Character Profile: Beelzebul

How to cite this article: JP Staff Writer, “Character Profile: Beelzebul,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024)
[https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/29561/].

The Synoptic Gospels make reference on a few occasions to a malignant being named Βεελζεβούλ (Be·el·ze·BOUL, “Beelzebul”; Matt. 12:24 ∥ Mark 3:22 ∥ Luke 11:15; Matt. 12:27 ∥ Luke 11:19; Matt. 10:25), who is identified as “the prince of demons.” No being by this name is ever mentioned in any pre-Christian source. Neither is he mentioned in any ancient Jewish source that was untouched by Christian redactors.^[17] The Gospels remain the sole source of information regarding the origins and identity of this mysterious and sinister being.

Textual Variants

Rather listen instead?

JP members can click the link below for an audio version of this essay.[*] Paid Content Premium Members and Friends of JP must be signed in to view this content. If you are not a Premium Member or Friend, please consider registering. Prices start at $5/month if paid annually, with other options for monthly and quarterly and more: Sign Up For Premium

Since the identity of this being is so obscure, it is hardly surprising that there is uncertainty about the meaning and even the form of this being’s name. Whereas the majority of texts, including the early papyrus manuscripts 𝔓⁴⁵ and 𝔓⁷⁵, spell his name as Βεελζεβούλ, two important witnesses, Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), omitting the first λ (l), give his name as Βεεζεβούλ. Syriac and Latin versions attest to yet another form, “Beelzebub,” an assimilation to the name spelled Βααλζεβούβ (Baalzeboub) in the text of Aquila’s Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (2^nd cent. C.E.).^[18] There it serves as a transliteration of the name בַּעַל זְבוּב (ba‘al z^evūv, “master of a fly”) known from the Elijah narratives, where “Beelzebub” is identified as the god of the Philistine city Ekron (2 Kgs. 1:2).

Which form of the name is original to the Gospels? Two rules of textual criticism seem to lead to opposite conclusions. One rule is that the most difficult reading (called the lectio difficilior) is most likely to be original, since the tendency of copyists was to make sense of incomprehensible readings. The other rule is that the reading that best explains the other variants is most likely to be original.

If you enjoyed reading this profile, you may also want to check out these recent JP articles:

• 
  Like Every Sparrow Falling: The Symbolism of Sparrows in a Saying of Jesus
  The multivalent image of the sparrow in ancient Jewish thought made it a useful vehicle for conveying messages about human and divine relationships.
• 
  Better Than the Day of Birth: Reflecting on David Flusser’s Interpretation of the Love Commandment on the 25th Anniversary of His Passing
  I regard the twenty-fifth anniversary of David Flusser’s passing not solely as a day of loss, but also as the day that gave him to the world.
• 
  25 Years Since David Flusser’s Passing
  Professor Serge Ruzer shares his recollections of Israeli scholar David Flusser on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death.
• 
  The Discomposure of Jesus’ Biography (Reboot): A Modification to Lindsey’s Conjectured Stages of Synoptic Transmission
  How did the Hebrew biography of Jesus disintegrate into the isolated pericopae that make up the Synoptic Gospels?
• 
  Was the Hemorrhaging Woman Jesus Healed Named Rebekah?
  Is it possible to retrieve the name of the woman who touched Jesus’ tzitzit?
• 
  Did Jesus Raise Jairus’ Daughter from the Dead?
  Should readers give more weight to the bystanders’ impressions or to the words Jesus said?

• ^[1] See Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966 [orig. pub. 1952]), 238; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28A and 28B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985), 2:920; Ulrich Luz, Matthew: Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (3 vols.; trans. James E. Crouch [Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1985-2002]; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001, 2005, 2007), 2:95 n. 2. ↩
• ^[2] The scribes who changed “Beelzebul” to “Beelzebub” may have been on the right track. Scholars have long suspected that Beelzebub (“lord of the flies”) was a derogatory replacement for the true name of the god of Ekron. This would be in keeping with the replacement in the Hebrew Scriptures of names with the “Baal” element with “boshet” (“shame”), e.g., Ishboshet for Ishbaal. The rabbinic sages recommended a similar practice: “All the places named in praise of idolatry, give them [derogatory] nicknames” (t. Avod. Zar. 6:4 [ed. Zuckermandel, 469]). Nevertheless, as early as the second century C.E. the Greek translator Symmachus rendered בַּעַל זְבוּב (“Baal Zevuv”) in 2 Kgs. 1 as Βεελζεβούλ (“Beelzeboul”; see Hatch-Redpath, 3:37), indicating that he thought בַּעַל זְבֻל was the pagan god’s true name. See Werner Foerster, “Βεελζεβούλ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.; ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976), 1:605-606. ↩
• ^[3] On the earliest witnesses to the Gospel texts, see JP Staff Writer, “When Were the Gospels Written?” Jerusalem Perspective (2020) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/20226/]. ↩
• ^[4] In view of all these instances where the LXX translators rendered the Hebrew element בַּעַל as Βεελ-, it is unnecessary to suppose that the Aramaic title בְּעֵל זְבֻל (b^e‘ēl z^evul, “master of a lofty habitation”) stands behind the Greek name Βεελζεβούλ in the Gospels. A major disadvantage of postulating this “Aramaic” reconstruction is the fact that the term זְבֻל is Hebrew, not Aramaic. Thus בְּעֵל זְבֻל is a hybrid title, as even scholars who embrace it admit. See Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans. John Bowden [Neutestamentliche Theologie, 1. Die Verkündigung Jesu, 1971]; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 7; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), 2:195 n. 106. ↩
• ^[5] One occasionally reads in commentaries that זְבֻל (z^evul) means “house,” and therefore there is a play on words behind Jesus’ statement, “If they called the master of the house Beelzeboul, how much more the household members?” (Matt. 10:25). An attempt is made to equate the meanings of “master of the house” (in Hebrew, בַּעַל בַּיִת [ba‘al bayit]) and בַּעַל זְבוּל (ba‘al z^evūl), which supposedly also means “master of the house.” Cf., e.g., Joel Marcus, Mark (2 vols.; AB 27; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000; AB 27A; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009), 1:272; R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2022), 204. But although on its own זְבֻל can refer to a heavenly habitation (cf. Isa. 63:15; Hab. 3:11), the phrase בֵּית זְבֻל (bēt z^evul, “exalted house”), which occurs in 1 Kgs. 8:13 and 2 Chr. 6:2, proves that “house,” in the normal sense of a human’s dwelling, is not the meaning of זְבֻל. Thus a word play in Jesus’ saying is not especially evident, and it is unlikely to shed any light on the meaning of Beelzebul’s name. For other etymologies of the name Beelzebul, see Theodore J. Lewis, “Beelzebul,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:638-640. ↩
• ^[6] Cf. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 171. ↩
• ^[7] See R. Steven Notley, “By the Finger of God,” Jerusalem Perspective 21 (1989): 6-7 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/514/], under the subheading “Minor Agreements.” ↩
• ^[8] In parallel to “the finger of God” in Luke 11:20, Matt. 12:28 has “the spirit of God.” However, there are strong arguments to back the view that Matthew’s reading is redactional. Among these are the text critical rule that easier to understand readings are less likely to be original than more difficult readings. In other words, one can imagine a redactor changing the obscure reference to “the finger of God” to “the spirit of God,” which is readily understood. In addition, by referring to God’s spirit the author of Matthew is able to integrate Jesus’ saying into its surrounding context, where the author of Matthew had previously quoted Isaiah’s prophecy in which God places his Spirit on his servant (Matt. 12:18) and where Matthew is about to have Jesus discuss blasphemy of the Spirit (Matt. 12:31). See further John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (5 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2016), 2:410-411, 463-464. ↩
• ^[9] See David Flusser, “Paganism in Palestine,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (2 vols.; ed. Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern; CRINT I.1-2; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2:1065-1100, esp. 1075-1076. ↩
• ^[10] For this view, see William Foxwell Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (AB 26; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), 126. Similarly, Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:290) regarded Beelzebul as a “Jewish Greek name,” but it may be “Jewish” only insofar as the name of a local Gentile deity was spoken by certain Jews in their accusation against Jesus. ↩
• ^[11] See I. Mendelsohn, “Exorcism,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. George Arthur Buttrick, et al.; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 2:199-200. ↩
• ^[12] See Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Blessedness of the Twelve,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2011) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/776/], Comment to L16-19. ↩
• ^[13] Text according to Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (New York: Bloch, 1948; rev. ed., 1975), 210. ↩
• ^[14] Text according to David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, “Apocryphal ‘Songs of David,’” in Bible Studies, Y. M. Grintz in Memoriam (ed. B. Uffenheimer; Tel Aviv, 1982), 83-105 [Hebrew], esp. 85. Translation according to Flusser, “Paganism in Palestine,” 1097. ↩
• ^[15] See above, note 7. ↩
• ^[16] See Shmuel Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 15-33, esp. 19. ↩
• ^[17] Beelzeboul is mentioned in the Testament of Solomon, where he is again identified as the price of demons, but this pseudepigraphical work was edited by Christian redactors and was heavily influenced by the Gospels. See François Bovon, Luke: Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (3 vols.; trans. Donald S. Deer [Evangelium nach Lukas, 1989-2009]; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002, 2013, 2012), 2:118. ↩
• ^[18] See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897; repr., 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:30. Henceforth this work will be cited as Hatch-Redpath. ↩