There are multiple views on this, and sources from religious mysticism to pop culture and even certain ancient writings- some disputed and some which are from around the correct time period of the writings of other holy works like the Bible, but aren’t considered canonical by many major religious groups. One also must remember that the “satan” of Christian and catholic writings- and other mentions of the “devil” or such names- even the serpent in the garden- may not be the same entity.
There are multiple views on this, and sources from religious mysticism to pop culture and even certain ancient writings- some disputed and some which are from around the correct time period of the writings of other holy works like the Bible, but aren’t considered canonical by many major religious groups. One also must remember that the “satan” of Christian and catholic writings- and other mentions of the “devil” or such names- even the serpent in the garden- may not be the same entity.
Our first clues lie in “hell” and in the names of “the devil.” In the Bible, in the original scripts before translation- what is commonly called “hell” and “the devil” or “satan” have multiple distinct names where they are mentioned at all (which is actually quite rare in the Bible.) linguistic convention of the the times suggests that what modern Christians call “hell” is actually at least 2 different and delegate locations. It is also likely that the character of the “devil” who most Christians hold to be one singular character recurring through the Bible- the serpent, the one who tempted Jesus in the desert, an evil enemy of Armageddon etc etc- is again- several different entities.
If we step sideways into abrahamic religions like Islam and Judaism- especially when we include Kabbalah and other forms of “mysticism”, we get additional views of many of the same events of the Christian Bible, from different perspectives, and often adding additional names for “the devil” or “demons” and “djinn” and such- as well as accounts which tell the same events as mentions of the “devil” in Christian texts, but give a different name and often times a more detailed look at the specific entity in question as a unique and separate entity from “the devil.”
In the Quaran- “Shaitan” are mentioned many times and are somewhat... similar to demons. They are a race and not a single individual. The “snake” in eden is described as a Shaitan. “Ash Shaitan” is a specific named Shaitan who is seen several times and is often likened to the Christian devil. Iblis is the name of the a figure who is often said to have been an angel that refused to kneel before humans. Although most modern scholars consider him a Jinn. He is. It generally conflated as the same being as Ash Shaitan but in popular discussion the two are often merged and in some texts and tellings they are mixed up.
We can also see I Judaism and the Kabbalah some evidence to support both the ideas of “fallen angels” as well as “satan” of the Christian Bible being Murillo entities instead of just one
What is very interesting is Enoch 1. Enoch 1 is a writing dated from around the time of early abrahamic texts. Enoch one is correlated by the Dead Sea scrolls, and ancient writings and quotations show that it was known to the Jewish peoples of antiquity. Very few religions hold Enoch 1 as cannon, Ethiopian Orthodoxy being one of them. Enoch 1 talks about fallen angels, angels having forbidden humans with children, these children being giants and long lived and exceptionally gifted and explaining the tales of extreme longevity, ability, and things like the Giants of the lands of Caine. It also is interpreted to say that the (what is implied to be the great flood of Noah), was used to wipe out the children of men and angels, which explains why human lifespans of central characters decreased greatly after Genesis, and why we see few monsters and supernatural type creatures.
Cynically and in meta analysis- this could also be seen as a reconciliation of abrahamic monotheism with ancient religions and myths; or if one takes all this as historically accurate- as the link between abrahamic religion and earlier times. Stories like Demi gods such as Hercules could be reconciled with abrahamic theology through the explanation that Hercules et al. Weren't the children of gods- but angels- mistaken for near gods because of their abilities granted by birth. In this explanation- the Greek “gods” and such could too be said to be angels- whom were mistaken or posing as gods.
The tales of Greek gods sleeping with humans coincides with the Enoch narrative of Angels coming down to live with and sleep with humans. If we view this cynically, it would be yet another example of possible ways that a new religion tried to subvert and build off of an earlier religion. If we take it in earnest- it matches the narrative that these events would follow if they occurred as actual history.
As it pertains to our discussion- with works like the book of Enoch being known through ancient times but not common in cannon and sermon- and with the tendency for superstition and pre existing religions and beliefs to be integrated to religion; as well as religions tendency to adapt and change to politics and cultures of their time and place, it is possible that the idea of “Lucifer the fallen angel” came from Ilblus- or that it was an amalgamation that was in part inspired by writing like Enoch 1.
All that was left was for Christian religion to conflate the distinct characters of “evil” and “demons” and such in to a singular entity-
A “devil” who does by many names- but may well originally have been different and distinct entities each by one of those names and each with their own backstories which were all gathered up and reconciled into one central figurehead of evil in Christian religions.
It follows a “monotheistic” Christian theology- and again- cynically, it would be an example of Christians and early proof Christians finding ways to maintain cannon and status quo while creating their own distinct religions that were separate enough from existing religions to prevent subversion.
Of course most “mainline” christian sects distance themselves from ideas of the supernatural beyond the divine. In early Christianity there was some need to both appeal to the superstitions of the times as well as to absorb those who practiced things like pagan beliefs and various forms of spirituality and naturalism. But with time- it became more important that Christianity distance itself from these theologies. In the modern eras, Christianity has gone further to distance itself. What were once held as factual accounts of the fantastic have been reframed by most churches as metaphorical or symbolic embellishments of true events. The narrative has shifted in many cases from “yeah. That totally happened. Just like it says..” to “well... these parts happened but this stuff that seems like magic or impossible is just a metaphor for faith and stuff....”
So in that progression- there are changes to certain fundamental facts and interpretations as well as characterizations.
That’s on top of changes that innocently and naturally in the course of what is a world wide 2000+ year game of “telephone,” and intentional changes made for political or demographic reasons. Issues of the “devil” and such being up fundamental challenges to the established cannon of the church. Hard questions and uncomfortable answers or just unanswerable questions about the way the church paints the nature of religion and existence and even their interpretations or the actual word of holy writings. So there is certainly some morphology and motivations for it over time.
Then you add in pop culture and propaganda. Despite no historical records to the contrary- the narrative of extreme Roman persecution of Christians and “feedings to the lions” and such continues. Many ideas about the “devil” and “hell” have been cemented by pool culture- Dante’s Inferno, Paradise lost and so on. Until relatively modern times- “hell” portrayed as cold- quite the opposite of hell being synonymous with fire. In various periods and contexts “satan” and other “evil” or “rebellious” etc. characters have been portrayed as completely awful, or sympathetic- sometimes even heroes and anti heroes. Most recently- “satan” has become quite the antihero- a popular protagonist in the fiction of our time. Not so much a “master of evil” but a misunderstood and somewhat benevolently mischievous figure who is just too “hard edged” for the “goodie goodies” or too “independent” to be a silent follower.
So is “satan” or “Lucifer” or “the devil” etc etc a fallen angel? I mean... if the entity even exists as a singular being in cannon- maybe? Depends on who you ask, at what point in history.
God's second-in-command
A “devil” who does by many names- but may well originally have been different and distinct entities each by one of those names and each with their own backstories which were all gathered up and reconciled into one central figurehead of evil in Christian religions.
That’s on top of changes that innocently and naturally in the course of what is a world wide 2000+ year game of “telephone,” and intentional changes made for political or demographic reasons. Issues of the “devil” and such being up fundamental challenges to the established cannon of the church. Hard questions and uncomfortable answers or just unanswerable questions about the way the church paints the nature of religion and existence and even their interpretations or the actual word of holy writings. So there is certainly some morphology and motivations for it over time.
New record!