"Belial" in the Old Testament

Author(s): James Edward Hogg

Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Oct., 1927),
pp. 56-58
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528427
Accessed: 31-03-2015 09:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.226.41.9 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:06:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CRITICAL NOTES
"BELIAL" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
occurs twenty-seven times in the Masoretic
The Hebrew word ?3r'
text of the Old Testament. In the English official translations (A.V. and
R.V.) the word is rendered "Belial" in about half the passages-thus treating
it as a proper name-and in the other half by some such word as "ungodly"
or "wicked." This is due to the practice adopted in the Vulgate. It would
be treated as a proper name in
seem that in no single instance should ~5
the Old Testament. If the Vulgate is wrong in rendering the Hebrew word
by "Belial," so are the A.V. and R.V.
The Vulgate and the official E.V. (including those prior to the A.V.)
seem to be alone among versions of the Old Testament in thus making of
?5v$' a proper name. This will be seen by referring to some of the more
important versions.
In one passage only of the LXX is any trace found of a transliteration of
Origen refers to Judg. 20:13 as though the Greek text contained
1.
$5,
vio' BcXtap,and some MSS and ancient versions of the LXX show
the words
a reading vuis BeXtap (or BcXAaX,and in Cod. Alex., BeXtau).x For the most
part the LXX uses 7rapdvolosor a similar word, in I Samuel, Xotui's,and in
Proverbs, lpowv, as equivalents of ?V64?=. In Aquila's version oro'ra(ia
is generally found. Symmachus shows more variety, having daraiSv-ro1,
in additionto words
avv7rTaK7T0, and rapavolos. Theodotionhas
used by other translators, and in one passage adpoo-'vw
(Judg. 19:22) he transliterates
and has BeMXaX.
Tremellius and Junius
The Graecus-Venetus has 4(aZXosand
4avX1`'1Tr.
have nequam or nequissimus.
Among modern versions Ostervald's French version has mechant and
mechant garnement, and Dr. Moffatt's New Translation, "rascals" and
"destruction" among other words.
It will be necessary to refer in greater detail to the various renderings of
the Vulgate. In thirteen passages Belial occurs, usually (though
S9f'in
not always) in such phrases as filius Belial, vir Belial. Other renderings are
iniquus, iniquitas, impius, praevaricator, praevaricatio, injustus, pessimus,
apostata, diabolus, diabolicus, and once the pharaphrase qui hoc malitium perpetrarunt. The words diabolus and diabolicus are used in I Kings 21:13:
flii diaboli and viri diabolici. Diaboli (gen. sing.) also occurs twice in the
Psalt. Heb., Ps. 18:4; though in Ps. 101:2 Belial takes the place of the ordinary Vulgate injustam (references are, for convenience, to the E.V.).
1 See Brook and McLean, ad loc.

56

This content downloaded from 130.226.41.9 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:06:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CRITICAL

57

NOTES

Tindale (perhaps influenced by Wiclif) seems to have set the example of

as a proper name,
following the Vulgate in the frequent rendering of 5~
and his example has again been followed more or less closely in the A.V. and
R.V. The two passages in the Pentateuch and the two passages in Judges
where %7:Doccurs will serve to illustrate the general (but not exact) agreement between the Vulgate, the A.V., and the R.V.
Vulg.

Tind.

A.V.

"children of
Belial"
"a point of Belial"

"children of
Belial"
"a thought in
thy wicked
heart"
"sons of Belial"

"base fellows"

"children of
Belial"

"sons of Belial"

Deut. 13: 13....

filii Belial

Deut. 13:13....

impia cogitatio

Judg. 19:22....
Judg. 20:13....

&................
filii Belial
qui hoc malitium
...............
perpetrarunt

R.V.
"a base thought"
"sons of Belial"

In no case has either A.V. or R.V. followed Jerome in using diabolus, etc.
But it is clear that the example of the Vulgate is ultimately responsible for
"Belial" occurring so often in the Old Testament of the A.V. and R.V.
Jerome's use of Belial as a proper name in the Old Testament seems to be
an anachronism. Apparently, Y
was not used as a proper name when

the Old Testament books were first written,

but in the century preceding the
Christian Era the word had come into use as a name of Satan. Jerome imported his own knowledge of the later meaning of the word into his interpretation of the older Hebrew writings.
The word BWXlap
or BeXtaXis used by Paul in II Cor. 6:15-its only occurrence in the New Testament. Here the usual explanation is that it is another
name for Satan or Antichrist. But in the Pseudepigrapha written shortly
before and after the beginning of the Christian Era equivalents of the name
"Belial" do occur frequently, the Greek form being both BeXtaXand BEX'ap.
In the Index to Charles's Apocrypha will be found a large number of references to the word as occurring in the Book of Jubilees,. Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, etc., as a name of Satan. See particularly pages 809, 817,
of Volume II (Pseudepigrapha), where it is pointed out in the notes that
"Belial in later pre-Christian Judaism is simply another name for Satan,"
and: "This name for Satan has disappeared from Talmudic literature."
The conclusion is that in no case should ~
in the Old Testament
be treated as a proper name or merely transliterated. Its various interpretations are set out in BDB (p. 116), all based on its etymological meaning of
'worthlessness."
That Jerome deliberately introduced Belial into his revision of the Old
Latin text there seems no reason to doubt. The Old Latin, being a mere
version of the LXX, would naturally follow the latter, and in the LXX,
59 1 is not transliterated but translated into Greek. The use of diabolus
in Kings and particularly in the Psalt. Heb. confirms the view that Jerome intended to treat bribm as a name of Satan. Nevertheless, the two passages

This content downloaded from 130.226.41.9 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:06:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

in Judges seem to indicate some hesitation on Jerome's part in introducing

Belial as a well-known proper name into his revision. In Judg. 19:22 the
Vulgate text is filii Belial id est absquejugo-"unbridled," "lawless," as though
the name required explanation. In Judg. 20: 13 ~Y~: is neither transliterated
nor translated, but paraphrased-qui hoc malitium perpetrarunt.
The fact remains, however, that Belial frequently, and diabolus occasionally, does stand for 57b= in Jerome's Latin version, and this version is
responsible for "Belial" occurring so frequently in the English versions.
The Vulgate we cannot now change. The next English revision should surely
not perpetuate what plainly appears to be an error. The Hebrew phrase
5P $ 2~1~ should indeed not be rendered literally at all, but suitable expressions such as "base fellow" (R.V., Deut. 13:13) can readily be found
as English equivalents of the Hebrew idiom. There are at present too many
unnecessary Hebraisms in our English Bible, and the elimination of "son
of Belial" is but one of many similar reforms to be desired.
JAMES EDWARD HOGG
PYMBLE, NEW SOUTH WALES
AUSTRALIA

EXOD. 22:23 ("NOCTURNAL THIEF" AND "RESTITUTION")

This passage presents several points of interest, in the Hebrew original,
and in the Greek, Latin, and English versions. As it stands in the ordinary
English versions it is hardly intelligible. The numbering of the verses in the
E.V. (as above) is that of the LXX and Vulgate; the passage stands in the
Hebrew text as verses 1 and 2 of chapter 22. For convenience the E.V.
numbering is here adopted and the verses referred to as 2 and 3; verse 1
stands in the Hebrew as verse 37 of chapter 21.
The R.V. (the most recent official version) is as follows:
If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be
no bloodguiltiness for him. (3) If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him: he should make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall
be sold for his theft.
This is preceded and followed by provisions relating to theft of cattle and
to restitution by the thief (vss. 1 and 4). Verses 2 and 3a are plainly out of
place, and verse 3b is insensible in its present position, being inapplicable to
the case of a dead thief. Four different remedies are suggested in the various
versions: (1) alteration of the Hebrew text, (2) transposition of part of the
passage, (3) insertion of words not expressed in the Hebrew text, (4) rearrangement of paragraphs for verses 1-4.
A short account of these changes, as shown by quotation from various
versions, will serve to bring out their advantages and disadvantages and
help to an understanding of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew text of verses 2 and 3 is as follows:

This content downloaded from 130.226.41.9 on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:06:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions