Greek [insert Greek letters for "avzeSos"], which also means "messenger", it being a direct translation of mal'ak.* The second question to ask, therefore, is: What kind of heavenly bodies could have been visualized as messengers?

[*Cf.Ages in Chaos, pp. 69-70; KRONOS I:2,p. 74.]

A clue comes our way from Slavonic lore. Among the anthropomorphosed denizens that populated the Slavic sky were "seven 'messengers' who flew across the universe in the guise of 'stars with tails'" (87)

Could angels have been comets?**

[**Cf. KRONOS VIII:1, p. 50, n. 51.]

In following this belief we also find that the Araucanians of Chile believed in the Cherruve who, like angels, were spirits. These took the form of snakes with human heads. But comets and shooting stars were among the manifestations these serpentine spirits were responsible for.(88)

In the Fiji islands, various divinities were also believed to appear as meteors and comets. The Ngendei of Fiji was believed to be half snake and half rock, but his children were said to be comets.(89)

I do not wish to stray too far from the subject, so I will stop here. The above, however, seems a good indication that comets were believed to be some type of spirit which took on form and acted as celestial messengers. So also angels.

An additional indication is the character the planet Venus is given in Jewish lore. Although, by Gaonic times, Venus was allotted its own guardian angel (in the form of the archangel Amiel or Hasdiel), it (Venus) seems to have once been revered merely as a lowly angel.(90) Among the planets, this seems to have been the only exception. Could Venus have been thought of as an angel because at one time it had appeared in the guise of a comet?(91)

Archangels belonged to a greater hierarchical level. They must therefore have stood for something more awe-inspiring than comets. If not planets, what could the original model(s) have been? What type of celestial apparition could have been considered "higher" than a comet but "lower" than a planet?

In Jewish legends the total number of archangels is variously given. The oldest view, however, numbers them at seven(92) which perhaps explains why, in later times, they were confused with the "seven planets". This is the same situation we encountered in relation to the Hindu Maruts. The Maruts were also once seven but, as in the case of the archangels, later sources vouched for greater numbers.(93) These archangels, individually nameless but collectively known as seraphim, were said to have surrounded, or encircled, god's throne in heaven.(94) Seven celestial rings encircling a brighter heavenly object is a motif met with in the mythologies of almost all races.

Those who are familiar with my previous writings can draw the obvious conclusion.(95)


1 . Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, I, 11, 4.
2. I. Velikovsky, "The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah," KRONOS VI:4 (Summer 1981), p. 47.
3. J. E. Strickling, "Sodom and Gomorrah," SIS Workshop 2:4 (April 1980), p. 5.
4. M. Sieff, "Two Faces of Venus," SISR I:4 (Spring 1977), p. 22.
4a. B. O'Gheoghan, "War Stars," SISR IV:1 (Autumn 1979), p. 7.
5. D. W. Patten et al., The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes (Seattle, 1973), in toto, but esp. pp. 252-258.
6. D. Cardona, "Jupiter - God of Abraham," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), pp. 43-45.
7. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
8. Ibid.
8a. Ibid.
9. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Phila., 1968), Vol.l, p. 255.
10. B.O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
11. J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (1939), p. 98.
12. Ibid., p. 250.
13. Ibid., p. 251.
14. Origen, De Principiis, I, 8,1.
15. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N. Y., 1950), p. 292; Livy, History of Rome, Pref., i; Macrobius, Saturnalia, xii.
16. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 291-292; L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. VI, pp. 128, 280; Tractate Shabbat, 56b.
17. I. Velikovsky, loc. cit.
18. Midrash Shemot Raba, 18:5; Targum Tosefta on II Kings 19:35; L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 255, 302.
19. I.Velikovsky, op.cit., pp. 292-294.
20. L.Ginzberg, loc.cit.
21. I. Vehkovsky, op. cit., pp. 293-294.
22. Ibid., pp. 292-293.
23. Ibid., p. 293.
24. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. III, p. 20.
25. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 244.
26. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
27. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 293; L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol.II, p. 303.
28. Ginzberg, Ibid., Vol. V, p. 416.
29. Ibid., p. 71.
30. Ibid., pp.70, 377.
31. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 362.
32. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 43.
33. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 333, 372, 384, 385, 386, 387; Vol. V, pp. 284, 301, 306, 309, 310.
34. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 267, 274, 282, 310, 313, 316, 331; Vol.III, pp. 89, 449, 472, 477; Vol. V, pp. 334-335, 415, 418; Vol. VI, pp. 159, 160, 161, 195, 467.
35. Ibid., p. 65.
36. Ibid., pp. 79-80.
37. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 293; L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 385; Vol. V, pp. 22, 70.
38. Ibid., pp. 22, 70.
39. Ibid.
40. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
41. M. Start, "Two Faces of Venus," SISR 1:4 (Spring 1977), p. 22.
42. M. Reade, in Ibid., p. 22.
43. M. Sieff, in Ibid., p. 22.
44. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
45. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 71.
46. B.O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
47. L.Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. VII, pp. 172-174.
48. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.; L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 205; Vol. VI, p. 434.
49. Ibid., Vol. VII, pp. 311-312.
50. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 72.
51. Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 362.
52. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 4.
53. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 293.
54. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 231.
55. Ibid., p. 105 ; Vol. V, pp. 100, 121, 135, 249.
56. Ibid., p. 164.
57. Elsewhere I intend to show that the fallen angel, with his cohorts, personified neither Venus nor Mars.
58. B. O'Gheoghan, loc. cit.
59. J. Trachtenberg, op. cit., p. 251.
60. Ibid., L. Ginzberg, loc. cit.
61. J. Trachtenberg, loc. cit.; L. Ginzberg, loc. cit.
62. Ibid., J. Trachtenberg, loc. cit.
63. Ibid., L. Ginzberg, loc. cit.
64. Ibid., J. Trachtenberg, loc. cit.
65. Ibid., L. Ginzberg, loc. cit.
66. Ibid., J. Trachtenberg, loc. cit.
67. L. Ginzberg, Vol. V, p. 249; Vol. VI, p. 8.
68. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 231; Vol. V, pp. 61, 305; Vol. VI, pp. 150, 173.
69. Ibid., Vol. V, p. 162.
70. Isaiah 33:3.
71. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 292.
72. B. Forrest, Velikovsky's Sources, Part I (Manchester, 1981), p. 12.
73. I. Velikovsky, loc. cit.
74. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 363 (Emphasis added).
75. I. Velikovsky, "The Secret of Baalbek," KRONOS VI:3 (Spring 1981), p. 7 (Emphasis added) .
76. W. E . Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (N.Y., 1968), p. 234.
77. D. Cardona, "Let There Be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), p. 34.
78. W. F. Albright, loc. cit,
79. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 241.
80. M. J. Gruenthaner, "Angel," Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959 edition), Vol. I, p. 920.
81. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 83-84.
82. D. Cardona, "Jupiter - God of Abraham," Part I, KRONOS VII: 1 (Fall 1981), p. 80.
83. Idem, "Indra," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 19-21.
84. Idem, "Jupiter - God of Abraham," Part IV, forthcoming in KRONOS.
85. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 154.
86. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 308.
87. G. Alexinsky, "Slavonic Mythology," New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology (London, 1972), p. 284.
88. M. Fauconnet, "Mythology of the Two Americas," in Ibid., p. 444.
89. G. H. Luquet, "Oceanic Mythology," in Ibid., p. 450.
90. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol V, p. 153.
91. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), pp. 163-167.
92. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 23.
93. D. Cardona, "Indra" (see note No. 83), pp. 20-21.
94. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 10.
95. D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades," KRONOS III:4 (Summer 1978), p. 38; Idem "Child of Saturn," Part III, KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), p. 8; Idem, "Indra," in Ibid., p. 20. (NOTE: More on this subject will be revealed in the author's forthcoming serialization, "The Rings of Saturn").

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665