Editing Dagon (section)

==== Fish-god interpretation ====
[[File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e6 915-0.jpg|thumb|"[[Apkallu]]" relief from [[Khorsabad]]]]
[[File:Fig39dagon knecht.png|thumb|Relief of a Mesopotamian fishman ([[Kulullû]]) identified in accordance with early 20th century scholarship as Dagan in "[[s:A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture/XLVI. The Judges. — Gedeon. — Samson.|A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture]]" (1910)]]

The "fish" etymology, while late and incorrect,{{sfn|Singer|1992|p=433}} was accepted in 19th and early 20th century scholarship.{{sfn|Montalbano|1951|p=395}} It led to an erroneous association between Dagan and Odakon, a half-fish being mentioned by [[Berossus]], and with "fishman" motifs in Mesopotamian art,{{sfn|Montalbano|1951|p=395}} in reality depictions of [[Kulullû]],{{sfn|Wiggermann|1992|p=182}} an [[apotropaic]] creature associated with the god [[Ea (Babylonian god)|Ea]].{{sfn|Wiggermann|1992|p=183}}

The association with ''dāg''/''dâg'' 'fish' was made by 11th-century Jewish Bible commentator [[Rashi]].<ref>Rashi's commentary on 1 Samuel 5:2</ref> In the 13th century, [[David Kimhi]] interpreted the odd sentence in 1&nbsp;Samuel 5.2–7 that "only Dagon was left to him" to mean "only the form of a fish was left", adding: "It is said that Dagon, from his navel down, had the form of a fish (whence his name, Dagon), and from his navel up, the form of a man, as it is said, his two hands were cut off." The [[Septuagint]] text of 1&nbsp;Samuel 5.2–7 says that both the hands ''and the head'' of the image of Dagon were broken off.{{sfn|Fontenrose|1957|p=278}}

The first to cast doubt on the "fish" etymology was {{ill|Hartmut Schmökel|de|Hartmut Schmökel}} in his 1928 study of Dagan, though he initially nonetheless suggested that while Dagon was not in origin a "fish god", the association with ''dâg'' "fish" among the maritime Canaanites (Phoenicians) would have affected the god's iconography.{{sfn|Schmökel|1928}} However, later he correctly identified it as a medieval invention.{{sfn|Schmökel|1938|p=101}} Modern researchers not only do not accept it, but even question if Dagan/Dagon was worshiped in coastal areas in any significant capacity at all.{{sfn|Stone|2013}}