Customer Reviews

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is excellent for what it is. The book has been invaluable to me in helping to research various biblical / judeo-christian myth cycles. It is well worth the price, especially with the hefty discount given by Amazon (paid full price for mine in 1999).

As long as you approach the DDD with the right expectations, it's an unsurpassed guide to its subject. Specifically, it's a reference to those deities and demons who appear in the Bible, written by and for mainstream scholars. Its scope is truly impressive; even deities who only appear in shadowy allusions receive significant coverage. Frankly, because of its rich trove of otherwise-unobtainable information, I consider it one of my most valuable books in Biblical scholarship. The articles are written by the top experts in their field, and they summarize available scholarship in a concise and helpful format.

That said, don't buy this book if:
- You want an accessible, beginner's guide to Biblical mythology. (Try Wikipedia.)
- You want a reference that includes deities throughout the world or the Ancient Near East.
- You'll be offended by the kind of academic approach that's the norm in any mainstream university or Biblical journal. (Yes, it draws from the schools of historical criticism; no, they're not the main focus. It's hardly a liberal extreme of scholarship.)

I'm sad about all the negative reviews for this wonderful text, because most of them seem to be the result of people wanting the text to be something it's not.

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.

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

I am a researcher and a student. I bought this book thinking it would be a great addition to my library. I read this book and was thoroughly disappointed.
First off I of course went to look at passages of demons and deities I knew about. One of those demons was Lilith. Her story was awful. The authors failed to explain anything about her beside the fact she was Adam's first wife. I mean this demoness was so much more than that (for the record I am not a Satanist). There was more on what her name meant than about her herself. I found this to be true with almost all of the passages. Just like Sammael, mate to Lilith, his story was more he was only mentioned twice, in two sentences in this large book. A lot of the "demons" were downplayed, the stories that were given, were not the whole story. This book to say the least was disappointing to a researcher. This book is also not for the layman reader. Also this book states more opinions than anything else it seems.
I wouldn't even give this book one star, but I am forced to do so. The list of deities and demons in this book is somewhat impressive, but also I would have liked to see a book cover more than those demons in the bible, it should have covered demons from all over the world.