Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

Ken Shawver

I am interested if anyone has this resource and what your opinion is? I have heard various things and looking for someone who might have it.

Thanks.

Milford Charles Murray

Kenneth Shawver said:

I am interested if anyone has this resource and what your opinion is? I have heard various things and looking for someone who might have it.

Thanks.

Peace and Joy in the Lord to you, Kenneth!                    *smile*

                         I really like this book.  The title sounds quite sensational, but there is some truly excellent scolarly work in it.

There was - on these forums - quite a discussion in the early days of the forums re. Behemoth.  Quite interesting discussion.  This book handles it well.  Also, if you can handle at least a bit of basic Hebrew, there are a lot of fascinating things to consider.  In fact, you don't even have to handle Hebrew.  The book does it for you!

Yours in Christ,

                 ........    Mel

P.S.         I include a couple of quotes .......

In modern times some commentators have attempted to reinforce the mythological character of Behemoth, while others have attributed to Behemoth a more naturalistic origin. Broadly speaking, modern interpretations may be grouped into three categories: (a) Behemoth is an animal of the natural world; (b) there was no Behemoth; (c) Behemoth is a distinct mythic being.

(a) Behemoth as a natural animal
Occasionally an identification of Behemoth with an animal other than the hippopotamus has been proposed. Bochart himself had rejected an identification of Behemoth as the elephant. G. R. Driver (1956) claims that Behemoth is the crocodile (an opinion reflected in the NEB translation of Job 40).........
another "partial!" quote .......
: Since the seventeenth century the theory has been advanced frequently that Behemoth represents the hippopotamus. This theory, first proposed by S. Bochart (Hierozoicon 2 [1663] cols. 753–69) remains popular with scholars. Proponents even proposed an etymology for Behemoth as an Egyptian loanword: *pʾ-iḥ-hw, ‘the ox of the water’. Although it is now conceded that no such term existed in Egyptian or Coptic, the identification of Behemoth with the hippopotamus has persisted, though now often with a mythic overlay. Keel (1978) adduces Egyptian iconographic evidence which portrays the Egyptian king as the incarnation of the god →Horus in the act of subjugating his divine foe →Seth, the latter depicted in the form of the red hippopotamus. Strengths of this theory are the amphibious nature of both the hippopotamus and Behemoth, and the analogous methods of capture in each case (Job 40:24). Ruprecht (1971) and Kubina (1979) also build upon this theory.

SATAN

שׂטן Σατάν,

Σατανᾶς

I. The proper name ‘Satan’ is an Anglicization of the Hebrew common noun śāṭān. The noun śāṭān has been related etymologically to a variety of geminate, third weak and hollow verbs in Hebrew and in the cognate languages. These proposals include verbs meaning ‘to stray’ (Ar šṭṭ, Heb śṭh, Eth šṭy, Akk šâṭu 1 and Syr sṭʾ), ‘to revolt/fall away’ (Aram swṭ, Mandaean swṭ and Heb swṭ), ‘to be unjust’ (Ar šṭṭ), ‘to burn’ (Syr swṭ and Ar šyṭ) and ‘to seduce’ (Eth šṭy and Heb śṭh). These proposals require discounting the nûn of the noun śāṭān as part of the root, and attributing it to an *-ān suffix which has been appended to a nominal base. There are two reasons why it is unlikely that the nûn should be attributed to an *-ān suffix. Firstly, the *-ān suffix when appended to a nominal base normally results in an abstract noun, an adjective or a diminutive. The noun śāṭān fits none of these categories. Secondly, in Hebrew *-ān is typically realized as -ôn. There are exceptions, but among the standard conditions proposed to explain the atypical retention of *-ān, none apply to the noun śāṭān. Therefore it is preferable to regard the nûn as part of the root and analyze śāṭān as a noun of the common qāṭāl pattern. The fact that the geminate, third weak and hollow verbs listed above have meanings that are arguably appropriate to Satan should be viewed as resulting from interaction between popular etymological speculation and developing traditions about Satan.
The root *śṭn is not evidenced in any of the cognate languages in texts that are prior to or contemporary with its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. KB (918) incorrectly cites an alleged Akk šatānu, but the forms to which KB refers are Št lexical participles of etēmu/etēnu (AHW, 260). Thus the meaning of the noun śāṭān must be determined solely on the basis of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where it occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ in either a political or  ..........
 



 

MJ. Smith

I have the spine and page version and find it to be a reliable source of information.