Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Beelzebub or Beelzebul
Subjects in this Topic:
BEELZEBUB or BEELZEBUL.—It is strange that this name has never yet been satisfactorily explained; stranger still that no trace of it has been found as yet among the scores of Jewish names for angels and spirits. The first part of the name is clear enough; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ‘Baal’; nor is there anything strange in the dropping of ë before æ the MSS [Note: SS Manuscripts.] followed by modern editors like Westcott-Hort and Weiss [Cheyne in his art. ‘Beelzebul’ in the Encyc. Bibl. finds ‘this scepticism as to ë in âååë paradoxical,’ ‘the word âååæåâïõë inexplicable and hardly pronounceable,’ and urges against it ‘the famous passage Mat_10:25, where the ïἰêïäåóðüôçò implies the speaker’s consciousness that áִּòִì is one element in the title,’ but his objection completely misses the mark. The dropping of the ë is merely phonetical; cf. in Josephus âåæÝäåë in codd. MVRC for âåëæÝäåê (BJ iii. 25), ÂÜæùñïò for ÂáëÝæùñïò (circa (about) Apion. i. 124), ÂáæáöñÜíçò for Âáñæáöñ . (Ant. xiv. 330); ἈìåóÜä in Cod. Q of Dan_1:11 [Theod. [Note: Theodotion.] ] for ἈìåëóÜä ; ‘Philadephia’ in the Syriac Version of Euseb.’s Historia Ecclesiastica , etc.* [Note: The best analogy is the Syr. Name áøáòùîéï , ‘son of the Bel of heaven,’ explained by Barheb. as ‘he with four names.’] More difficult is the change of â into ë at the end of the word, supposing the common explanation to be correct, that the name comes from 2Ki_1:2. It has been explained as an intentional cacophonic corruption (= ‘god of the dung’) or a dialectical or phonetic variation (cf. Beliar for Belial or Bab el-Mandel for Mandeb). The spelling with b was retained in the NT by Luther, though his Greek text had ë , and by Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 in text; it was introduced by Jerome in the Vulgate, see the Index of Wordsworth-White, where 15 Latin spellings of the name are given, and cf. Jerome’s remark in OS 66, 11: ‘in fine ergo nominis b litera legenda est, non 1; musca enim zebub vocatur.’ ë is even found in Cod. 243 of the text of Symmachus in 2Ki_1:2; but see the Syriac Hexapla in v. 6, and note, what has generally been overlooked, that the Septuagint took æáåá not áòì æáåá for the name of the god of Ekron: ἐðéæçôῆóáé ἐí ôῇ ÂÜáë (dative) Ìõῖáí (accusative) èåäí Ἀêêáñþí ; likewise Josepheus.: ðñὸò ôçí Ἀêêáñὼí èåὸí Ìõῖáí , ôïῦôï ãὰñ ἧí ὅíïìá ôῷ èåῷ .
On the fly in worship and legend see Plin. HN x. 28. 75; Pausan. Deser. Gr. v. xiv. 1; aelian, Nat. Anim. v. 17, xi. 8; Usener, Götternamen, p. 260. There were Jewish legends about flies, such as that there were none in the temple (Aboth v. 8); Elisha was recognized as a prophet by the woman of Shunem, because no fly crept over his place at the table (Berakh. 10b); on the yezer ha-ra’ as a fly see Berakh. 61a, Targ. [Note: Targum.] Jer. on Ecc_10:1). The supposition that the name corresponds to Aramaic áòìãááà = ‘enemy’ is not very likely, nor the other that it is the Baal of the heavenly mansion who became the Baal of the nether world (JAS, 1878, pp. 220–221). Later Jews identified Baal-zebub with Baal-berith, and told that some would carry an image of him (in the shape of a fly) in their pockets, producing it and kissing it from time to time (Shab. 83b. 63b). Procopius states (ad 2 Kings 1); ðëὴí ἔóôé ìáèåῖí ἑî ὦí ÅὐóÝâéïò ἐí ἀñ÷ῇ ôῆò Åὐáããåëéêῆò Ðñïðáñáóêåõῆò ἐê ôῶí Ößëùíïò ðáñáôßèåôáé , ὡò äáßìùí ἧí , ïὔôù ëåãüìåíïò · ìᾶëëïí äὲ ãõíὴ ðáëáéÜ ôéò , ἤí ἑèåïðïßçóáí . Zahn (on Mat_12:34) lays stress on the fact that the article is missing before ἄñ÷ïíôé ôῶí äáéìüíùí (‘a prince of the devils, not the prince’); but the definite article is found in Mark and Luke, and in Mat_9:34 (if this verse be not a later addition) where several Latin documents have the name.
How scanty is our knowledge of NT times, when such a name, which appears quite popular in the NT, defies as yet all explanation, and is not found anywhere else! Origen on John 19 (p. 315, ed. Preuschen) remarks: ðÜíôùò ãὰñ ðåñὶ äáéìüíùí ôé ìåìáèÞêåéóáí êáὶ ôïῦ ἄñ÷ïíôïò áὐôῶí , ᾦ ὄíïìá Âååëæåâïýë · ôáῦôá äὲ ïὐ ðÜíõ ôé ἐí ôïῖò öåñïìÝíïéò êåῖôáé âéâëßïéò .
Literature.—In addition to works cited above, see A. Loisy, ‘Beelzeboul’ (Rev. d’hist. et de lit. rel. 1904, v. 434–466).
Eb. Nestle.