BEELZEBUL (Beene(3oiA). Of this word, which is the true reading of the name given in the N. T. to the prince of the demons (Matt. x. 25; xii. 27 ; Mark. iii. 22, 27 ; Luke xi. 15, IS, 19), dif ferent explanations have been offered. I. It has been supposed to be a contemptuous play on the name Beelzebub, and to mean Dominus stercoris, Dirt-God, from 9421 filth, and 51,2 the Chaldaic form of 5v1. This view has the support of Bux torf (Lex. Talm. in Selden (De Diis Syr Synt. ii. c. 6), Winer (E. W B., a v.), and many besides ; indeed this may be as the pre vailing view. In support of it is alleged the noto rious fact, that the Jews were in the habit of expres sing contempt by such changes in the spelling of words ; comp. Sychar for Sychem, Belhaven for Bethel, and it is inferred that they could not more forcibly express hatred and contempt for an idol than by calling him by such a name as Dominus stercoris. Having thus constructed the name, it is further supposed that they applied it to Satan as the chief of all uncleanness, the pre-eminently im pure. The objections to this are—(I), That it does not appear how the local deity of the Ekronites came to be of such importance as to give his name in a corrupted form to the prince of the demons ; and (2), That there is no such noun as 5n? in the sense of stercusin Hebrew, the word for stercus being (gala!). Of this last objection Winer makes light on the ground that, ' in word-plays unusual, nay new forms will be used.' This is true, but it is irrelevant, the objection being, not that 131 is a new or unusual word, but that it is not a word at all, at least with this meaning. 2. Drusius (Comment. ad votes Ebr. N. T. s. v.) proposes to take 7111 as the participle passive of ¶11 (Zabhal) sterropuvit (so used in the Talm.), so that Beel zebul would mean Dominus stercoratus, Zein Kor plans. This gives a very forcible meaning to the name ; but whilst it leaves unexplained why this name should be given to the prince of the demons, it is exposed to the still more serious objection or being incompatible with the usage of the language, in which to express Dominus stmoratus we should have 512171 51/311. 3. By some 511? is taken in the sense of dwelling or which is its pro- per meaning in Hebrew. According to Michaelis, house is here used in an astrological sense, in ' allusion to the supposed mansions of the planets, which were objects of idolatrous worship, a mean ing which may be compared with that of MoverS, who understands by the word Saturn, as occupier of a dwelling in the seventh heaven (Phonizier, I. 260). Gousset (Comment. Ling. He& p. 223), takes it to refer to the habitation of demons tams, according to Paulus), of which one was the chief or prince ; an interpretation with which Meyer substantially agrees (Krit. Exeg: Hd. Bach. on Matt. x. 25). Jahn (A7rizol. iii. Th. explains it of the region of the air, of which Satan is the prince of the power (Eph. ii. 2) ; Lange
adopts the explanation of Gousset, and suggests that the name was not a current one among the Jews for Satan, but was used by our Lord with special reference to the case of persons possessed by demons, for the sake of contrasting himself as the true olKo8Ecrsr&rns with that usurping spirit, by whose aid his enemies represented Him as working (Meal. Homil. Bibelwerk on Matt. x. 25, comp. Schleusner Lex. in v.) This view accords well with the context of this passage, and also throws great light on the use of the term in the other pas sages, where the subject is the occupancy of the soul of man by the powers of evil. This view further accounts for the noticeable fact that it is only in these passages in the Gospel that this name occurs; in the copious demonology of the Rabbins it is not found, which is hardly to be accounted for, had it ever been current among the Jews as a name for Satan. On the other hand, however, if Beelzebul was not a name in use among the Jews for' or Ihe evil spirit, how are we to account for their saying that our Lord cast out demons by the power of this arch-demon ? and if Beelzebul means no more than cibcoSEor6rsisr, why should the one be more a name of reproach to our Lord than the other ? It appears to us somewhat singular, that in the discussion of this question more notice has not been taken of the opinion of Lightfoot, and of the fact established by him (Hor. Heb. in Matt. xii. 24; LUC. xi. is), that occurs in the Talmudic writers in the sense of stemes, and is by them in this sense applied to idols. This seems an important fact, for it proves—I. That in this sense is a Hebrew word, which may have been, and probably was in good credit in the best days of the language, though it does not occur in the sacred writings ; 2. That in this sense the Jews applied it as a designation of idols ; and 3. That as idols were regarded by them as demons (1 Cor. x. 19, 20), Beelzebul, the chief of abomination, i. e., the idol of idols, would be a very natural appellation of the prince of the demons (qu. Dxmon dmmonissimus,' Lightfoot). This interpretation falls in with the fact that the Jews charged our Lord with seeking to introduce idolatry ; indeed it was on this charge that they put him to death (John xix. 7 ; comp. Whately, Kingdom of Christ, Ess. i.) ; so that they might well apply to him the name Beelzebul, and say that his miracles were done by the power, and for the furtherance of the cause of this wicked spirit. In this case the word has no connection with Beelzebub. As to the absence of any reference to Beelzebul in the Talmud, that is sufficiently ac counted for by the fact that though this may have been a current description of the prince of the demons, it was not the name of any demon in par ticular.*—W. L. A.