Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

Rating:
Summary: Principalities and rulers of this world
Review: An excellent guide to the unseen world as presented in Scripture. This is a guide that deals with real supernatural beings and the traditions/beliefs of a number of past civilizations. It is intended for the serious biblical scholar, bible student or those wanting a better understanding of near east demon/deity belief history. The cross references relate back to specific passages of scriptue. NOT for an audience outside of these descriptions ie. The Dungeons & Dragons type role player etc.

Rating:
Summary: excellent
Review: for anyone wanting to dive into the world this is a must have. The depth that it discusses this topic is very well done, and the goals the book sets forth it thouroghly accomplishes. The knowledge it presents is thourough and makes excellent points.

Rating:
Summary: Do you have an advanced degree
Review: I was looking for a 'readable' reference and given the cost of this pricey book, expected something I could actually use. This text 'easy-to-read'? Give me a break. This is worse than relaxing by the fire with a college chemistry text. There are zero photos, pictorials or understandable references for the layman or college graduate I might add. If you're a scholar who gets impressed by complex cross-references, and paragraphs knee-deep in jargon that demands you know and understand biblical history across multiple religous factions, and you don't want a reference that's readable...then enjoy. To the authors, you might want to clarify who your target audience is for this...just a thought.

Rating:
Summary: A helpful resource for students of the Bible
Review: One reviewer notes that this book is highly liberal (ie, its theology tends to minimalize the text of scripture, biblical historicity is challenged, etc.), which may be a fair crop in many cases. This work is multi-authored and edited. Having said that, varying opinions will arise in some of the articles.

Without too much criticism, I feel this book is helpful for conservatives AND liberals. Liberals can feel free to glean what they may from the majority of the articles herein, as one reviewer states here, without too much 'gut-wrenching conservatist interpretation.' However, the articles in this book are helpful for the conservative in that they allow him/her to engage the deities and demons of the bible from a centrist to leftist perspective, which is helpful when developing a working hypothesis in research. Why? Because good students and/or scholars are ones that can amalgamate opinions from all opinions to arrive at a sound conclusion. DDD helps both sides of the theological spectrum come together and gain access to some of the traditions of interpretation of virtually all the deities/demons of the Bible under one cover.

Due to its liberal swing, I would argue that DDD **HEAVILY** relies on archaeological interpretation and critical examination of textual information--as these tools are most commonly employed by theological liberals (often times to the point of exaggeration) in their arguments. The previous reviewer seemed to distance himself/herself from liberal viewpoints to the extent that he/she doesn't even know or recognize their more common methodologies and presuppositions.

I find DDD a very helpful tool if I need quick information on beings such as 'Ishtar,' 'Isis,' 'Baal,' etc. Entries such as 'El Shaddai,' 'YHWH,' and 'Elohim' will most surely carry a leftist perspective, which, as I state above, can be hated (as one reviewer noted), or taken into careful consideration.

The other reviewer sites ABD as a better source for the information presented in this book. This may come as a shock to him/her, but ABD is not only missing key terms that should have been included (where's the entry for 'wine-making' or oenology?), but ABD suffers from a vast array of various thinkers within the theological spectrum. For example, the article written on 'Abortion' was written by a 7th-Day Adventist and the two articles '(OT) Holiness' and 'Unclean and Clean' were written by an individual who was a Mormon at that time (thereby representing at least two denominations mostly distrusted by orthodox Christians). Furthermore, ABD is a six-volume set (and very expensive)?one advantage of DDD is the wealth of information it provides under one cover. I wonder if the previous reviewer's opinion regarding ABD and/or DDD would change considering some of these facts.

I recommend DDD for any serious student of the Bible.

Rating:
Summary: Speculation and bias prevents it from reaching it potential
Review: The DDD has an impressive scope from AB to Zur. I was able to find all deities related to the Bible that I could think of. The articles are signed and there is a list of entries contained in the Dictionary.
As such, the dictionary does a good job "interacting" with extra-biblical sources and material (however, I must qualify what I mean by interaction).

The DDD is geared toward hard core liberals and should be of little use to conservative (including evangelicals), or to moderates or event those merely interested by the pure presentation of facts without overbearing and one sided interpretation

In other words, the nature of this work requires that one readily espouses the presuppositions and bias of the authors

The DDD suffers from flaws beyond repair when it comes to methodology

The DDD does not stop at describing what the relevant texts (biblical and extra-biblical), or archeological evidences clearly say or reveal about a particular deity, instead, the DDD relies on the dubious findings of source, redaction, and historical criticisms to speculatively reinterpret the material and come up with some dubious results that would make the Jesus seminar proud.

Without ever justifying its assumptions, the DDD takes for granted and unashamedly bases it findings on the documentary theory (read J E D P, which has being challenged recently even by liberal scholars), antisupernaturalistic bias is ever present (all account of the miraculous or even God's interventions are treated as myths and legends whose fictitious nature is beyond doubt). The DDD pushes parallelomania to its extremes and makes a point to find foreign influences in almost every single story and traditions in the Bible.

For example Samson is said to "belong to the Levantine Heracles tradition" and all his exploits are said to have been inspired by Greek legends
The Jesus of the book of Hebrews is said to have been modeled "at least in parts on Heracles as a savior figure" (p 404)

The accounts from the gospels are said to have been "often formed and supplemented by the post Easter experience" and have little or no historical value. The alleged divisions of the gospels and NT writings into different layers from various heterogeneous fragments led the various authors to reconstruct an alternative theology of variety of Christian beliefs about Christ in sharp contrast with the gospels and the NT.

The DDD makes abundant use of the evolutionary view of the history of religions to paint a very polytheist picture of Ancient Israel (not just as a result of Idolatry but as the basis for the various names of God, who are in fact more than names but evidences of various deities that were later, much later combined to create a monotheist God after and during the exilic period)

For example, Yahweh "and his cult" originated from Edom and Midian before spreading to Palestine. A late dating of not only the Pentateuch but also of the supposed traditions underlining it (post exilic dating), leads some authors to conclude that Yahweh was known in Edom and Seir in the 14th and 13th centuries, well before it came to Palestine (and thus Israel) (p 911ff)

The DDD makes the dubious conclusion that the Bible itself confirms that Yahweh and his cult originated from Edom ( using Judge 5:4; Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3)

The DDD also advances the thesis that the Exodus did not happen but that the Israel were always in Canaan and invented the Exodus to create a national identity.

The DDD advances that the cult of Yahweh to Palestine and Israelites "by traders along the Caravan routes from the South to the East" (p 913)

As a result the articles discard the biblical explanation for Yahweh etymology found in Exodus calling it "evidently a piece of theology rather than a reliable etymology"

In comparison the treatment of "Yahweh" in ABD is far more balanced and useful than what is found in DDD for "Yahweh". The later requires a much greater agreement with the highly speculative premises of the DDD to benefit from and accept the conclusion of DDD about etymology and the theology concerning a specific deity in the ANE.

In the end, unless you are one that mostly agree with the standard liberal view about the history of religion and the non- historicity of the Bible and its underlining traditions, this book will be of little use for you when it comes to finding out what people of the ANE believed and said about deities and demons.

The DDD was a great disappointment

A better approach would have been to compile what the Bible and ANE documents said about each particular deity or demons, along with archeological findings (with all primary sources properly referenced for further study ) and let the reader process the information and reach his or her own conclusions about the underlining theology and etymology of each deity or demons,.
Thus emphasizing facts presentation about biased interpretation and the tiring rehashing of what this or that scholars said about it without always presenting the rational for it.

Critical thinking does not need such babysitting

it should have been renamed the Liberal view on
Deities and Demons in the Bible, since it says more about Liberal reinterpretations than what the people of the ANE really believed

Rating:
Summary: Speculation and bias prevents it from reaching it potential
Review: The DDD has an impressive scope from AB to Zur. I was able to find all deities related to the Bible that I could think of. The articles are signed and there is a list of entries contained in the Dictionary.
As such, the dictionary does a good job "interacting" with extra-biblical sources and material (however, I must qualify what I mean by interaction).

The DDD is geared toward hard core liberals and should be of little use to conservative (including evangelicals), or to moderates or event those merely interested by the pure presentation of facts without overbearing and one sided interpretation

In other words, the nature of this work requires that one readily espouses the presuppositions and bias of the authors

The DDD suffers from flaws beyond repair when it comes to methodology

The DDD does not stop at describing what the relevant texts (biblical and extra-biblical), or archeological evidences clearly say or reveal about a particular deity, instead, the DDD relies on the dubious findings of source, redaction, and historical criticisms to speculatively reinterpret the material and come up with some dubious results that would make the Jesus seminar proud.

Without ever justifying its assumptions, the DDD takes for granted and unashamedly bases it findings on the documentary theory (read J E D P, which has being challenged recently even by liberal scholars), antisupernaturalistic bias is ever present (all account of the miraculous or even God's interventions are treated as myths and legends whose fictitious nature is beyond doubt). The DDD pushes parallelomania to its extremes and makes a point to find foreign influences in almost every single story and traditions in the Bible.

For example Samson is said to "belong to the Levantine Heracles tradition" and all his exploits are said to have been inspired by Greek legends
The Jesus of the book of Hebrews is said to have been modeled "at least in parts on Heracles as a savior figure" (p 404)

The accounts from the gospels are said to have been "often formed and supplemented by the post Easter experience" and have little or no historical value. The alleged divisions of the gospels and NT writings into different layers from various heterogeneous fragments led the various authors to reconstruct an alternative theology of variety of Christian beliefs about Christ in sharp contrast with the gospels and the NT.

The DDD makes abundant use of the evolutionary view of the history of religions to paint a very polytheist picture of Ancient Israel (not just as a result of Idolatry but as the basis for the various names of God, who are in fact more than names but evidences of various deities that were later, much later combined to create a monotheist God after and during the exilic period)

For example, Yahweh "and his cult" originated from Edom and Midian before spreading to Palestine. A late dating of not only the Pentateuch but also of the supposed traditions underlining it (post exilic dating), leads some authors to conclude that Yahweh was known in Edom and Seir in the 14th and 13th centuries, well before it came to Palestine (and thus Israel) (p 911ff)

The DDD makes the dubious conclusion that the Bible itself confirms that Yahweh and his cult originated from Edom ( using Judge 5:4; Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3)

The DDD also advances the thesis that the Exodus did not happen but that the Israel were always in Canaan and invented the Exodus to create a national identity.

The DDD advances that the cult of Yahweh to Palestine and Israelites "by traders along the Caravan routes from the South to the East" (p 913)

As a result the articles discard the biblical explanation for Yahweh etymology found in Exodus calling it "evidently a piece of theology rather than a reliable etymology"

In comparison the treatment of "Yahweh" in ABD is far more balanced and useful than what is found in DDD for "Yahweh". The later requires a much greater agreement with the highly speculative premises of the DDD to benefit from and accept the conclusion of DDD about etymology and the theology concerning a specific deity in the ANE.

In the end, unless you are one that mostly agree with the standard liberal view about the history of religion and the non- historicity of the Bible and its underlining traditions, this book will be of little use for you when it comes to finding out what people of the ANE believed and said about deities and demons.

The DDD was a great disappointment

A better approach would have been to compile what the Bible and ANE documents said about each particular deity or demons, along with archeological findings (with all primary sources properly referenced for further study ) and let the reader process the information and reach his or her own conclusions about the underlining theology and etymology of each deity or demons,.
Thus emphasizing facts presentation about biased interpretation and the tiring rehashing of what this or that scholars said about it without always presenting the rational for it.

Critical thinking does not need such babysitting

it should have been renamed the Liberal view on
Deities and Demons in the Bible, since it says more about Liberal reinterpretations than what the people of the ANE really believed

Rating:
Summary: A great reference.
Review: The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD) is a masterpiece of scholarly knowledge. The book is simple to read with cross referencing material readily accessible. All acceptible Biblical and apocryphal individuals are listed. Thus, extending the borders of information included in it's pages. If you are in search of a book containing ancient gods and semi-gods in Mesopotamia, then this book is an excellent chose. It is a must for any Ancient Near East mythology library. Of all the mythological publications I have ,and/or reviewed, this is by far the best for reference.