Books on Angels and Demons

Beloved said:

Dictionary of Deities and Demons is superior.

I'm not sure that will be helpful for the questions raised. I would suggest Sam Storms' Spiritual Warfare for a simple overview. But the best place to start would be one of the many systematic theologies or bible/theological dictionaries available in Logos. The factbook entries for "Demon" and "Angel" will guide you to dictionaries. I'd particularly suggest:

• Chapter 20 of Grudem's Systematic Theology
• Articles in NDT, EDBT or DJG for more depth
• On exorcism, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians is useful.

If you have Chafer's Systematic Theology, that has a huge amount about angels and demons.

Landon Brake said:

Even though that book might not be on my topic after looking at it I feel that would be very fascinating book. Does that book go deeper into say Balak and Molech and Astaroth and other such things?

I hope that I've rightly inferred that you are interested in DDD, as such I have copied the entry on Astarte aka Ashtoreth below:

ASTARTE עשׁתרת
I. The divine name Astarte is found in the following forms: Ug ʿṯtrt (‘Athtartu’); Phoen ʿštrt (‘Ashtart’); Heb ʿAštōret (singular); ʿAštārôt (generally construed as plural); Eg variously ʿsṯrt, ʿsṯrṯ, isṯrt; Gk Astartē. It is the feminine form of the masculine ʿṯtr (‘Athtar’, ‘Ashtar’) and this in turn occurs, though as the name of a goddess, as Akkadian →Ishtar. The Akkadian Aš-tar-[tum?] is used of her (AGE 330). The etymology remains obscure. It is probably, in the masculine form, the name of the planet Venus, then extended to the feminine as well (cf. A. S. YAHUDA, JRAS 8 [1946] 174–178). It is unlikely that ROBERTSON SMITH’s suggestion (Religion of the Semites [Edinburgh 19273] 99 n. 2, esp. 310, 469–479), referring to Arabic ʿāṯūr, ‘irrigated land’, is of help; because it still leaves the t, which cannot be infixed, unexplained. Both god and goddess are probably, but not certainly, to be seen as the deified Venus (HEIMPEL 1982:13–14). This is indeed the case, since if the morning star is the male deity (cf. Isa 14:12), then the goddess would be the evening star: as she is in Greek tradition. (The two appearances of Venus are also probably to be seen as deified, cf. →Shahar and →Shalem.)
II. Ugarit. The goddess Ashtart is mentioned 46 times in the Ugaritic texts, but appears relatively rarely in the mythological texts. These appearances are as follows: in the Baal cycle (KTU 1.2 i 7–8) →Baal curses Yam (→Sea), inviting →Horon (cf. →Horus!) and ‘Ashtart-šm-Baal’ (see below) to smash his skull—Keret uses the same curse on his son Yaṣib in KTU 1.16 vi 54–57, showing it to be formulaic language. When Baal loses control in the divine council at the appearance of Yam’s ambassadors, →Anat and Ashtart restrain him forcibly (KTU 1.2 i 40). When Baal is about to kill Yam, Ashtart intervenes: either to taunt Baal(?), or more probably to urge him to deliver the coup de grâce (KTU 1.2 iv 28–30). In the Keret story, in addition to the curse noted above, Hurriya is compared in her beauty with Anat and Ashtart (KTU 1.14 iii 41–44 = vi:26–30). The fragmentary KTU 1.92 seems to have contained a myth concerning Ashtart (PRU 5, 3–5: §1; HERRMANN 1969:6–16). In KTU 1.100, a series of spells against snake-bites, she is paired with Anat (in the order Anat and Ashtart) in ll. 19–24, in addition to further mentions alone, twice as a toponym (cf. KTU 1.108.2). In the fragmentary KTU 1.107, another such text, Anat and Ashtart are invoked. The latter appears again as a toponym. In KTU 1.114 (the Marziḥu text), Ashtart and Anat (in that order) summon the dog-like Yarihu in order to throw him meat (ll. 9–11); and, when →El becomes drunk, Anat and Ashtart go off to find purgatives, returning as Ashtart and Anat (a chiastic arrangement, ll. 22–26).
The relation of Ashtart and Anat suggested by these occurrences is evidently close. It may represent an early stage in a process of syncretism of the two goddesses. It may be noted that their iconography is similar; because both appear armed and wearing the Egyptian Atef crown. This close relationship is also reflected in the Egyptian evidence. They are commonly understood to be consorts of Baal; but there is no direct evidence for this at Ugarit. The interpretation of various texts as describing sexual intercourse between Anat and Baal has recently been questioned (P. L. DAY, The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis [ed. D. Jobling; Cleveland 1991] 141–146, 329–333; id, JNES 51 [1992] 181–190), and no such relationship between Ashtart and Baal is mentioned. (The evidence cited could equally well be used to define her as Horon’s consort.) The nearest the tradition comes even to associating them is in the title ʿṯtrt šm bʿl. This has been interpreted in two ways: as ‘Ashtart-name-of-Baal’, sc. as the reputation, honour, or even ‘Shakti’ of Baal (e.g. GINSBERG, ANET 130a), or as ‘Ashtart-heavens-of-Baal’ (DUSSAUD 1947:220–221, who cites Astarte’s epithets Asteria, Astroarche, Astronoë and Ourania). The latter sense is to be preferred. This title also appears on Eshmunazar’s sarcophagus (below). In addition to various mentions in minor texts, Ashtart appears in the pantheon lists (KTU 1.47.25 = KTU 1.118.24) as the equivalent of Ishtar in RS 20. 24. 24.
Egypt. Astarte is mentioned a number of times in texts from Egypt. In one instance, her name is written ʿntrt. Even if this is simply a misspelling, as LECLANT (1960:6 n. 2) suggests, it is still ‘revealing’ (but cf. ANET 201a n. 16). In the Contendings of Horus and Seth (iii 4), →Seth is given Anat and Astarte, the daughters of →Re, as wives. This is a mythologisation of the importing of Semitic deities into Egypt under the Hyksos and later, and the New Kingdom fashion for the goddesses in particular. Seth and Baal were identified. But this does not justify retrojecting Egyptian mythological relationships into the Ugaritic context. Anat and Astarte are described in a New Kingdom text (Harris magical papyrus iii 5 in: PRITCHARD [1943:79]) as “the two great goddesses who were pregnant but did not bear”, on which basis ALBRIGHT (1956:75) concludes that they are “perennially fruitful without ever losing virginity”. He also asserts that “sex was their primary function”. Both assumptions are questionable, not to say mutually incompatible! As wives of Seth, who rapes rather than makes love to them, their fruitless conceptions are an extension of his symbolism as the god of disorder, rather than qualities of their own. In the fragmentary ‘Astarte papyrus’ (ANET 17–18; see HELCK 1983) the goddess is the daughter of →Ptah and is demanded by the →Sea in marriage. This myth may be related to a recension of the Ugaritic Baal myth: as well as to that of →Perseus and Andromeda. Astarte’s primary characteristic in Egypt is as a war-goddess. An inscription at Medinet Habu (ARE iii 62, 105), for instance, says of Rameses III that Mont and Seth are with him in every fray, and Anat and Astarte are his shield. She frequently appears in New Kingdom art armed, wearing the Atef crown and riding a horse (LECLANT 1960). A Ptolemaic text (ANET 250 n. 16) calls her “Astarte, Mistress of Horses, Lady of the Chariot”. The first part may echo KTU 1.86.6, which appears to link Ashtart (and Anat?) with a horse (PRU 5, 189 [§158], WYATT, UF 16 [1984] 333–335). In the now lost Winchester stela (EDWARDS, JNES 14 [1955] 49) the goddess appears on a lion (a trait normally associated with Ishtar) and was apparently identified with Qadeshet and Anat.
Phoenicia. Though she was undoubtedly an important deity in Phoenicia throughout the first millennium, there is surprisingly little direct written evidence. KAI lists only 11 Phoenician examples: ranging from Ur and Egypt to Malta and Carthage. The most important items are the following. The sarcophagus of Tabnit from Sidon dates from the sixth century BCE (KAI 13, ANET 662a). Since the king is also priest of Ashtart, we may suppose she was an important goddess in the city: if not its patroness. This is in interesting tension with Athirat’s apparently similar status in the Keret story (KTU 1.14 iv:34–36). The curse of the goddess is invoked against grave-robbers. The sarcophagus of his son Eshmunazar (KAI 14, ANET 662ab), from the beginning of the following century, states that his mother was priestess of Ashtart; and that the royal family sponsored (rebuilt?) a temple for Ashtart (in the form Ashtart-šm-Baal) in →Sidon, thus benefitting her cult in Byblos. A votive throne from south of Tyre, dating to the second century BCE (KAI 17), addresses the goddess as ‘my Great Lady’ (rbty); but perhaps without the old ideological overtones. The same expression is used of Ashtart and ‘Tanit of the Lebanon’ (this may denote a local feature at Carthage) on an inscribed slab, of uncertain date, from Carthage (KAI 81).
It will be apparent from the lack of biblical references to a living cult of Anat that the goddess must have undergone some transformation by about the beginning of the first millennium BCE. The constant juxtaposition of the goddesses in the Ugaritic and Egyptian records indicates what must have happened. They appear to have fused into the goddess →Atargatis; although we have just seen that Ashtart also retained her independence for centuries. The name Atargatis (Greek, Aramaic ʾtr̂tʾ) is generally agreed to be made up from the Aramaic development of Ashtart (ʿštrt) into Atar (ʾtrʾ note the weakening of the guttural) together with Anat (ʿnt) weakened by assimilation of the medial n into ʿt(t)ʾ. Some see Asherah assimilated to Anat (see ASTOUR, Hellenosemitica [19672] 206); but this is less likely. Occasional inscriptions to the goddess are found in Aramaic (KAI 239, 247, 248). Atargatis, in her form at Hierapolis in the second century CE, is the subject of Lucian’s work De Dea Syria. Lucian writes of Astarte of Sidon, §4, whom he identifies as the →Moon. He also claims that the local priesthood identified her with Europa. He identifies the goddess of Byblos (probably another local Astarte) with →Aphrodite. The common identiate in the Cypriot cult (§6), the Astarte of a temple on the Lebanon mountain (sc. at Afqa), he says was founded by Kinyras (sc. Kinnor) (§9). The goddess (Atargatis) of Hierapolis, founded by Deucalion or Semiramis, he identifies with →Hera or Derceto (§§12, 14). Given the character of Atargatis, it is perhaps significant that Anat is called both ‘mistress of dominion’ and ‘mistress of the high heavens’ (bʿlt drkt bʿlt šmm rmm: the Ugaritic equivalents of Derceto and Semiramis) among other titles in KTU 1.108.6–7. Much of Lucian’s information seems to be a loose mixture of Greek and Syrian traditions, but still has some genuine echoes from the past. Another important source reflecting a Graeco-Semitic rationalising of tradition is Eusebius’ Praep. Ev., which has Astarte as a daughter of Ouranos (→Heaven) and sister to Rhea and Dione: all three become wives of Kronos. Astarte has seven daughters by Kronos. The latter appears to be the equivalent of →El. A direct quotation from Philo Byblius states that “Astarte, the great goddess, and Zeus Demarous, and Adodos king of gods, reigned over the country (sc. Phoenicia) with the consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head of a bull upon her own head as a mark of royalty, and in traveling round the world she found a →star fallen from the sky, which she took up and consecrated in the holy island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite.” (1.10:17–18, 21) The Greek goddess →Artemis may also preserve traits of Phoenician Ashtart (WEST, UF 23 [1991] 379–381).
III. The divine name Ashtart occurs nine times in MT, from which one should perhaps be subtracted (1 Sam 7:3) and to which a further instance should perhaps be added, i.e. Judg 3:7. This alteration, widely accepted, is based on the wording of Judg 2:13. It summarises the popular devotions of the pre-monarchical period as apostasy. This verse raises some interesting questions. MT reads labbaʿal wĕlāʿaštārôt, using the singular of baʿal, (supported by LXX) but, on most scholars’ assessment, the plural form for the goddess (supported by LXX!). Thus RSV, REB, read respectively ‘the Baals and the Ashtaroth’ and ‘the baalim and the ashtaroth’. Note, however, that bĕʿālîm does occur in the plural in 2:11. (Clearly there is some redundancy in vv 11–13.) RSV recognises the names, though plural. REB genericises them. JB, on the other hand reads ‘Baal and Astarte’. The ‘Baalim’ are often referred to in the plural (‘emphatic plural’: BDB 127) and are so construed by many commentators. The Ashtaroth are, thus, understood as a class of goddesses. Whether or not ʾăšērôt should be corrected at Judg 3:7, it is the same principle. But, given the phonology of the divine name, we should perhaps question the plural interpretation: even if it be allowed that it came to be understood in this way. The only vocalised forms of the name are, of course, the Hebrew and Greek. The other West Semitic forms are conventionally vocalised ‘Ashtart’ or ‘Athtart’; but it is quite possible that the original vocalisation was *ʿaṯtarāt(u), which, with the southern shift of ā to ô (as in Dāgān > Dāgôn) would become ʿaštārôt in Hebrew. Conversely, the expected singular—if the form found were the plural—would be *ʿaštārâ, with the final -at weakening to â. The toponyms mentioned below support this alternative explanation. Further, the three-vowel formation is supported by the other form occurring, viz. ʿaštōret. To argue that this formation is due to the adoption of the vowels of bōšet begs the question. There would have needed to be at least the vocal skeleton (that is, a word or in this case part of a word carrying two vowels) for the bōšet vowels to fit. The adoption of this vowel pattern (bōšet) is perhaps not in dispute, though the reason commonly given is arguably misconstrued. JASTROW’s suggestion (1894) makes better sense, in offering a closer parallel to the revocalising of the tetragrammaton to carry the vowels of ʾădōnay. It is suggested, therefore, that ‘Ashtaroth’ is in fact a singular form, though it might well come to be interpreted in the plural, as an indication of the scribal tradition’s view of the enormity of worshipping other deities, and thus representing all such cults as polytheistic. As for ‘Ashtoreth’ (ʿaštōret), this may well be explained as the singular carrying the vowels of bōšet; albeit on JASTROW’s understanding of the usage (1894). It is, however, possible that another explanation of this form is the assumption of an early form *ʿaštārit, in which case the conventional shift of ā-i to ō-ē (as in šāpiṭ > šōpēṭ) would occur. If this is so, we should look for dialectal variants of the name.
Judg 10:6, 1 Sam 7:4 and 12:10 all refer to ‘the Baals and the Ashtaroth’. In the second instance, LXX has the curious reading tas Baalim kai ta alsē Astarōth, “and the (f.!) Baals and the (n. pl.!) groves-Ashtaroth”, an impossible combination of Ashtart and Asherah elements, while in the third, LXX reads tois Baalim kai tois alsesin. In 1 Sam 7:3 the allusion looks like a secondary addition at the end of the sentence (hāsîrû ʾet-ʾĕlōhê hannēkār mittôkĕkem wĕhāʿaštārôt). LXX, however, reads … kai ta alsē, thus presupposing hāʾăšērîm. In 1 Sam 31:10, the armour of Saul is hung on the walls of ‘the temple of Ashtart (ʿaštārôt)’ (LXX to Astarteion, // 1 Chr 10:10: bêt ʾĕlōhêhem). Commentators usually change the pointing to ʿaštōret (thus SMITH, The books of Samuel [ICC; Edinburgh 1899] 253) or regard the temple as dedicated to ‘the Ashtaroth’ (pl.: thus HERZBERG, I and II Samuel [London 1964] 233). On the basis of the argument that the form is singular, no change to MT is required.
The other three occurrences all point the name ʿaštōret and do not use the article. These passages overtly refer, however, not to an Israelite or Judahite goddess, but to ‘Ashtoreth, goddess (ʾĕlōhê!) of the Sidonians’ in 1 Kgs 11:5, 33 as importations by Solomon to please his wives; while in 2 Kgs 23:13, in the account of Josiah’s destruction of Ashtart’s shrine, she is referred to as šiqqūṣ, →‘abomination’. It is probably Ashtart who was denoted by the title →‘Queen of heaven’, referred to in cults of the end of the monarchy (Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25).
As well as serving as the divine name, the word appears in the expression ʿaštĕrōt ṣōʾn in Deut 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51. It means something like ‘lamb-bearing flocks’ or ‘ewes of the flock’. This appears to be an application of the name of the goddess as a term for the reproductive capacity of ewes.
It also appears in a toponym, which goes back to the pre-settlement era. It denotes a city named after the goddess. Gen 14:5 mentions Ashtaroth Qarnaim, which ASTOUR (ABD 1 [1992] 491; contrast DAY, ABD 1 [1992] 492) takes to be Ashtaroth near Qarnaim, and identifies with the Ashtaroth associated with →Og king of →Bashan (Josh 9:10). In Josh 21:27, this appears as bĕʿeštĕrâ, (LXX Bosoran = Bosra!) which should, however, be harmonised with ʿaštārôt (LXX Asērōth) in 1 Chr 6:56 (71). In Josh 12:4; 13:12, 31, this is linked with Edrei (the latter added to Josh 9:10 in LXX), and the two cities appear together as the seat of the chthonian god ‘Rapiu’ in KTU 1.108. 2–3 (most recently PARDEE, RSOu IV [Textes paramythologiques; Paris 1988] 81, 94–97). It is probably also the city Aštartu mentioned in the Amarna letters (EA 197:10, 256:21). This pronunciation and obvious sense (as the name of a singular goddess) may be taken to confirm the singular interpretation of the biblical toponym and divine name. It is supported by the reference to the Beth-Shean temple of the goddess in 1 Sam 31:10; 1 Chr 11:44 is the gentilic of the city.
The problem of pointing may be resolved thus: ‘Ashtaroth’ is the Hebrew and ‘Ashtoreth’ a Phoenician (Sidonian) form of the same name. The goddess is well-established as a war-goddess (by the Egyptian epigraphic and iconographic evidence, as well as the trophies offered at Beth Shean), while her ‘sexual’ role, conceived as primary by ALBRIGHT (1956), is scarcely hinted at by the evidence adduced. It appears, rather, to belong to a blanket judgment on Canaanite goddesses made by biblical scholars on the basis of meagre evidence such as Hosea’s sexual allusions. It is better explained as a metaphor for apostasy (cf. B. MARGALIT, VT 40 [1990] 278–284). The Hebrew singular form ʿaštārôt has subsequently been read as a plural and incorporated into the reference to bĕʿālîm wĕhāʿaštārôt. In doing so, it has simply become, like bĕʿālîm, a generic term. It is comparable to the Akkadian expression ilānu u ištarātu, ‘gods and goddesses’.
IV. Bibliography
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore 19564) 73–78; P. BORDREUIL, Ashtart de Mari et les dieux d’Ougarit, MARI 4 (1989) 545–547; D. J. A. CLINES, Mordecai, ABD 4 (1992) 902–904, esp. 902; A. COOPER, Divine names and epithets in the Ugaritic texts, RSP III §23, 403–406; J. DAY, Ashtoreth, ABD I (1992) 491–494; M. DELCOR, Le culte de la ‘Reine du Ciel’ selon Jer 7, 18; 44, 17–19, 25 et ses survivances, Von Kanaan bis Kerala (FS. Van der Ploeg, eds. W. L. Delsman et al., AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) 101–122; DELCOR, LIMC III.1 (1986) 1077–1085; R. DUSSAUD, Astarté, Pontos et Baal, CRAIBL (1947) 201–224; W. HELCK, Zur Herkunft der Erzählung des sog. “Astarte Papyrus”, Fontes atque Pontes. FS. H. Brunner (ed. M. Görg; Wiesbaden 1983) 215–223; W. HEMPEL, A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities, SMS 4 (1982) 9–22; W. HERRMANN, Aštart, MIO 15 (1969) 6–52; F. O. HVIDBERG-HANSON, La déesse TNT (Copenhagen 1979) i 106–112, ii 147–155; HVIDBERG-HANSON, Uni-Ashtart and Tanit-Iuno Caelestis, Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. A. Bonanno; Valetta 1986) 170–195; M. JASTROW, The element bošet in Hebrew proper names, JBL 13 (1894) 19–30; *J. LECLANT, Astarté à cheval d’après les représentations égyptiennes, Syria 37 (1960) 1–67; R. dU MESNIL dU BUISSON, ʿAštart et ʿAštar à Ras-Shamra, JEOL 3 (1946) 406; C. A. MOORE, Esther, Book of, ABD 2 (1992) 633–643, esp. 633; S. M. OLYAN, Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161–174; M. H. POPE, ʿAṯtart, ʿAštart, Astarte, WbMyth I/1, 250–252; *J. B. PRITCHARD, Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature (AOS 24; New Haven 1943) 65–76, 90–95; M. WEINFELD, The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and Its Background, UF 4 (1972) 133–154.
N. WYATT

Wyatt, N. (1999). Astarte. In K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, & P. W. van der Horst (Eds.), Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (2nd extensively rev. ed., pp. 109–114). Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans.

Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host

https://www.logos.com/product/148914/angels-what-the-bible-really-says-about-gods-heavenly-host

The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible

https://www.logos.com/product/49583/the-unseen-realm-recovering-the-supernatural-worldview-of-the-bible

Dr. Heiser's books are worth the read! Supernatural would be an easier dive than the more in-depth Unseen Realm.  His podcast may be worth the listen (Naked Bible Podcast.)  DDD (Dictionary of Deities and Demons) as listed above is a phenomenal resource, highly regarded and academic.

Not sure what Christian Tradition you come from, but these may be good resources for you as well - I enjoy using the Spiritual Warfare Handbook.

https://www.logos.com/product/1192/handbook-for-spiritual-warfare 

https://www.logos.com/product/43252/understanding-spiritual-warfare-four-views 

Supernatural: https://www.logos.com/product/53263/supernatural-what-the-bible-teaches-about-the-unseen-world-and-why-it-matters 

https://www.logos.com/product/7720/overcoming-the-adversary-warfare-praying-against-demon-activity 

https://www.logos.com/product/10396/your-adversary-the-devil 

A lot of what is written about demons, evil spirits or the devil is just plain silly and heretical, even within the books mentioned here in this thread- here is a quote that needs to preference any study under taken:

It is very important that the power of cosmic evil, the devil, not be overrated. Evil always weighs less than it looks. It always masquerades with threats and promises that it cannot keep. This is the very essence of temptation by the devil. When we overrate the devil’s power to harm us, we have fallen for his temptation just as we have when we trust in his luxurious promises to help us. Both are false, and both temptations have one goal—to lure us away from confidence in God’s faithfulness and God’s love toward the world He created.

Palmer, E. F., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1982). 1, 2 & 3 John / Revelation (Vol. 35) page 180. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.