The DDD has an impressive scope from AB to Zur. I was able to find all deities related to the Bible that I could think of. The articles are signed and there is a list of entries contained in the Dictionary.
As such, the dictionary does a good job "interacting" with extra-biblical sources and material (however, I must qualify what I mean by interaction).
The DDD is geared toward hard core liberals and should be of little use to conservative (including evangelicals), or to moderates or event those merely interested by the pure presentation of facts without overbearing and one sided interpretation
In other words, the nature of this work requires that one readily espouses the presuppositions and bias of the authors
The DDD suffers from flaws beyond repair when it comes to methodology
The DDD does not stop at describing what the relevant texts (biblical and extra-biblical), or archeological evidences clearly say or reveal about a particular deity, instead, the DDD relies on the dubious findings of source, redaction, and historical criticisms to speculatively reinterpret the material and come up with some dubious results that would make the Jesus seminar proud.
Without ever justifying its assumptions, the DDD takes for granted and unashamedly bases it findings on the documentary theory (read J E D P, which has being challenged recently even by liberal scholars), antisupernaturalistic bias is ever present (all account of the miraculous or even God's interventions are treated as myths and legends whose fictitious nature is beyond doubt). The DDD pushes parallelomania to its extremes and makes a point to find foreign influences in almost every single story and traditions in the Bible.
For example Samson is said to "belong to the Levantine Heracles tradition" and all his exploits are said to have been inspired by Greek legends
The Jesus of the book of Hebrews is said to have been modeled "at least in parts on Heracles as a savior figure" (p 404)
The accounts from the gospels are said to have been "often formed and supplemented by the post Easter experience" and have little or no historical value. The alleged divisions of the gospels and NT writings into different layers from various heterogeneous fragments led the various authors to reconstruct an alternative theology of variety of Christian beliefs about Christ in sharp contrast with the gospels and the NT.
The DDD makes abundant use of the evolutionary view of the history of religions to paint a very polytheist picture of Ancient Israel (not just as a result of Idolatry but as the basis for the various names of God, who are in fact more than names but evidences of various deities that were later, much later combined to create a monotheist God after and during the exilic period)
For example, Yahweh "and his cult" originated from Edom and Midian before spreading to Palestine. A late dating of not only the Pentateuch but also of the supposed traditions underlining it (post exilic dating), leads some authors to conclude that Yahweh was known in Edom and Seir in the 14th and 13th centuries, well before it came to Palestine (and thus Israel) (p 911ff)
The DDD makes the dubious conclusion that the Bible itself confirms that Yahweh and his cult originated from Edom ( using Judge 5:4; Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3)
The DDD also advances the thesis that the Exodus did not happen but that the Israel were always in Canaan and invented the Exodus to create a national identity.
The DDD advances that the cult of Yahweh to Palestine and Israelites "by traders along the Caravan routes from the South to the East" (p 913)
As a result the articles discard the biblical explanation for Yahweh etymology found in Exodus calling it "evidently a piece of theology rather than a reliable etymology"
In comparison the treatment of "Yahweh" in ABD is far more balanced and useful than what is found in DDD for "Yahweh". The later requires a much greater agreement with the highly speculative premises of the DDD to benefit from and accept the conclusion of DDD about etymology and the theology concerning a specific deity in the ANE.
In the end, unless you are one that mostly agree with the standard liberal view about the history of religion and the non- historicity of the Bible and its underlining traditions, this book will be of little use for you when it comes to finding out what people of the ANE believed and said about deities and demons.
The DDD was a great disappointment
A better approach would have been to compile what the Bible and ANE documents said about each particular deity or demons, along with archeological findings (with all primary sources properly referenced for further study ) and let the reader process the information and reach his or her own conclusions about the underlining theology and etymology of each deity or demons,.
Thus emphasizing facts presentation about biased interpretation and the tiring rehashing of what this or that scholars said about it without always presenting the rational for it.
Critical thinking does not need such babysitting
it should have been renamed the Liberal view on
Deities and Demons in the Bible, since it says more about Liberal reinterpretations than what the people of the ANE really believed