Pa ae spe cise

EiS
Y HAR

scien
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2022 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/divinecouncilincOO00mull
 The Divine Council
In Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature
 HARVARD SEMITIC MUSEUM

HARVARD SEMITIC MONOGRAPHS

edited by
Frank Moore Cross, Jr.

Number 24
THE DIVINE COUNCIL IN CANAANITE
AND EARLY HEBREW LITERATURE
by
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.
 E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.

THE DIVINE COUNCIL

IN CANAANITE
AND EARLY HEBREW
LITERATURE

Scholars Press
Distributed by
Scholars Press
101 Salem Street
Chico, California 95926

THE DIVINE COUNCIL IN CANAANITE

AND EARLY HEBREW LITERATURE
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.

Copyright ©1980
The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Mullen, E. Theodore
The assembly of the gods.

(Harvard semitic monographs ; no. 24 ISSN 0073-

0637)
Based on the author’s thesis, Harvard. 1973.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Bible. O.T. Judges —Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible
interpretation, etc. 3. Gods, Canaanite. 4. Gods —
Biblical teaching. I. Title. II. Series.
BL1670.M84 299.26 80-10128
ISBN 0-89130-380-4

Printed in the United States of America

2 eS 4 ae
Edwards Brothers, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
\
 PREFACE

This monograph began as a paper, entitled "The Divine

Council in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature," presented
to the Hebrew 200 Seminar at Harvard University in the fall of
1973. The encouragement of my advisor, Professor Frank Moore
Cross, whose influence can undoubtedly be seen in numerous
places, led me to expand that original paper into my doctoral
dissertation. The present monograph contains only minor revi-
sions of the dissertation.
A number of people have contributed greatly to the ulti-
mate production of this book, and I would like to express my
deepest gratitude to those who have devoted so much of their
own time to my work and progress. I would like, first of all,
to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Max E. Polley, Professor
of Bible at Davidson College, whose efforts and guidance first
aroused my interest in Old Testament studies, and who remains
a major influence in my present studies.
I wish to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Stanley H.
King of Harvard University, whose friendship and guidance
over the past four years have enabled me to come to terms
with the rigors of graduate school and the many problems in-
volved in the process of producing my first major academic
MOVE.
My numerous debts to my advisor, Professor F. M. Cross,
can never be fully enumerated. It was he who first introduced
me to and engendered my interest in the field of Ugaritic stu-
dies in relation to the study of Hebrew scripture. His care-
ful reading of the dissertation and his numerous suggestions
have been of the greatest aid to me, and to Professor Cross
I would like to extend my deepest thanks for the many hours
he spent with me in the final stages of the preparation of
that work.
It is completely beyond human ability to express my love
and gratitude to my wife, Grace Friend Mullen, for her aid and

vii
support, not only throughout my years as a graduate student,
but especially through the strenuous process of the prepara-
tion of the present monograph. Not only have her love and
support been major factors in the completion of both the dis-
sertation and the monograph, but her aid in editing the manu-
script has led to the elimination of many errors. Further,
her ability as a typist, which is self-evident in the present
Manuscript, is beyond praise. It is to her that I owe more
than words could ever express.
I must also express my gratitude to Professor Thomas O.
Lambdin, whose guidance of my studies in the fields of Hebrew
and Comparative Semitic Linguistics has been of the greatest
aid in the present work. To these people and to my colleagues
in the department who have shared their ideas on the present
topic go my warmest thanks.
The Ugaritic texts are cited according to A. Herdner,
Corpus des tablettes en cunétformes alphabétiques, Paris,
1963. Texts not in the Corpus are designated by the volume
of Original publication, for example Pry If or Ug. Ve At ne
end of the work we have included an index to the texts cited,
where we have given the numerical designations assigned both
by C. Gordon in his Ugaritte Textbook, Rome, 1965, and by the
designations of the texts in the new compilation, Die keil-
alphabettschen Texte aus Ugarit, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976,
edited by M. Dietrich, 0. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin. We hope
that these numerical correlations will be of aid to those
scholars who may not have reference to Herdner's Corpus.
The major revision in the present work is found in the
abbreviations and footnotes. As much as possible, we have
tried to make them conform to the style sheet presented in
the Journal of Btblical Literature 95 (1976) 331-346.

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.

Harvard University
April, 1978

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction

PART I: The Kingship of the Gods in the Ugaritic

Texts: The Relationship Between ’E1 and Ba‘l
in the Canaanite Pantheon

The Roles of ’E1 and Ba‘l in Canaanite

Mythology
*El as Creator and Father of the Gods
The Kingship and Ruling Functions of ’E1
The Cosmogonic Conflicts: The Kingship of
Ba‘1l, Yamm, and M6ét
The Kingships of ’E1 and Ba‘1l
CHA 1,V3 A Gonflict Between 2El and Ba‘ 1?
The Relationship Between ’El and Ba‘1:
Summary 109

PART II: The Divine Council in Canaanite and

Early Hebrew Literature aba

The Concept of the Council and Council

Terminology in Canaanite and Hebrew
Literature eS
CTA 2.1: The Assembly of ’E1 120
The Meeting Place of the pukru md‘idu
and the Dwelling of ’El 128
The Tent of ’E1 and the *Shel méd‘éd in
the Earliest Hebrew Traditions 168
The Members of the Heavenly Assembly GAS
The Messenger of the Council and the Prophet 209
The Judgment of the Council: Psalm 82 226

ip
 Page
The Divine Council in the Epics of
Kinta and Dan2zai 244
The Role of Ba‘l in the Assembly Pye)
sil she Gale IEjolavelnin WegeS 261
?E1 and the Council in the Liturgical Texts
from Ugarit and the Inscriptions from
Phoenicia 267
The Development of the Council-Motif in
Late Hebrew and Post-Biblical Writings 274
The Council of the Gods: A Summary 278

Conclusions 281

A Selected Bibliography 285

Reference Index 301

Old Testament 301

(a) Canonteal Books 301
(b) Apocrypha Syl
(c) Pseudeptgrapha julia
(d) Qumran Writings Sl?

New Testament Sale

Z172
Extra-Biblical References oS:
(a) Ugaritte Texts Sas
(b) Phoentetan and Aramate Texts 326
(c) Akkadtan Texts 326
(d) Greek Texts Sie
 ABBREVIATIONS

AHW Akkadtsches Handwdrterbuch, 2 vols.,

ed. W. von Soden
AJA Amertean Journal of Archaeology
ANEP The Anetent Wear East tn Pictures,
2nd ed., ed. James B. Pritchard
ANET Anetent Wear Eastern Texts, 3rd ed.,
ed. James B. Pritchard
ART W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the
Reltgton of Israel
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of
Ortental Research
CAD The Assyrtan Dtettonary of the Oriental
Instttute of the Untverstty of Chicago,
ed. A. Leo Oppenheim, et al.
CBQ Catholte Btblteal Quarterly
CMHE F. M. Cross, Canaantte Myth and Hebrew
Epte
CML G. R. Driver, Canaantte Myths and
Legends
CTA Corpus des tablettes en cunétiformes
alphabétiques, ed. A. Herdner
EUP O. Eissfeldt, Hl im ugaritischen
Pantheon
EUT M. Pope, El in the Ugarttte Texts
HTR Harvard Theologteal Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
JAOS Journal of the Amertecan Ortental
Soctety
JBL Journal of Btblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cunetform Studtes
INES Journal of Wear EHastern Studtes
JQR Jewtsh Quarterly Revtew
ISS Journal of Semttte Studies

Xi
JTS Journal of Theologtcal Studies
KAT H. Donner and W. R6llig, Kanaandtsche
und Aramadtsche Insechriften, 3 vols.
Praep. evang. Eusebius, Praeparatto evangelica
PRU Le Palais royal d'Ugarit, 5 vols.
RB Revue Btbltque
UDIEIE Thorkild Jacobsen, Toward the Image of
Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian
History and Culture
UF Ugartt-Forschungen
Ug. Wier Rite, WO) WOlWa, Wels Gile tig INc
Schaeftfex,, et al.
UL Cyrus Gordon, Ugarttte Literature
UT Cyrus Gordon, Ugartittie Textbook
VT Vetus Testamentum
WM Worterbuch der Mythologte, ed. H. W.
Haussig, Viol. D
VGC W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods
of Canaan
ZAW Zettschrift fur dte alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft

Danii
 INTRODUCTION

Prior to the discovery of the Canaanite cuneiform texts

from Ras Shamra, beginning in 1929, and their subsequent
decipherment, our sole source of information concerning the
nature of the Canaanite and Phoenician? pantheon was re-
stricted to that provided by the Hebrew scriptures and
Phoenician inscriptions. This knowledge was supplemented
by the accounts of Canaanite/Phoenician religion preserved
in several classical sources: the theogony of Sanchuniathon
as quoted by Philo Byblius through the writings of Eusebius;
the theogony of Mochus, preserved by Damascius; and the ac-
count of the Syrian goddess and her cult presented by Lucian.
But the discovery of numerous mythological and liturgical
texts from ancient Ugarit has enabled scholars of the ancient
Semitic world to add many more pieces to a still far from
complete picture of the life and worship of Syria-Palestine
during the second millennium B.C. The Canaanite deity ’E1,
encountered by the Patriarchs only in the land of Canaan, was
the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Indeed, °é2 is fre-
quently used as an epithet of Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures,
and the Old Testament knows of no polemic against this god,

1. We shall follow the usage of W. F. Albright of the

terms "Canaanite" and "Phoenician" throughout our work. The
term "Canaanite" will be used "'to designate the Northwest Se-
mitic people and culture of western Syria and Palestine before
the 12th century B.C. and the term 'Phoenician' to indicate
the same people and culture after this date" (''The Role of the
Canaanites in the History of Civilization," in The Bible and
the Ancient Near East, ed. G. E. Wright [Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965], 438). For a review of
the discovery of ancient Ugarit and the decipherment of the
texts, see Albright, "The Old Testament and Canaanite Lan-
guage and Literature," CBQ 7 (1947) 7-14.
who was actively worshipped in Syria and Palestine during the
Patriarchal period. Numerous studies by such outstanding
scholars as Ay Alt. 0. Evssteldt yeWil. Albriciitae i.) MemGnoOss.
and many others have added greatly to our understanding of the
relationship between the religion of the Patriarchs and the
worshippers of the gods of Canaan.
One of the most significant facts concerning the texts
from Ras Shamra is that they depict our only picture of a com-
plete pantheon during any one period. Even more remarkable is
the fact that there seems to have been little change in the
content of Canaanite mythology between ca. 1400 and 700 B.C.
This observation derives from a comparison of the mythology of
the Ugaritic texts with the cosmogony of the Phoenician hiero-
phant Sanchuniathon as preserved by Philo Byblius. The three
major Canaanite epics which we possess, the Ba‘l cycle, the
*Aghat epic, and the epic of Kirta, were put into their extant
form between the seventeenth and fifteenth centuries B.C. in
the order listed, and are in substantially the same poetic
style, which is very similar to the poetry of ancient Israel.”
The Old Testament recognizes that from the earliest times
Canaanite mythology presented a strong influence on the reli-
gion of Israel, a fact that is further confirmed by the texts
from Ugarit.>

2. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan

(London: Athlone Press, 1968), 4. We follow Albright's vo-
calization of the name Krt (Kirta), whom he notes as the puta-
tive founder of the Mitanni kingdom in the sixteenth century
B.C. (y¢c, 4, n. 9). For an analysis of the poetry of the
texts, see: Alibrighity) VGC elon) and) RouM. Gross mtieroSemancd
Poetry ain sthey Mythic wand Epie Mexts fnomsUgausity Meni 67,
OVA) w=.
S39 In our lcitationoLetheUgaratactextsmewensha lero
low the proposal of D. O. Edzard and cite all references to
the texts as they are numbered by A. Herdner, Corpus des tab-
Lettes en cunétformes alphabétiques (Paris: Imprimerie Na-
tionale, 1963). Texts not in CTA are designated by the volume
of their original publication. Those used in this work are
Ch. Virolleaud, Le Palats royal d'Ugarit, Vols. 1 WE (Perera 2
Imprimerie Nationale, 1957, 1965); J. Nougayrol, Le Palats
 Our present work deals with the concept of the council of
the gods, a primary motif in both the Ugaritic and early He-
brew traditions, as well as throughout the ancient Near East.
The picture of the council presented in the Ugaritic EER SES -
however, makes it unnecessary to trace the ultimate origin of
the divine council in Hebrew literature to Babylonian tradi-
tions, as was done by H. W. Robinson in his programmatic essay
on the importance of the divine assembly in Israelite prophe-
cy.4 We shall concentrate primarily upon the Canaanite pic-
tures of the council, but shall note the numerous parallels
between the West Semitic description of the divine assembly
and the Mesopotamian depictions, especially as seen in Enuma
elts. The numerous parallels between the divine council in
the Ugaritic texts and the heavenly assembly in early Hebrew
literature lead us to believe that the Hebrew concept of the
divine council is more closely paralleled by the Canaanite
assembly than by the Mesopotamian. The corresponding descrip-
tions of the setting, the members and their function, and the
function of the council itself display a common source. We
are not asserting, however, that no influence was derived
from Mesopotamia, for the numerous discoveries of Akkadian
literature at Ugarit show that there was clearly influence
from Mesopotamia. Likewise, Hurro-Hittite influences are
obvious at Ras Shamra. We may, however, eliminate consider-
ation of Egyptian influences, for the only clear case of
Egyptian influence is the identification of Kétar with Ptah

Yoyal dUgartt, Vol. IIL (Paris: Imprimerze Nationale, 1955);

Aina Cll, 1, WN, SMES, Wigenneccicre, Wels, Wy "Ol (echetse
Imprimerie Nationale, 1968, 1971). On this proposal, see M.
Pope, "Marginalia to M. Dahood's Ugarittc-Hebrew Philology,"
JBL 85 (1966) 455. Throughout the present work we have at-
tempted an approximate vocalization of the Ugaritic materials

on the basis of transcriptions and comparative semitics.

While we are well aware of the hazards and uncertainties of
such vocalizations, the attempt allows for a better idea of

the metrics, the syntax, and the translator's understanding.

Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
Aa) CUPvenComnci lose vahweny is 45, (944) TS da iSy7.
of Memphis.>
The most striking similarity between the council in Uga-
ritic and in early Hebrew literature is the role played by the
high god--’E1 in the Ugaritic texts and Yahweh in the Old
Testament. Both are depicted as creator, king, and absolute
ruler of the gods. Before we attempt to delineate the concept
of the divine council in these two religions, we must first
turn our attention to the position of ’El in the Canaanite
pantheon. His role as head of the pantheon has been seriously
questioned by A. Kapelrud,° U. Cassuto,/ M. Pope, ® and U.
Oldenburg.” The basic contention of these scholars is that
*E1 was deposed and probably emasculated by the young storm-
god Ba‘l, the deity around whom most of the mythic cycle re-
volves. As we shall show, however, the evidence from Canaan
and Phoenicia completely contradicts this view. The hypothe-
sis that Ba‘l dethroned ’B1 is drawn from analogies with the
Theogony of Hesiod and with the Hurro-Hittite myths of Kumarbi
and the storm-god. While these myths do share many common
themes, they do not yield evidence that the deity correspond-
ing to the Canaanite ’El was deposed by the younger storm-god.
Rather, as we shall see, ’El remained the head of the Canaan-
ite pantheon, ruling as king over the younger cosmogonic gods.
The battles of these younger deities for kingship concerned
the rule of the cosmos, not supremacy over the gods. ’E1
alone sat as king and judge over the younger gods, his chil-
dren.
After carefully investigating the relationship between
?El and the other major gods of the Canaanite pantheon, we
shall concentrate upon the Canaanite, Phoenician, and Hebrew

Bio, Wie HE, oNiMereifeds S NAGI S IES) Si.

6. Baal tn the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: G. E. C.
Gad, 19/512), 64-93.
7. The Goddess Anath, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem:
MKS Nieververs. Waa, IMI), Shai) S95 OF.
8. El in the Ugaritte Texts, Supplements to Vetus
Tesitamentum ie (Redden s Gre Jin Bride, eLOS Sire O52) anodes OA
9. The Conflict Between EL and Ba‘al in Canaanite Relt-
Jon Gueudien se aEeenuits Bical daemon meme Ode Gis
concepts of the council, its setting, its members, and its
function. These will be treated together in the second part
of our work, for the parallels between the various depictions
of the council display that they share a common origin and
source. Two important aspects of the Hebrew council that we
shall consider are the roles of the prophets in the council
and the development of special functions for the members of
the divine assembly in late Hebrew and post-biblical tradi-
tions. As noted by G. E. Wright, each time a prophet pro-
claims vahwehws indictment oLelsracl, ass imlsa le2, Mic 6:2,
Jer 3:12, it must be seen against the background of the divine
council, !° where Yahweh, like ’E1, is the supreme judge who
issues the final decree of the council. In post-exilic and
post-biblical material, the development of specialized func-
tions for the members of the council also represents a break
with the concept of the council within Canaanite mythology.
But, as we shall show, the pre-exilic literature of Israel de-
picts the council of Yahweh in the same manner as does the
description of the assembly of ’El in Ugaritic mythology.
Though parallels with the Mesopotamian concept of the council
are numerous, the cultural and literary connections between
the Canaanite and Israelite descriptions of the heavenly as-
sembly and its location make it unnecessary to go to the
Mesopotamian literature for a complete understanding of the
role of the council of the gods in Canaanite, Phoenician, and
Hebrew religion.

oe SS SS

10. The Old Testament Against Its Environment, Studies

in Biblical Theology, 2 (London: SCM Press, ech AISI How,

eae oe be Peles
ae peers nelsoe wis
 PART I

THE KINGSHIP OF THE GODS IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ’EL AND BA‘L IN THE CANAANITE PANTHEON

If then, Socrates, we find ourselves unable

in the diverse matters concerning the gods
and the totality of the universe to give
accounts in every way consistent and exact,
you must not be surprised. Rather, we must
be reasonably content if we can provide an
account not inferior to another's, remember-
ing that both I who speak and you who judge
are only human, so that it is fitting that
we accept the likely account of these mat-
ters and still search farther!
(Timaeus, 29c)
 Rerrag4 Neate.pelea
eB)
— abr Bas a Ve
Tess ene tee 98 2 oe:
opine wild wer, Gre 34% fet
sans Ree? od VF seh ss
Jee? aepds pa SKewins : 7
ralyveY Asters.
_ pena
The Roles of °HL and Ba‘l in Canaantte Mythology

One of the most perplexing problems in the study of

Canaanite religion and mythology is the relationship between
the high god ’E1 and the storm-god Ba‘l as they are Ewe =
sented in the mythological texts from ancient Ugarit. While
the liturgical texts clearly show that ’El was worshipped with
sacrifices, the mythological literature revolves almost en-
tirely around the storm-god Ba‘ 1-Haddu.! The life and deeds
of Ba‘l constitute the primary subject of most of the mythic
cycles, and the other gods, even ’El, seem to be presented
only in their relation to him.* The actions center in the
conflict of Ba‘l with the gods Yamm and M6t in their quest for
kingship over the cosmos,” (wnikie, Bel, Whyenseee, Smee. “Nee.
SapSu, and Kétar-wa-Hasis play secondary roles, supporting
Ba‘l in his battles. Excavations at Ras Shamra reveal that
Bawlewas actively Wwonshipped anv the city of Ugarit. Temples

Dae mOsStenoObable excepeton as) CLA 25... "The Birth of the

Gracious Gods," where ’El is the central actor, hunting, per-
forming a ritual, and impregnating two young goddesses. He
is also seen aS a major figure in the Rephaim texts (CTA 20-
22), where he summons certain gods, called rp’um, to a banquet
in his house (see also Ug. V.1 [RS 24.258] and Ug. V.2 [RS 24.
252], where ’El participates in a banquet along with the other
gods). Likewise, the centrality of ’El to the Kirta and
*Aghat epics is beyond dispute.
2. Arvid Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess: Anat tn the Ras
Shamra Texts (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969), 60.
3. We distinguish here between the concept of kingship
over the gods within the pantheon and the concept of kingship
over the cosmos. This will be treated explicitly below in
the discussion of the concept of ’E1l's kingship, which seems
to be of the former type, and Ba‘l's kingship, which belongs
COMUNew Latter.
10

to Ba‘l and to Dagnu have been discovered,* but no temple or

shrine to ’El has yet been found. The general picture pre-
sented by the texts, both mythological and liturgical, clearly
shows that Ba‘l succeeded ’El in Syria-Palestine as the major
deity in popular worship. It seems clear that the cult of
Ba‘l, which was more supportive of the institution of kingship
and of an agrarian society, had replaced the cult of ’El in
the popular worship by the fourteenth century Wiese
It is precisely this popularity of Ba‘l that presents the
major problem of the present section. Before one can under-
stand the concept of the divine assembly and its function in
Canaanite thought, it is first necessary to delineate the
roles played in the texts by the major gods °E1] and Ba‘l. The
central theme is that of kingship--’El is designated "king" by
his epithet maZku, and Ba‘l (as well as Yamm) is proclaimed
king. The relationship between the kingships of ’E1, Ba‘l,
Yamm, and, to a lesser degree, ‘Attar, must be defined care-
fully in order that the exact nature of the divine council
may be studied. Though *E1 does not actively participate in
the battles for kingship among the younger, cosmogonic dei-
ties, the mythological texts reveal that he was hardly an oti-
ose deity. No major action could be undertaken in the panthe-
on without the explicit permission of the high god. Indeed,
the proclamation and decree of ’El provide the background and
framework for the actions of the other gods.
?El's position as the high god in the Ugaritic pantheon
is revealed not only through his activities in the divine and
human realms in the mythic and epic texts from Ras Shamra, but

4. Cl. F. A. Schaeffer, The Cunetform Texts of Ras

Shamra-Ugartt (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 8.
Though Dagnu has a temple at Ugarit and appears immediately
following ’El in the pantheon lists (CTA 29.4; Ug. V.18.3 [RS
MWA), EIS Ahoy Velie) Gekewisemeigil Wises (CVA BEL SSS Ue,
WEG COMEGES SIRS “ALO SbS hein Wallinal (IRS ASS 8 Geen), Bide! WS
commonly noted as the father of Ba‘l, called binu dagni, he
plays no role in the mythological texts from Ras Shamra.
5. F. M. Cross, Canaantte Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 48.
 qi

also through the various epithets applied to him in the texts.

These epithets reveal that ’El was considered to be the su-
preme authority in the Canaanite pantheon, which seems to
contradict the fact that Ba‘l was replacing him in the popu-
lar worship. The following study of the relationship between
*E1 and Ba‘1 and their regal functions will show that there is
in fact no contradiction involved. Because the various epi-
thets of ’El and Ba‘l have been thoroughly analyzed else-
where, © we shall not attempt to make a systematic presenta-
tion of these titles. Rather, we shall study the epithets of
?El and Ba‘l within the context of the mythological texts
themselves as they pertain to the relationship between these
two deities.
We are fortunate not to be bound only to the Ugaritic
material in our investigation of the nature of the kingships
of *El and Ba‘l. Philo Byblius' account of the "Phoenician
History" of Sanchuniathon is preserved, at least in part, in
Eusebius' Praeparatto Evangelitca from the fourth century A.D.
Sanchuniathon (Phoenician Sakkun-yaton) recorded his account
no later than the sixth century Bad Though Philo's first-

Gee See Men Dope, fULe 254m. Gray, Nhestegacy oF

Canaan, 2nd ed., Supplements to Vetus Testamentum V (Leiden:
Ew Je Braid, 1965), 155-1635 Ul. Oldenburg, Phe Confitet Be-
tween El and Ba‘al, 16-22; Marvin Pope and Wolfgang Rollig,
"Syrien: Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phénizier," in
Worterbuch der Mythologte, Vol. I, ed. H. W. Haussig (Stutt-
eee Hrenste MilecEe, MOS), AiI=Auls IG Me GOSS, aubilss ISB
7. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Reltgton of
Israel (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1969), 69. The exact date for Sanchuniathon is, however,
far from certain. O. Eissfeldt in "Zur Frage nach dem
Alter der Phénizischen Geschichte des Sanchunjaton," Ras

Shamra und Sanehunjaton (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1939),

67-71, places Sanchuniathon's Phoenician original im) vehie

thirteenth century B.C. but no later than the sixth. For

a further study of the text of Sanchuniathon, see O. Eiss-

feldt, Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumttku von Ugartt (Halle:

Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1952).

Ne

century A.D. sketch of the Phoenician mythology has long been

regarded with great skepticism by scholars, ® the discoveries
of the texts at Ras Shamra show that there was little change
in the content of the mythology of Canaan between the thir-
teenth and sixth centuries B.C.2 and that the picture pre-
sented in Philo's account is extremely accurate. Thus we
have a second major source with which to study the nature of
the pantheon in Canaanite and Phoenician religion. Due to
the lack of mythological and religious texts written in Phoe-
nician, Sanchuniathon's history is of great significance. In
addition to these two major sources, the Hittite mythological
texts from Boghazkdéy and Hesiod's Theogony present us with
comparative mythic accounts that show many affinities with the
mythology of Phoenicia. When used properly, they can comple-
ment much of the material in the mythology of our texts show-
ing the relationship between ’E1 and Ba‘l in Canaanite reli-
gious thought. These texts, together with the scattered
inscriptional references in Phoenician and the numerous re-
flections of Canaanite mythology in Hebrew literature, allow
us to delineate the nature of ’E1's kingship and position as
head of the pantheon and its relationship with Ba‘l's function
as the storm-/fertility-god par excellence.

*El as Creator and Father of the Gods

Though the Ugaritic texts present no sophisticated crea-

tion account comparable to that found in Enama elis IV.129-146

8. For a review of the ways in which Sanchuniathon has

been viewed by scholars, see Lynn R. Clapham, "Sanchuniathon:
The First Two Cycles" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University, 1969), 2-8. Clapham notes that the "Phoenician
History" divides into three cycles: "Cosmology and Zoogony"
(Praep. evang. 1.10.1-5); "History of Culture" (Praep. evang.
1.10.6-14a); and "History of Kronos" (Praep. evang. 1.10.14b-
42). For Philo's text we have used the critical edition of
Karl Mras, ed., Husebtus Werke, Vol. 8, part 1, Die Praepara-
tito evangeltca (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954).
El Ais, yy Piloeniedin Mees Ae).
 JES

or in Gen 1:1-2:4a; 2:4b-25,1° the epithets applied to ’El1 re-

veal that he was viewed as the creator-deity in Ugaritic my-
thology. He is called bantiyu binwati, "creator of created
Chanesue (6rd 4s Dieses eI S2 5} OLE DS yell pelV Sle 25) eeSThe
Ugaritic texts give us little information about ’E1's creative
activities, but epithets outside the Ugaritic material reveal
eee Se ee SE Or eee Ae Oe ek 2B et we eS
10. We cannot agree with the assertion of W. Schmidt
that there is no connection between the battle with the chaos
monsters (especially Yamm) and creation in the texts from
Ugarit (Kéntgtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel [Berlin: Verlag
Alfred Topelmann, 1966], 50). Creation, by nature, involves
the defeat of the forces of chaos as its beginning. Indeed,
the containment of Sea zs creation. In the Ugaritic mytholo-
gy, Ba‘l's defeat of Yamm constitutes this first phase of
creation--the restriction of the bounds of Sea--the separation
of water and dry land (cf. Gen 1:9-10). This same connection
is found in the Mesopotamian account of Marduk's victory over
Tiamat (Enima elis IV.93-104). Marduk's victory is followed
by an account of his creation of heaven and earth from the
body of his defeated enemy (IV.128-146). This is an embel-
lishment of the victory over Chaos/Sea found already in the
Canaanite material. As T. Jacobsen has shown, it is most
probable that the motif of battle between the storm-god and
the sea originated in the West and was brought into Babylon
late, possibly by the Amorites (''The Battle between Marduk
and Tiamat," JAOS 88 [1968] 107-108). The battle and crea-
tion motifs must be seen as belonging together from the earli-
est times. Noticeably, the concept of conflict is totally
absent from the biblical account of creation found in Gen
1:1-2:4a, which contains many parallels with Eniima eli3. (For
a brief presentation of these parallels, see E. A. Speiser,
Genests, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 1 [Garden City, N.Y.: Double-
day and Company, Inc., 1964], 9-11.) The numerous poetic
passages in Hebrew literature which reflect the theme of Yah-
weh's victory over Sea and the chaos monster (Isa 27:1; Pss
PMS ide BEOSOo1Os Joby Ae Wae Gass ee oj; alee Ba‘l's de-

feat of Yamm, must be taken as descriptions of the i westesicep

in the establishment of cosmic order, i.e., creation.

14

that he was considered to be the creator of heaven and earth.

In the biblical account of Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis
14, the god °é2 ‘elydn qdnéh Samayim wa’ Greg, t+ "2E1 the Most
High, creator of heaven and earth," is invoked in vv. 19 and
22--in v. 19 as the high god of Jerusalem and in v. 22 as an
epithet of Yahweh. The Phoenician inscription of the eighth
century B.C. from Karatepel2 (KAT 26.111.18-19) invokes the
gods ba‘l Samém wa-’él qodné *arg,t "Ba‘l Samém and ’E1, crea-
tor of the earth," to protect the city. In a Canaanite myth

11. <A problem remains with the epithet ‘eZyén, which is

here connected with °éZ. Sanchuniathon lists the god '"‘Elyon,
called the Most High" (*EALodv uadovuwEvog “YWLrotoc, Praep.
evang. 1.10.14) as one of the theogonic pair before Heaven
and Earth. He records further that this god was killed by
wild beasts and, as a dead god, was the recipient of offerings
from his chaldren (eraep. evang. 1.10.15) 5 94d though ethe na-
ture and function of the god ‘Elyén is not clear, there can be
no doubt that ‘elydn served as a proper epithet of Yahweh in
Hebrew literature. For studies on the name ‘elydn, see F. M.
Gross, Ces, SWS. OSio 15 Slo ain YEE Mo Were BUH SS 5os
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaie Insertptions of Seftre (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 37-38, and the litera-
ture cited in these works.
LZ. Unless totherwisemnoted | sali@insceriptlonssare £comeilc
Donner and W. R6llig, Kanaandische und Aram&éische Inschriften,
2nd ed., 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1968).
13. The identity of the god Ba‘l Samém is highly de-
bated. Sanchuniathon records the god BeeAodunv at the head
of the gods and notes that he is the "only god of heaven,"
udvov ovpavod utbetov, who was identified with Greek Zeus
(Praep. evang. 1.10.7). Likewise, BeeAodunv was equated with
the sun, for Philo's account notes that in response to
droughts, the worshippers would stretch out their hands to-
wards the sun (mpd¢ t6v fAtov [Praep. evang. 1.10.7]). The
Phoenician account makes it explicit that this god, the "only
god of heaven," Ba‘l Samém, was a solar deity. EF. Mi Gross
has noted that "in Nabataean texts in Greek, Ba‘l Samém is
regularly equivalent to Zeus Hélios" (CMHE, 7, n. 13), further
 IS)

from Boghazkéy telling of an intrigue between El-kunirSa,

ASertu, and the Storm-god, 14 we encounter the god del —ku=nt-
ir-8a, i.e., °&2 qoné °arg.!° This epithet, "Creator of
(heaven and) earth," is applied only to the god ’El in Canaan-
ite sources. Despite our lack of an account of creation by
the god ’El in Canaanite mythology, it is evident that this
deity was regarded as the creator-god.
As creator, ’El stands at the head of the pantheon as the
MSGEWEINETS ORE Gene: (AOU, Meroe toenks Sait (Cw BA, tee, OY, Wa, 2S,
33). As his sons, the gods are collectively designated as
Rhesson (Ss) ciacki bind/benu “ate (CPAs 61 5155 (32.1.2, 17,
A), SAS MI MU GAI=293 Eeeois Wea /laeker Kclaanee (Gl SW Aoe
AY NII GMOS Big
dl ALAR Teyavilll. Sale etc.).16 Apart from this general
ee 8

illuserating the solar character of this jsod. W. F. Albright

has identified Ba‘l Samém with “Attar, the Venus star (Yac,
197-202), but the confusion/conflation of the morning-star
with the sun, or with a god having definite solar affinities,
seems to us most unlikely. Cross is indeed correct in his
assertion that more data are needed before the identity of
this god may be determined with certainty (CMHzZ, 7, n. 13).
For other treatments of the problem, see 0. Eissfeldt, 'Ba‘al-
Samém und Jahwe," ZAW 57 (1939) 1-31; M. Pope, BUT, 56-57; W.
Ro LIRS oan WU PAI
14. For the Hittite text, see H. Otten, "Ein kanaanda-
ischer Mythus aus Bogaskéy," Mitteilungen des Instituts fir
Ortentforschung 1 (1953) 125-150. See also the translation by
A. Goetze in Anctent Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. with Supple-
Ment ecC J Drme ai tchard (Prince tonqsehGince Lon University,
Dress, LOOM), Sage
5a On this identification, see H. Guterbock, "Hittite
Mythology," in Mythologies of the Anetent World, ede Si aN
Kramer (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1961), 155; M. Pope, #UT, 52-53, and WM, 280; W. F. Albright,
y@c, 107. The same epithet (qn ’rg) is also applied to ’E1 in
a Neo-Punic inscription (KAI 129.1). On this inscription see

G. Levi della Vida, "El ‘Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20," JBL 63

(1944) 4-9.
16. 0. Eissfeldt has carefully studied the usage of the
16

designation of sonship, Yamm is designated as méddtdu ’tlz,

"the beloved of ’E1" (CTA 3.111.35-36; 4.VII.3-4; etc.), and

M6t as yadtdu °ili gaztru, “Hero, the beloved of ’E1" (CTA

AMI EAdOS47 oe ISL wetcein mbhempoddessmennab cmexpiacnre.
ly called bittu, "daughter," by ’E1 (CTA 3.V.35; 18.1.16).
Though Ba‘l is most commonly called binu dagni, "the son of
Dagnu," °B1 is also called his father and creator:!/

to6ru ’ilu ’abuhu

?ilu malku du yakaninuhu
(GRAS Sie Vir 4 Si BA A lite 4 fed iw leer)

eal PII, lms seer,

King ’E1 who createdl§ him.19

word *’tZ(m) in Ugaritic and notes that it is most commonly em-

ployed as the name of the high god ’El. The form *iim may be
a dual/plural form designating the gods, or ’tlu-mzt, the prop-
er name ’El plus the enclitic -mt particle (El im ugaritischen
Pantheon. [Berlin Akademie-Verlag, 195i] sil 55) One cmas
a proper name, see also M. Dahood, "Ancient Semitic Deities
in Syria and Palestine,' in Le Anttehe Dtvinitad Semttiche,
ed. S. Moscati (Rome) “Centro ida Studs Semvticr, 1956) .075=
75. For a discussion of the etymology of “72 and the forms
Rian, Vaintlrs Nethe, Sob POLE Orn eaeAN als, Sxl, ROpleig Iles SPA s
17. The problem of Ba‘l's genealogy will be treated be-
low.
18. kwn is the common Ugaritic verb "'to be, to estab-
ish Wi Hene ett carries) thescOnnotattonm <OmGsea Fem umonke
Hebrew kin, which has the meaning "to create'' in the Pd2é2 in
Job 31:15 and Ps 119:73, where it parallels ‘aéah, and in
Deut 32:6, where it parallels qanah.
19, Though this identical formula is repeated three
times, it is not spoken by Ba‘l himself. In 3.V.43-44 it is
addressed to ’El by “Anat; in 4.1V.47-48 by *Atirat. In
4.1.4-7 the identity of the speaker is uncertain. It is
possibly *Atirat, who appears in column II. That the pro-
noun refers to Ba‘l is obvious, for each occurrence of the
formula immediately precedes the statement that Ba‘l has no
house.
 7,

Similarly, in CTA 2.1.16, 33, and 36, °El is called *abihu,

"his father.'"' Unfortunately, the pronoun is ambiguous, refer-
ring to either Yamm or Ba‘l. It seems more likely from lines
33-37, where the messengers deliver Yamm's demand to Pil
called ’abthu, that the pronoun refers to Ba‘1. 2° Since the
common practice is for the messenger(s) to repeat the message
verbatim as it has been given to them, these lines indicate
that we should read *abihu, "his father," and not ’abiya, "my
father," in line 16 when Yamm instructs his messengers. Thus,
Yamm demands that ’El hand over his son, Ba‘l. The creative
function is further ascribed to ’El by Ba‘l himself:

qaniyunu ‘$la(mu) 2)
darda<r>u
Beob4
etal
tae du yakaninu[nu]
((CHBA, AND) SA IRIE Se 7/))

Indeed our creator is eternal,

Indeed ageless is he who formed us.

These epithets clearly show that ’El was regarded in Canaanite

mythology as the father of the gods and creator of heaven and
earth.
CTA 23.31-64, "The Birth of the Gracious Gods," shows
*E1 fathering the gods Sahru and Salimu ("Dawn" and "Dusk")
by his two young wives. 22 ?E1l's major consort ’Atirat-’Elat

ZU nem texte eads.

ragama la-tori ’abihu ’ili
tahtmu yammi ba‘likum
[?adanJikum tapiti nahari
(CTa 2.1. 33-34)
They speak to Bull ’E1 his father:
"Message of Yamm, your Master,
Of your Lord, Judge River."
21. We shall see below that ‘“dZamu, ''the Eternal One"
or "eternal," is applied as an epithet to ’El.
22. The goddess Rahmayyu is generally identified with
‘Anat on the basis of the phrase rahmu ‘anatu in CTA 6.11.27.
To the present writer, it seems more likely that rahmayyu in
18

shares his role as creator. She is called "Progenitress of

the gods" (qantyatu °tlima, CTA 4.1.23, I11.26, 30, IV.32,
ete.). As) *BI"s! mate, shelis considered) tombe the mother ot
the gods, 23 who are called "the seventy sons of ’Atirat
(Stb*uma bani ?atirati, CTA 4.VI1.46). The gods are also ex-
plicitly called the "sons of ’Atirat" (banu *attratt//’tluma,
ee eee ee eee
CTA 23.13, 28 is best identified with ’Atirat, ’El's consort,
the progenitress of the gods, and not with ‘Anat. Indeed, the
connection of rahmayyu, “the one of the womb/the maidenly
one," with ’Atirat seems most natural. The gentilic -y makes
this an epithet, not to be connected with the phrase rahmu
‘anatu, "the maiden ‘Anat."" The two wives (CTA 23.42, 43, 48,
49, 60) who are impregnated by ’E1 are probably younger god-
desses who comprise part of ’El's harem. It should occasion
no surprise to find the elder patriarch preferring to cavort
with his younger wives than with his regular consort. We
would take ’attratu-wa-rahmayyu as a compound name in 23.13,
28. On the problems involved in the identification of
Rahmayyu with ‘Anat, see A. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess,
BOS
ST
23. We can hardly agree with the contention that ’E1 and
*’Atirat were estranged (see A. van Selms, Marriage and Family
Life in Ugaritte Ltterature [London: Luzac § Company, Ltd.,
1954], 64-66). The texts reveal no enmity between the god
and his consort. Rather, they show that the two were on quite
amiable terms. When ’*Atirat visits ’El's tent to request a
house for Ba‘l, ’El seduces her with no protests from the god-
dess (CTA 4.1V.27-39). Likewise, in the protest to °E1 that
Ba‘l has no house, the dwelling of ’Atirat is seen as equiva-
lent to the dwelling of ’El.
métibu ’ili mazlilu baniha
motibu rabbatu ’atirati yammi
(COPE ON ASSIS Soe Maes AW aciiolsye i These they)

The dwelling of ’El is the shelter of his sons,

The dwelling of Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea.
The concept of an estrangement between the parents of the gods
seems to stem not from the texts, but rather from the associ-
ation of ’Atirat with Ba‘l in Hebrew literature.
 19

CTA Sree
On ewe eae Viol eter) mands theal'sonsmo£
Qud3u," the epithet of *Atirat?* (bana qud3t, CTA 2.1.21, 38;
ZAMEEN AISZ0, G83 Ui oiints Oo Wi, Sees), Wins, wie gods of
the pantheon at Ugarit were considered to be the sons of ’El
and *Atirat, the gods of creation.
Only the storm-god Ba‘l presents a possible exception to
themsminacte ls Bacelueds commonly called bitnu dagni, "the son of
Deventer’ (CH) Aeliol), S55 SiS WAWUEAISAAS WGN AGs MC iieiiss Se
12.11.26; 14.11.78, IV.170; etc.), but, as we have seen above,
he is also considered to be the son of ’El. This is most ex-
plicit in ‘Anat's promise of life to ’Aqhat:

wa-’aSaspiruka ‘im ba‘li Sanati

“im bini ’ili tasappiru yarihima
(CLATUT V1 28-29)

I will make you count the years with Ba‘1l;

You will count the months with the son of B1,2°

Further, ‘Anat, the daughter of ’E1, is also called the "sis-

EGS Oe Baw ait (- ahatu Dg V5 CRA UD Si sLSsoMGOS TN SMe Were Seis
83; 10.11.20), which would make Ba‘l ’E1l's son. But the divi-
sion of the textual evidence is certainly ambiguous with re-
spect to the exact nature of Ba‘l's genealogy. This same
ambiguity is reflected in Sanchuniathon's account of Ba‘l's
lineage. While it is explicitly stated in Praep. evang. 1.10.
26 that Kronos (’E1) is the father of Ba‘l (Zedce BfAocg), 1.10.
19 presents another picture. Here, Kronos (?B1), after de-
feating his father Ouranos, gives the pregnant concubine of
Ouranos to Dagnu and she bears the child Demaros (Baan whom

Zee themepithet quae uss applicd directly to UNtinat. in

CTA 14.1V.197-206 in Kirta's vow to the goddess of Tyre and
Sidon.
25. OQ. Eissfeldt notes the parallelism between pb’ and

bn *tL1 and translates the latter as "the god" (#UP, 37-38).

Though the term bn in Ugaritic may denote membership to a

class, just like bén in Hebrew, the common designation of the

gods as bn *il(m) seems to us to argue for the term to be

rendered "the son of ’E1."
20

she has conceived by Ouranos. This account shows Ouranos to

be the natural father of Ba‘l (here called Anuapotc), Dagnu,
step-father, and Kronos (?E1), simply a go-between. Thus
Philo's record of Sanchuniathon shows basically the same con-
fusion as that found in the Ugaritic texts. 2°
Bas lads also: called haddw (Cle 4.Vil.595) Vid ss0s Si be 2on,
Unie ee (0)Rae, LIS kA IG oe) thetel iaikon Iperelai. “Meine: (SOG!
Haddulle (CLARO Dil Ze Seeley eee2y, DA eile Oli et Cry) Penneeeate
Ba‘1, which means simply “lord, master,'' has almost completely
replaced Haddu, an the proper name of the ancient Semitic
storm-god, as his official title. Our present knowledge indi-
cates that the god Haddu was present in Syria-Palestine as far
back as our oldest records, 28 and was perhaps introduced into
the area during the Amorite incursions into Syria-Palestine at
the end of the third millennium B.C. and the beginning of the
second. 2? On the basis of the identification of Ba‘l with the

26. Note, however, that the Ugaritic texts view Dagnu as

the father, not the step-father, of Ba‘l. This confusion of
traditions over Ba‘l's genealogy must have been early, and
cannot be resolved with our present evidence. We can see no
reason to adopt the conjecture of M. Astour that Dagnu was the
"real personal name of the supreme god, and El ('god'), his
surrogate designation" ("Some New Divine Names from Ugarit,"
JAOS 86 (1966) 279, n. 27). As Astour notes, ’El and Dagnu are
invoked as-separate deities in Ug. V.7.3, 15 (RS 24.244) and
Ug. V.8.13-14 (RS 24.251). We should add that the two gods
are listed separately in the pantheon lists, Ug. V.18.2, 3
(RS 20.24) = CTA 29.3, 4, and they are listed separately in
Che gsacri ficial, CexbSi (CiAm SsOrlin: t/Gcue View Sls ml mm e
253]). The evidence of the texts makes any such identifica-
tion impossible.
27. A. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 52.
28. C. L'Heureux, "El and the Rephaim: New Light from
Ugartttea V" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Univer-
Sete HAs 7 Ihe
29. On the nature of the god Haddu, see M. Dahood,
"Ancient Semitic Deities," 77, and especially the literature
cited in n. 1; U. Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and
 Pal

god Haddu, U. Oldenburg divides the pantheon at Ugarit into

two families. The family of ’El includes *Atirat, Yamm, Mot,
and ‘Attar/‘Attart. The gods Haddu (Ba‘l), Dagnu, ‘Anat, and
SapSu constitute the family of Ba‘1.°9 This division is based
on the assumption that the gods associated with Ba‘ 1-Haddu
were originally foreign to Ugarit, whereas the members of
7El's family appear to have been the indigenous gods of the
city. >! Such division of the pantheon into families is not
borne out by the texts and traditions.°? As we have seen,
‘Anat is called "daughter" by ’El, and Ba‘l is called "the son
@re eal. Sapsu is seen as a messenger of ’El twice (CTA 2.
TT1(?).17-18; 6.VI.22-29), and the fact that ’EBl is referred
to as father of Sapsu (CTA 6.1IV.34) shows that the sun-goddess
likewise was within the family of the high god. Only the god
K6tar-wa-Hasis, commonly associated with Memphis-of-Ptah (CTA
Loi gil=s Lysals Cty Zoli ee-Ss Sal sSoUSi~ Wewukel alin) ehohy
way be regarded as standing outside the "family" of °El. But
7El is called the father of K6tar once in CTA 1.III.26, when
Kétar visits the dwelling of ’El and then receives instruc-
trons to, build a temple (cf. also CTA 1°2IR3S). Kotar, like
the other gods, must also be considered part of ’El's family.
While it is indeed possible that a deity and its cultus could
be imported from another culture, the god would be assimilated
into the pantheon rather than form a rival divine family.
While the Ugaritic texts may preserve an historical memory of
Ba‘ 1's original lineage as the son of Dagnu, for the mythology

Ba‘al, 60-69; A. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 30-

38; and M. Pope, WM, 253-254.
30. U. Oldenburg, The Conflict Between El and Ba‘al,
28-100.
Giles Hotels 5 IO
32. The recent work of J. J. M. Roberts (The Farltest
Semttic Pantheon [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1972 eictemesp. pp. 13-245 18-9 51-35)" has shown that

the gods Il (?&2), Addu/Adad (haddu), and Dagan (dagnu) belong

to the earliest Semitic pantheon predating the dynasty of Ur

Ili. This makes Oldenburg's efforts at dividing the Canaanite

pantheon into two opposing families wholly untenable.

“ap

of Ugarit Ba‘l, like the other gods, was clearly assumed to be

the son of ’El. The texts seem to preserve a conflation of
the traditions of Ba‘l as the "son of ’E1" and as the "son of
Dagnu," but the fact that the gods are considered to be the
offspring of ’B1 and ’Atirat and also the brothers of Ba‘l
(CTA 4.V.90-91) makes it only natural that Ba‘l should be con-
sidered in the mythology as the son of the high god ’El.

The Kingshtp and Ruling Funettons of *EL

The Ugaritic texts designate ’El as "king," !

malku, in
addition to noting his role as creator and father of the gods.
Indeed, this epithet is directly applied only to the god Dis1)
visa, lUpugneiiye
sie mythology.» When applied to ’El, the epithet
"king" is found embedded in fixed epithets of the god; the
most common one is malku °abu Sanima, "the king, the Father
of Years">4 CCBA SMA
25. =24S Zeet (CS)
roSaat Vile dewey eae

33. For a convenient table listing the application of

the root mZk in Ugaritic and the gods to whom the designation
of “king" is applied, see .W. Schmidt; Konzgeum Gortres, 22, ms.
1. It should occasion no surprise that the title "king" (m7tk)
could be applied to numerous deities within the same pantheon.
In the Akkadian pantheon, the title Sarru could be applied to
any city-god. Even more significant, the same epithet was ap-
plied to numerous deities. For examples, see K. Tallqvist,
Akkadtsche Gétterepitheta (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag,
IAD) 5 OSS. We 2H22257/6
S430) Lhe) transiataon vom a@bmenm as Mibathermsort Wears wails
debated because the normal plural for "years" in Ugaritic is
Sanatu, not Sanima. Because Hebrew uses both plural types,
Sanim and Sandt, this argument cannot be viewed as decisive
against our translation. For a review of the debate and the
other ways in which the phrase has been translated, see M.
Pope, ZU, 32-33. The title “Father of Years" is completely
consistent with the picture of ’El derived from the Ugaritic
VSR S| ibe iste Wie
cIGM rs Wik obs ny (URS Bee ey). ORL sis
called rapt’u malku ‘dlami, “the Hale One, the eternal king."
Likewise, the epithet ‘atttq ydmtn, "the Ancient of Days" (Dan
 23

ZS Bo Wi gilsAs Wolo S5=s80e 17.V1.48-49). Each occurrence of

this epithet is found in the highly formulaic description of
a god's visit to ’El on his mountain dwelling or in his
tent.°° The parallelism of these passages makes it expillucakt
that ’El is regarded as king: in°each case malku °abu Sanima
is paralleled by °tZu.

tagliyu dadi ’ili wa-tiba’u

qaraSi malki ’abi Sanima
la-pa‘né *ili tahbur wa-tigqal
tiStahwiyu wa-takabbiduht
(CTA 4.1V.23-26)°°
She opened the domed tent”! of °E1 and entered
The tabernacle of King, Father of Years.
She bowed and fell at the feet of ’E1,
She did obeisance and honored him.

The importance of the epithet malku *abu Sanima is seen from

its context. It is applied to the god ’El in his dwelling
when he is visited by another god or by divine messengers who

ao) es Senn
Tscent Oi seinem titles !(hather on veans. e This
epithet of ’El not only refers to the deity's age, but also
reflects his role as the creator-god and wise patriarch/judge
in the pantheon.
SE, (C8. CHA WoW Ales (owe waisies Dele AIG pot
© C@taw)s SoWellS-le (Amaia) 3 Goo A046, (CMedieeneS Saiiligaia”,
(Ba‘ 1's messengers); 6.1.32-38 (‘Anat); 17.V1.44-51 (‘Anat).
36. The subject here is the goddess ’Atirat. With
variation only in the verbal prefixes, the same formula ap-
DeARS im CHA de
OAS 55 Acoli) cS=9p Do oslesdiOn, a\ieodksss
Ge We GM OES TU GM UMe= Silie
37. For the meaning "domed tent" for dd and its ety-
mology, see FP. M. Gross, CMH, 55, n. 43. For a discussion
of the use of the word dd in Ugaritic, see R. Clifford, The
Cosmie Mountain tn Canaan and the Old Testament, Harvard

Semitic Monographs, IV (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1972), 51-53, and "The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of
Meetingat (CBO 55! (971) 222, ny 4.
24

have come to make a request, to answer his summons, or to

deliver a message. Notably, in six of the eight occurrences

of the epithet, °° the gods visiting ’El pay homage, pros-

trating themselves before the king. This is the common way
to be received by a god in the Ugaritic texts.°9
*E1's kingship is clearly seen when he appears in a vi-
saom to King Kimnta’.

wa-ba-halamiht ’ilu yarada

ba-dahratihu ’abu ’adami

wa-yiqrab ba-Si’4li kirta

ma’atta kirta ki yabkiyu
yidma‘u nu‘manu galmu ’ili

mulka [t]6ri ’abiht ya’arrisu

himma darka[ta] ka-’abi ’adami
(CEA TA 235-43)

And in his dream, ’E1 descended,

40
fn his viston, the Pather on Man.

And he drew near asking Kirta:

"What is wrong with Kirta that he weeps?
That Nu‘man, Lad of °E1, sheds tears?

384) The only vexcepitvons fare Gran Sei.

US lg) pamdero Vile oe

39. The gods prostrate themselves not only to ’El but

allsouto esAna (GEA el. DialiSiad7-0aSisitl Teo) ant Om Cam(Cun unAen
valiInle
ZO=29))iss et OKO tare (C7Aled sil laeimesace SicaValanlce) 3210) eameN © Ceuta artsmiel al
CTA 2.1.14-15 Yamm explicitly instructs his messengers not to
fall before ’E1 and not to do homage to the assembly.
40. The epithet *abu ’adami, "Father of Man," which oc-
curs only in the Kirta epic, will be treated in the next chap-
ter, where ’El appears as the patriarch and father of King
Kirta, who is called "lad of *E1" (Gaimu 2220, CPA 14.1.40-41.-
II.61-62; VI.306; 15.11.16, 20) and "offspring of Kindly One
(7E1) and Qudsu (’Atirat)" (Siphu lutpani wa-qudst, CTA 16.1.
WOE PES AMES eee, Wise WM ISM) .
 25

"Does he desire the kingship of Bull, his father?

Or dominion like the Father of Man?"

Mes own words make his position in the pantheon clear. The
earthly kingship of Kirta is here being compared to the heav-
enly kingship of °El. It is most significant that ’£1 him-
self, and not some minor deity, appears to Kirta in the
dream. oi it tse Ri who, as King of the gods (here called
toru, Bull"), responds directly to the needs of the earthly
king. His question is obviously transparent: could Kirta
possibly desire kingship and dominion like that of the cre-
ator-god (cf. Dan 11:21-45)? Kirta's response makes it clear
that he is requesting only progeny (CTA 14.11.57-58), which is
then granted by ’El. The major significance of ’El's appear-
ance is that he is seen as the clansman/protector of the
earthly king and refers to his own kingship in the divine
realm from which he has descended in the vision. In conjunc-
tion with this, ’El's kingship is explicitly noted in the ti-
tle ’ilu malku du yakaninuhu, "King ’E1 who created him"
(ic@o, BaD) (Ga Say. Assis An 5-63 “oiode jompenaS
Deut 32:6, where Yahweh is called "father" and “creator").
The texts leave no doubt that ’El was called king in the
Ugaritic pantheon. 42 The nature of his kingship, however, is
mone ditficult to establish: Though the epithet matku ap-
plies directly only to ’E1, other gods are explicitly pro-
claimed king: Bal (CTA 3.V.40-41; 4.1V.43-44); Yamm (2.
LUT (FP) oBl=a2) 2 zine “Mewar (GolaSSeOSNy Wine seSilenenchisieai xe
tween the reigns of these gods and the dominion of DBL ak wae
utmost importance in understanding the nature of kingship and
the relationship between the gods within the pantheon. A

Ai, PEL ANS BjSekes ase WakSslehovs alk OMe WLS aN NS) ale
Wi. 2IOS 29
42. Personal names at Ugarit using the title mZk plus a
divine name occur most frequently with ’zZ2, but also with rép

and 3ps. On these names see F. Grondahl, Die Personennamen

der Texte aus Ugartt (Rome: Papstlisches Bibelinstitut,
1967), 158. It is most interesting that the name b‘lmlk does
not occur at Ugarit.
26

study of ’El's function as king reveals that he alone is the

supreme power in the pantheon. He sits enthroned over the
gods and rules them from a position of supreme power.

?ilu yatibu ba-‘attarti

?ilu tapata ba-haddi ra‘iyi
di yaSiru wa-yadammiru ba-kinnari
Wg Vi 2a 24” RS S24 2529)

*E1l is enthroned with ‘Attart;

?El sits in judgment > with Haddu the shepherd,
44
Who sings and plays on the lyre.

Here we find ’El enthroned with his mistress, being enter-

tained by Ba‘l-Haddu. His position over the other gods is
obvious. He is called malku ‘6lami (1. 1), "the eternal
king." Though the end of the text is broken, ’El's powerful
position in the pantheon is quite clear:

{[yamluk]rapi’u malku “élami ba-‘uzzi[hu]

[yatput mJalku ‘“6lami ba-dimriht
bal [yamluk] ba-hatkihu ba-namirtiha*®
Wgis V2.
LE 10-8 RSs 2425 eu)

Let Rapivu,
the eternal king, rulle by his might,
Let the eternal king judge in his strength,
Nea, dete ham eruille shis om ispr neem asm omaGer

This passage makes it clear that ’El sits at the head of the

15 The usage or the rootecps, com udee,ecenrute mens

most interesting in Ugaritic. We shall note the usages of the
root as a verb and as an epithet below, when we consider the
kingships of Ba‘l and Yamm. See below, pp. 4 fo
44. Note that this triad, *E1, “Attart, and Haddu, is
also found in Praep. evang. 1.10.31. The god Haddu may also
bel seen asm sangen™ ins Guan ly Vile S052
45. We have followed here the reconstruction of F. M.
Cross, CMHE, 21. We reconstruct ymlk in line 6 for parallel-
ism with ytpt in the next line, whereas Cross reconstructs
ytpt in both places.
 27

pantheon, ruling over his offspring, the other gods. He re-

ceives the epithet malku “Slamt, "the eternal king" (see also
Ug. Vi2vIi1; T1t4e5, 6, 7 (RS) 24.2521), That ‘the full epithet
vrapt*u malku ‘Slami*® applies to ’E1l is clear from the two
opening lines of this same text:

[app] inna‘? yaSti rapi’u malku ‘élami

wa-yaSti [’ilu] gatira wa-yaqara
Wen WoeBollsl=Z WIRES BA, 257))))

Then Rapi’u, king of eternity, drank,

*E1 drank the strong and precious (liquor).

?E1, who here sits at the banquet table as head of the gods,
Toe cwVenm thes tac les mthemeternalsiing/ king Ofeetermatya. sebhe
epithet “dlam is also used of ’E1 in a Phoenician incantation
Plaque of the seventh century BG. from Arslan Tash (KAr 27. 8-
Gla)

«
leg (enecdliay elite sbi
*Sr krt 1n48

The Eternal One has made an oath with us,

ASerah has made a pact with us.

In the Ugaritic pantheon, and in later Phoenician religion, it

46. The epithet rapt’?u, "the Hale One," which is here

appldaedstoseel, 1s OL great Significance, for it connects the
present text with those known as the Rephaim texts (CTA 20-22)
and with Kirta and Dan’il, who are members of the Rephaim. We
shall treat this title in our consideration of the divine
council in Ugaritic mythology. See below, pp. 261-267.
47. We read [*ap]n as the first word in the text. From
Virolleaud's drawing of the tablet (Ug. V, 552), there does
not appear to be sufficient space to read [’aph]n, which he
has reconstructed.
48. We cite here the revised reading of the text pub-
lished by F. M. Cross and R. J. Saley, "Phoenician Incanta-
tions on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash
InpUppeumov alae AsOne LO 7 (L970) etaSr
28

is the god ’E£l who receives the epithet ''the Eternal One" or
"the eternal king.1"49
The Ugaritic texts reveal that ’El is placed in the
exalted position of king over the pantheon, but give no evi-
dence of how ’El attained his kingship. In the ancient Near
East kingship was won through warfare. This was obviously
Ba‘l's claim to kingship in Ugaritic mythology, for his rule
was founded upon his victory over Yamm and retained through
his defeat of M6t. But the Ugaritic texts do not portray ’El
as a warrior. One of his most common epithets is lutpanu °tlu
du pa’idt, "'the Kindly One, ’El the Compassionate" (CTA 1.III.
PRA Ge. “ili VN Hales oetLSBIN Ge Coke GN i IMLS
ILZARL GygGIIE RAN WI GUTE IESi—
hen
etc.)), or simply tutpanu (CfA 6.1V.35; 16.1.21;5 I1.106, 111;
etc.), which shows the compassionate nature of the deity as
creator and father of the gods (compare the expression *éZ

49. The epithet ‘dlZam is not, however, an exclusive epi-

thet of the god ’El. In the eighth-century B.C. Phoenician
inscription from Karatepe (KAI 26.I111.19), Sams ‘Slam, "'the
Eternal Sun," is invoked along with Ba‘l Samém and °#1 qéné
2ars. Likewise, ‘Slam seems to have been the epithet of one
of the olden, theogonic deities. For a discussion of the epi-
thet, see. M. Cross, CMHE, a7 205 sethereps checerspappseds to
*E1l in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, text S58: 22d em,
HOE (Cexeyel}) one eternity" (cf. W. F. Albright, fhe Proto-Sinat-—
tte Insertpttons and thetr Dectpherment [Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1969], 24). Though the epithet ‘Slam is
never applied directly to Ba‘l, it is used once to describe
his kingship. Before the battle with Yamm, Kétar proclaims
Bas Ls =v ictony.:
tiqqahu mulka ‘élamika
darkata data dardarika
UGTA 2 LV di0))

You shall take your eternal kingship,

Your everlasting dominion.
Hebrew literature also employs the epithet ‘dZam. In Gen
21:33 Yahweh is given the epithet °&2 ‘Olam. The title mélek
“Olam is applied to Yahweh in Jer 10:10 (CSE WSS WR US "Oeil
IANO IBOS ebieexel ANS IBS). ¢
 29

rahiim w?’ hanniin [Exod 34:6] as applied to Yahweh; cf. also

Jonah 4:2; Neh 9:31; etc.). Militaristic implications are
present, however, in the epithet tdru, "Bull," which is ap-
plied only to the god »£1.°9 In the three passages which dis-
play ’El as the father/creator of Ba‘l (CTA 3.V.43-44; 4.1.4-
73 4.1V.47-48) cited above, > toru *ttu, "Bull OBL sy sein
parallel with °tZu malku, "King ’E£1," connecting the epithets
a RF EE ee eh oe ee ne ae SO ie eee
50. For a full examination of the title téru as a desig-
nation of military personnel and the usage of animal names to
designate warriors and nobles in Canaanite and Hebrew litera-
ture, see P. Miller, "Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic
and Hebrew," UF 2 (1970) 177-186.
Though Ba‘l is frequently associated with the bull as a
symbol of power and fertility, the texts never apply the epi-
thet tOru to him. In CTA 5.V.18-22 Ba‘l mates with ‘Anat, who
is called a heifer (‘iglatu, 1. 18). He is obviously viewed
ienesas saabpulive iikewase, san c7A VOLDiie20 5255 cl. 55-356,
“Anat bears a young cow (Carhu), a bull (*tbtru), and a wild
ox (ri’?umu). This does not designate three offspring, but
rather one, the three animals born to Ba‘l standing in synony-
mous parallelism. Only once do the texts compare Ba‘l to a
bull. When Ba‘l is defeated by the "Renders" and the 'Devour-
ers,"
napala ba‘lu kama téri
wa-timkasu haddu [kama ’ibiri (?)]
kama *’ibtri ba-tdéka maSmasi
(Chi As il SAS So)

Ba I) falis’ like a bull,

Like a young bull Haddu bows,
Like a young bull in the midst of the swamp.
While iconographic representations of Ba‘l frequently depict
him wearing a horned crown and riding on the back of a bull
(see J. B,. Pritchard, The Anctent Near East in Pictures, 2nd

ed. [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974], nos. 490,

500, 501, 531, 537), he is never called ¢éru in the texts,

though he transparently assumes that role in the passages Gag =

ed. The epithet tdru is reserved only for ?El among the gods.
Sin seeps LO).
30

of malku and téru. But the epithet téru is also connected

with ’El's compassionate nature, tdru Lutpanu (CTA 16.1V.3),
and torustlue du pa-vae (CLAN 4 all 10,54), ease Wedd nasm be
ing applied independently to the deity (CTA 4.IV.39). This
epithet reflects a dual concept of *E1: the high god, charac-
terized asl Budi, ess botheapereatony £eGt1 it eyes punremana mc
warrior-god.
The most dominant imagery evoked by the title tdru is
that of the creator-god, since the bull was employed as the
common image of fertility in Near Eastern mythology. In the
Ugaritic texts the procreative aspects of the epithet "Bull"
are easily seen in two common formulaic variants of the title:
tOru ?ilu *?abtya/’? abthu/’? abika, "Bull ’E1, my/his/your father"
COLA LE TLD CR RO Re DIEZ Aaa DME
re OGM Leek LL (Geilesam Sr Wee
ISTP LSS LiLSSR 22 TLC oe 7 5 “Oe LES4s VIZ
O- 279) Randa cos
2abthu/?abika *tilu, “Bull, his/your father °EJ" (CTA 2.1.16,
53 Ose elie SO O-a.7 se lV OO) = bikewises athemepl ehermoc—
curs as galmu °1lt matkt tort ~abtnu, “Lad of °E1, King Bull)
his father" (CfA 14.1.40-41), in reference to King Kirta. The
connection between the epithets tdru and ’abu is obvious.
They depict ’El as the fertile bull who fathered the various
gods: "Bal V(CTAN2 In16,8 55,.° 505) Sets 445m alee ai Oe
Ie clea Seen, (GUM Vi IIL lls PAE (GCN, Jail USTs S. Tig.7/2
V.18); SapSu (CTA 6.1V.34); M6t (CTA 6.VI.26-27); ‘Attar (CTA
ZL LUG).
Lo, ue, U9) se and Kota (CiAMMna 1% Seco) eee mats mr liso
seen as the patron-déeity of Kirtay (CfA 4s ii. 50e) vo-7 75) IVs
169). The fertility/creator aspect of the epithet dominates
in the usage of this title.
In addition to the fertility connotations of the epithet
"Bull," t¢dru also carries militaristic implications. =e The
bull was an image of might and belligerence as well as of pro-
creation in the ancient Near East. This is most explicitly
a
52. Though the militaristic connotations of toru are
clear, we can hardly agree with W. Schmidt's assertion that
the title tdru *tZu is more a title of power and lordship than
of fertility and virility (Kdnigtum Gottes, 6-7). In view of
the general usage of the epithet, we feel that the warrior
aspect can easily be over-emphasized.
 Sil

seen in the usage of animal names to designate classes of

nobles:

sthi Sib‘ ima tdriya

timaniya-mi [zi]byiya
6ri huburi [rabba]ti
(CFA _15.1V.6-83 ef, 16-19)
Summon my seventy nobles (lit. 'bulls'),
My eighty lords (lit. 'gazelles')
The nobles (lit. 'bulls') of Hubur the Great.>°

Here the nobles are called “bulls" and "gazelles." The use of
such animal names to designate warriors and nobles is quite
common in the Old Testament (Exod 15:15: 2 Sam 1:19; fsa 1439);
CEC.) lnethaseusage, —thevepa thet tor May certainly desig
nate a warrior or class of nobles, and this connotation may be
seen in the application of the title to ’El.
ihissnilicaristic implication 1s well hidden in) the Uga-
ritic texts themselves. Only in the Kirta epic does ’E1 par-
ticipate in warfare, and then only as directing the battle.
7E1l leads Kirta in his battle against Pabil, king of *Udum
(CHA Whe Ibs OS Wie Ae ese INS ILE GAA), saan ebgpyllnuenlie
MStwulceLonsmass tO Now mto, conduct the entire battle. The camn-
paign begins with a sacrifice by Kirta to 781 and Ba‘ as
Chimreaci@G i CWA IA Ie Soe

nasa’a [y]ad@éha Samémah

dabaha la-todri ’abihu 7ili

Sarrida [ba‘la] ba-dibahihu

bina dagni [ba-m]asidihu
(COG WAN TINS GH SIE 7A)

He lifted up his hands heavenward,

He sacrificed to Bull, his father, ’E1,
te a
53. Animal names also designate warriors and nobles in

CSE VMS oe Umble 2 44aie nO Ol PRUE VS 0s. 9 GLP Muller,

"Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew," 177-

1,804.
32

He served Ba‘l with his sacrifice,

The son of Dagnu with his offering.

Though ’El alone directs the battle, Kirta is instructed to

offer sacrifices to both ’Bl and Ba‘l. But ’El1's role as
leader of the campaign is clearly seen in his role as the one
who gives Kirta the victory, for the country against which he
fightseissaapictte toni metnome amd.

?udumu yattanat!a ’ili

wa-?uSana ’abi ’adami
(CLAS VA ALLL
ESS LS 65H V2 58-259 S35 Vi oes Poe 7.89)

Such 1S 2 pees oi Oe
And a present of the Father of Man.

Thus ’E1 as the king of the gods has the power to sanction and
direct warfare, as well as to divide the spoils of war.
This function as the director of wars and the possible
militaristic implications of the epithet tdru are the only
indications in the»Ugaritic texts that “Eu gs a warrhonas fhas
material hardly indicates that he was a warrior able to gain
and retain the kingship in the pantheon. The material pre-
served by Philo, however, presents a totally different pic-
ture of *’E1 than that which is seen in the Ugaritic texts. In
the Phoenician account, ’El is seen as a fierce warrior who
does indeed gain his kingship through combat. °4 In Philo's
account, Kronos (?81)°° avenges his mother Ge (*ars) for the
indignities of his father Ouranos (Samém) . Kronos then makes
a sickle and spear of iron and wages war against Ouranos
(Graepn evang. IL0.17-19). lt 1s through thiss victouy that

54. For a complete study of ’El as divine warrior, see

P, Miller, Lhe Divine Warrtor in Farly Israel, Harvard Semitic
Monographs, V (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973),
esp. pp. 48-58, and his article, "El the Warrior,” HTR 60
(967) 41450
DJ-)) LNewidentiticatvon as explicit: Om HAOCmLOULEEICOGlY
6 Kodvocg, "’E1, who is Kronos" (Praep. evang. 1.10.29; cf.
1G)
 33

Kronos attains his kingship:

nat ottwe Kpdvog tdév Otoavdy noAgum cvuuBardv

This Goexfic fAacev ual tiv BaotrActayv SveSéEato.
(Praep. evang. 1.10.18)

Thus Kronos, having met Ouranos in battle,

drove him from the sovereignty and succeeded
(him) to the kingship.

Later in the account, Kronos castrates his father Ouranos

(Praep. evang. 1.10.29), thus eliminating Ouranos as a threat
to his kingship. Immediately after conquering Ouranos and
seizing the throne, ’E1l founds his city, Byblos (Praep. evang.
1.10.19). In the Phoenician theogony, ’B1's character is
extremely brutal. Apart from defeating and later castrating
his father, he casts his brother into the underworld, sacri-
fices his son, and marries his sisters (Praep. evang. 1.10.19-
29). This picture of °ER1 as a fierce warrior is also con-
firmed in the Hittite text, 'Kingship in Heaven, 156 where
Kumarbi (81)°7 emasculates his father Anu (= Phoenician
Ouranos) and gains the kingship. In the Hittite "Song of
Ullikummi"?® Kumarbi CELeisecalled thestathemot. alll
gods. 99 The traditions portraying ’El as a fierce warrior

SOmmELOxNamcCoMmpllebemereatmen ton sthenuext, —see: hl. 1G.

Giterbock, Kumarbi, Mythen von churrtttschen Kronos (New York:
Europaverlag, 1946). For translations see Gltiterbock, ''The
Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Fore-
Tunners of Hesiod," AvyA 52 (1948) 124-125, and A. Goetze,
ANEE, 120-121.
57. On the identification of ’E1 with Kumarbi, see E.
Laroche, "Notes sur le Panthéon Hourrite de Ras Shamra," JAOS
88 (1968) 148-150.
53. For text. and translatiom, see H. Guterbock, "The
Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the Hittite Version," JCS

Sen CLO SI) ees -lOdemenCse On (1951) 8-420 eror the translation,
Seenalso Goetze. AVE! 121-125.
59. The Hittite myths, along with the myths preserved

by Philo and those contained in Hesiod's Theogony, will be

34

in the texts reflecting the influence of ancient Near Eastern

mythology are unanimous in their witness that he attained his
position through prowess in battle. It is this attribute of
761 that places him at the head of the pantheon and gives him
the directorship over war. But there is a special quality in
the wars of ’El. His wars belong to the myths of theogony--
the myths about the olden gods, the natural pairs like Heaven
and Earth (Ouranos and Gé) who stand behind the pantheon. ©?
*E1 does not participate directly in the conflicts between his
sons, who fight for kingship over the cosmos. Rather, he has
established himself as king at the head of the pantheon, con-
trolling the actions of the other gods.
But ’El did not fight his battles alone, according to
the Phoenician account of Sanchuniathon. Though the allies
(obvuwuaxor) of Kronos are not mentioned in the sentence telling
of the battle against Ouranos, the god Hermes addresses them
explicitly to prepare them for the battle with Ouranos (Praep.
evang. 1.10.18). These allies are clearly divine beings, for
logs zine Celdlikeel Wexovelsi's

ot 6€ ov¥uUayot “HAov tod Kopdvou *EAwetu

ETLEHATNONOAV....»
(Praep. evang. 1.10.20)

And the) allies of El, that is Kronos,

were called Eloeim....

These beings are further described as having "two wings on

each shoulder in order that they might fly with Kronos"
(Praep. evang. 1.10.37). Kronos himself is described as
having four eyes and four wings (1.10.36-37). Indeed, there
i a re wn eees
studied in more detail below in connection with the concept
of a conflict between ’E1 and Ba‘l, pp. 92-109.
60. For a discussion of the olden gods and their place
in the theogonic myths, see F. M. Cross, CMHE, 40-43; and
"The 'Olden Gods' in Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths,"
Magnalta Det: The Mighty Acts of God, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E.
Lemke, and P. D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday §&
Conpany, INC.) oie 9 sooSi
 35

can be little doubt that these gods who accompany Kronos also
fought alongside him against his father, °1 In the theogony
preserved by Philo, °El is a fierce and able warrior, sur-
rounded by a number of subordinate gods who aid him in battle.
Thus he was able to defeat his father Ouranos and seize the
throne as leader over the gods. Here he leads the wars with-
in the realm of the gods, a function which can hardly be
separated from his function as leader of war in the epic of
Kirta. These glimpses of ’El as a fierce warrior show that
he was pictured in Canaanite mythology as a great and able
dicaderss
One would expect ’El's position as warrior and king in
the pantheon to be one of total control over the gods. Though
thesUganltlcutextsedo! notadepietmathe malatanistiesside of
?E1's kingship, they do display his control over the gods.
2El's most vivid role in the texts is that of "Dispenser of
Kingdoms." When the death of Ba‘l occasioned a conflict
within the pantheon, leaving his throne vacant and allowing
the power of sterility to threaten the cosmos, ’El immediate-
ly summoned his mistress ’Atirat, the "Progenitress of the
Gods,"' in order that the functions of Ba‘l's kingship might
be maintained:

tiSSa’u gaha wa-tasihu

tiSmaha hitta ’atiratu wa-bantha
?ilatu wa-sabburatu ’aryiha

ki mitu ’al’iyanu ba‘lu

ki haliqu zubulu ipl Ib) Paiersat

gama yasthu ’ilu la-rabbati ’atirati yammi

Sim‘i la-rabbatu ’atira[tu] yammi
ps er ————————
61. P. Miller, The Divine Warrtor, 53.
62. The concept of ’El, who himself is king, as the one

who dispenses kingship seems, on the surface, to be contra-

dictory. We shall see in the following sections, however,
that the kingships of Ba‘l, Yamm, and ‘Attar in no way impinge
upon ’B1l's reign. Rather, ’B1l's kingship is expressed pre-
cisely in his power over these other gods.
36

tini ’ahada ba-banika ’amallikannu

wa-ta‘ni rabbatu ’atiratu yammi
bal namallika yadi‘ yilhan
wa-ya‘ni lutpanu ’ilu dt pa’idi
daqqu ’anima 1a yarfizu ‘im ba‘li
14 ya‘dubu murha ‘im bini dagni ki tamsu-mi
wa- ‘ani rabbatu ’atiratu yammi
biltu namallika ‘attara ‘ariza
yamluk ‘attaru ‘arizu
appinnaka ‘attaru ‘arizu ya‘li ba-sirarati sapani
yataba la-kahti ’al’iyani ba‘li
pa‘naht 14 tamgiyani huduma
ri’Suht 14a yamgiyu ’apsahu
wa-ya‘ni ‘attaru ‘arizu
1a ’amluku ba-sirarati sapani
yaradu ‘attaru ‘arizu
yaradu la-kahti ’al’iyanu ba‘li
wa-yamluk ba-’arsi ’?ili kullihu
(CTA 6.1.39-65)
She (‘Anat) lifts up her voice and cries out:
Diet Atta tran «Nets O1sm belo uGer
*Elat and her brood of young lions.

Indeed ’Al’iyan Ba‘l is dead!

Perished is the Prince of the earth!"

7El cries aloud to Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea:

"Hear, O Lady *Atinat-of sthe-Sea ;
Give one of your sons and I shall make him king!"
And Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea replied:
"Let us make Yadi‘-Yilhan®* king!"

63. The name means "He knows-He understands." ylhn is

here taken as a G imperfect from the root Zhn, Arabic lahina,
"to understand, be smart," which offers a parallel to the
first element of the name, yd‘ (cf. F. Gr&ndahl, Die Per-
sonennamen der Texte aus Ugartt, 155). This figure of a king
who is physically inferior to Ba‘l, unable to compete, yet
wise, offers a distinct contrast to ‘Attar, who four times
 Sy

And Kindly One, ’El the Compassionate answered:

"Too thin! He is not able to run with Ba‘1;
He is not able to throw the spear with the son
of Dagnu when they compete! "64
And Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea responded:
"Let us make ‘Attar the Terrible king,
Let ‘Attar the Terrible reign!"
Then ‘Attar the Terrible ascended the heights
of Sapan,
He was enthroned on the throne of ’Al’iyan Ba‘1l.
His feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not reach the top (of the throne).
And ‘Attar the Terrible said:
"I shall not rule in the heights of Sapan."
“Attar the Terrible descended,
He descended from the throne of ’Al’iyan Ba‘1,
And ruled over the whole of the earth.°

This passage vividly displays ’El's function as the dispenser

in this passage receives the epithet of ‘arigu, ''The Terri-

ble."" This epithet is applied to Yahweh in Ps 89:8: ’é2
na ‘aras b°sdd-q°ddstm, UTheeterrocains
pum nee cod miner nescoun-
cil of the Holy jones..."
G4 neCwanalySismOLikrmeneismdititcult.» We read the
verb from the geminate root mss (cf. Arabic, massa, "to feel,
touch, hit, befall"). The k is an adverbial particle, kt,
iVhen (Glee mn weGondon, Ugarervestestrboon |[Rome. Pontifical!
Biblmealelns tutute wel 9O5i sseGy l2s5). lhe verbeis a third
masculine plural imperfect with an enclitic -mz particle (on
the t- prefix on a third masculine plural imperfect, see UT,
sec. 9.14).
65. “Attar’s rejection of the kingship is quite star-
tling in view of his request for a house in CfA 2.111(?).17-
19. The entire issue of the nature of ‘Attar's reign is dif-
ficult. It is possible that he was involved in the revolt of
the gods of heaven, a myth reflected in Isa 14:12-20, and was
cast into the Underworld, over which he then ruled. We shall
treat this possibility in Part II in connection with Psalm 82.
See below, pp. 288-295.
38

of kingdoms. Through ’E1's power and decree vAttar is here

granted the kingship that he had earlier been denied (CTA 2.
TIL G@)el7=18)\2" Bue Attar issphysteally Coorsmal to occupy,
Ba‘ l's throne, and descends to rule in the earth or the Under-
world. ’El1 thus has the power to reject a king (Yadi‘ -Yilhan)
or to accept one (‘Attar). Such decisions in the pantheon be-
long solely to ’El. This passage in no way shows al AS 2
weak god, unable to carry out the responsibilities of rule.°°
Rather, it shows that ’El has complete control within the
realm of the gods.
In like manner, it is by the decree of ’E1 that Yamm and
Ba“1 attain kinoship. = though endl SIV) 2s etexrrably broken. at
appears that Yamm is proclaimed "Lord": ’atta ’adanu tup‘ aru
[===], “Youtare: callledtlord se. (crak iViL7), a proclanation
that is) clearly eaddressed by ahha (cen eli. 5. ehsiieton Vann os
whom it is noted: Simuka méddtdu *i(1t---], “Your name is
URE ove duos 2b auanne m (OLaA rervezoy:?? Likewise, ’E1l commands
K6tar to construct a een for Yamm, which is tantamount to
proclaiming Yamm king.

tibi‘u ké[t]ar-wa- [hasis]

[t]abni bahati zubuli yammi

66. Contra U. Oldenburg, The Confltet Between El and

ej ith Buh.
67. CTA 2.111(?).22 may contain another reference to
Yamm's kingship, reading la malakta, "Indeed, you are king,"
once, possibly twice, in that line. The text is broken, and
the exact reading cannot be determined. Because ‘Attar com-
plains in lines 21-22 that he has no wife like the gods, it is
possible that line 21 reads la-malkati, "to the queen." The
broken context makes a decision impossible. It is clear in
CTA 2.1.17, 33-34, 45 that Yamm is called "Lord" over the gods
of the divine assembly (?adanikum) when he demands that Ba‘l
be delivered to him by ’E1 and the assembly.
68. As A. Kapelrud notes, temple building was the task
and privilege of victorious gods and kings in the ancient
Near East. "Temple Building, A Task for Gods and Kings,"
Ortentalta 32 (1963) 56.
 39)

[tarami]mu héka[li tapiti] nahari

(CH 2M oBOB wie, Milo 75 iO)
Arise, O Kétar-wa-Hasis!
You shall build the house of Prince Yamm,
You shall raise up the temp1e°? of Judge River.

Thus Yamm, called "Beloved of ’E1,'"' is powerless to attain the

status of a king with a palace without the express decree of
the father and king of the gods.
The same is true of the kingship of Ba‘1l, who is por-
trayed as a mighty warrior throughout both the Ba‘l-Yamm and
Ba‘ 1-M6t cycles. /? Though Ba‘l is proclaimed as king by both
Shsnae aul Nee (El Boy AOA MOABs). Vaey aus powerless
to attain the symbol and sanction of kingship, a temple, with-
out the consent of the high god. After much persuasion by
“Anat (CPA 3) and *Atirat, *El proclaims that a temple should
be built for Ba‘l:

wa-ya‘ni lutpanu ’ilu du pa’idi

pa-‘abdu ’ani ‘ananu ’atirati
pa-‘abdu ’anaku ’ahidu ’ulata

himma ’amatu ’atirati talbuna labinati

yubné bétu la-ba‘li kama ’ilima
wa-haziru ka-bani ’atirati
(CTA 4.1V.58-V.63)
And Kindly One, ’E1 the Compassionate answered:
"Am I a servant, an attendant of ’Atirat?
Am I a servant who bears the hod?

69. Both bahati and hékali are formally plural nouns,

but are to be translated as singulars. See C. Gordon, Ur,
BEC, Sais
70. Though the exact division of the cycles is debated,
it is most commonly assumed that the Ba‘l-Yamm cycle is con-
tained in CfA 1-2, the Ba 1-M6t cycle in CTA 3-6. For a dis-
cussion of the problem, see R. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain,
So ale
40

Surely, let the handmaidens of ’Atirat

make the brick!
Let a temple be built for Ba‘l like the gods,
And a court like the sons of *Atirat."

This serves as ’E1's only confirmation of Bad's kingship. ele

is interesting to note that ’El totally disassociates himself
from the task of building the temple. His role requires that
he sanction its buidding, but thesactualltask as dettuco the
other gods, especially the craftsman-god, Kétar, who con-
structs the house (CTA AG ALIVistaie
°El's function as the god who dispenses kingdoms is fur-
ther reflected in Sanchuniathon. In the Phoenician theogony,
El divides the land among the various gods as their terri-
OD Yas

uat émt tovtotce 6 Kodvoc BUBAOYV LEV Thy

TOALVY SEG BaadrAtlSt. th uat Atdvn SlSwor
Bnevtov S€ TMooer6Gvi....
(Praep. evang. 1.10.35)

After these things, Kronos gave the city

Byblus to the goddess Baaltis (’Atirat), 72
also called Dione, and Beirut to Poseidon
(‘attar)/>.

fle The text states explicitly thatekKotageubua lite Basdiars

house. CTA 16.1V.4-13, however, refers to the god °i13,
called thescarpenten sod (maggara msec... Om Vint eet )ee moanc
his wives, "the carpenter goddesses" (naggaratit *tlahati, 16.
IV.5, 9, 13), who are summoned by ’E1l. Though the text is ex-
tremely obscure, it is noteworthy that the god °i28 is called
"the carpenter of Ba‘l's house" (*t28u naggdru béti bali, 16.
IV.8). It is probable that this god and others served as
workers under the direction of Kétar, the craftsman-god.
72. Kor thevidentitication Ba lat — *Atirate= Dione, see
ic WS Gr, Ellen RIO OS). sai, Ole
73. On the identification of ‘Attar with Poseidon, see
L. R. Clapham, "Sanchuniathon: The First Two Cycles," 149-
154.
 41

"EI is clearly in charge of the distribution of the kingdoms

of the gods, allotting Byblus to ’Atirat and Beirut to "Attar
as their portions among the gods. This function is further
seen in ’E1l's designation of the gods who shall rule the cos-
mos:

“Aotdetn 6€ fh uweylotn ual Zede Anuapotc

vat “Adw5og BaoLtAede Sedv éBaclAevov thc
xdHoac Kodvov yvaun.
(Praep. evang. 1.10.31)

And Astarte (‘Attart) the Great Lady and

Zeus Demaros (Ba‘l) and Adodos (Haddu),
king of the gods, ruled over the country
by the consent of Kronos (’E1).

The rulership over the country is firmly fixed in the hands of

?E1, the king and warrior-god in the theogonic myths of San-
chuniathon. As in the Ugaritic myths, his decisions concern-
iio ewan Siipearemnotequestvoned. they are accepted as £1-
nal among the gods. Here ’El has given the kingship to Ba‘1-
Haddu,’* called "king of the gods," and his consort Sealants
While it is important to recognize that the "executive" func-
tions of the cosmos, the maintenance of order and fertility,
belong to Ba‘l as king, the decision as to which god shall
possess the position of administrator of these functions be-
longs solely to ’El, who sits at the head of the pantheon.
In conjunction with ’El's capacity to establish kingship,
his power also includes the right to deny or overturn king-
ship. Twice ’El denies to gods their requests for the posi-
vom Os! sulle CCH BoC IVS OeWep
AOS ZIG ANG falas dneheielt=
between Ba‘l and Mét fiercely rages, SapSu appears to rebuke
Mot for his attempt to overthrow Ba‘1:
cee
ee EEE ————
74. It is most probable that the names Zeus Demaros and
Adodos refer to Ba‘l-Haddu, the two epithets of the god having

been separated into two gods by Philo. For instances of this

and other distortions of Sanchuniathon imposed by Greek cul-
ture, see L. R. Clapham, "Sanchuniathon: The First Two

Cveles iL Ae
42

?éka ’al yiSma[‘]uka téru ’ilu ’abuka

llapyaissaune allactiat ube ala
la yahpuku kissi’a mulkika
la yatburu hitta mitpatika
(CTA 6.Vi.26-29 = 25010 (a7 - 28)

How shall Bull ’E1 your father not hear you?

Surely he will uproot the foundation of your dais!
Surely he will overturn the throne of your kingdom!
Surely he will shatter the scepter of your judge-
ship!

Upon hearing this threat carried by Sapsu, M6t breaks off the
attack in Lear:

Yael7 bau 24 mam Ort

(Beker)l vewebiehe) Patilsi faeyanseel
(CLARO VLSS 05:1)

Mot, the son of °El was atraid,

Hero, Beloved of ’El was frightened.

Clearly, such a response by the god who was capable of engag-

ing and defeating the great storm-god Ba‘l shows that the
message of ’El was more than an idle threat. Indeed, under-
lying the ability to depose kings must have been the power and
ability reflected in Philo's description of ’El as a mighty
warrior. Instead of questioning ’El's authority, M6t with-
draws from the battle, allowing Ba‘l to reestablish himself
as king (CTA 6.V1.33-34). In the other instance of ’El1's
refusal of a request for kingship, this time as desired by
“Attar (CTA 2.III(?).17-18), the circumstances behind his re-
quest are not clear. Lines 7-9 clearly show that ’El has com-
manded Kétar to build a house for Prince Yamm. Following
this; the text is badly broken, and ail) thac)can be clearly
understood is that “Attar is involved. This is immediately
followed by SapSu's rebuking “Attar with exactly the same
words that she had used to rebuke Mét./> Though ‘Attar's

Peso Walsy Teepe Ore SapSu in the Ugaritic texts is rather

uncertain. In both instances where she delivers ’El's
 43

reaction is unclear from the text, it is obvious that he is

displeased. Whatever the circumstances of his WOCWOSE 5 ike aS
clear that ‘Attar has attempted to attain the kingship already
given to Yamm, for the rebuke of SapSu is followed by ‘Attar's
complaint that he has no temple like those of other gods (CTA
2.111(?).19-20).° These two instances confirm that the power
of dispensing kingdoms belonged to ’E1, the "eternal king" in
the Ugaritic pantheon.
The available material depicts ’El as a powerful god,
WOLthy or the ticles king." "ine the Ugaritic texts, his power
is displayed through his decree, not through his abilities as
a warrior. The reactions of the gods, most explicitly Mét,
to the decree of ’El reveal that he has the authority and
ability to rule the gods completely. The Phoenician theogony
of Sanchuniathon vividly delineates the source of his power:
?E1 was a mighty warrior who attained the position of king
with the aid of his allies by a victory over his father. Yet
the concept of ’El as a warrior is seen only faintly in the
Ugaritre texts. “In the Kirta epic *E1 directs battle and
divides the spoils of war. Throughout the texts he receives
the title "Bull" (t¢dru), which has militaristic connotations,
but is also intimately connected with ’E1's role as the cre-
ator/father of the gods. The discrepancies between the ac-
counts of ’El's nature are apparent, and if both are to be
given consideration, an explanation must be attempted.

message, she seems to serve as a messenger for the high god.

SapSu also seems to have a function in the dispensation of
JuUstree:
SapSu rapi’ima tahattiku
SapSu tahattiku ’ildniyyima
(CTA 6.V1.44-46)

SapSu will judge (?) the Rapi’u ("Hale Ones"),

SapSu will judge (?) the divine ones.
For the suggested translation of thtk as "'to judge," see F. M.

Cross, "The Canaanite Cuneiform Tablet from Taanach," BASOR

190 (1968) 45, n. 24. We have taken the verb as a D-form. On

the root htk see also M. Pope, "Marginalia to M. Dahood's

Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology," 465-466.
44

P. Miller has noted that while Philo's account is literarily

the latest, it actually presents an earlier stage of °E1 reli-
gion, still visible in the Ugaritic texts in epithets and in
the Kirta legend, and which could have been continued for a
longer period of time in the religion of South Canaan./°

Philo's account would thus represent a tradi-

tion from an earlier stage or even a differ-
ent area of Canaan and explain some of the
differences in an otherwise homogeneous pic-
ture. //

If the picture preserved in the Ugaritic texts and Philo is so

homogeneous, we are indeed surprised at the difference in the
descriptions of ’E1, especially if the account of Sanchunia-
thon is the earlier of the two. The other possibility lies in
the explanation that the tradition of ’E1 as warrior was pre-
served longer in South Canaan than in the northern area around
Ugarit.
It is probable, however, that the explanation is more
complicated than this. We suggest that the differences be-
tween the two accounts of ’El's nature lie much more in the
nature of the accounts themselves than in any regional varia-
tions in the mythology. Though Sanchuniathon's theogony is
much older than the seventh-century B.C. date assigned to it,
it is doubtful that it is earlier than the material from Ras
Shamra. It could portray an earlier stage of tradition, but
we would expect this tradition to be more firmly reflected in
the Ugaritic material. It does, however, present a different
type of mythological account. In Philo's account, ’E1 is pic-
tured as the major player in the theogonic succession of the
gods from Ouranos (Samém) to Kronos (’B1) and from Kronos to
Zeus (Ba‘l-Haddu). The battles of ’E1, as F. M. Cross has
noted, fit into the theogonic myths of the olden gods who
stand behind the pantheon. The god ’El stands at the "transi-
tion point" between these olden gods, the natural pairs like
ial ee AE PRON iL a Aes ee a Sie ie 8 Le ee aN 8 oe eee

76. P. Miller, The Divine Warrtor, 61-62.

Hikes dleBale, 5 Io
 45

his father (Heaven) and mother (Earth) and the deities who are
active in the cultus./8 ?E1l's role as creator fits into the
theogonic scheme: he fathers the gods who take part in the
cultus and the myths associated with the cult. Sanchunia-
thon's account concerns the generations of the gods. ’E1
ends the generations of the olden gods and, as father/creator,
begins the generations of the cosmogonic deities. The Uga-
ritic myths, especially those belonging to the Ba‘l-Yamm and
Ba‘1-M6t cycles, concern the struggle between the cosmogonic
deities, the sons of ’El. In these myths, ’B1 does not par-
ticipate in the battles. He appears as the creator/ruler who
determines the outcome of each struggle for supremacy. This
is most visible in the contrasting treatments of the god Ba‘l.
While Ugaritic mythology is concerned mainly with showing the
victories of Ba‘l over Yamm and M6t, Ba‘l plays no major ac-
tive wole in the’ account of Philo. This point vividly illus-
trates the theogonic/cosmogonic contrast in the character of
the texts. Ba‘l, who belongs to the younger generation of
deities, plays no role in the theogonic myth. Yet his king-
ship in the cosmogonic myths is still subject to the decree of
°E1, who is the transition figure, standing as the last king
in the generations of the olden gods and the first and supreme
king in the cosmogonic myths.
This distinction between the character of the mythologies
which we possess shows clearly that there is no contradiction
between the two views of ’El that have been presented. Like-
wise, it makes it unnecessary to appeal to regional differen-
tiations for the contrast in the way in which the high god ’El
was viewed. The two sources reveal different levels of tradi-
tion, one concerned with the theogonic succession of the gods,

the other with the cosmogonic conflicts within the realm of

the younger deities. »B1l's role in the latter is clear: he

is the supreme authority over the gods, whose decree deter-

mines the outcome and position of the cosmogonic warriors.

78. F.M. Cross, CMHE, 40-43.

46

The Cosmogonte Conflicts: The Kingshtp of Ba‘l, Yamm, and Mot

As we have noted above, the myths from Ugarit that are

primarily concerned with the rise of Ba‘l to his position as
the victorious god and king in the Ugaritic pantheon are con-
tained in the Ba‘l-Yamm (CTA 1-2) and Ba‘1-M6t (CTA 3-6) cy-
cles. The basic theme of these two cycles is the conflict be-
tween Ba‘ 1 and another god over the issue of kingship over the
cosmos. Crucial to this issue is the theme of a temple for
Ba‘1, which would symbolize his victory and ascendancy over
the other members of the pantheon. The building saga serves
as the sub-theme’ ? uniting the two cycles. After Ba‘ 1's vic-
tory over Yamm (CTA 2.1V), the young god turns all his efforts
toward attaining a palace for himself. While Ba‘l and ’E1
both have temples in the ’Aqhat legend (cf. CTA 17.1.32-33;
Ti 45) 2 22 ete. iba,le hase nom Temp hemin them cosSmor Omaic
myths , °° and it is his attempt to attain one that provides the
sub-theme to the issue of his kingship. Central to Ba‘l's
attaining his palace is his victory over Yamm, the personifi-
cation of Sea (= Chaos), who was a ruling deity in the panthe-
on.
The nature of Yamm's kingship is not at all clear. It is
apparent in CTA 2.1I1I1(?).7-9 that Yamm is granted a palace,
thus, tegutaimizang hase claim as ruler | Ln Cuan dieu plore isis ogee
Goll, 55-54, 45), Yamm is proclaimed “lord” iG@adanw sbi 2 Biles
who later grants him a palace. These texts, plus CTA 2.1,
where Ba‘l is given over to Yamm by ’E1 (11. 36-37), and CTA
2.1V, where Ba‘l battles and defeats Yamm, clearly show that
Yamm was regarded as a powerful king, worthy of a temple and
a a a a ee

79. We cannot agree with the assertion of J. Obermann

that the building saga is the major theme of the Ba‘l epic
(Ugaritte Mythology: A Study of Its Leading Motifs [New Ha-
ven: Yale University Press, 1948] 1). ihe kingship of Ba‘1
is the leading theme that is reflected in the building saga.
80. As we shall show in this section, Ba‘l lives in the
tent-shrine of ’El until he is given sanction by the high god
to build a temple. That ’E1 dwells in a tent, not a temple,
is apparent in the mythological texts. For a discussion of
’E1's dwelling, see below, pp. 128-168.
 47

lordship. Notably, however, the texts do not refer to Yamm as

king (malku). Yet Yamm's connection with kingship is vividly
seen in his defeat at the hands of Ba‘1:

yammu la-mitu
ba‘ lu-mi yamlu[ku]
(€TA 2.1V.32)

Verily Yamm is dead!

Ba‘l1 rules!

It is clear that Ba‘l's rule is solely by virtue of his defeat

of Yamm. Yet the exact nature of Yamm's power is not clear.
The presently known texts from Ugarit do not present a con-
flict by which Yamm came to a position of leadership. It is
possible that he was regarded as worthy of kingship by virtue
of his relationship to ’E1, for he is commonly called médtdu
BE. Meine Weiloyecl oF VE (Guy NI. 20S Soli, Sse Ma Jiis ile
Vite? Vino4 etc.) mee htismalsompossable that ini smkaingshap
was related to his very nature. As the personification of the
sea, Yamm would thus be seen as the major adversary to the
establishment of cosmogonic order, a role that is also played
by Tiamat in Enima elis. This position inherent in the nature
of the sea-god is supported by the fact that the conflict be-
tween the sea and the storm-god depicted in Enuma elis is most
probably of West Semitic origin. °!
Though we cannot be certain how Yamm rose to power, his
epithets reveal that he was indeed the equal of Ba‘l in the
pantheon, and, as such, a necessary foe for Ba il to overcome
if he were to become king. In addition to the epithet médditdu
241i, Yamm receives the titles zubulu yammu, ''Prince Sea?
(CGA Do WMG) silly sie WWoilt, iN, AAS BieSo))y Ehalel ayo redo e
“igae Raye” (CAO. Weis Wn) Silo: ibs AAS, Mis 05 Mente
aic

81. Cf. T. Jacobsen, "The Battle Between Marduk and

trans trill OlienlO.Sr
82. For a study of the root zb2 and its meaning as
"Prince, the one who is exalted," see M. Held, "The Root ZBL/
SBL in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew," JAOS 88

(1968) —90-96.
48

The significance of the title zgubulu is evident from its usage

as it is applied to Yamm. Immediately after °E1 commissions
KOtar to build a palace for Yamm (CTA Ze Licey ia Camm sae=
ceives the epithet zubulu yammi (1. 8). The connection of the
first application of the title to Yamm with the commissioning
of KOtar to build a palace for him shows the royal connota-
tions of the title, as does the fact that zgubulu is applied to
Yanm only, in GTA 2-biil(?) sand 2. UV wheceshesa ss themnuler—cod.
After Yamm is defeated by Ba‘l1 (CTA 2.IV.20-32), he no longer
receives the title "Prince." Significantly, the title zubulu,
commonly applied to Ba‘l (subulu ba‘Slu ’arst, "Prince, Lord of
thewearchya eC TAN 55 VilveedOl KOpeel ley came uleriee VierOme AO mest Cr) ommeins
givens to Bawiane bothy CLA wile (i585 4358 ander Ay 7 VenGlr
8), but not in 2.111(?), where it is exclusively a designation
of Yamm. It is in this column that Yamm is granted a temple,
and) thus, becomes ithe legucamate ruler.
The eputhet. capttu inaharu, “Judge Raver MlGPAe2 jt lyme.
Say 2rcbsl Dita 9 5g LO 22cta 2. lV oA pee og Os CLC) ing SC Loser yancon
nected with the title zubulu. Both are attributed to Yamm
only an, C24 25 While the impilacations of the tates" Prince"
seem wholly apparent when applied to a ruler, the connotations
om the: titles Judge Naresnot so clean. SiG asmcleansainsUca-
ritic, as in biblical Hebrew, that the root tpt/épt carries
both royal and judiciary implications. As applied to Ba‘l,
the epithet tpt seems devoid of any judicial functions, though
Ba‘l, called Haddu, is seen taking part in the court scene
headed by ’E1 (Ug. V.2.1.2-4 [RS 24.252]). The application
of the title "'Judge" to Yamm, however, had definite legal/
judicial connotations. Indeed, explicit parallels to River
as judge may be seen in the Akkadian accounts of the river-
ordeal. Here, the deified River (Zid) serves as the final
judge where normal legal procedures have failed. The connec-
tion of the River with judgment is clearly seen in a Neo-
Assyrian text:

ana hursan Sti illak [... 3a] illakiani

£ Si ina UGU Sapti $a hursan ina
libbi iSa’ultSu
 49

He (Bel) goes to the hursan (the place

of the river-ordeal), the ... to which
he goes, that house (or temple) is on
the bank of the fZursan-ordeal, in it
they will question him.

It is noted, likewise, in another text:

ina ite ¢fd aSar dén ni3i ibbirru ité

dig DUSS ANT kek

At the side of the River, where (every)

legal case of the people is examined,
side of the River-fursan....°9

The connection of judgeship and the deified River is most

explicit in these two passages. The fursSanu designates the
place of the judgment. Thus, the designation of Yamm in Uga-
ritic mythology as "Judge River" (tapttu naharu) displays the
fact that certain judicial functions are indeed to be seen in
this epithet, especially as applied to this particular deity.
The epithets gubulu and tapttu are intimately connected
in the Ugaritic literature. Yamm's epithet zubulu yammu is

83. For references and translations of these two texts,

see The Assyrtan Dicttonary of the Ortental Instttute of the
Untversety of Chicago, Vol. 6, ed. A. Oppenheim ev ‘al.
(Chicago nes Onrentaleinstituce,. LOSo)mZo4-2c0.8 lhe
significance of the hurésanu both as a mountain and as a
place of judgment will be discussed below in our considera-
tion of the dwelling-place of ’El and the meeting-place of
the divine ouncil (pp. 128-168), Most interesting 1s) the
Ree Wiens Bae. Aes hursanu , the place of the river-ordeal, the
defendant is questioned (s’Z). It is indeed possible that
this same concept of questioning the defendant at the en-
trance to the Underworld is the ultimate etymology for 8°’d1,
the Hebrew designation that may originally have meant "'place

of interrogation.'"' On this possibility, see P. McCarter,

"The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature," HTR 66 (1973) 408,

n. 20, and the literature cited therein.
50

found in parallel only with his title tapitu naharu (CTA 2.

TID (2?) «829, 165° 205225) 235 IM IA Eee loli e225 ZA5) lene
application of both epithets to Yamm is restricted to CTA 2,
where Yamm is obviously the ruler of the cosmogonic deities
before his defeat by Bacly Uhis® paral Velism amdseaces ayclose
relationship between the two epithets and the position of
rulership. The other parallels of zgubulu and tapitu shed more
light on the nature and meaning of both.
Though the Ugaritic texts apply the epithet tapttu only
to Yamn, 84 the epithet twice refers to Ba‘l, significantly in
parallel to the title malku, “King;

malkunt ’al’iya[nu] ba‘lu

tapitunt wa-’én du ‘alénnahu
(GRA DAN
4 3 4 AG Sia O44)

Our King is *Al?ayan Bavis

Our Judge and there is none above him!

84. It is most interesting that personal names with the

element .epir wanes formed jonly swith) they iy Imne =nance Baissea he
Naneweprosed Ws attested eightstimes in Uganitac ed Eas ealso
attested in Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra as stpat-ba‘al (2x)
and: stpet-balal. (1x) [let Ugn Vy 3521, perhaps indicating the
vocalization of the Ugaritic as ttptuba‘l. Though the epithet
itself might also be vocalized in this way, we have chosen to
follow the pattern qatiZ on analogy to the usage of the title
S0pét in biblical Hebrew. Phoenician and Punic names with the
element spt also occur only with the divine name Ba‘l (see
F. L. Benz, Personal Names tn the Phoenietan and Punte In-
sertpttons [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972], 423-424).
In connection with judgeship, both the divine names ’El and
Ba‘l are used with the root dyn in personal names: dan°’il
(cf. da-nt-A[W], H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the
Mart Texts [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1965], 183), and ba‘ldanu (PRY 11.32.13) [cf£. ba‘al-danu/a,
Ug. V.14.3; 86.20,22]. Personal names in Canaanite clearly
indicate that the titille "judge" belonged to both °R] and Ba‘ 1,
and most explicitly to the latter.
 51

The victorious storm-god is hailed as "King" and "Judge" with-

out peer. This parallel usage gives some indication that the
title "Judge" is to be associated with kingship, as is the
epithet zubulu. A further indication of the nature of the
epithets zubalu and tapttu is found in connection with Ba‘l1's
title zubulu ba‘lu ?arst, "Prince, Lord of the earth." This
epithet occurs nine times in parallel with Ba‘l's epithet
Tel Byars Wes SU (CEI BolgA=8 WoW
Io wO3 Cyl lems IIe aes
ZO EAU Cleo2 9)ne oo 40) n ASM Wee Hep Alibaaehit, has
shown, ’al’tyanu is a shortened form of the sentence name
2al’tyu qarradtma/quradima, "I prevail over the heroes" (CTA
SoM MSA UW Sa AS WIE see Ab WALIENL obey S 5) Iii, TM tbal 5 utes
gael aye an epithet which occurs only in the following
formula:

tahumu ’al’iyani ba‘li

huwatu ’al’iyi qarradima®®
(GHA DoW oABSASS CNM SASS 5 It Saki.
WPoU3S C5 Spl WOiWis ila s7s 7s Waals
14)

Soi LoZee le enEleerecOnsienucts thes sul lmsentence

name as follows: ’al’tyu quradima qartyéya ba-’arst
mtlhamatt, "I prevail over the heroes who meet me in the
anda Ob aot lew (CHA Orel Neel 255 UV Silk)2)e miele eA) asThe
shorter form, *al’?tyu quradima/qarradima, occurs in CTA 3.VI1.
7 SVs Ameo ale Oem oD mee SStC emlOWCVeTym MOtLesAt.
Goetze's objection to Albright's reconstruction of the full
sentence name. Goetze notes that in the sections where the
full formula occurs, the imperatives st and sk make it most
probable that qryy is to be taken in the same sense, i.e., as
an infinitive absolute that carries the force of an impera-
tive (the verb would be in the D-stem). He translates qryy
bears mlhmt, ''Remove war from the earth'" ("Peace on Panties

BASORMOS O44 18-19, ne 10). For a translation of the

passage in its entirety, see R. Clifford, The Cosmte Mountatn,

66-68.
86. This formula occurs with the variation ’*al’tyant

bint ba‘lt in CTA 5.11.17-18. The word qarraduma occurs only

52

Message of ’Al’iyan Ba‘l,

Word of "I prevail lover the heroes: ”

The epithet ’aZ’?tyanu and its parallelism with ’al’tyu

qarradima exhibit a close connection with warfare, a function
related to kingship. This militaristic function is likewise
implied in the title zubulu, “Prince. 87 Though care must be
taken when deriving the meaning of an epithet through its
parallel usages, it seems clear that the epithet zubulu ap-
plied both to Yamm and to Ba‘l is closely connected with war-
fare and kingship, and is applied to a victorious god. 88
The connotation of kingship is also seen in the usage of
the noun mitpatu, "Judgeship."" In his messages to ‘Attar and
M6t to cease their bids for kingship, ’El threatens to "break
thescepter sor judgeship! |(CRAm 2 1 DiC2) ose On Vio
2 Of een Oren
cases hitta mitpattika, "'the scepter of your judgeship," is in
parallel with kieer2a mickika, “thesthrone on yoursking ship ie:
and *’allata tibttka, "the foundations of your dais." The
connection of "judgeship" and kingship may be firmly estab-
lished hey usa ges on sche root vpi sine thicmmythodor 1ealaatex:s
Makes it clear that tapitu refers to a ruler and to an
administrator of justice. 89 This connection is also made in

once outside this etopmul ayania) broken ia vem-onmens tex tcemu or

Wills RS Oly AAUAl MOSS) 5
87. As A. Kapelrud has observed, the title zubulu ba ‘lu
TIGRE 1S REONSUANGH, Volasle INS Evgeni Out Cle Soli, Saek, omiby aim
those texts that tell about Ba‘l's death or his return from
the abode of the dead (Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 60).
This further indicates that the title is associated with the
conflict and victory of the god over his adversaries.
88. W. Schmidt, Kéntgtum Gottes, 37, notes the parallel-
ism between tpt//abl; tptn//mikn; and mtpt//mlk, but does not
draw any conclusions about the context of conflict in which
they are) used,
89. Contra A. van Selms, "The Title Judge," Die ou
testamenttese werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika; Papers read at
the second meeting (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, LOS9) es
A
 53

Ug. V.2.1.2-3 [RS 24.252] and I1.6-8, where °£1 sits enthroned
as king and judge over the gods. 29 Biblical usage of the ti-
tle sdpét also suggests that the office of "judge" was close-
ly connected with the ability to lead victoriously in battle.
As A. van Selms has noted, the biblical narrative often con-
mects the verb ys*, "to deliver," with the verb Spt, "to
judge.""91 The verb ys* is used in connection with Othniel
Gudess 79-0) Ehud a(@1s5)\sashamgar (S251) Gideon (6:14. 15.
7:2); and Samson (13:5; 15:18). The pattern of their judge-
ship has been stereotyped: the people revolt; they are op-
pressed by another people; Yahweh raises up a judge to deliv-
er them. The connection between judge and deliverer is most
explicitly stated in Judg 2:16: wayyaqem YHWH Sop ° ttm
wayyOst*tm miyyad s3séhem, "And Yahweh raised up judges and
they delivered them from the hands of their oppressors." The
usage of the term tpt as an epithet in the Ugaritic texts and
the biblical material clearly shows that it was a term applied
to one who was victorious in battle and capable of the duties
of leadership. °2

90. For text and translation, see above, p. 26.

Oly hem Litem id ge arse
92. As we have shown above, especially with regard to
the god Yamm, this is not the only connotation of the root tpt
in Ugaritic. As the judgeship of Deborah (Judg 4:4-5) and the
example of Absalom (2 Sam 15:1-5) show, the concept of "judge"
also had legal connotations. For the various views of the
legal functions of the biblical sdpét, see F. C. Fensham, "The
Judges and Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence," Dre ou testa-
menttese werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, Papers read at the
second meeting, 15-22. The Ugaritic texts also illustrate
this legal concept in the root tpt. The dispensation of
justice in the ancient Near East was closely connected to
the king or military ruler. Thus, we find Dan’il (CTA 17.V.
AoGe UO, WWO=V5) aie Kaira (CW WOW SSA, AIS mdi)s elatcneyeils=

ing justice to the widow and orphan. The role of judge was
so important a function of the king that when Kirta failed to

carry out his duty as judge, his son Yassib claimed the right
fo, euler (C22 WOW LeSI— SEs SZ
ae c
54

The titles tapitu naharu and zubulu yammu show that Yamm

was indeed considered a ruler and judge among the gods.

Though the nature of his victory is unknown, he was proclaimed

"Lord" (?adanu, CTA 1.1V.17) and given a palace (Gaile oh. palin A).

7-9). His position was powerful enough for him to demand and

receive Ba‘l as a prisoner. The conflict between Ba‘l and

Yamm becomes clear when ’El delivers Ba‘l to Yamm:

‘abduka ba‘ lu ya-yammu-mi

TS
‘abduka ba‘lu [la-‘61l]ami
binu dagni ’a[s]Truka-mi
(CTA 2.1.36-37)
Ba‘l is your servant, O Yamn,
Ba‘l is your slave forever,
The son of Dagnu is your prisoner.

Yamm's powerful position among the gods is here displayed

vividly. Without any threat or show of force, Yamm is able
to demand and receive Ba‘l as an eternal slave. Though not
explicitly called "king," Yamm was obviously viewed as such
Inmthespantheon. lhesposations Ore Bao Samo team ll aicleana,
Obviously he was not the most powerful god in the pantheon,
for he had no control over the decision pronounced by ’E1.
The background for this text is, however, quite obvious. The
young storm-god is here given over by the decree of the high
god to the force of chaos (Judge River/Prince Sea). The
Mythve stage is thus set for the tarst oe Bad sebattles.
the primary conflict within the cosmos--the battle of the
storm-god with the god of the forces of chaos.
With ’Bl's decree that Ba‘l was Yamm's servant, the order
of power in the pantheon was temporarily set. Yamm had clear-
ly gained ascendancy. The only recourse open to Ba‘l was to
do battle with Yamm. Only through a victory over Yamm could
Ba‘l be proclaimed king. The decree of ’E1l had been given and
the rulership belonged to Yamm. Only by defeating Yamm could
Ba‘l lay legitimate claim to the title of king. This struggle
for power is vividly portrayed in CTA 2.1IV. But Ba‘l does not
Se ee
ee ee ee ee
25) We ready (257 lm iwithe ss Mes Gross GMa weld
 55

attempt to defeat Sea alone. He employs the skill of K6tar-

wa-Hasis, the craftsman-god, to fashion magical weapons for
him. Then with Kétar's help he battles Yamm. The outcome of
the battle is predicted by the craftsman-god before the clubs
are fashioned:

hitta ’ibaka ba‘lu-mi

hitta ’ibaka timhasu
hitta tasmitu sarrataka

tiqqahu mulka ‘élamika

darkata data dardarika
(CERA S255 Vie 8 00)

Behold your enemy, O Ba‘l,

Behold your enemy you shall smite,
Behold you shall destroy your oppressor.

You shall take your eternal kingship,

Your dominion which is forever.

Following the proclamation of Ba‘l's victory, K6étar fashions

the two magical clubs and proclaims their name and destiny:

Simuka ’atta yagarris

yagarrisS garrisS yamma
garrisS yamma la-kissi’ihu
[naJhara la-kahti darkatihu

Simuka ’atta ’ay-yamarri

?ay-yamarri marri yamma
marri yamma la-kissi’ihu
nahara la-kahti darkatihu
(CPA 2.1V.11-13, 19-20)
Your name is YagarriS ("Let him drive out!")!
YagarrisS drive out Yamm!
Drive out Yamm from his throne,
River from the seat of his dominion!
56

Your name is ’Ay-yamarri ("Ho! Let him rout!")!

*Ay-yammari rout Yamm!
Rout Yamm from his throne,
River from the seat of his dominion!

Armed with the two magical clubs, Ba‘l is prepared to battle

Yamm, 24 His fins tmat tackesmcleamivyenocesuccess pair,

yartaqasa simdu badé ba‘ li

kama naSri ba-[’u]sba‘
téhu

yalima katipa zubuli yammi

béna yadé-mi tapiti nahari

‘uzzu yammu la-yamuka

la-tinnagisna pinnatihu
1a-yadlupu tamunuhu
(GTA 2.1V.15-18)
The pair whirls in the hand of Ba‘l,
Likewans cag emt nenis ease ease

They smote the back of Sea,

Between the shoulders of Judge River.

Sea was strong! He did not collapse!

His joints were not shaken!
His frame did not droop!

Yamm was sufficiently strong to withstand the first attack by

94, The actual fashioning of the two clubs is separated

in the text by the account of Ba‘l's unsuccessful attempt to
drive Yamm from his throne (11. 1338). That Bavidl is armed
with both clubs is obvious, for Yamm instructs the "pair"
(gtmdu, 1. 15) to smite Yamm. The verbs are dual in this pas-
sage, also indicating that Yamm had both clubs at the begin-
ning of the conflict as he did in the second encounter and
victory (11. 20-27). The account of the fashioning’ of °ay-
yamarrt is placed between the two attacks as a device to
separate them, not to distinguish between the two clubs.
 Sy

Ba‘l. With the second, however, the storm-god defeated and

destroyed Sea:

yaparsih yammu yaqullu la-’arsi

tannagisna pinnatihu wa-yadlup taminuhi
yaquttu ba‘lu wa-yaSti yamma
yakalliyu tapita nahara
CCBA 2 IN 2.5 27)

Sea collapsed! He fell to the earth!

His joints trembled, his frame collapsed!
Ba‘l destroyed and drank Sea!
He brought Judge River to an end!

With this the storm-god Ba‘l defeated the chaos monster

Sea. Yamm was driven from the dominion given to him by ’El,
and totally destroyed.?° Though Ba‘l was unsuccessful in his
fimo tedttack, Ney finaliyedeteated his rival, “The wateny.,
chaotic nature of Yamm is clearly seen when Ba‘l destroys Sea

95. The total annihilation of Yamm should probably be

taken as poetic hyperbole. In the Hebrew traditions of the
defeat of Sea, the power of chaos is not totally destroyed.
Rather the chaotic powers of Sea are confined. This is seen
most explicitly in Yahweh's first discourse to Job:
8who shut Sea (yam) within doors,
When it came gushing forth from the womb?
When I made the cloud its garment,
And the storm-cloud its swaddling bands,
10 When I set bonds upon it,
And set up bars and doors,
and Isard Diusm care youwrsiallmcOne, Dut nontarther:
Here your roaring waves shall halt."
(Job 38:8-11)
As we have already seen, the restriction of Sea within certain
jamits constitutes the initial stage of creation. The con-
stant tension between the possible outbreak of chaos from its
limits and the tenuous nature of the stability of the cosmos
makes it most likely that the poet in CTA 2.I1V.25-27 is using

a poetic device when he speaks of the destruction of Yamm.

58

by drinking him. Through his victory over Yamm, Balsam Or

claimed king:

yammu la-mitu
ba‘lu-mi yamlu[ku]
COLE EIN SEZ)

Verily Sea is dead:

Bay ie rules!

Now Ba‘l stood indisputably as the most powerful deity over

the cosmos. He was the god able to engage and defeat ’El1's
designated ruler. Though ’E1 had appointed Yamm as ruler and
perhaps even commissioned him to drive Ba‘l from his position
(CE. CLAIR IN 24-25) ha Balewase them Sit:rOmcer mil tadis mele diastiae
Ba‘l's victory met with ’El's approval, for ’El did not rebuke
Ba‘l in the crucial phase of his battle as he rebuked M6dt in
hiswficht with Basle (GL4 6. Vil. 22-29) olen icantly mmowereta.
Ba‘l was not able to defeat Yamm alone. It was necessary for
him to procure magical weapons from the craftsman-god to in-
sure his victory. In Enuma elis, Marduk also used magical
weapons to defeat the chaos-dragon (1V.95-104), but he fash-
ioned these weapons himself (IV.35-60). Thus, with the help
of Kétar's magical clubs, Ba‘l destroyed Yamm and attained the
DOSarea
oie Ws Kale.
But Ba‘l's kingship was not immediately proclaimed by
7B1l. After portraying the defeat of Yamm, the Ugaritic texts
recount Ba‘l's efforts to attain ’El's sanction for his king-
ship. The building saga records Ba‘1l's efforts to obtain the
decree, for in addition to victory in battle, the construction
of a temple was plainly the prerequisite for the exercise of
kingship. °° The proclamation of Yamm's kingship was the occa-
Sdlon for the werectiony One ay Complem nen Mam (\Giesoe lela? eens
but the command to Kétar to build a palace was not immediate-
ly issued by ’E1 upon Ba‘l's victory. Ba‘l was forced to em-
ploy the aid of the goddesses ‘Anat and ’Atirat to obtain his
temple. For some reason, he did not approach ’El, but used
the two goddesses as intermediaries, perhaps because they had
Da ae eS ee ee et ee ee ee

96. W. Schmidt, Kéntgtum Gottes, 68.

 59

greater influence over ’El than did the newly victorious god.
Ba‘ 1's plight quickly becomes apparent. He is enthroned
on his newly won mountain:

ba-t6ka guriya ’ili sapani

ba-qudSi ba-guri nahlatiya
ba-nus miba-gibe i tal ayati
(CTA 3.111.26-28)

In the midst of my Mount, divine Sapan,

In the holy place, the mount of my inheritance,
inv the lovediness or the hillvor (my) victory.97

Ba‘l's defeat of Yamm entitles him to the possession of this

mountain, Mt. Sapan, which is associated only with Ba‘1
throughout the Ugaritic texts. His attention now turns to
the issue of his palace. Ba‘l sends messengers to ‘Anat (CTA
3.111.5-26; 1V.49-64), and the goddess comes to visit him on
Ele InNSVMES Cut Sehoain (C4 SUV GSS), IRI I iON TENRSEULS TeO)
“Anat his reason for having summoned her:

Qi, WS WSEEE Cxk ilies soe Wa son ele VeEIObS Senbiee

languages has been studied thoroughly by H. Forshey ("The
Hebrew Root WHEL and its Semitic Cognates" [unpublished Th.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 1973]). He concludes that
one of the primary concepts involved in the root nhl is the
feudal practice of granting property to faithful servants.
This is especially true of those servants who have been loyal
in battle with their overlord. In Ugaritic, the noun nhlt
always refers to the domain of the god and the locus of his
power. The term refers to the territory gained by the god
through his victory in warfare, precisely the manner in which
Ba‘l attained Sapan, his nahtatu (cf. pp. PIOODSY| Waals
connection of nfZt with victory in battle is also displayed
by the parallelism with tl’yt. tl’yt is a taqtilat formation
from the root 7’y, “to be strong, mighty" (cf. *al’ty,
-al*iyn), and carries the meaning "victory (in battle)."
The meaning of nmhit is clear: it is the territory won by
the deity through battle.
60

wana ’én bétu la-ba‘li kama ’*ilima

wa-haziru ka-bani ’atirati
moétibu ’ili mazlilu banihu
motibu rabbatu ’atirati yammi
m6tibu pidrayyi bitti ’ari
mazlilu tallayyi bitti rabbi
métibu ’arsayyi bitti y‘ bdr
métibu kallati kunnayati
(Coe SNES SS Wellies cere,
4.1.10-19; iv.50-57)°°
But now?? there is no house for Ba‘l like
the gods,
And no court like the sons of *Atirat.
100
The dwelling of ’El is the shelter of his sons,
The dwelling of Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea,
The dwelling of "Misty," daughter of
"Bright Cloud,"201
The shelter of "Dewy One," daughter of
"Well-watered,"
The dwelling of "Earthy One," daughter of
¥'bdr 19
The dwelling of the beloved brides.

o8e= Thoughtthe texte is "terriphly broken sthesthree) paral

lel texts make the reconstruction certain. We have thus omit-
ted the brackets in our presentation. The present passage and
CLA SIN G46='s2editrer trom ClAVAS iy O=19 Nand 4ASlVeS0=S7 onda an
the placement of one line: mtb klt knyt, which the latter two
read after mtb rbt *atrt ym, rather than at the end, as do
both thevpresent etext and CVA" Ss. WV. 46-52.
99. (On =thé particlevany, scerG. Gordon wavs. =secumlZcoR
100. bnh could also be read binthu, “his son.'' Because
the entire passage deals with the gods who live in ’El's
tent-shrine, the plural banihu is the proper reading.
101. For the translation "'Misty,' daughter of 'Bright
Cloudy" sice* ESM. Crosisn sOMaA ely]
= Aira nysieta
102. The name ’arsayyu could also be rendered "the One
of the Underworld,"' for she is equated with Allatum, the con-
Sort of Nirgal in Ug. ViedSi22 a(RSe2i02aul mnie emule 2 Orb lente
 61

Though the broken condition of the text makes the identi-

ty of the speaker uncertain, we may assume that either Ba‘l or
his messengers register the complaint, for ‘Anat answers Ba‘l
in IV.6-V.12 and makes clear her desire to help. While Ba‘1
has victoriously established himself on Mt. Sapan, he is
clearly without a temple. R. Clifford has noted that the con-
trast between bétu//hagiru and mdtibu//maglilu may reflect the
difference between a permanent type of structure, the bétu//
hagtru, and a more mobile one, perhaps a tent. LDS Parallel
usages of these terms within the Ugaritic literature make this
contrast apparent. While bt here parallels hgr, it is most
commonly found in parallelism with hkZ, "temple" (CIA 2.
RIC
)e 7-9 speS 1 gh aS ed VET
-28. 44-45% 17 dd eT 24-25%
PI9.1V.170-171; ete.), indicating that it denotes not only a
permanent dwelling, but more specifically a temple/palace.
EB Perralleils joe gmc, COMES, Wee (CA MOLI Sy), Sinoatins elete
it also denotes a permanent structure. This structure is con-
trasted quite distinctly with the mtb//mgll. mgtl is not
found outside the four formulae expressing Ba‘l's lack of a

The name y‘bdr is difficult. J. Obermann suggests that it is

A COMERACEMOn Ose gpFag! cho, “NeyoMe-nee (Om SEmye) CoimesoieulilaA”
WG He NBEQevere. Si, Ms, SS))o Weis jigs Ieee semse in
the context, since the previous names are transparently linked
with fertility functions. Another solution is offered by M.
Pope (WM, 244), who suggests "Earthy One, daughter of 'Wide
World'" from y‘b + dr, citing the Arabic wa‘tb, "wide." Per-
haps the best solution to y‘bdr thus far proposed is that of
J. Aistleitner, who, like Obermann, divides the elements of
thiemmaniemimtomy Gods adr lnemtinaly part is |lOsbe cCaken) from
the Arabic geminate verb darra, "to flow copiously" (cf. also
Arabic midrar, ''showering abundant rain [sky, cloud]"). He
thus renders y‘bdr as '"'Regenmachenden Gottin." "Ein Opfer-
text aus Ugarit (No. 53) mit Exkurs tiber kosmologische
Beziehungen der ugaritischen Mythologie," Acta Orientalia
Academtae Setenttarum Hungartcae 5 (1955) 15-16.
103. fhe Cosmic Mountain, 125, n. 30. As we shall see

in Part II of our study, this is precisely the contrast, for

*E1's dwelling is quite clearly a tent-shrine.

62

temple, and is always in parallel with mtb. The word mtb,

with only three exceptions (CTA 13.11; 15.1V.22; Vivo) gps
also restricted to this formula and parallelism. Ba‘l1's posi-
tion is clear: he lacks the symbol that would legitimize his
kingship. He and his three wives (who are also his daughters
[cf. CTA 3.1.23]) must live with ’E1 and ’Atirat, the parents
of the gods, in their tent-like dwelling.
Upon hearing Ba‘l's problem, ‘Anat immediately agrees to
help, and proclaims:

yatubueliya torus iu ~-abuyaa———)

yatubu liya wa-lahu [’atniyahu]
[masahu ’i]msahunnunna ka-’immari la-’arsi
[?aSahliku] Sé@batihu dami-mi
S$ébati daqaniha [mama‘i-mi]
kadda la-yattinu béta la-ba‘li ka-’ilima
[wa-haz]ira ka-bani ’atirati
CODANS SIV
=e L2)

Bull °E1 my father will answer me...,

He will answer me when I address him.
Surely I shall butt (?) him to the ground
like a lamb,
I shall make his grey hair flow with blood,
His grey beard (run) with gore
If he does not give a house to Ba‘l like the gods,
Oneal counts lukes ties Sonsion >Atirat. 104

104. For the reconstruction of the text, we have fol-

lowed G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh:
De GeleeClank, Loy 1) 88 River recons
i nuct Gm uhemin Stalin
to read [wilh “argmh]), “and 1 will tell him,’ which ties weld
with the second line. There does not, however, appear to be
sufficient space for this reading in the first line. Since
the epithet tr *ztZ is always completed by ’aby/h/k or dp’id
(with the possible exception of the broken text in CTA 1.V.
22), it is most probable that ’aby should be reconstructed
here. Though the words tny and rgm do constitute a formulaic
pair in Ugaritic, it does not seem possible to read *’argm in
 63

“Anat's intentions are clear. She will demand that ?E1 decree
a house for Ba‘l. Her words are even stronger than a simple
demand: she threatens to attack ’El himself if he does not
comply. This is no idle statement to appease the storm-god,
for as soon as ‘Anat arrives at ’El's dwelling (CTA 3.V.13-
16), she addresses him with her threat:

?aSah!liku Sébati[ka dami-mi]

[S€ébatika daqanika mama ‘i-mi]
(ETA 31V 32-343 C£.-18. 1711-12)
I shall make your grey hair flow with blood,
Your grey beard (run) with gore, 19°

Ene Limes Ime, IMS Weed ise ais cibsetephlic, ihe weeoies winilhy.
three times in Ugaritve once in parallel with nex, Ute bite"
(GPAs GOVIndo-20) in 6.V5 l=45 5it parallelss= td andymhsi.
Though there is the possibility of metathesis (mgs > msh),
the three separate instances of the word argue against this.
We suggest here the translation "to butt" (cf. Arabic masaga,
"to pull away, separate").
105. The threat was probably longer than the simple bi-
colon we have presented here. It is probable that a tricolon
preceded this threat and the threat uttered by ‘Anat in CTA
cele2h OLhetextsmare stenriblys broken. and nomcertaln
restoration can be made. U. Cassuto, not without hesitation,
has suggested the following for CTA 3.V.29-32 (Ihe Goddess
Apenae.5 WOA=MOS, IEE
[tl]tl[k] ’al ’ahdhm by ([mny]
[qw]s[tk] bgdlt ’arkty
?am[rt S‘r] qdqdk
"T shall seize thy curls with my right hand,
thy locks with the great power of my hand,
ieshaliepluckwouLtmtheshalm On sthy, pater
This reconstruction, based on biblical parallels, is extremely

attractive, for it fits well in the broken space and provides

an excellent parallel to the following bicolon. This tri-
coloncoulamalso bewread an CTA 18. 1.9-10) whene the gaps in
the tablet provide ample room for this reconstruction.
64

To talk this way about ’B1 to Ba‘l would have been disrespect-
ful enough, but to address such words to ’El seems blasphe-
mous. Since it is clear that ‘Anat did not fear ’E1 or his
power, we must analyze this scene in light of the position of
*El in the pantheon and the implications of ‘Anat's threats.
The sanguine nature of the fertility/war goddess “Anat is
nowhere better displayed than in this threat. ‘Anat is total-
ly oblivious to ’El's position and power. Though she journeys
to his dwelling to make a request, she delivers it in the form
of a threat. The first implication of this situation is that
even though ‘Anat has the ability to threaten the high god,
her power is somewhat limited. Clearly, the decree for a
palace for Ba‘l can come from ’E1 alone. She obviously recog-
nizes this fact, for despite her threat against ’El, she has
come, to) recelveshis ssanctlOnetomeba i's stempilesi(Gh, Glue Sven
46-52). ‘Anat, like Ba‘l, cannot build the house or order
Kétar to build it until the consent of ’El has been acquired.
This fact is assumed by the text. ‘Anat again threatens ’E1
with the same words in the ’Aqhat epic (CTA 18.1.11-12) when
she demands ’Aqhat's bow. In both instances ‘Anat desires
something and must attain ’El's permission. It is unclear,
however, why she chooses a threat as the medium of her re-
quest. In both instances she arrives at ’E1's dwelling and
delivers her threat without first doing proper obeisance to
him. This stands in marked contrast with her behavior in CTA
6.1.36-38, when she goes to ’E1's dwelling to announce that
Ba‘ 1 is dead:

la-pa‘né ’ili tahburu wa-taqullu

tiStahwiyu wa-takabbidunnahi
At the feet of *El she (‘Anat) falls and
prostrates herself,
She does obeisance and honors him (’E1).

Clearly, ‘Anat knew the proper way to entreat the deity. The
context of the two threats, however, differs from that of CTA
6.1. In the latter, ‘Anat has come to make an announcement
to °El--she wants nothing (11. 39-43).
 65

Her method of “asking" permission from ’E1 is greatly

elucidated by the response of the high god. Upon hearing
“Anat's threat, °B1 replies:

yada‘ [tiki] bittu ki ’ana[Sti]

Kime Chae baal
ala tissaraditens Irate
maha ta’arriSu[nnJa la batulatu ‘anatu
(CELASSENV
«5 5= 51)

I know you, O daughter, that you are invincible, 1%

That none among the goddesses deride?’ you.
What do you desire, O Virgin ‘Anat?

There is no fear of the goddess reflected in ’El's response.

Rather, he seems to accept the threat as the normal manner in
which ‘Anat makes a request. ’El is aware of the goddess's
violent nature, and of her power among the goddesses of the
pantheon. After noting ‘Anat's power, ’El simply inquires as
to why she has come. If ‘Anat's threat were anything unusual,
we should expect ’El to offer some manner of resistance to it,
or at least to react in a way that would acknowledge that it
was indeed a threat. His reaction shows that ‘Anat has come
to make a request, and ’El immediately inquires as to the
nature of that request. In ‘Anat's second request of ’E1,
found in the ’Aqhat epic, she delivers the identical threat
(CTA 18.1.11-12) and receives, in part, the same answer, once
again before her request is made explicit. ?E1l's reply in the
*Aghat epic, however, differs from his reply in CTA 3.V. CTA
3.V.35-37 forms a tricolon, though the meter is highly prosa-
ized. His response in the ’Aqhat epic (CTA 18.1.16-19) is
eomposedsotea Dicoloneand a ntricolon.. ihe bicolon@ (11) lo-7)
is identical to the first two lines of his response to ‘Anat
in CTA 3.V.35-36. In place of the final line containing ’E1's
Ree aePET ater ere ee ee Pee Ween
106. For the meaning "invincible" for ’anést, see U.
Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 149-150.
107. For the meaning "to mock, scoff" for qls, compare

Hebrew qillés. We read qls as a D-stem, third feminine

plural verb with the second feminine singular direct ob-
eet.
66

inquiry as to the nature of ‘Anat's request (SVi9S 6357 ) Crs

18.1.17-19 places the following response on the lips eee isle

tib‘i bittu hanipi libbi[ki ti’]hadu

da ’ita ba-kabidiki taSitu ba-’irtiki
duta yadduta mu‘ aqqibuki
(cTA 18.1.17-19)
Arise, O haughty daughter! Take your desire!
Put what is in your mind in your heart!
The one who hinders you shall surely be crushed!

Instead of asking ‘Anat what she desires, ’El simply gives her
permission to do as she wishes. While ‘Anat's threat is iden-
tical in each instance, ’El's response is entirely different.
In the ’Aqhat legend, it is apparent that ’El gives “Anat
permission to take ’Aqhat's bow by whatever means she desires.
This permission is not given to the goddess in CTA 3.V, how-
ever. Though ’E1 does not explicitly deny her request, the
remainder of the epic makes it clear that it was so denied, 198
As soon as ’El asks ‘Anat what she desires, the goddess
praises his wisdom (CTA 3.V.38-39) and proclaims:

malkunu ’al’iyanu ba‘lu

tapitunu ’én du ‘alénnahu
(CTA 3.V.40-41)

108. We are completely unable to agree with the asser-

tion of J. Obermann that ’E1l gives his consent to ‘Anat for
the building of Ba‘l's palace and that the requests by ‘Anat
and ’Atirat are parallel accounts of the same basic myth (Uga-
rttte Mythology, esp. pp. 72-77). It is clear that ‘Anat
plays an inferior role to ’Atirat in CTA 4, where the building
Of thes palaces us idecreed eallusucmcAtimatewhowob tance aE lius
permission, while ‘Anat recedes into the background as the one
who bears the news of ’El's decree to Ba‘l. Though the exact
events are hard to follow due to the broken state of the text,
it seems clear that CTA 3-4 present a single story with the
building of Ba‘l's palace as the connecting theme.
 67

OUT Gin e mas ma ATMnty

ane Baca
Our Judge and there is none above him.

This indicates no disrespect for ’Bl or for his position at

the head of the pantheon. Rather, it is the justification
for requesting a temple for the storm-god. Ba‘l has earned
the rank and privilege of king via his defeat of Yamm. Having
proclaimed this, ‘Anat makes known her request, noting that
Ba‘l has no house (11. 46-52). The remainder of the column,
which may have contained ’El's response, is lost. Yet the
fact that ’El1 does not give the decree to build Ba‘1's house
until columns IV-V of the next text (CTA 4) clearly shows that
he does not grant ‘Anat her desire. CYA 4,.1.10-19 again re-
' counts that Ba‘l is without a palace, and in II1I.23-26 both
BagimandieAndeavisitmeAtinratwecAtivateds apparently aware: of
thesreasonstor then wisit, tom she asks af they, have paid
homage to ’E1 (III.27-32). G. R. Driver is most certainly
Gorrect im connecting CTA § with the present context .199
Though this text is terribly broken, it is clear that Ba‘l has
Sent or ms about to send his messengers to *“Atirat to request
a temple:

[?é]ka maginu rabbata ’atirata [yammi]

magizu qaniyata ’ilima

wa-tini béta la-ba‘li kama [’i]lima

wa-hazira ka-bani [’a]tirati
(CTA 8.1-5)

How are they entreating (?) Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea?

Beseeching (?) the Progenitress of the gods?

"Now give a house to Ba‘l like the gods,

And a court like the sons of ’Atirat."

*Atirat's inquiry as to whether or not ‘Anat and Ba‘l have

done homage to ’Bl shows that she, like ‘Anat and Ba‘1, knows

that only ’E1l can give permission for the palace. Though the
68

end of CTA 4.I1II and the beginning of column IV have been

lost, 1t is clearsthat 2Nturateismasked sto imtercede ior Bagels
for when column IV begins, ’Atirat is instructing her messen-
gers to prepare a donkey for her journey to visit et CL Ved
25). ‘Anat accompanies ’Atirat on her mission (CTA 4.1V.18),
while Ba‘l returns to his mountain (IV.19).
Cleanty., CAnatehadetailledstomneces vemhenecequestored
house for Ba‘l. Despite her threat, ’El had not given in to
her desires. When she proclaimed her threat against ’E1 out
of her desire for ’Aqhat's bow, he obviously did concede to
her wish. It is therefore necessary to ask what motivation,
ienanywewasebenindsmcAnatusmthmea tymsince lel —ucleanechatmaed
could refuse to give her what she desired. ‘Anat's own nature
as a war/love goddess supplies the reasoning behind the form
of her request. Her great propensity toward violence is well
documented in the Ugaritic texts, and her violence seems to
represent a cruelty quite unlike that of Ba‘l or any other
god.) !
Hex threatuis totally consis tentewetheahe preeurce
drawn of ‘Anat in our texts. A close parallel to this manner
of speaking to the deity is found in IStar's threat against
Anu in the Gilgamesh epic (V1I.92-100). Like ‘Anat in Canaan-
ite lore, IStar was the goddess of love and war in Mesopotami-
an mythology, capable of acts of great violence. In the Gil-
gamesh epic, she goes to the high god Anu to request that she

110. <A. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess, 53. Her violence

ES UMOSite Vi viadilky clasp Nai;ec maa CenAlms elles
tele TiSe:
“atakat ri’sati la-bamatiha
Sannisat kappati ba-habSiha

birkémi tagali[lu] ba-dami dimari<ma>

hilqémi ba-mama[‘i] mahirima

She fastens the heads to her back,

She binds the hands to her girdle.

She plunges to (her) knees in the blood of

the knights,
Hip deep in the gore of the warriors.
Her violent nature is completely unparalleled in the Ugaritic
materials.
 69

be given the Bull of Heaven as a means of killing Gilgamesh.

As soon as she makes her request, however, she delivers a
threat even more dire than that delivered against ’£1 by
SAriatt:

If thou [dost not] give me [the Bull of Heaven],

I will smash [the doors of the netherworld],
I will plalee those above] below,
I will raise up the dead eating (and) alive,
So that the dead shall outnumber the living!111
(VI.96-100)

To give the Bull of Heaven to IStar would cause famine in the

land, but when Anu is assured by IStar that the proper prepa-
rations for that have been made, he complies, granting her
request (11. 117-119). Though IStar does not threaten Anu's
life, her threat is tantamount to the destruction of the cos-
mos. Anu is forced to comply with her wishes. Yet this ac-
tion by IStar does not call into question the rank or power
of Anu in the pantheon. Like ’El's, Anu's permission is re-
quired before the god can act. IStar's threat is completely
consistent with her character as the goddess of war.
Though this does not precisely parallel ‘Anat's threat
agains te Hleswteisesipniticant, Lom lt shows that other cull-
tures could allow the deity to be addressed in a highly dis-
respectful manner, especially by the young tempestuous goddess
of love and war. While Hebrew literature obviously has no
parallel to this type of threat against the deity, the com-
DisinEsmaAnGwaccUSsat1Ons Oe WObs (Gi. OjiO-= l/c lao; etc.)
show that even a man who regarded himself as extremely pious
could address the deity in a highly disrespectful manner. It
must be asserted that while this manner of addressing the high
god was far from common, it was known in the ancient Near
East. Since ‘Anat repeated the identical threat both times
when she made a request of ’E1 and received the same formulaic
reply (in part), we must assume that this was ‘Anat's normal
manner of making a request of °E1, her father. Though seem-
eee ee ee ee rr eee ee ee ee

iim chhestranstlattoners: that of 2. A.mopeiser, AVNET, 847,

70

ingly disrespectful, it in no way lowered the position of @ED

in the pantheon. The fact that “Anat had to make the request
of ’El shows that his permission was necessary before the gods
could proclaim Ba‘l king by building a temple for the young
god.
While Ba‘l had hoped that his sister and constant compan-
ion would be able to obtain ’E1's permission for his temple,
it is clear that ’El resisted ‘“Anat's threat and refused her
meciogie, INS BS Cikeekehy SOG Gin Teli wiles eee, CMe Le SOS 7 -
Bas Lowals stile waithouteas temp leu inestexcnOWw seus £0
IMEI IOBUE 5 ?E1l's own consort, who attempts to secure the sanc-
tion of kingship for the young warrior-god. ’Atirat agrees to
help Ba‘l and journeys to visit ’El at the source of the riv-
ers (CTA 4.1V.20-26). ’E1's reaction to her appearance is
very intriguing--he seduces the goddess:

halum ’ilu ki yipahunnaha

yapruqu lisba wa-yishaqu
pa‘néhu la-hudumi yatpudu
wa-yakarkiru ’usba‘atihu

yisSa’u gthu wa-yal[sthu]

°éka magayat rabbatu ’atira[tu ya]mmi
°éka ’atawat qaniyatu ’i[lima]

ragabu ragabat wa-t-g-t [??7]

himma gama’u gama’at wa-‘-s [-?]

lahmi himma Satyi-mi

lah[mi] ba-tulhanati lahma
Sati ba-karpani-mi yéna
ba-k6é<s>i hurasi dama ‘isima

himma yadu ’ili malki yahasisaka

sala
Da GUset Onin aren intealeal
(CPA A.V, 27-39)
As soon as ’El espies her
He unfastens his buckler and laughs,
He places his feet on the footstool
And wiggles his toes.
 tak

He lifts up his voice and cries:

"Why have you come, O Lady ’Atirat-of-the-Sea?
Why have you come here, O Progenitress of the gods?

Indeed, you are hungry and faint!

Behold, you are thirsty and tired! 1}

Verily, eat and drink!

Eat food from the table,
Drink wine from the flagon,
From the cup of gold, the juice of the vine.

Surely the 'love' of King ’E1 moves you,

The affection of Bull arouses you;ntls

The aged god responds with great enthusiasm to ’Atirat's vis-

it: he inquires as to the reason for her visit and before
obtaining her reply, offers her food, drink, and his bed.
Though the text does not note explicitly that ’El and ’Atirat
have sexual intercourse, the implication is certainly present.
The luxurious way in which the Creator-god greets the Progeni-
tress of the gods, his consort, stands in marked contrast to
Daismrecepevonmote Anat 2\tarat elikemeAnate (G2A eS VieS8—59))i,
praises ’El"'s wisdom and proclaims that Ba‘l is king (CTA 4.
iVecit=44) candethatene hasmnoucemple (40 1Vs50-=57 5 Cl.) 5.Vis40-
52). ’El's decree is here recorded, and is obviously quite
favorable:

yubné bétu la-ba‘li kama ’ilima

wa-haziru ka-bani ’atirati
(GA Aa Vin OZ Vis 015)

lig ihe tinal words at the end of this) collon are bro-
ken, and no restoration suggests itself. The translations
fatnt and ttred are supplied by the context.
113. The word yd is slightly ambiguous. The amorous
connotations are clear from its parallelism with ’ahbt, "love,

affection." While possibly related to the root ydd (cf.

Hebrew yadtd) and having a meaning synonymous (iplialel “eegialte, abi

is more likely that it refers to ’B1's penis. This is the

Ue

Let a houses ber builtarorn Bawialakes themgods,

Andwas court elaike sthewsonse ot eA tama.

Though Ba‘ 1 himself had won the right to kingship and a palace
by defeating Yamm, only through the intercession of ’Atirat
was he able to obtain the sanction of ’El. This was indeed
*El's prerogative, and his decree was to be obeyed. Upon
receiving this pronouncement, ’Atirat once again proclaims
the greatness of ’El's wisdom (CTA 4.V.65-66).
When ‘Anat hears the decree of ’El, she immediately
journeys to Sapan (CTA 4.V.84-85) to carry the good news to
Baie Is

sahaqu batulatu ‘anatu tisSa’u gaha wa-tasthu

tabaSSiru ba‘lu buSrataka yabaltika

yu[b]né bétu laka kama ’ahika

wa-haziru kama ’aryika
(CTA 4.V.87-91)
Laughing, the Virgin ‘Anat lifts up her voice
and cries:
Receiver On Baie your tOOdE cdr ng m(whiche lm
have brought you!

A house will be built for you like your brothers,

And a court like your 'lions'!"

Immediately Ba‘l summons the craftsman-god Kétar (V.103-105),

and a feast is set for his arrival (V.106-110). He then
delivers the only command attributed to him in the mythologi-
Cameras

hdSu bahatima ké[taru]

hGsu ramimu héka[lima]
h a Su bahatima tabna[nnu]
hGSu taramimuna héka[lima]
i a
obvious meaning of yadu in CPA 23.33-35, 40, 44, 47, where
*E1 seduces his two young wives.
 73

ba-téka sirarati sapani

?alapi Sadi ’ahadu bétu
rabbati kumani hékalu
(CTA 4.V.113-119)

Hasten! A house, O Kétar!

Hurry! Raise up a temple!
Hasten! You will build a house!
Hurry! You will raise up a temple! 14
In the midst of the heights of Sapan!
A thousand fields the house will cover,
A myriad of acres, the temple.

Only because he had received the decree of ’E1 was Ba‘l able
to give this command to Kétar to build his palace. T15 Follow-
ing the command to build the temple, the text turns to the de-
bate over the construction of a window in the palace (CTA 4.V.
120-V1I.13). After the house is built according to a seven-
day ritual (VI.22-33), Ba‘l decides to have the window con-
structed, which corresponds to the lattices of heaven through
which the rain fell (CTA Gen Weg) ae This constitutes
the only decision made by Ba‘l in the texts without the advice
or consent of ’E1, and it is significant that his only deci-
sion concerns the window in his palace, which corresponds to

114. Note that although bahattma and hékalitma are both

formally plurals, they are to be translated as singulars.
115. It is extremely difficult to understand A. Kapel-
rud's assertion that this command to Kétar indicates that the
influence of ’El was so weak that he was unable to keep the
services of Kétar when Ba‘l wanted them (Baal in the Ras
Shamra Texts, 87). As the craftsman-god, Kétar had as one of
his responsibilities the construction of temples. Thus, 2El
commands him to build the temple of Yamm (CTA 2.I1II1(?).7-9;
cf. 1.111.27), and Ba‘l (with ’El's permission) summons K6tar
to build his palace. The fact that Kétar might work as
craftsman for gods other than ’El in no way reflects a
diminishing of ’E1's power, for Koétar can construct a temple
only through ’El's decree.
WO, Gabe Gite FSIS teeHAe
74

the opening in the temple of Ba‘l excavated at Ras Shamra. 117

The magnificence of the temple is seen in Ba‘l's exultation:

<b>ahatiya baniti data kaspi

hékaliya data-mi hurasi
(CTA 4.V1I.36-38)

My house I have built of silver,

My palace, of gold!

To celebrate the completion of his temple, Ba‘l prepares a

large feast and summons all the gods, his brothers (CTA 4.VI.
44-46).
Ba‘ 1 thus attained the royal sanction for his kingship--
a palace/temple built in accordance with the decree of 267,118
The building saga is concerned not only with Ba‘l's kingship,
but also with his efforts through ‘Anat and ’Atirat to obtain
permission from ’El. ’El's decree provides the background of
this story as it does in the rest of the Ba‘l cycle. His
powerful presence is always felt through his decree or the
need to obtain that decree. Once Ba‘l was successful in this

117. For a description of the window and stele discov-

ered in Ba‘l's temple at Ras Shamra, see Cl. F. A. Schaeffer,
The Cunetform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit, 66-68. Plate XXXIX
contains a diagram of the northeast part of Ugarit showing the
location of the temple in the city.
118. The account of the construction of Ba‘l's temple
contains at least six of the eight elements of temple-building
among the gods listed by A. Kapelrud (''Temple Building, a
Task for Gods and Kings," 62): (1) the victorious god after
battle; (2) the god's desire to have his own temple; (3) per-
mission asked from the leading god; (4) craftsman-god set to
work; (5) precious materials procured for the work; (6) temple
finished according to plan; (7) offerings and dedication, fix-
ing of norms; (8) a banquet for the gods. The Ugaritic texts,
while alluding to the cedars, gold, and silver used in the
construction, do not give an account of their procurement.
Likewise, step seven is not explicitly recounted in the mate-
rial concerning Ba‘l's temple.
 Ue

task, he was seemingly secure in his kingship. He had suc-

ceeded in defeating the chaos-monster Sea and had attained
his magnificent temple on the mount won in his wieromy, CRIs
decree that he be given a temple was the official confirmation
that he was king over the cosmos as proclaimed by ‘Anat and
7Atirat. Yet his kingship was not yet secure, for he faced
still another adversary, M6t, the god of Death. Mdt, while
nowhere proclaimed king, obviously ruled in the Underworld
(cf. CTA 4.VIII.1-14), and had the desire to extend his power
into Ba‘l's realm.

yiqra’u motu ba-napSsihu

yastarrunnu yadidu ba-ginginihu

?ahadaya du yamluku ‘alé ’ilima

la yamarri’u ’iluma wa-naSima
du yaSabbi[‘u] humallati ’arsi
(CTA 4,.VI1.47-52)

MOt cries out in his soul,

Beloved thinks (?) in his heart,

“i atone “shall eronsover the gods,

That gods and men shall eat,
(I am) the one who satiates the multitudes
Ose wie Sereelun”

M6t's desire is in direct conflict with the nature of Ba‘l's

power as storm-god and bearer of fertility. M6t's desire is
to bring fertility or, perhaps, famine to the earth, to reign
over the gods of the cosmos. The conflict is clear. Ba‘1l
proclaimed from his victorious mountain temple that neither
king nor commoner could take his dominion (CTA 4.VII.42-44).
Mét's desire suddenly intrudes into the text. At the moment
that Ba‘l's kingship seems most firmly established, the con-
flict with Mét arises, a conflict between two basic powers in
the cosmos--fertility and death. The progression in the myth
ismlogicaly esLovimsume the ternculity and stabi laty Ox EN C@s=

mos, Ba‘l must first make the universe secure from Yamm and

the chaotic forces of the sea. Next he must overcome the

76

forces of death and sterility, an equally important conflict.

As in the case of Yamm's regnal authority, the kingship
of M6t is nowhere explained in the text. Like Yamm, he was a
favorite son of ’E1, called "’E1's beloved, Hero" (yadtdu °tit
gaztru; CTA 4.VI1I.46-47; VITI.32-32; 5.1.8; 11.9; etc. Je ALSO
as in the case of Yamm, M6t's name, which means "Death," des-
ignates a primary force in the cosmos. His kingship was most
likely due to his basic nature. Because Death is a primary
force in the universe, MOt was given a certain dominion. Like
any other ruler, his dominion would endure until he was over-
come in battle by a more powerful god. Ba‘l had already ex-
tended his power over the force of Chaos-Sea. Now it was
necessary for him to constrain the dominion of Sterility-
Death. Only in this way could the cosmos be made secure and
fertile. We may indeed see a type of creation myth in the
Ugaritic literature if by creation we understand the basic
triumph of fertility and life over the cosmogonic powers of
Chaos-Sea and Sterility-Death. Certainly the mythology con-
tains no account of the creation of the earth or of mankind--
the myths in the Ba‘l cycle are purely cosmogonic, concerning
themselves only with the realm of the gods who represent
active forces in the cosmos.
The power of M6t's kingship and the threat that he pre-
sented to Ba‘l are clearly seen in Ba‘l's address to his
messengers to Mot:

wa-nugra ‘ananu ’ilud-mi

*all_ taqribas la=baina 94 lama moter
?al ya‘ dubukuma ka-’immari ba-pthu
ka-lalu’i ba-tibrani qanihu
(CTA 4.VIII.14-20)
And beware, O Divine Messengers,
Do not approach M6t, the son of ’E1!
Surely he will make you like a sheep in his mouth,
Like a lamb in his crushing gullet!

Ba‘l, though keenly aware of Mét's destructive powers, commis-

sions his two messengers to deliver the official affirmation
of the kingship of the storm-god. Though Mét desires to
 Uy

overtake Ba‘1's dominion, Ba‘l feels it necessary to reaffirm

his status by referring to his position as Keates qyale, PEM S
sanction. He commissions his two messenger gods:

" wa-rugma VaSbani. 72 Limi moe

esol ilel—aeetlenchl agile fugibatied.
tahumu ’al’iyani ba‘li
[huwa]tu ’al’iyi qa[rradima]
bahatiya baniti [data kaspi]
[data-mi hurasi héka]liya
(GPA ALVIII.29=37)
And say to the son of ’E1, Mot,
Repeat to the Beloved of ’E1, Hero:
Message of 2AU7ayan Ba‘l,
Word of "I prevail over the warriors,"
"My house I have built of silver,
by Eeino Le, Ose ja@ilcle

The conflict between Ba‘1l and M6t is strangely analogous to

the conflict between Ba‘l and Yamm. Both Ba‘1 and Yamm had
received temples from ’El1, giving official sanction to their
positions as kings in the pantheon. Yet no sooner was their
status legitimized in each case by the construction of the
temple than they fell under the threat of a challenge from
another god. Yamm's kingship was challenged and overthrown
by Ba‘l. Now Ba‘l's kingship was threatened by M6ét. Like
Yamm, MOt was powerful enough to overcome Ba‘l's first as-
sauilic, tore dim CH Bois 75 We sede Wel chocecioveliiyes alimiste) elas
maw of MOt--Ba‘l has gone into the Underworld with the
proclamation to MOt that was delivered by Ba‘1's messengers:

balancecell ci be isles lst deemOrta

‘abduka ’ani wa-du ‘dlamika
(rae ceil do 10-20)
Haid, O-M6t, son of °E1;
I am your servant, and your eternal (slave).

As ’El had given Ba‘l into the power of Yamm as an eternal

78

slave (CTA 2.1.36-37), Ba‘l yielded himself as a slave to Mot.

The power of the god ’El did not extend over the steps in
the cosmological conflicts among the younger gods. While he
alone had the power to grant the sanction of kingship, even he
could not transcend the natural structures of the cosmos. The
proclamation of Yamm's kingship set the stage for the first
step in the natural progression of the cosmological order.
Chaos ruled supreme. Creation could only occur when the chaos
monster had been defeated by the ruler of the cosmos, the
storm-god Ba‘l. The present conflict, the challenge by Mot,
presents the final step in the process of securing the cosmos
for creation. Once the forces of Chaos had been defeated, the
realm of the god of death had to be determined. This could be
resolved only by conflict. ’E1 himself was unable to stop
eitherwcontliet, form the high godeol) the pantheon, sla kegaid
the other gods, was bound to the structure of the cosmos.
While ’E1 could and did intercede in the battle between Ba‘l
and Mot in favor of Ba‘l, he was unable to stop the develop-
ment of the conflict. “This should not be seen as any lamita-
tion of the power of °El. Rather, it points to the sensitivi-
ty of the authors of the mythic cycles, who realized that the
divine powers themselves were bound by the eternal structures
of the cosmos.
After two columns that are too broken to allow a certain
translation, text 5 continues the conflict. Column V shows
Ba‘ l receiving instructions to descend into the Underworld
with his cloud entourage and his wives/daughters (11. 6-16).
He proceeds to mate with a goddess (called here ‘git, "heif-
er,'’ another instance of an animal name used to denote nobili-
ty) to insure an offspring before entering Mét's dominion.
His fate is told to ’El by the messengers of Ba‘l, who have
journeyed to the high god's dwelling:

mita ’al’iyanu ba‘ lu

haliqa zubulu ba‘lu ’arsi
CCAS VU Om OR Gem Olena
ll tsi)

Deddasee Ale ahane Barwin

Perished is Prince, Lord of therearth.
 79

M6t's power succeeds in overcoming the storm-god Ba‘l.

The text now turns to the reactions of the head of the panthe-
on, ’El, for his actions are of great significance. Instead
of proclaiming M6t king for his victory, °’E1 mourns the defeat
Gus BEN ae”

?apannaka lutpanu ’ilu du pa’idi

yarada la-kissi’i yataba la-hudumi
{[wa]-la-hudumi yataba la-’arsi
(COM SNM
5 il aka)

The Kindly One, ’E1 the Compassionate

Descends from the throne and sits on the footstool,
And from the footstool he sits on the ground.

»E1 leaves his throne to begin the mourning rites for the
slain leader of the gods. Lines 14-22 further describe ’El's
mourning--he places dust on his head and dons the proper
mourning dress. He performs the ritual of self-mutilation
and proclaims:

ba‘lu mita miya la-’immi

binu dagni miya hamullati
?atara ba‘li ’aridu ba-’arsi
(CTA §.V1.23-25)
Ba‘l is dead--what (will happen) to the people,
The son of Dagnu--what (becomes) of the masses?
After Ba‘l I shall descend into the Underworld!

?El's cry reveals that the death of Ba‘l will have a profound
effect on the nature of the world. The storm-god has been
overcome by the god of death and sterility. >E1 obviously
disapproves of Mét's victory, for he states that he will de-
scend into the Underworld to seek Ba‘l. This reveals a very
different side of ’El than we have previously seen. Here the

god is portrayed as the active leader of the cultus. He even

suggests that he will attempt to restore the fallen god. The

latter action, however, is unnecessary, for Baeluss is tem

“Anat begins the search for Ba‘l (CVA 5.V1.26-31). After

80

burying Ba‘l and offering the proper funeral sacrifices for

the dead god on Mt. Sapa4n with the aid of SapSu (crA 6.1.11-
31), sshesreturns' to 2Bl "to contirm that Bayle aseindeedsdead
(CTA 6.1.32-43). Upon receiving this news, 7El and *Atirat
choose ‘Attar as a replacement for Ba‘l, but ‘Attar is physi-
cally incapable of holding the position (CTA 6.1.53-65).
Mo6t's defeat of Ba‘l placed the nature of the cosmos in great
danger, for no one among the gods was able to fill the posi-
tion vacated by the dead storm-god.
The first stage of the conflict had ended. Mot had pre-
vailed. But ‘Anat, the constant warring companion of Ba‘l in
the mythological texts, refused to accept the outcome. She
seizes M6t and demands the return of her brother (CTA 6.11.9-
12). When M6t refuses, recounting the manner in which he has
destroyed Ba‘l1 (11. 13-23), ‘Anat attacks and kills him:

ti’had bina ’ili-mi méta

ba-harbi tabaqqi ‘unannu
ba-hitri tadriyunannu
ba-’iSati taSrupunannu
ba-rihémi tithanannu
ba-Sadi tadarri‘annu
(CTA 6.11.30-35)
She seized ’E1l's son, Mot,
She cleaved him with a sword,
She scattered him with a sieve,
She parched him in flames,
She ground him in a hand-mill,
She sowed him in the field.

The god M6t was totally destroyed in a ritual of planting to

produce fertility. While he had been strong enough to defeat
Ba‘l, he did not have the power to resist Ba‘l's consort
‘Anat. He had failed in his attempt to extend his dominion
over the realm of the storm-god. With his death, his victory
over Ba‘l was ended--Ba‘l was revived. In a vision ’El Diewas
ceives that Ba‘l lives once again:
 81

ki hayya ’al’iyanu ba‘lu

ky 1té zubulw basiu *arsi
(GEA SII -AOSZile Was Ces ok)

p indeed VAI iyan Bad Wives.

Surely the Prince, Lord of the earth exists!

As ’El had led the mourning over Ba‘l's death, he now assumed
the leadership role in rejoicing over Ba‘l's resurrection (CTA
6.II1.14-19). No longer was the cosmos under the control of
the power of Death. Fertility clearly has returned, for in
his vision of Ba‘l's resurrection, ’E1l also sees the return
of fertility within the heavens:

Samima Samna tamattiruna

nahaluma taliku nubta-mi
(CCH, X05 MUM
OST 5. =a)

thesheavens cain oa.

The wadis run with honey.

The connection between Ba‘l and fertility is clear--his return

from Mot's dominion signifies the return of fertility to the
earth. °’E1- could lead the cultic rejoicing, for the throne
that had been vacated by the storm-god would be filled by him
again. No replacement could be found, and now none was neces-
sary.
But to reaffirm his kingship, it is necessary for Ba‘l
himself to battle Mét, even though MéOt has been ritually slain
by ‘Anat. The texts vividly portray the battle:

yit‘annu ka-gamarémi
jan eion "uibavaroe orele Nee ibipayatel
yanaggihunna ka-ri’umémi
NOtues Uzzuy Das lu ct 2.72
yanattikunna ka-batanémi
ienerst O wirasabl loyal alyb) Wibiparael
yimsahunna ka-lasamémi
motu gqalla ba‘ lu qalla
(CTA 6.VI.16-22)
82

They fight like camels;

Mot as strong, Batl@is strong.
They gore like wild bulls;
M6t is strong, Ba‘l is strong.
They bite like serpents,
M6t is strong, Ba‘l is strong.
They butt like rams (7);
MG tecelis es Batsleer adelisr

The conflict raged to a conclusion--both contestants had fall-

en. At this point, however, ’El stops the conflict through
his decree delivered by SapSu (11. 22-29) and M6t withdraws.
Ba‘l is once more enthroned over his dominion (CTA 6.VI.33-35;
cf. V.5-6). The conflicts of the young stoxm-godeare over.
He has secured his throne against Sea and Death--the two
natural forces of chaos within the cosmos. Ba‘l is now the
undisputed ruler over the cosmological sphere. His victories
and the sanction of ’El have allowed him to attain the king-
ship of the gods. He rules from his temple on his holy moun-
tain, Sapan, ~they mount of his victory. ihe security sor the
cosmos was established. Yet Ba‘l was never strong enough to
win his victory alone. Against Yamm he required the aid of
K6tar. After defeating Yamm, he needed the help of ‘Anat and
*Atirat to attain his temple from ’El. M6t was defeated first
by ‘Anat, and in the conflict between M6t and Ba‘l, °E1 inter-
vened through SapSu tovinsure) Bali's viletory.. Bac sy ikimesihas
was dynamic, having been won by victories over the gods Yamm
and Moteo oS yet it was totally dependent upon the consent of
*E1 and the help of the other gods.
Ba‘l's victories clearly had the support of the other
members of the pantheon. ’E1, ’Atirat, SapSu, and Kétar all
aided Ba‘l in his attempts to risesto kingship. But Ba‘l's
closest supporter was his sister/consort ‘Anat. In the mytho-
logical texts of the Ba‘1-Mot cycle, ‘Anat is always in league
with Bacdee se She is most closely linked with the storm-god
a ee

119. J. Obermann, Ugarttie Mythology, 70.

120. The goddess does not participate in the Ba‘1l-Yamm
cycle. Likewise, in the ’Aqhat epic she seems to be in some
 83

in the battle with M6t and in the battle against the various
dragons. The texts clearly state that Ba‘l defeats the chaos
dragons:

ki timhas létana batna bariha

takalliyu batna ‘aqallatana
Silyata du Sab‘ati ri’aSima
tatkahi titrapti Samima
ka-ri<k>asi ’ipadika
(CFA 5,1 51-5 = 927-351)
When you (Ba‘l) smote Létan, the primeval serpent,
Destroyed the crooked serpent,
Silyat with seven heads,
The heavens wilted, they drooped
Like the hoops 121 of your garment.

But “Anat is also credited with destroying Létan, ’E1's River,

Rabbim, and the dragon with seven heads (CTA 3.111.35-40).
PRU I1.3.3-11 also recounts the victory of the goddess over a
sea-monster. These monsters, all of which are clearly con-
nected with Sea, must be by-forms of Ba‘l1l's conquest over
Yamm, 122 “Anat's connection with the defeat of the sea-
dragons links her to Ba‘l's victory over Sea, though in the
Ba‘1-Yamm cycle she does not play an active role. The double
account puts ‘Anat in the same relation to the conflict be-
tween Ba‘l and Yamm that she is given in the conflict between
Balance Mot SNempaEtiG Upatesmacel velvet BaselLlsViGcorles
over both gods. She is instrumental in Ba‘l's attainment of

opposition to Ba‘l, who aids Dan’il in finding ’Aqhat after he

has been slain through ‘Anat's plan.
121. We read r<k>s with W. F. Albright, "Are the Ephod
and Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?" BASOR 83
(1941) 40, n. 9. The k has dropped out by a simple haplogra-
phy due to the similarity of the two signs k and r.
122. Bal as “also seen engaged in battles in PRU I1.1.1,
Gre Sl SSAA ern Vill
ZO 5 Ss mOlVigl
4s eHOmebtbkical panal tells
to the defeat of the sea-monster, see Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1; Hab
Batre: Myenics IAS Cohen
84

his kingship, as are the other gods of the pantheon.

The Kingshtps of °El and Ba‘l

While the major emphasis of the Ugaritic texts is upon

the rise of Ba‘l to his dominant position among the gods, the
myths never lose sight of the position and importance of eee
the only god given the title malku, "king." In attaining
kingship, both were forced into combat against other gods.
Both were also victorious over their enemies, and both were
aided by other deities. Both are kings, a fact that could
easily give rise to a conflict between the two gods. But the
texts display no knowledge of a conflict between these two
deities.14 The explanation for the lack of conflict is to
be found in the nature of their separate kingships. As we
have shown above, ’El reigned as king over the active (cosmo-
gonic) gods in the pantheon. His power is always present in
his decree. This is most vividly displayed in the building
of a temple for both Ba‘l and Yamm. It is apparent in the
texts that though gods might threaten ’El with violence, they
are powerless to undertake any task without first obtaining
his permission. ’El's kingship is manifest in his power of
decree over the gods, whom he may proclaim as kings or vic-
tors. Likewise, he is able to participate in the battles
through his intermediary SapSu. Though some freedom is given
to the gods to battle among themselves, ’El is free to stop
the conflict at any time. He is also depicted as the leader
of war, the patron of the earthly king. His major function
in the mythological texts, however, is not one of a warring
king, but one of the powerful aged judge who controls the ac-
tions of the younger gods. He is not associated directly with
the cosmogonic conflicts among the gods. Rather, he is the
power that declares the victor in those conflicts.
The kingship of Ba‘l is radically different from that of

123. Much has been made of a conflict between ’E1 and

Ba‘l in which the storm-god emasculates the high god and
seizes power. We shall study this hypothesis in the next
section, pp. 92-109.
 85

?E1l. Ba‘l is a member of the group of active cosmogonic dei-

ties. His kingship is not over the gods themselves, but rath-
er over the cosmos. This is most clearly seen in the theoph-
anies of the storm-god!44 and in the nature of the gods with
whom he does battle. Ba‘l's theophany is seen most vividly
in his appearance in the thunderstorm:

ba‘lu yatibu ka-tibti guru

haddu ra[‘iyu] ka-madabi

ba-t6éka guriht ’ili sapani

ba-[téka] guri tal’iyati

Sab‘ata baraqima [yari]

timanata ’isari ra‘atti
‘issu baraqi yé[mminu] 12°
(Weis WoSol=@ URS 2A. Za5I\)

Ba‘l sits enthroned, his mountain is like a throne;

Haddu the shepherd, like the Flood.

In the midst of his mountain, divine Sapan,

In the midst of the mount of his victory.

Seven bolts of lightning he hurls,

Eight store-houses of thunder.
Me shiaa cor iereiiiing heawielasmanmht se niente hand:

This appearance of Ba‘l is equated with the appearance of the

thunderstorm. The parallelism between ttbtu and madubu shows
that Ba‘l's theophany and dominion are here connected with his
victory over Yamm, represented by the Flood. Indeed, every
theophany of the storm-god is a reenactment of his victory
over his enemies. The victorious young god reveals himself
in the natural display of power in the thunderstorm (cf. CTA
wa eg ee ee ee See
124. The nature and form of Ba‘1l's theophany in the
mythic literature from Ugarit has been carefully studied by
By Mis Chooses, (linia, ili ieee
125. We have reconstructed the two verbs [yr] and y[mn]

in the final tricolon following F. M. Cross, CMHE, 148.

86

AL VEO 8-7) Vil, 29-3505. ln loon ete.) hes power jor sthe storm
represents not only the god's victory over Yamm, but also the
assurance of fertility within the cosmos. When Ba‘l is dead,
the concern turns to the plight of the peoples (CTA 5.V1.23-
24). When Ba‘l is revived, fertility returns to the earth:

Samima Samna tamattirina

nahaluma taliku nubta-mi
(CTA 6.III.6-7, 12-13)
The heavens rain oil,
The wadis run with honey.

The ‘cycle is clear. Ba‘l"s power, represented in the thunder-

storm, manifests itself over Chaos and Sterility. The former
manifestation, that of the victorious warrior, is vividly dis-
played by the iconographic depictions of the storm-god in the
ancient Near East. The deity is generally depicted wearing a
horned crown and carrying a sheath of lightning in his hand.
He is often shown riding on the back of a bull, the symbol of
strength and fertility. !?° The traditions about Ba‘l in He-
brew literature also connect the god most clearly with the
SeOwaie Choral seeieeailekiny (est, I Wawel 14)
Ba‘l-Haddu is the supreme god over the realm of fertility
in the cosmos. That the maintenance of fertility is the re-
sponsibility of Ba‘l is clearly seen in the description of a
drought:

Sabi‘a Sanati yasriku ba‘lu

tamana rakibu ‘arapati

bal tallu bal rabib!u

bal Sari‘u tihamatémi
bal tdbfinu qdli ba‘ li
(CTA 19.1.42-46)
Seven years, Baill failed,
Eight, the Rider of the Clouds.
eSeSeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSmmmmhshFeseF
——

WAS Meso VES, NOS HOS SOO, SW; SSL, 582, S57.
 87

There was neither dew nor shower,

No surging of the deep,
Nor the goodness of Ba‘l's voice.

With the failure of the storm-god, the life-giving rains

cease. Ba‘l's voice, the thunder, is not heard. Nature falls
into the hands of M6t, the god of sterility. As the god of
the thunder-cloud, called rakibu ‘arapati, the "Rider of the
Gllouds( (GrAe2,0V.8% A0T Ii, 18iseV. 122+ 10.1579 ected), 0» Ball
is responsible for maintaining the fertility of the cosmos.
The terrifying theophany of the storm-god displays his power
in all its dimensions. While his presence brings the fructi-
fying rains, the theophany of the victorious warrior also
makes nature convulse (CTA 4.VI1.29-35). All nature is in
the power of the storm-god Ba‘1l-Haddu.
But Ba‘l's dominion and kingship extended only over the
realm of fertility in the cosmos. He was a nature-god, mani-
fest in the natural phenomena of the universe. Like Yamm and
Mot, Ba‘l represented a natural force in the cosmos--fertili-
ty. The conflicts of the two mythic cycles from Ugarit center
upon the tension between these natural powers. None of these
three gods exercised any power over the high god ’E1. All
had to turn to him for the confirmation of their powers and
reigns. Yamm was able to demand Ba‘l as his servant, but ’E1,
though possibly cowed like the other gods (CTA 2.1.21-24), was
not bound in any way to grant his request. In like manner,
°E1l was in no way restricted in his actions by the threats of
“Anat. He could either grant or deny the request of the god-
dess. The building of the house desired by Ba‘l was totally
dependent upon the decree of the high god. Ba‘1's kingship
and sovereignty were legitimized only through the proclamation
of the progenitor of the gods, ?E1. The order and division of
power within the divine realm was the function of 7E1's king-
ship. His position was one of complete dominance over the
other gods. His power was expressed through his decree, which
ee ee ee ee ee eee

127. Note that Hebrew literature applies the same epi-

thet to Yahweh in Ps 68:5: rokéb ba‘arabdt, "'the Rider of the

Clouds" (compare Pss 18:11 [= 2 Sam 22:11]; 68:34; Sp)i

OATS
88

was delivered either by himself or by his intermediary, Sapsu.

The power of decree was reserved for the high god in the Uga-
ritic texts. Apart from commands to their messengers, Ba‘l,
Yamm, and Mé6t nowhere deliver decrees in the mythological
texts. Only once does Ba‘l command action by another god. In
CTA 4,.V.115-119 he commands Kétar to build the temple sanc-
tioned by ’El. The Ugaritic texts emphasize that the power of
the divine decree belongs to ’El alone. He stands as the king
over the gods, his offspring. This situation is described in
detail in the theogony of Sanchuniathon. ’E1 was king by vir-
tue of his ability “as a warrior (Braep. evang. TV0r8, 29);
Ba‘l reigned over the earth only by the consent of *E1l (Praep.
Boies Moll ®nSi3io
Ba‘l's kingship was clearly limited to the control of the
fertility functions of the cosmos. His battles with Yamm and
M6t were fought to establish order and fertility over the
forces of chaos and sterility. It is obvious that Ba“l, i409
the role of guarantor of fertility, would become a popular
deity in the common worship. Likewise, the mythology of Ba‘l
as an actively victorious warrior made him a god whose cultus
was highly supportive of the institution of kingship. This
connection of kingship with fertility was very common in the
ancient Near East, and the cultus which supported it most
strongly would naturally become the most dominant in the wor-
ship. The cultus of the aged creator-god ’El, whose power
never actively entered the realm of the cosmos, was not near-
ly so supportive of the institution of kingship as was the
cultus of Ba‘l. It should come as no surprise, therefore,
that in a highly urbanized society like that found at ancient
Ugarit, the cultus of Ba‘l flourished and the mythology was
mainly concerned with the victories of the god who governed
the cosmos.
The rule of ’El depicted in the Phoenician mythology of
Sanchuniathon is a rule that extends only over the active dei-
ties of the pantheon. Thus Ba‘l, Yamm, and Mét were subject
to ’El's rule. Their conflicts did not concern the throne of
7E1l. With the possible exception of his intervention in the
struggle between Ba‘l and MO6t (CTA 6.VI1.23-29), °El never
interfered in the wars between the younger gods. This failure
 89

of action on ’E1l's part was not due to any weakness of the

deity. It was due to the fact that the battles between his
sons, the younger gods who controlled the functions of the
cosmos, in no way challenged his position or authority.128
No conflict existed between the kingship of ’El and the king-
ship of Ba‘l. ’El's kingship was eternal and unalterable;
Ba‘ 1's was dynamic, having constantly to be maintained and
reasserted against the threats of his adversaries. 129
While Yamm and M6t appear in Ugaritic mythology as
strong, active gods, able to challenge the rule of Ba‘l, they
do not occupy such a prominent position in the Phoenician
materials preserved by Philo. Sanchuniathon preserves an
account of a battle between Ouranos, the father of ’El, and
Pontos, Yamm (Praep. evang. 1.10.28). Ouranos allied himself
with Demaros (Ba‘l) when Demaros attacked Yamm. The Ugaritic
material gives no indication of such a conflict between Yamm
and Ouranos (Samém) in its mythology, though the conflict be-
tween Yamm and Ba‘l is central to the mythological framework
of the Ugaritic texts. In both accounts, the young storm-god
was directly opposed to Yamm. Though the Phoenician account
notes that Ba‘l was unable to defeat Yamm, it does record the
death of Yamm (Praep. evang. 1.10.35), for it notes specifi-
cally that "the remains of Yamm" (tad tod Hdédvtov AetWava) were
consecrated. This reflects the account of Ba‘l's destruction
OLeVannmiMethemUcanitdicumaternral (CTA SZ o0Vi Zom27 ie OnLy
Yamm's remains could be consecrated because the god had been
destroyed by Ba‘l.
The death of Yamm is highly significant to the actual
nature of his kingship in the Ugaritic texts. The Phoenician
theogony recounted by Philo regards Yamm as a dead god. If
Yamm were a dead god, then we would not expect to find an
active cultus devoted to him. Yet the texts from Ugarit seem
to indicate that Yamm was worshipped to some extent. In CTA
34, a list of sacrifices to various gods, Yamm is offered a

heifer (1. 13, ym gdlt). Likewise, he is offered a sheep

ee PO el a ee

128. C. L'Heureux, "El and the Rephaim: New Light from

Ugartttea V," 79.
129. W. Schmidt, Kéntgtum Gottes, 31; cf. 64-65.
90

(ym 8) in Ug. V.9.9 [RS 24.643]. Most interesting is the

list of sacrifices recorded in C7A 36.1. Here, Yamm receives
the same sacrifice, one sheep, that is given to Hie iBa Ueeand
x¥
Nines (il, Op 9eh & Bb & 2atrt & ym &). Regretfully, how-
ever, all that these sacrificial lists tell us is what deities
are given sacrifices, and not what ritual was associated with
them. It is obvious from these lists that Yamm was active, to
some extent, in the Ugaritic cultus, 159 though more data are
needed before any attempt can be made to reconstruct the ritu-
alae Yan's popularity im=the cultus asconLinmeds by thes pan
theon 1s ts CTA 29// tg. Vals IRS 20n24 3 in 72 2Onni.Ss sesthe
god ym is listed, corresponding to the Akkadian dtamtum (Ug.
V.18.29). Further support for the worship of Yamm is found in
the personal names from Ugarit. i2t We find the names ’tlym
and ym?il, “Yamm is God," as well as the name mZkym, '"'Yamm is
King.'' The name "Servant of Yamm'' (‘bdym = abdt-yamm) is also
attested. The Ugaritic evidence clearly shows that the god
Yamm was given sacrifices and a place in the cultus. Though
he was regarded as a dead god in the theogony of Sanchunia-
thon, he was an active god in the Ugaritic pantheon. It is
possiblemthat his role in the culltus was samivanretontnatwor
Tiamat in the ritual reenactment of the battle between the
Sea and the storm-god in the Mesopotamian cultus, but any sup-
port from the texts to indicate such a view is lacking. +>?

130. The possibility exists that ym could be translated

"day" (yOmu/yamu) instead of "Yamm,' but this does not seem
likely. slhevnamne “les (lecan, nash!) ise lasted sine aAm Sede
and 38.7 as receiving sacrifices, and it is possible that ym
could designate "day" in the liturgical texts where it is of-
fered sacrifices. The evidence of the pantheon lists and the
personal names from Ugarit makes the translation "day" highly
unlikely.
131. Cf. F. Gréndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Ugartt, 144,
132. The conflicting view of the deity as a dead god and
as having a cultus may be relieved somewhat by analogy with
Greek mythology. There, a similar problem is seen with re-
spect to the two gods Pontos and Poseidon. Pontos, the sea,
 al

While Yamm's claim to kingship is seen clearly in the

texts and in the cultus, any evidence of cultic reverence to
M6t is completely lacking. Philo records that Mdt (Mot8, who
is equated with death, Sdvatocg) is consecrated by ’Bl (Praep.
evang. 1.10.34). That MOt was a dead god who was not wor-
shipped in the cultus is clear from the Ugaritic material. No
sacrifices are offered to Mét, and he is not included in the
pantheon lists from Ugarit. Likewise, few if any personal
names are formed with the divine name Mét, 133 and none of
ENeScmindicates that the god hadvan active: cults. lt) is sate
to assume that Mot, the god of death and sterility, was indeed
considered to be a dead god and was not worshipped in the
Gudceus:.
A distinction must be made between the dead god Mot (and
Yamm?) and the olden gods like Heaven and Earth. The latter,
while considered to be dead gods, constituted the theogonic
pair who gave birth to the cosmogonic deities of the cultic
pantheon. Though not worshipped in the cultus, they were

was a member of the olden gods and presents a very shadowy

figure. His major importance was that he fathered the god
Nereus (the Mediterranean), a god far more important than his
father. But even Nereus' importance was eclipsed by that of
Poseidon, a member of the cosmogonic deities, second in the
cultus only to Zeus, his brother. The importance of the Greek
myth lies in the fact that the original god of the sea was re-
placed by a member of the cosmogonic deities. While this was
clearly not the case at Ugarit, if 1s possible that the vari-
ous texts present a conflation of similar traditions. One
regarded Yamm as a dead god; the other, as the personification
of Sea and a deity to be worshipped. The latter should occa-
sion no surprise. Since ancient Ugarit was a coastal town
with an active maritime commerce, we should expect some cultus
devoted to the god of the sea.
133. EF. Gréndahl (Die Personennamen der Texte aus
Ugartt, 162) lists only two names with the root mut: bn mt
and bn ’ummt. Neither name reflects a regal function or

cultic following of the god. Two other names, mty and mtn,
should be read from the root mt, ''man.
"
92

invoked as guarantors to treaties or covenants .!54 Dihise 1s

not the case with M6t or Yamm. Neither of these gods seems
to have developed a specific cultus with a great following.
M6t, as the god of death, was relegated specifically Eom tne
realm of the Underworld. Though he attempted to extend his
power into Ba‘l's realm, the maintenance of fertility, he was
defeated, and was forced to remain lord of the Underworld.
Yamm's position is not nearly so clear. The god of the sea
does seem to have had some cultic following, though its na-
ture is unknown. Because Ugarit was a coastal city engaged
in sea trade, it is entirely plausible that a cultus to the
sea-god, Vann existed there a sWhace vier sehelmcasic martes. 5 che ar
that Yamm and M6t, regarded as dead gods in the mythology of
Sanchuniathon, are entirely different from the natural theo-
ConUe parrs, thatconst1tutedmine olden sods.) tf
) Och repre
sented natural forces in the universe, and both were overcome
by the storm-god Ba‘l. The failure of Sanchuniathon to note
any conflict between Ba‘l and MOt may be due to a conflation
of the traditions by Philo or his sources in Praep. evang.
Telanesqee Sanchuniathon's theogony vividly presents ’E1
as the high god in the pantheon, whose kingship was permanent.
Little, place as given, to Ba‘ li or) the other Sons of 28s |their
power was not over the gods, but over nature. Their dominion
could be threatened by other gods. As is vividly portrayed in
the Ugaritic texts, the kingship of Ba‘l was one founded upon
victory in various conflicts with these other deities. These
cosmological conflicts neither affected nor threatened the
kingship of ’E1, who stood as the controlling power over the
gods of the pantheon.

CTA 1.V: A Confltiet Between °EL and Ba‘l?

Although the Ugaritic and Phoenician mythologies concern-

ing ’El and Ba‘1 do not present these two gods in direct con-
flict with each other, several factors have given rise to the

Isa. (Gl che tsebane vineatyasl

nnnstc
pt tonne eae Ome hoe
135. iL. Clapham, “Sanchuniathon: The First Two Cycles."
149.
 i)

view that Ba‘l, who actively rises to kingship in the Ugaritic

texts, must have dethroned the older king ’B1 in order to se-
cure his position. The overthrow of ’E£1 is postulated in the
works of A. Kapelrud, 13° U. Cassuto, eee M. Pope, Fos av
139
Oldenburg. Though it is impossible to consider the views
of each of these writers in detail, it is necessary to the
present work to attempt an evaluation of the major thesis that
a conflict between ’E1 and Ba‘l, resulting in the overthrow
and emasculation of the high god ’E1, was known in Canaanite
mythology. All the views of the conflict share several common
factors: (1) Ba‘l's nature as a god of fertility who was sup-
portive of the institution of kingship would inevitably lead
to his position as leader among the gods; (2) this conflict
Husa vemOccCUMnedmVeTymedtiy aiethenhistoryonUgarite tor
the texts reveal that ’El was an extremely inactive deity when
compared with the younger god Ba‘l1l; (3) the fact that Ba‘l,
not ’El, had the most active cultus in Syria-Palestine by the
time of the Judges, according to biblical accounts (cf. Judg
Sey Or?or eEc.)seshowsathat Bact had replaced Ebi eas culer ani
the pantheon; (4) both Greek and Hittite mythologies contain
accounts of a conflict between the high god and the storm-god,
resulting in the overthrow of the former; and (5) ’El's proc-
lamation of Yamm's kingship over the gods and the ensuing bat-
tle between Yamm and Ba‘l show that ’El was in direct conflict
with Ba‘l.
Though the various positions on the supposed conflict
place different emphasis upon these major points, all of them
play an important role in the reconstruction of the conflict.
We have already studied in detail the first three major fac-
tors. It must be concluded that, by the middle of the second
millennium B.C., the cultus of the great storm-god Ba‘l was

indeed more prominent in Canaanite worship than was the cultus

ee ee ee ee ee a ge ee

136. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 64-93.

ij. Bhe Goddese Anatn, 55-57, 59, 67.
LG. 1S Pq Sis, Que NER
139. The Conflict Between El and Ba‘al, 101-163. For a

summary of the various positions of scholars on the conflict,

see Oldenburg, 101-103.
94

of ’El. But, as we have shown, the rise of popularity of the

Ba‘l cult, together with the nature of Ba‘l's kingship, was in
no way a threat to the position of the high god °E1l. Further-
MORE yeecSetr Mi Crossi*9 anGaGrs L'Heureux?41 have emphasized,
the myths reflecting the struggle of kingship among the gods
cannot be understood as reflections of historical/religious
development within the cultus. Rather, they record primordial
events which attempt to show how order developed from primeval
chaos and how the gods obtained their present status. That
?E1 proclaimed Yamm king over the gods is apparent in our
texts. This, as we shall show, does not constitute any con-
flict between ’El and Ba‘l. Rather, it emphasizes ’El's power
over the institution of kingship among the gods of the panthe-
on.
The major support for the theory of a conflict between
*E] and Ba‘l is found in the accounts of divine activities in
the Theogony of Hesiod and
the Hittite mythology from Boghaz-
142
k6y. The Theogony of Hesiod, which dates from ca. 700
ie was written in praise of the god Zeus. The birth
and battles of Zeus are recorded in lines 165-180, 455-490,
and 650-730. In the Greek account, Earth, by her first-born,
Heaven (Ov0pavéc), gave birth to the great gods, among whom was
Kronos. The god Kronos, in defense of his mother, Earth, cas-
trated his father Heaven, and was impregnated, giving birth
to the storm-god Zeus. Zeus then went to war against his
parents, Kronos and Rhea, who were among the Titans (the chil-
dren of Heaven and Earth). These gods were defeated by Zeus

140. '8," in Theological Diettonary of the Old Testa-

ment, Vol. 1, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, trans -
J. T. Willis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1974), 252.
141. "El and the Rephaim: New Light from Ugaritica V,"
64,

142. For our text we have used the edition by E. Evelyn-

White, The Homerte Hymns and Homerica, The Loeb Classical
Library (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914).
143. P. Walcot, Hestod and the Near Fast (Cardiff:
University of Wales Press, 1966), 33.
 95

and were cast down into Tartaros, the deepest regions of the
Underworld. Thus, Kronos was dethroned and cast into the
Underworld, from whence he gave advice to the gods on occa-
sion. After one more battle, this time with Typhoeus (820-
Sissi, who was defeated and cast into the Underworld, Zeus was
proclaimed king of the gods. The line Oe SMECSSSiAoOMm wh wiles
Kronos, who emasculated his father Heaven, was defeated and
cast into the Underworld by his son, the storm-god Leustae a
The succession of power in Greek mythology passes along the
same lines as in Philo: from Heaven to Kronos and from Kronos
to Pous je.
The same mythological pattern is preserved in the two
texts from Boghazkdéy known as "Kingship in Heaven" and "The
Song of Ullikummi."!4° Both of these texts, though written
in Hittite, go back to a Hurrian original from which they were
adapted. The Hittite texts themselves date from between 1400
SeeI200 63.0. ae) "Kingship in Heaven'' recounts that the god
Alalu was king. But he was dethroned by Anu and forced to go
down into the "dark world."' After this victory Anu reigned,
but was dethroned by his cupbearer, Kumarbi. Kumarbi emascu-
lated Anu by biting his "knees'' and swallowing Anu's manhood,
through which he was impregnated with three gods, one of whom
was the storm-god, The broken state of the text makes the
following events uncertain. Because of the leading role of
the Hittite storm-god (Hurrian TeSub) in the cultus, it is
generally assumed that at some point he became king in Heaven.
No accounts of the victory of the storm-god over Kumarbi

144. It should be noted that some versions of the myth

represent Zeus as castrating Kronos. (Qae5 In Wroyever, Jala. Whey
94.
145. For a detailed genealogical chart of the gods in
Hesiod's Theogony, see R. Lattimore, Hestod. The Works and
Days, Theogony, The Shield of Heracles (Ann Arbor: The Uni-
versity of Michigan Press, 1959), 222-226.
146. For the texts and translations, see above, nn. 56

and 58.
147, H. Gtiterbock, "The Hittite Version of the Hurrian

K@biboleaun Y AWAei
96

exist, so the manner in which Kumarbi was deposed is unknown.

Clearly he was dethroned, for in "The Song of Ullikummi" the
storm-god is king and Kumarbi, who was unable to accept this
change of power, is engaged in an effort to overthrow him with
the help of a monster called Ullikummi. Kumarbi, called "fa-
ther of the gods,"' fathered the monster and commissioned him
to attack and defeat the storm-god. Though this text is also
terribly broken, several significant events may be clearly
discerned. The storm-god and IStar go up to Mt. Hazzi
(= Greek Casius = Semitic spn), = where they view the mon-
ster. Next there is an unsuccessful attempt by a group of
seventy gods to defeat Ullikummi. Finally the storm-god,
with the help of Ea, is able to defeat the monster, thus
securing his kingship. The similarities of the Hittite and
Greek texts are striking. In both, the grandfather of the
storm-god is called Heaven. Likewise, the castration of
Heaven yields various offspring, the major god in each case
being the storm-god. Finally, the storm-god defeats his fa-
thermand’ attains® theskingship. "Thais, las, stepeas explacie an
Hesiodvand=inplicit in the Hittite materrale
These two mythologies parallel the account of Sanchunia-
thon closely, though not in every detail. The account of the
"History of Kronos" preserved in Praep. evang. 1.10.14b-42 re-
counts that Kronos, with the help of his allies, made war
against his father Ouranos on behalf of his mother, Earth.
Kronos took the kingship after banishing Ouranos. While he
was in exile, Ouranos dispatched his daughters Astarte, Dione,
and Rhea to kill Kronos, their brother, but Kronos married
them. He then castrated Ouranos, and the blood from Ouranos'
member flowed into the rivers and streams, producing fertili-
ty. Kronos then produced a vast family through his consorts
and gave dominion to his son/nephew Zeus, the storm-god. The
parallels with the Greek and Hurro-Hittite myths are obvious.
In all three, the rulership passes from Heaven (Otpavéc/Anu)
ON et rank nee SRS Ss eee ee eR

148. For the identification of Hazzi/Casius/Sapan, see

W. F. Albright, "Baal-Zephon," in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet
(Tibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), 2, and A. Goetze, "The Garey:
Khalbi and the Khapiru People," BASOR 79 (1940) 33.
 OF,

to Kronos (Kumarbi/’E1) and from Kronos to Ba‘l (Zeus/TeSub).

Also, the emasculation of Heaven produces fertility in the
myths, though in the Phoenician mythology it is via the riv-
ers and streams and not through the impregnation of the god.
The Hittite mythology, along with the account of Sanchunia-
thon, records one more generation of gods than does Hesiod.
Alalu, who perhaps corresponds to Phoenician ‘Elyén/Hypsistos,
has no counterpart in Greek mythology. Despite many differ-
ences in detail, it is obvious that a common tradition must
underlie these three accounts. The strong Hurrian influence
in northern Syria evidenced in the Ugaritic texts explains
how Hurrian myths reached Phoenicia. 149 The exact relation-
ship of the three traditions is not clear, however. While it
is generally assumed that the Phoenicians were the transmit-
ters of much mythology to the Greek world, the relationship
between Canaanite and Hurro-Hittite mythology is far from cer-
tain. It seems best to assume that Sanchuniathon, Hesiod's
Theogony, and the Kumarbi myths all stem from an old, common
Semitic tradition. /°°
The relationship between the storm-god and his father is
not presented consistently in these three mythologies. While
Hesiod clearly represents a conflict between Kronos and Zeus,
where Kronos is dethroned, emasculated, and cast into the
Underworld, this motif of conflict is absent in Sanchuniathon.
While some accounts of this conflict in Greek mythology record
the castration of Kronos by Zeus, it is not included by Hesiod
im INS AeCCOLIE Ge Tae Comulicic, We Comecnimiby as mele mescine
in the Hittite or Phoenician accounts, for in these Kronos/
Mumanbaesseem as a fertile cod. Likewise, whale sit is, Obva-
ous that the storm-god replaced Kumarbi in Hurro-Hittite reli-
gion, the manner of this displacement is completely unknown.
We must assume some conflict, however, since ''The Song of
eee 2 a ee ee ee Oe ee

140.8 He Guterbock, “The Hattite Version of the Hurrian

Kamal bal. el Sidi
150. Philo's account of Sanchuniathon and the Hittite

myths of Kumarbi contain many parallels to Greek mythology

outside the theogony presented by Hesiod. For a study of

these, see P. Walcot, Hestod and the Near East, l= Ore

98

Ullikummi" clearly presents Kumarbi in combat against the

storm-god. This motif is also completely lacking in Philo's
record. The general schema of these three mythologies indi-
cate that the line of succession was shared in common by all
three. The manner of succession was also fixed. A god rose
to power through the practice of patricide and incest. He
commonly killed his father and married his sisters. In this
way the younger god secured his kingship.
This method of attaining kingship is most vividly por-
trayed in a recently published Babylonian theogonic texte. 7>
In this text, kingship is passed violently through at least
six generations of gods. In the second generation, the god
Amakandu marries his mother, Earth, and kills his father,
Hain. He then weds his sister Sea, who later kills her moth-
er, Earth. Thus the position of king is seized by each gener-
ation through patricide and incest. In the third through
sixth generations, the god kills his father (and twice his
mother) and marries his sister. Enlil and his sons are men-
tioned ins thes brokenending of thes text.) |lhesmotateor pacad—
cide/incest ends with the generations of the great gods of the
pantheon, as it does in the other mythologies. We note that
though the shift of power from one god to the next is extreme-
ly violent, the motif of emasculation is not present. Like-
wise, there is no reference to the banishment of one god by
another, As noted by Fx M. Crosse * the pattern of incest
is a necessary motif among the theogonic pairs. The pattern
of violence, especially patricide/matricide and emasculation,
ends with the transition from the "olden gods" to the cosmo-
gone de1ties!
The basic pattern which emerges from the various accounts
is a very consistent one. The “olden gods," the natural dei-
SS ee ee ee
151. G. Lambert and P. Walcot, "A New Babylonian Theog-
ony and Hesiod," Kadmos 4 (1965) 64-72. See also the transla-
tion of. Ka Grayson, AVEe ssi 7-51e8R
152. CMHE, 42. Cross also notes the biblical parallel
to this pattern of incest and revolt against the father/king
in the court intrigues during the latter days of David's
roewleae, 72 TSHNMOKEAL WS, aL,
 O99)

ties who constitute the theogonic pantheon, are violently re-

placed by their children. In each case, the figure corre-
sponding to the god ’E1/Kronos/Kumarbi marks the transition
point in the mythology. With this god, the pattern of succes-
sion changes. While in Hesiod Kronos is banished by Zeus, he
is not emasculated. Kronos is still consulted by the gods on
matters of great importance. The position of Kronos thus
parallels the position of ’E1l in Canaanite mythology, if one
assumes that ’El had been banished to the Underworld by the
storm-god Ba‘l. But despite the efforts of M. Pope to show
that ’El's dwelling was indeed in the nether-world, !°5 the
texts from Ugarit simply do not support his contentions./°4
The only real parallel is that in both the Greek and Phoeni-
Cian accounts, Kronos emasculates his father, Heaven. While
Zeus banishes Kronos in Hesiod's account, Kronos holds his
power absolutely in the mythology preserved by Philo. The
only role that Zeus (Ba‘l) plays in the account of Sanchunia-
thon is the role given to him by ’El. No record of usurpation
is contained in the Phoentctan History. A further difference
exists between the roles of Zeus and Ba‘l in Greek and Canaan-
ite mythology. Whereas Zeus is an all-powerful god who has no
difficulty in banishing or destroying his enemies, Ba‘l is
victorious only through the aid given him by the other gods.
The fact that he could be considered the slave of Yamm and M6t
and even be killed by Mot indicates that Canaanite mythology
differed greatly from the Greek conception of the storm-god.
Comparative mythology makes clear once and for all the succes-
sion of power from the theogonic to the cosmogonic deities.
In each myth, the figure corresponding to *El represents a
transition between these two types of deities. Though Deal
remains in control of the gods, holding the position of king
in Canaanite mythology, he distributes the rule of the cosmos
to his sons, the most notable of whom is Ba‘l.
je ie 5 OS ee ee ee ee ee

153. #UT, 61-82. See also U. Cassuto, The Goddess

Mpeiclen SSI SOc
154. On ’El's dwelling, see R. Clifford, The Cosmte
Mountain, 35-57, and our treatment of the location GME Inks
dwelling below, pp. 128-168.
100

Several major factors, however, mitigate against this

usage of the Greek and Hurro-Hittite material for evidence
that Canaanite mythology contained references to the over-
throw of the high god ’El by the younger storm-god Ba‘l. One
of the major factors is the position of Kronos in the Greek
pantheon. In the Greek material, especially in Hesiod's The-
ogony, Kronos and his generation are extremely vague figures
who have only the slightest traces of a cultus or an inde-
pendent existence apart from their position in the scheme of
the theogony. Greek literature provides no reason to believe
that Kronos was the chief god worshipped before Zeus, or that
he preceded Zeus in any historical sense because he is placed
155
before him in the divine genealogy. Rather, Kronos seems
156 We
to have had no major cultus in the entire Greek world.
must remember that Hesiod's Theogony was written to exalt the
god Zeus, not to recount historically or cultically the god's
rise to power. If, then, Kronos was not an actively wor-
shipped deity, but only a member of the genealogy of gods
preceding Zeus, the analogy of his overthrow with a supposed
overthrow of the highly active Canaanite deity ’E1 becomes
invalid. Indeed, it is Zeus who is the creator-god in Greek
mythology. It 2s also he who is “the reciprent of hymns.
Remarkably, there are few hymns at all to the god Kronos. In
Greek literature, Kronos was most certainly a shadowy, otiose
figure, one who was banished by the great god Zeus, the focus
of the Greek pantheon. Though many parallels between the
Canaanite and Greek mythologies do exist, the effort to com-
pare the position of the Greek Kronos with the Canaanite ’E1
is simply incorrect, This could not be shown more vividly
than by the description of Kronos/’El in the account of Philo
Byblius.

155. M. H. Jameson, "Mythology of Ancient Greece," in

Mythologtes of the Anctent World, 259-260.
156. Kronos, under the epithet Ba‘l Ham6én, was actively
worshipped in the Punic colonies of North Africa. For a
description of his cultus, see S. Moscati, The World of the
Phoentetans (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers,
NEO) 5 ASGrad Ala,
 101

We feel that the same misuse of comparative mythological

motifs has been made with regard to the Hurro-Hittite accounts
of the relationship between Kumarbi and the storm-god. Kumar-
bi, "the father of the gods," is nowhere dethroned in the
mythological texts from Boghazkéy. He is seen in indirect
conflict with the storm-god through the monster Ullikummi,
but nowhere are Kumarbi and the storm-god pictured engaging
in combat. That the storm-god deposed Kumarbi is speculation
based on the Greek material, and has no textual support.
We must therefore conclude that neither the Greek nor
the Hurro-Hittite material provides a proper analogy with the
mythological depictions of ’E1 and Ba‘l in Canaanite litera-
ture and worship. Likewise, the old Babylonian theogonic
text noted above shows that the pattern of incest and patri-
cide stops with the high god of the pantheon, Anu. This same
pattern is found in the theogony presented by Sanchuniathon
Vite bilO wince properesolutson COmthes motif of vasconkhli
ct
between ’El and Ba‘l in the Ugaritic material is to let the
texts speak for themselves. Thus far, as we have seen, Uga-
ritic mythology presents no knowledge of any combat or con-
flict between the two gods.
Yet the Ugaritic material itself is supposed, by some,
to contain references to the conflict between ’El and Ba‘l
and the victory of Ba‘l over the high god. As U. Cassuto
States’:

We may conjecture, it seems (although there

is no express evidence of this so far in the
texts in our possession), that the Canaanites
WUsedsto relates thatuat first Hil ruled over
the entire world, but his sons dethroned him
and divided the dominion between thems.”

M. Pope follows the lead of Cassuto, and ''ventures to suggest

with great reserve" that the episode recounting this battle

is recorded in CTA Tove This suggestion is followed, in

UEEEE ENE EEIEIREENEER ERIE RERERERRRRERREERREEEROREREREEREERERRE E
eee

57s lihe Goddess Anavh, do.

ee Vio OT
102

turn, by U. Oldenburg, who asserts that in CTA 1.V Ba‘l and

his men capture and bind ’El on Mt. Sapan, and there castrate
him ce Though the text itself is terribly broken and permits
no continuous reading, because of the stress placed upon it by
recent scholarship we shall present CTA 1.V in its entirety
with an analysis of the contents.

CFA 1.y2e°

[ 1b
[ wym.ym]m
[y‘tqn ymgy.]nps
[ h]d.tngtnh
[ hmk].bspn
[ Jensb, ben
[ ]bkm.y‘n
[ selh piliisyael ae
[ t]’asrn
IO). igerear? atal ]trks
[ ]-?abnm. ’upqt
[ ]1 wgr mtny
[tat iad ]rq.gb
[ )kl.tgr.mtnh
Lael ]b.wym ymm
[y‘tqn ].ymgy.nps

L595 Lhe Confltces Between Hl and Ba“ate U2s-125..) Fon

Oldenburg's translation, see pp. 185-186 of his work.
160. The deplorable condition of the tablet is described
by U. Cassuto in The Goddess Anath, 156-159. He asserts,
since the text of column V seems to present a conflict of some
type, that column V should be read first. Text 1 originally
either contained eight columns or was introduced by another
tablet. Because the state of CTA 1 does not allow any con-
tinuous reading or connected story, it is extremely difficult
to) accept or) rejectehis valews slheslackson panaldelismtomthe
text and the total uncertainty of the width of the columns
make any attempt at reconstruction most tenuous. We present
the text as it is given by Mme. Herdner.
 103

]t.hd.tngtnh
Jhmk bspn
1)OLSEiy.Payal
20 ]Jm.bkm.y‘n
ipogal?
-dlsycl re
ev Eusiia ier 7 ak
]rks.bn.’abnm
i)PUNE.
Sad)
25 wg]r.mtny ’at zd
20
se10) LoS? ah
(Reds epiq
Pgh = ai) EME Ron
. . . Ce gO ey fe Raye . re AD

An Analysts of CTA lpia

Thesecontext oOneCrTAw {Veisuditf1cult tomdetermine. —Col-

umns II and III present messages to ‘Anat and K6étar and re-
count K6tar's visit to ’El's dwelling. Evidently, Kétar is
then instructed by ’El (III.26-27) to build a palace for Yamn,
who is proclaimed Lord in column IV (1. 17) and is perhaps
commissioned to drive Ba‘l from his throne (IV.24-25). The
story 1S indeed difficult to follow, but in column V a con-
PinctrOLssOMe cy pPeaseems COMDesIme progress. = VelS-25enepeats
lines 2-14 and adds very little to our understanding of the
CCXE.
UENCE ar, ALo-6 SOY MaAymlins a aye. EWOrdays.. = lhe. col
umn begins with a designation that an unspecified amount of
time has passed (y‘tqn) before "he/they arrive(s)" (ymgy).
The subject of the verb is unknown. The gods Haddu (11. 4,
17) and ’E1 (11. 10, 22) are the only deities mentioned by
mee, INE qyeselos Geel dinisayers, Aho AN ae nis PA Clee Ala Niietlicedel

Oia OGEEEanshasnhonsmoLmOuA mslj VienSeee Gime Dsl VieT GMin,

76; C. Gordon, Ugaritie Literature (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1949), 26-27; U. Oldenburg, The Confltet Between EL
and Ba‘al, 185-186. For a short analysis of the column, see
U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 170.
104

appear to be second person plurals, or possibly third person

plurals, indicate that other gods are involved, but no hint
of their identities is given. The final word, npe, “soul,
person," could be the subject of the verb, but once again, the
total lack of context makes any decision impossible.
Lines 4, 17: hld.tngtnh, "Haddu, they meet him." The
verb gives no help in the context. The root ngt means "'to
meet, to encounter" and the form should be taken, in light of
the other plural forms, as a third person plural masculine
with the third person masculine singular suffix. Both the
subject and object of the verb are unknown. It is possible
that the object is Haddu.
Lines 5, 18: hmk].bepn, “your ? on/from Sapan.™” The
parallel in line 18 preserves ]kmk bspn. Cassuto reconstructs
thmk, ''your bread, "162 and Oldenburg reads thmk, "your mes-
Sacer) = Either reading as possibde, and either could be
reconstructed in line 5. The meaning of bspn is ambiguous.
While it clearly refers to Mt. Sapan, the preposition b could
Méan either "
“ons yr
sor strom. Thestext spresents moysupports+om
U. Oldenburg's contention that the battle takes place on Mt.
Sapan, which he contends was the original mountain dwelling
of ’E1l before he was deposed. 1®4
Line 6: n&sb.b‘n, "he blows(?) when he answers/sees."
Once again the absence of a continuous story makes the choice
of interpretations impossible. b‘n is an infinitive absolute
EGON. Che mVie TD yp COmalS Weis Lun Ono en EOS Cem
Lines 7, 20: bkm.y‘n, “weeping, he answers/sees.'' We
take the first word as an infinitive from bky, "to weep,"
plus vans encelitic) -meepantieles Oldenburg! ®° analyzes it as
b + km and compares it to Hebrew k°md, reading "thereupon."
Lines 8, 21: yd‘*.tyd‘t, "Surely I/you did not know."
With the exception of the person, the reading is definite.
The verb may be either first or second person. yd‘ must be
taken as an infinitive absolute, and the Z as the negative
a
162. The Goddess Anath, 170.
163. The Conflict Between EL and Ba‘al, 186 iE Thiorgeliug
L6Ane) Dhiden 125.
MSS Wels 5 Whi, We Ah
 105

particle. The speaker cannot be determined.

Lines 9-10, 22: t]°asrn[tr.?tt ] trks, "'they/you
(will) bind Bull °E1(?)...you will tie...."' Both verbs ¢’asrn
and trks are either second or third person masculine plurals.
The subject and object of each is unknown. It is possible
theater 7p sis thesobject of the) binding and tying, but, as
Cassuto notes, this cannot be determined with any certain-
166
ty
Lines 11, 23: ]-’abnm.’upqt / |rks.bn.’abnm, “stones of
the stream/between the stones.'' For *’upqt, we compare Hebrew
Sapeq. suchannel,!" 91t as possible that dine 23) is to be com-
pleted y]rks.bn.’abnm, ''They bind between the stones."' In
like manner, it could be either a singular or plural impera-
tive, rks, "Bind!" Once again the object to be bound is inde-
terminable.
ICAGE. HAUS. ANE Ae eee mice, Terloreelea
oy oc otbalck Hale
mount of my loins; you are presumptuous.'' gr in Ugaritic
generally means "mountain," and is the semantic equivalent
of gb‘, "hill." Oldenburg compares gr to the Arabic garra,
meaning “to cut. PER Either translation is possible, and in
view of tgr in line 14, it is probably best to read a verb
here. Line 14 thus refers to the performance of the action
in line 12. ’at 2d, “you are presumptuous," is ambiguous.
Both the speaker and the antecedent are unknown. For ad, com-
pare Hebrew zéd.
With line 15, the actions are repeated, with only minor
variations and additions, which add nothing to our under-
standing of the text. The action is wholly obscure. Haddu
and Bull ’E1 are mentioned. References to loins, stones, and
binding are clear. All that can be stated about the text is
that some acts of violence involving Haddu and ’E1 are de-
Sirus bed. 168 The text and its context will allow no further
eonelustons. Oldenburg's reading of gr, tgr as a verb mean-
ing "to cut" in conjunction with mtny/h, 'my/his loins," pos-
sibly suggests the theme of castration, but the subject and
ey 8 oie pl ee
166. The Goddess Anath, 170.
167. The Confltet Between El and Ba‘al, 185, n. 6.
168 May Pope, -2UZ, 93.
106

object of the act and the one being emasculated, if thts be

the case, are entirely obscure. The reference to "stones"
(?abnm) gives no support to the idea that an act of castra-
tion takes place here, for M. Pope notes that *bn in the sense
of "testicles" is not attested in Semitic. 199 The text itself
gives no certain indication that emasculation occurs. Like-
wise, the broken state of the text makes it impossible to
determine the actors involved. Indeed, to assume that Ba‘l
emasculates °H1 ts to contradict both the evidence of the
mythologies of the anetent Wear Hast regarding the relatton-
shtp of the storm-god to the high god of the pantheon and the
internal evidence of the Ugaritte texts themselves.
If ’El were castrated, especially at the beginning of the
Bayle cyiclommthene the: pactunes obeer leasmamustvepatraa cchmconl=
tainedsin the Ugaritice materials) present a great pxrobien,
Though Ba‘l was indisputably the fertility-god in Canaanite
mythology, it is interesting that the only text dealing with
the hieros gamos portrays ’El, not Ba‘l, in the role of a
fertility cody CTA 25, Sihhes Bartheor thesGracrousmGodse|
presents a vivid picture of ’El seducing his two young brides:

ta’iraku-mi yadu ’ili ka-yammi

wa-yadu ’ili ka-madubi
?araku yadu ’ili ka-yammi
wa-yadu ’1i1li ka-madubi

[lus tattatemi kis yapaties

himma ’attatami tasihanna
ya mutu mutu nahuta-mi hittuka
mémminanna-mi mattu yadika
(GLA, 25755-3559 -40)

*El's power is long like Sea's,

?E1l's power like Flood's:
Long is °E1l's member, like Sea's,
?E1's member, like Flood's.
 107

?E1 seduces the two wives,

Lo, the two wives cry:
"O husband, husband, stretched is your bowstave,
Drawn is your mighty shaft ."170

The references to ’El's sexual ability and the size of his

member are transparent. The exact ritual indicated by the
text is not known, but there can be no doubt that it is a
fertility rite. The text records a number of various actions
Pyeett, all to’ insure his fertility: °B1 £1115 a bowl (11.
Si) 55-50); her goes hunting and roasts binds (i. 37-39, 47-
48). The question of ’El's potency is clearly answered by the
text. ’El embraces his two wives and they conceive and bear
the gods "Dawn" (Sahru) and "Dusk (Salim) 11. 49252);
Whether the ritual was to help ’El become potent or to insure
the fertility of the union is irrelevant to the problem of
?E1's sexual ability. He clearly seduces and impregnates the
two goddesses.
The ability of ’El to impregnate the two goddesses raises
an obvious problem with the hypothesis that at the beginning
of the Ba‘l cycle, ’El was emasculated. Any question of po-
tency is answered by this text. In order to overcome this
aCty A. Kapelrud,!71 M. Popes 2 and U. Oldenburg!/* assert
that the text must date from the period before ’E1 was deposed

170. mht he is an idiom meaning "to bend or stretch the

bow." Compare the phrase w@nihat qéset-n°hisah 2°rd‘dtay,
"and my arm to stretch the bronze bow," found in 2 Sam 22:35
(compare Ps 18:35). We take mmnnm as a D participle from the
denominative root ymn, which occurs in Hebrew with the meaning
“to draw the bow (with the right hand)" in 1 Chr 12:2 (cf.
By Ms Cross, Clini, 255 ie OY heel OS)o Ml, Wee (aU, Se)
CHR Driver: (Mie i22-125),eand (C.sGordon "(UaZ, 60) “sees here
a reference to ’El's inability to attain or maintain an
erection, translating the verbs as "descends" and '"'droops"
or similarly.
171. Baal tn the Ras Shamra Texts, 71.
WA jakakiiy, UN7bo
173. The Confltet Between El and Ba‘al, 122.
108

by Ba‘l. Yet there is no linguistic evidence in the text that

suggests an early date. Nor does the story in any way argue
that the text should reflect a time when ’E1, and not Ba‘l,
was the fertility-god. CA 1.V presents the aged creator-god
engaging in intercourse with his wives to produce two gods.
As father of the gods, ’El is naturally portrayed in this
role. His position here in no way conflicts with that of Bay a
as the insurer of fertility. Ugaritic) literature nowhere pres
sents Ba‘l as engendering other gods of the pantheon. This
function belonged only to ’El. We must assert that the my-
thology preserved in the texts from Ugarit shows no knowledge
of °El either as an emasculated deity or as an impotent
god,/4

The final evidence cited for the conflict between °E1 and
Ba‘l is found in ’E1l's support of Yamm as king. As we have
noted above, one of ’E1l's major roles was the dispensation of
kingdoms. Yamm, either through his nature as a fundamental
power in the universe or through some victory not recorded in
the texts, was proclaimed king by ’El. The exaltation of Yamm
has led A. Kapelrud to assert that ’El was forced to accept
Yamm as king because he was unable to find any other adversary
aoe Re U. Oldenburg extends this theme by asserting
thats vamm,, thessoneot Eleawasschosen) tor fulltime thes ritenor
blood vengeance for his emasculated father. This theme of
blood vengeance becomes the “red thread" which unites the
mythology of Ugarit into a single divine drama.1/® Oldenburg
senlaokelsy Eley EPCEWELIL EysMolsiNes akONe GMs sha wl Ye) ls WSs
tpt nh[r] yt’tr tr *tl *abh, “Judge Nahar takes blood venge-
ance sor) BUI ZEA s has father."177 The text, however, simply
will not allow this reading. While the meaning "to take
vengeance” for yt?¢r is quite possibly correct, the prosodic

174. ’El's sexual potency is also confirmed by CLA AT TVs

27-39, where the aged deity offers his consort amerinaieie Jeeles
bed. Though the text does not explicitly describe any sexual
activity, the implications are obvious.
175. Baal tn the Ras Shamra Texts, 105.
176. Whe Confltet Between HL and Ba“al, 130-134.
Ws Hiatielown We. desl,
 109

structure of the text will not allow Oldenburg's line divi-

sion. Lines 20-21, though broken, clearly indicate that tpt
nhr is not to be read with yt’tr tr °il *abh. Rather, tpt nhr
must be read as a parallel to zbl ym, a very common formulaic
pair in CTA 2. Likewise, the parallelism of bht and hkl is
obvious. We read the line as follows:

[ -- ] ba-ba[hati zubili] yammi

ba-hékali tapiti naha[ri]

Wee sel eSsaue P PEMoie bens!

la-pa‘né [zubu]1li ya[mmi]
[la-pa‘né tapi]ti [nahari]
(CFA 2,011
(2), 20-22)
...in the house of Prince Sea,
In the palace of Judge River.

Bull °E1, his father, will take vengeance /8

Before Prince Sea,
Before Judge River.

This line division is demanded by the text. Whatever the ac-

tion indicated by yt?tr, it is clear that ’El, not Yamm, per-
forms it. Regretfully, the exact meaning of yt’tr remains un-
clear. It is evident, however, that the text does not support
the view that ’El has chosen Yamm to fulfill the rite of blood
vengeance for ’El's castration.

The Relattonshtp Between *EHL and Ba‘l: Summary

The kingships of ’El and Ba‘l in the Canaanite pantheon

were complementary. °E1, ruling over the gods as head of the
pantheon, had the final word within the divine realm. He
stood as a transition figure between the olden, theogonic
Dee eee eee een eeeee
178. G. R. Driver suggests the translation "'con-

firmed(?)" for yt’?ir (CML, 79), and Ginsberg suggests "fa-

vors" (AWET, 129). Either of these readings makes better

‘sense of the context, which remains obscure at best.
110

pairs of deities and the younger, cosmogonic gods. His posi-

tion as the head of the pantheon and creator/father of the
gods is vividly portrayed in the mythological materials from
Ugarit and Phoenicia. He distributed the duties of cosmo-
logical order to his sons, Ba‘l, Yamm, and Mo6t. It was among
these powerful young gods that various conflicts erupted.
Both Yamm and M6t attempted to extend their dominion over
that of the storm-god Ba‘l. The conflicts among these three
gods are limited to the cosmogonic sphere. They are not at-
tempts to take over the function or position of °E1, who re-
mains unaffected by all of these conflicts. He participates
only to proclaim the rightful ruler over the cosmos.
It is clear that the texts from Ugarit show no knowledge
of a conflict between ’E1 and Ba‘l. Rather than plotting
Ba‘l's overthrow, ’El leads the mourning rites at Ba‘1's death
and rejoices at his resurrection. The mythological accounts
show that there was no enmity between the two gods. Their
spheres of power were quite different. ’E1l remained the high
god in the pantheon, greatly revered in the cultus. ae Though
the cult of Ba‘l obviously began to replace ’El's cultus in
the popular religion, ’El was still worshipped as the father
and creator of the gods. His position and power are seen most
vividly through his decree, which determined the actions of
the gods. ’E1's proclamation of his decree is best displayed
in his actions in the divine council, the medium through which
the decree of the high god was proclaimed.

pes Ee ee
179. The liturgical texts from Ugarit reveal that ’E1
was offered numerous sacrifices in the cultus. We shall treat
the relationship between ’E1 and Ba‘l as seen through these
texts in the next section, when we consider the position of
the divine council in Canaanite/Phoenician redigaiont.
 ARE

THE DIVINE COUNCIL

IN CANAANITE AND EARLY HEBREW LITERATURE

Thus shall my word go forth from my mouth;

It shall not return to me empty.
Rather, it shall accomplish what I propose,
And prosper in that for which I dispatched it!
GisaeS Sins)
 . aie ante Fal! Waa.
n> ot a cemlenee, MO
Pee eee et a 2
ay eu sAces, bebr iad
Nye ad? phen ak se ‘TAM ee elyeaf
cus A ro iAL
1$J;eke - fh V4
<—Tiehwe

ell Y ee ober vals, = sre? 02a tedlieg

of r heb") ) he tare) she SS) Gee ia esi
hol er i¢¢Qne. Vt Waar erilr aoees —S a Sie
{ : ? otal (lls a yace if <aoa te
é >a, ® J : qs b 46g pSeiaG @s a ans

; Lae yg el 4 ry Te. pot Oa ep

: er ae a
re F

rh Pe

a
7
4 n :
: i nal ba
The Concept of the Counetl and Council Terminology
tn Canaanite and Hebrew Literature

The concept of the divine council, or the assembly of the

gods, was a common religious motif in the cultures of Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Canaan, Phoenicia, and Israel. In the present
section, we shall concentrate upon the connections between
the concept of the council of the gods within the religion of
Canaan, as seen through the mythological, epic, and liturgical
texts from Ugarit, and within the religion of Israel, as re-
ilected an her early literature.! We shall not consider the
concept of the council in Egyptian literature, for though
chenemismevidencesfor the exisitence of a synod) ofethe gods”

1. Allusions to the heavenly council are quite numerous

in the post-biblical period in the apocrypha, the pseudepig-
rapha, and the writings from Qumran. In the present work we
are unable to treat fully the concept of the divine council in
the post-biblical material for several reasons: (1) the
extra-biblical references to the council add little informa-
Plone POMmCIemCOncep tO mEnes council sin. themaneLemt, Near Bast:
@Cimebewintinence: otsHellenisti1e,, Persian. and Babylonian
Eelmeroneim the poOst—exilaceper1ods led {to ithe tdeveliopment jot
a very elaborate concept of angelology; (3) the exact nature
of the development of a hierarchy among the angels who were
members of the council lies beyond the scope of the present
study. (For a discussion of the various outside influences
leading to this development in post-biblical writings, see
D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewtsh Apocalyptte
[Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974], 235-262, esp.
pp. 257-262.) The major patterns of the council are found
already in the biblical materials, and the beginnings of the
individualization of the members of the council may be seen
as early as Job 1-2, Zechariah 3, and Daniel 7, which we shall

consider.

tes
114

in Egypt, it does not seem to have played an important role

in Egyptian religion.” Further, there is little evidence of
direct Egyptian influence upon the Canaanite mythology of the
Ugaritic texts. The only clear example is the connection of
the craftsman-god Kétar with Ptah of Memphis.>
The extent of the influence of the council in Mesopo-
tamia, however, is more difficult to determine. The "council
of the gods" (puhur ilani)* in Mesopotamian literature consti-
tutes a central theme in the religion and the mythology.
Since the origins and nature of the Mesopotamian concept of
the council have been studied in detail by T- Jacobsen,> ies
not necessary for us to repeat the literature in full. Brief-
ly stated, Jacobsen has determined that the council motif in
Mesopotamia may be traced back to a time when the assembly met

2. R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isatah xl

13-14: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-
Isatah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 39, n.
1. During the Middle Kingdom, it was believed that the final
judgment would take place before a tribunal of the gods, the
sun-god acting as judge. G. Cooke, "The Sons of (the)
Godi(s)wy 2A 7 or CLS G4 275
se We Ee eAlbieigits VGC. Ss. BO themlocatwolmor
K6tar's dwelling in Memphis of Ptah, see CfA 1.III.1-3; 3.VI.
WAALS)
4. For references to the occurrence of this phrase, see
W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwérterbuch, Band II (Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1972), 876-877.
5. ''Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia," in
Toward the Image of Tammuz, ed. W. L. Moran (Cambridge:
Harvard University: Press, 1970), 57> li0ns hart yvesPoldtacal
Development in Mesopotamia," TIT, 132-156; "Mesopotamia," in
Before Philosophy, ed. H. Frankfort et al. (Baltimore: Pen-
guin Books, 1966), 137-234, esp. pp. 153-156, 196-198, 209-
212. The major views of Jacobsen are also delineated by J. S.
Ackerman, "An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82" (unpublished Th.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 1966), 183-217. For the
major literature written on the divine council in Mesopotamia,
see Ackerman, NSS-Ws4 nw 2o5.
 HLS)

to deal with a specific crisis, and it appointed leaders for a

limited term only--i.e., for the duration of the crisis at
hand. The term "primitive democracy" was coined by Jacobsen
to describe this situation. A central concept here is that of
discussion and exchange of views within the council, reflected
most clearly in those texts which depict the earthly council
in deliberation. ° All the gods, even the highest in the pan-
theon, were subject to the decisions of the council.’ Mae
council motif in Mesopotamia is seen most clearly in Tablet IV
of Enuma elis, where the council of the gods (the puhur tlant)
proclaims Marduk as king and deliverer. The mid-second mil-
fenniums B.C. date ot this epic® places it in the same time
period as the texts from Ugarit and thus makes the parallels
between the council in Mesopotamia and Ugarit even more im-
portant, as we shall show below. In Eniuma elis, the power of
the assembly was given to Marduk, a situation very analogous
TOE emcOoncepe OL then counemi= ain Wgarit and @isracie | ihe
parallels between the council motifs in Mesopotamia, Canaan,
and Israel clearly show that the concept of the divine council
must be taken as one which was common to the ancient Near
East. The question raised by R. N. Whybray is of central
AAO esaMes Yeo) Tels Siew, Oss alee Chiyshies eOumvetils “oq wNle Clss—
tion must be asked whether the divine council was thought of
as entirely subservient to the divine king or as possessing
some authority of its own. a’)
This question formulates a

6. For examples of the earthly council in Mesopotamia,

see T. Jacobsen, "An Ancient Mesopotamian Trial for Homicide,"
TIT, 193-214; A. Malamat, "Kingship and Council in Israel and
SunernswN Parallel "yes 22 (1963) 247-2535; GC. Evans, “An
cient Mesopotamian Assemblies," JAOS 78 (1958) 1-11; and J. S.
Ackerman, "An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82," 217-228.
7. E. A. Speiser, "Authority and Law in Mesopotamia," in
Ortental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of EH. A.
Speitser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, WIG) , Silo.
8. TT. Jacobsen, "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat,"

OW
9, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isatah «wl 13-14, 36.
116

central issue for the present study. Its answer requires a

full investigation of the depiction of the council, its mem-
bers, their role, and its position and function in the mythol-
ogy of Canaan and Israel. The parallels provided by #numa
elts are of great help in the delineation of the concept of
the council in Canaanite and early Hebrew literature.
The concept of the divine council in the Old Testament
has long been noted, !? but little work has been devoted to the
role it plays in Canaanite and Hebrew literature, despite the
call. for such a study by G. E. Wright in his analysis of
Deuteronomy 3211 and the recognition by H.-W. Jungling that
the council of the gods constitutes "ein 'klassisches Thema tw

of the Ugaritac my chist 12 The present section is an attempt

to illustrate the nature and function of the council as de-
picted in Canaanite and Hebrew literature. Our major evidence
for the council motif in the Old Testament is found primarily
in Israel's pre-exilic literature, especially in the Psalms
and other poetic writings where Canaanite influence is most
easily seen. But the concept of the council runs throughout
the Old Testament as a continuing theme of Yahweh's power and
authority, and we shall thus not limit ourselves to the pre-
exiliG materaal in the’ Hebrew canon. The Israelate concept
of the council will be studied in conjunction with the divine

10. Some attention has been given to the concept of the

divine council by Old Testament scholars, but a clear delinea-
tion is still wanting. Among the most important works are
BR. M. Gross, "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," WES
12 (1953) 274-277; F. Dexinger, Stursz der Gdttersdhne oder
Engel vor der Stntflut (Wein: Verlag Herdner, 1966), 29-41;
H.-W. Jtingling, Der Tod der Gdtter (Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), 38-60; P. Miller, The Divine
Warrtor tn Early Israel, 12-23, 66-74; and H. W. Robinson,
WiherCounicil so sVahweleeeedtuleneoiie
Ii. “The: Lawsuit of God:)) A PormiGnatical Study of
Deuteronomy 32,'' in Israel's Prophetie Heritage, ed. B. W.
Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper and Brothers,
Publ
Sine 'sy,s0.9 1629) 5med Zimmer
12. Der Tod der Gdtter, 60.
 WN,

council in Canaanite literature, for the close parallels be-

tween the nature and function of the council and its members
in the two traditions are most clearly discernible when they
are treated together,
The most studied aspect of the divine council in both
Canaan and Israel is the terminology employed by each to
designate the assembly.! The council in the Ugaritic materi-
al is designated by the term phr (= Akkadian puhru, "assem-
Diya cOtalad tvu)aelin i martTeemhowever.m themtercm: phr alone
is not used to designate the assembly. Rather, the phrases
pyr *tim (Akkadian pukur ilant), "'the assembly of the gods"
(CLAS ZI ELS UG Vel Oe RS: 24645) ee and pur bn 2eim, ithe
assembly of the sons of ’E1/the assembly of the gods" (CTA 4.
ITI.14) are used.!4 The phrase phr m‘d, "'the gathered assem-
diye saugnatesmunes councdimNoL =the gods anmO7A 2 al. L4ye 5.
IOS, AN Silo Waits plITASS OCSLEEGS Cre il ql WEP, Eleel sies
precise meaning will be studied below. A common designation
Ome che mcOuUnGl =inmchicmsacruta cla WELeXxtS Samp yee mD item athe
assembly of the sons of LY (Em S082 S2o1oS, OM 17, Bas
34; compare the Phoenician designation mphrt *tl gbl qdém,
"the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos," KAI 4.4-5, and the

13. See the works cited in n. 10 above (p. 116). The

council terminology is also studied by R. Clifford, The Cosmte
Mountatn, 43-47.
14. The phrase p[fZ]r b*°l, "the assembly of Ba‘1," is
reconstructed by C. Gordon in CTA 34.7, following dr ’il, ''the
congregation ofs°hl" (UF, text’1.7, ps 159).” On the basis: of
this reconstruction phr b*‘l is read in CTA 35.16 and App. II.
18° (CfA, 137). The majority of scholars, “however, reconstruct
piglm b°t, “body/corpse of Ba’ l (?7)" (cf. Aramaic péger,
"body, decaying corpse;"' see the note by Mme. Herdner, CTA,
118 n. 5), 0m the basis of line 12. Aistleitner suggests
the meaning "Morgenopfer"' from the Arabic fajr, "dawn, day-
break" (Wérterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache, 3rd edition, ed.

O. Eissfeldt [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967], no. 2189),

reading "the morning offering of Ba‘l." We shall consider

the concept of the council of Ba‘l below (see pp. 272-273),
118

Akkadian mupahhtrum, "the assemblage," the common D participle

of paharu).
Hebrew literature does not attest the word phr, which is
the common designation for the council in Canaanite and Akka-
dian texts.)° Despite the absence of this term in Hebrew,
the literature of the Old Testament shares several terms
designating the divine council and its members with the liter-
ature from Ugarit. One of these is the term ‘édat, which
clearly designates the "council of ’E1" in Ps 82:1 (‘adat-
loi)e ewasedoes) (dtuins the mepcmosm kam tal l(GlAS U5).
li /eseatela))r
Hebrew also attests the word ddr, "assembly," in Amos g:14,16
and the phrase dr ’tl/dr bn ?t1 is the most common designation
of the assembly of ’E1 in the Ugaritic texts.+/ Ihe WES ILS er
ploys the word md‘ed to designate the "Mount of Assembly"

15. P. Miller suggests that the absence of the term from

the Old Testament is due to a lexical shift in which pbhr,
which could denote the "divine host'' in Akkadian and Ugaritic,
fell out of use in Hebrew and was replaced by the term saba’,
which was foreign to Ugaritic and Akkadian as a designation of
the heavenly army (The Divine Warrtor in Early Israel, 70).
16. This meaning was first noted by F. J. Neuberg, "An
Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DOR," JNES 9 (1950) e215 257
His recognition of this meaning presented the solution to the
problem in Amos 8:14. For the Massoretic Text's (MT) dérek,
Neuberg reads dor@ka, "your pantheon," which is in parallel
with *’élohéka, ''your gods," giving perfect parallelism to the
verse and requiring no emendation of the consonantal text. In
addition to Amos 8:14, Neuberg finds this meaning of ddr in
Psise LAS Si ZO eS See Cai ieee mandrel ROMEneSe
passagese Pay Ro Ackroyids hasvadded ers SOc ORS aussie mio men 2 OF
and Prov 30:11-14 (''The Meaning of Hebrew 435 Considered,"
JSS 13 [1968] 5-8). The same term (dr) is also employed as
a designation for the heavenly assembly in Phoenician (cf.
KATZ OryLule
S MeO i S27 ila)ee
hg CL SSS SAG OI 5 WY, AH 20.5, SUS Hise BS. ise
Moyes I Ik outs (etal, Sy arel WS WI) IG) Oe), Nore alse
the expression dr dt Smm, "'the assembly of the heavens,"” in
CUA OR elton.
 IAL)

(har-mé°éd), as does CTA 2.1. As a further designation for

the council, Hebrew applies the term qahal (q@hal q@dddtm,
Ps 89:6), a designation not attested in Ugaritic. Also unat-
tested in the Ugaritic texts is the Hebrew word sdd to connote
the council: sdd-q@ddstm (Ps 89:8); sOd YHWH (Jer 23:18; cf.
v. 22); sdd *216¢ (Job 15:8).18
Just as the terminology designating the assembly shows a
common tradition, the members of the divine assembly in Uga-
ritic and Hebrew are mentioned in similar terms. As we have
shown in the first part of our work, the gods are commonly
designated as banu *t1t(-mi), "the sons of °E1," or as banu
qudet, “the sons of QudSu (*Atirat)," in the Ugaritic texts.
In the descriptions of the divine council in the Old Testa-
ment, the members of the council are called bené °élt%m (Pss
29:1; 89:7); bené *815htm (Deut 32:8);29 bene harslontm (Gen
O82, 43 IOs 1865 Beis mene Faction (25 B2SO)s Kol eionan (2s
97:7); or simply q?ddstm (Job 5:1; Deut Bee ees OO ECan) i
The terminology used to denote the divine council and its
members in Canaanite and Hebrew literature is markedly simi-
lane As eE MonGross has enoted, the Hebrew “‘edah shows the
same correspondence between the political and heavenly assem-
bly? as does the Akkadian pukrum. In conjunction with the

gs On the term sdd, originally meaning “council, assen-

Div DUtlatermreteuring tomsecrers Or mystenres,. sec R.
Brown, "The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of 'Mystery',' CBQ
20 (1958) 418-421.
19. Reading bené °2lahtm for the bene yisra’?el of the MT
with the Septuagint (LXX) and 4QDt. For the reading of the
Qumran fragment, see P. W. Skehan, "A Fragment of the 'Song
of Moses! (Deut. 32) from Qumran," BASOR 136 (1954) 12-15;
and "Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Stu-
Giles.) ase SS UIGS))) Aa!
20. Following the reading of F. M. Cross and D. N.
Freedman, "The Blessing of Moses," JBL 67 (1948) 193, 198-202.
21. “The Gouncid of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," 274, n. 1.
On the usage of the terms ‘édah and qahal denoting the politi-
cal assembly in Israel, see R. Gordis, "Democratic Origins in

Ancient Israel,'' in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, ed. Saul

120

similarity of terminology, the concepts of the council in

Canaan and Israel are strikingly similar. ’E1, as we demon-

strated above, was the king, father, and progenitor of the
gods in Canaanite mythology. As such, he stood at the head
of the pantheon, unaffected by the various conflicts among the
younger, cosmogonic deities. When consulted, he delivered his
decree. ’El must thus be pictured as the aged judge who, as
we shall show, sat at the head of the assembly, surrounded by
the other gods. Likewise, the pictures of Yahweh in his coun-
cil present him as the head of the assembly, the god whose de-
cree determined the decision and actions of his messengers and
holy ones.

CTA 2.I: The Assembly of °EL

This text presents the most detailed account of the di-

Vines counci L thateissatcestedsins che sU garni
ta cmmytis a ine
first thirteen Lines are terribly broken, and it is impossi-
ble to reconstruct them with any certainty. From what can be
ascertained from the broken context, Ba‘l rebukes Yamm and in-
vokes Yamm's destruction? through the power of the gods Horan
and ‘Attart simu bate Yamm, who has received the kingship
throughs the decree of 2HI (GTANIAIV U7s) ce 2 lle
ee —O\e
then sends messengers to the council to affirm his kingship.
At this point the major portion of the text may be recon-
Structed wath certainty:

(13)tib‘a galma[mi ’al tatiba]

?iddaka panima(14)’al tattina
“imma puhri m6‘idi
t6[ka guri luli]
ee SR a ee ee ee ee eee eee
Liebermann (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society,
19 SO) 57 6- S88
22. G. R. Driver, CME, 13; see also the translation
of
He leiGinsbert. sANET SO)
23. On the god Héran, see M. Pope and W. Réllig, WM,
288-289. For the hypostatization ‘Attart Simu ba‘li (1. 8),
MAttartename of Ba 15!" see Fe Ms Gross. CMaa S0k
 {07a

La pane dah
Gl Sia leneappulla
?al tiStahwiya puhri [m6‘idi]
[quma-mi ’amar ’am]ra(16)
tinya da‘ takuma
wa-rigma la-tdéri ’abi[ht ’ili]
[tinya la-puhri] (17)m6‘idi
tahumu yammi ba‘ likum
?adanikum ta[piti nahari]
(18)tint ’iluma di taquhi
di taqiyna hamullati
tinu ba‘la [wa-‘ananéhu]
(19)bina dagni ’aratu-mi paddahu
taba‘a galmami 14-yataba
[?iddaka panima] (20)la-yattina
toka guri luli
“imma puh!ri m6‘ idi
?appa ’iluma la-<la>hhil[ma] (21)yatibu
bani qudSi la-tarrima
ba: du qamu ale: aia
halumma(22)’iluma tapahuhuma
tapahtnna mal’aké yammi
ta‘udaté tapiti [nahari]
(23)talg]liya ’i!ltima ri’Satihum
la-zari birakatéhum
wa-la-kahti (24)zubulihum
ba-humu yig‘aru ba‘lu
lama galitum ’iluma ri’Satikum(25)
la-zari birakatékum
wa-lana kahti zubulikum
?ahdu(26)’iluma ta‘niyu
lahati mal’aké yammi
ta‘udaté tapiti naha<ri>
(27)Su?t ’?iltma ri’aSatikum
la-zari birakatékum
lana kahti(28)zubulikum
wa-’anaku ‘anayu mal’aké yammi
ta‘udaté tapiti nahari
(29)tisSsa’a ’iluma ri’aSatihum
la-zari birakatéhum
W272

lana kahti zubulihum

(30)’ahra tamgiyani mal’aka yammi
ta‘udata tapiti nahari
la-pan‘é °111(31)[1a ta]ppula
14 tiStahwiya2* puhri m6‘idi
qama-mi ’a[mar] ’amara
(32) [tanilya da‘ atihuma
7iStu ’°iStémi yi’tamira
harbu latuSti(33)
[las] anéhuma
Gagama la-tori *abihu 7212
tahumu yammi ba‘likum
(34) [?adani]Jkum tapiti nahari
tinu ’iluma di taquthu
di taqiynahu(35) [humalla] ti
tint ba‘la wa- ‘ananéhu
bina dagni ’aratu-mi paddahu
(36) [wa-ya‘ni] t6ru ’abihu ’ilu
‘abduka ba‘lu ya-yammi-mi
‘abduka ba‘lu(37) [la-‘6la]mi
binu dagni ’a[sit]ruka-mi
huwa yubalu ’argamanaka
ki ’?iluma(38) [mattanaka] yabalu
wa-banu qudsi minhayaka
?appa ’anniSa zubulu ba‘ [lu]
(39)[ -- y6’hi]du ba-yadi maShita
ba-ma yamini mahhisa
galmémi yiSa[hhit]
(40) [yaminahu ’ila]tu td’hid
Sam’alaht té’hid ‘attartu
’6ka ma[hasta (41)mal’aké yammi]
[ta‘u]daté tapiti nahari
(ESA) 2 JD GLSS41)

(IS) MArise) Ladstwdemnoturcarry!

Verily set(14) face
Toward the appointed assembly
Sh be ee 3 4S See Bie ee i eee eee
24. Note the reading 7¢tSthwy in the transliteration
(CTA, 8). The photograph clearly shows the reading to be
Ltsthwy.
 MAS

To the midst of Mount Luli.

Nowthe treet OL 2 BMS )idomnot fall,
Do not prostrate yourselves to the appointed
assembly.
Arise! Constantly stare! (16)
Repeat your message (lit. 'knowledge")
And say to Bull, his father, ’E1
Repeat to the(17)appointed assembly:
"Message of Yamm your master,
Your Lord, Judge River:
(18)"Give, O Gods, the one you protect,
The one whom the multitudes protect.
Give Ba‘l and his cloud entourage,
(19)The son of Dagnu that I might possess his
DOWwe L(y) euees
Thee ladswanisie athe yacdom no cuca tye
Verily they set(20) face
To the midst of Mount Luli,
Toward the appointed assembly.
Now the gods were(21)seated to eat,
The sons of QudSu to dine.
Ba‘ l was standing beside ’El.
When(22)the gods saw them,
Espied the messengers of Yamm,
The envoys of Judge River,
(23)The gods lowered their heads
To the tops of their knees,
To their(24)princely thrones.
Ba‘ 1 rebuked them:
"Why, O Gods, have you lowered your heads(25)
To the tops of your knees,
To your princely thrones?
Unite,(26)0 Gods, give answer
(To) the insults of Yamm's messengers,
Of the envoys of Prince Sea!
(27) li£t up, .0- Gods, your heads
From the backs of your knees,
From your(28)princely thrones,
And I shall answer the messengers of Yamm,
124

The envoys of Judge River."

(29)The gods lift up their heads
From the tops of their knees,
From their princely thrones.
(30)Then the messengers of Yamm arrived,
The envoys of Judge River.
Tol the feet. on MENG )ithey didnot Lali,
They did not prostrate themselves to the
gathered assembly.
They arose. They stared constantly.
(32)They repeated their message (lit. "knowledge").
A flame, two flames, they appeared,
A sharpened sword(33)was their tongue.
They addressed Bull, his father, ’E1:
"Message of Yamm, your master,
G4) Your load, Judge easier:
"Give, O Gods, the one you protect,
The one whom(35)the multitudes protect.
Give Ba‘l and his cloud entourage,
The son of Dagnu that I might possess his
power(?).'"
(36)And Bull, his Father, ’E1l answered,
"Rael is your servant, 0) Yamn:
Ba‘l is your servant (37)forever,
The son of Dagnu, your prisoner.
He shall be brought (as/with) your tribute
When the gods(38)deliver your gifts,
And the sons of QudSu, your offerings."
Then Ba‘l took heart
(39)\1 ==" ] hewseized san: axe an \(hi's )ehands
A bludgeon in his right hand.
He smote the two lads!
(40)The goddess seized his right hand,
“Attart seized his left hand.
"How can you smite(41)the messengers of Yamn,
The envoys of Judge River?"2°
a eee
25. Phtlological Notes. Even though CTA 2.1.13-41 can
be reconstructed with confidence, a number of terms require
 17

At this point, the text becomes too broken for any sus-
tained reconstruction. Ba‘l, who clearly invoked the assembly
ne ee ee ee
Special comment. The two terms gr 12 and phr m‘d will be dis-
cussed in the following section. Likewise, the nature and
function of the messengers (ylmm, ml’km, t‘dt) will be treated
below in conjunction with their roles in relation to the di-
vine council.
Lines 18-16. The translation of °al is ambiguous. As
noted by M. Dahood ("Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I," Biblica
44 [1963] 293-294), *al may mean either "not" or "surely" in
Hebrew and Ugaritic. The translation of *’aZ as the negative
makes better sense in the present passage, since it was com-
mon for deities to prostrate themselves before ’E1 and the
OEheregodsw | Dheremis no) reason ton Yamme to instruct. has
messengers to carry out the normal custom. Rather, he in-
structs them quite explicitly to break with the custom (note
aiso the negative Z in 11. 30-31, which recount the actions
Ofecheamessengvers) ae cep (Ch yoo, ley 19), tse a ysecond person
plural/dual form from the root ytb, with the meaning "to tar-
ry" (cf. Hebrew ysb), emphasizing the immediacy of Yamm's re-
quest lhe phrase slommn: “am amr) is duificulte. thas necon-
SewUcESe am i, WS sem I, Sh, Whe Seeoule! wos st nwo, lpybhe
we have reconstructed ’*’amr, and read the infinitive absolute
*amar preceding the dual imperative, ’amra, for emphasis. The
Grans lactone ismcdit
thtGOl tw iin wienGinsbenos (AVG 50) suggests
"proudly standing," which carries the general idea of the con-
text. Neither G. R. Driver (CML, 78-79) nor C. Gordon (UZ,
14-15) translates the phrase. The verb ’amr means "to look,
to see’ in Ugaritic, and here the force of the infinitive
adds the notion of continuing action. We have thus translated
the phrase as "Constantly stare!," reflecting the defiant pose
of the messengers.
Lines 18, 34. tn *tilm is open to two interpretations:
(1) the verb could be a plural imperative (tinu) demanding
the entire council to heed the request; or (2) it could be a
singular imperative (tin) addressed only to the leader of the
council, ’B1 (*tZu-mt). The former construction seems best,
for it is most logical that the address would be directed
126

to refuse the request of Yamm, was denied, and Yamm's wish

for kingship was sanctioned by the council. When Ba‘l
ow Se ee ee ee
first to the entire council, especially in light of hmit (11.
18, 35), which stands in parallel to ’tim. dtqh dtqyn (11.
18, 34): the verb is first- and third-weak (cf. Arabic waqa
[wgy], "to guard, protect"). In both instances it is preceded
by the relative pronoun d. The first is a second masculine
plural plus the third singular suffix hk. The second is third
feminine plural, in agreement with hmit.
Lines 19, 35. pd is very problematic. It is most often
associated with Hebrew paz, "pure, refined gold." But as
F. M. Cross has noted, the grapheme d may stand for etymologi-
cal t, and suggests a comparison with Arabic mafattat, “abun-
dance" (CMHE, 183, n. 61). On the problem of the grapheme d,
see Cross, CMHE, 55, n. 43, and R. Clifford, The Cosmte Moun-
CeRuipia "Sis. iq, Sih
Line 21. trm parallels thm, a D infinitive, meaning “to
eata We expect trm tov have a samilar iconnotatvon .) fhe Ara—
bic tarama has the meaning "to cut up" in the second form, and
a D infinitive here would give a meaning similar to "to break
breads" “a2ye.-, “tordane.:'
Line 24. bhm yg°r, “he rebukes them." The verb ga‘ar
in Hebrew commonly takes the preposition b, as it does in the
present instance,
Lines 26, 28. The verb ¢‘ny, a second person plural im-
perfect from the root ‘my, and ‘ny, the third person singular
perfect, could have either the meaning "to answer," a G stem,
or "to humble, to oppress,'’ a D stem verb. Since Ba‘l's re-
buke is followed by his exhortation, using a plural imperative
(Su°u, 1. 27), we should expect the previous verb to carry the
connotations of an imperative, i.e., a second person plural
verb. In this instance the meaning "to answer" is most ap-
propriate. The setting is the divine council and the decision
of that body is not delivered until 11. 36-37. Thus, Ba‘l
exhorts the gods to give a favorable answer on his behalf.
Likewise, “ny in 1. 28 is best taken as a G infinitive abso-
lute meaning ''to answer."
Line 26. The answer requested by Ba‘l is in response
 eh

realized that the council had pronounced his fate, he at-

tempted to kill the two messengers, but was stopped by
‘attart. 7° Such actions were obviously out of order in the
council proceedings. In the following lines (41-47), Ba‘l
seems to express the desire to address Yamm himself (ig ie
possibly to deliver a threat or challenge to the new king.
The outcome of this confrontation is totally unclear. The
lamentable state of CTA 2.11, which probably continued the
account, 1s totally beyond reconstruction. “If 2.111(?) is
properly placed, it is obvious that the conflict came to no
suitable compromise, and Ba‘l thus was forced to battle Yamm.
This text, though rather lengthy, provides the framework
for the study of the concept of the divine council in Canaan
and Israel. It provides a description of the council meeting,
the place of the meeting, the reception of messengers with
their request to the council, and the response of the council
to that request. Also, this description clearly places ’El,
the head of the pantheon, as the leader and judge in the coun-
cil,o the warrdoxr-god Ba*l is seen as the protector of the
gods. We shall now turn to an analysis of this text and com-

to the Zht of the messengers of Yamm. For the meaning "in-

sult, offense,'' compare the Arabic lahy/lahw.

Line 33. For the reconstruction [Zs]nhm, see P. Miller,
"Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel," CBQ@ 27 (1965)
DS f= ISS
Ltnee SeeWe. “ead lL Lim wath Cross, CUHH, Lia.
Line 38. We have reconstructed [mtnk], “your gifts" (cf.
Hebrew mattan) to parallel *’argmnk. A word with the meaning
cd ote te wd S ecequaned by. the (context.
26. In line 40, we have followed the suggestion of Mme.
Herdneue (CLA oye 4a reading [7 2) ithe woddess:, “an pars
allel with ‘Attart. The readings ’atirJat or ‘an]at are also
possible. ‘Attart and ‘Anat are mentioned together in Ug. V.
1, (RS 24,258), eS as ONetwee Clo USo AlSO, aie Git ithe Its
145-146; VI.291-293, ‘Anat and ‘Attart are compared. Since
all three were, no doubt, members of the council, as were the

major goddesses in Mesopotamian myth, we have chosen to fol-

low Mme. Herdner's suggestion and read simply ’tlatu.

128

pare both the descriptions found in other Ugaritic and Phoeni-

cian passages and the accounts provided by Hebrew literature

Oe OUW Parc ili

The Meeting Place of the puhru mO‘idu and the Dwelling of oid

CTA 2.I reveals clearly the meeting of the assembled

gods, designated as the puhru mé‘idu. Its meeting place is
defined as the gr 22, "the Mount ZZ." The identity of this
mountain has long eluded scholars, for the term has no defi-
nite parallel. This has led to the emendation of the text to
read gr <*?7>Z, “the mount of »£1."27 This emendation is
prompted by several references: (1) in the broken text of
CTA 4.11.36, the phrase haru °¢t2z, “the mount of *E1," the
semantic equivalent of guru <’?t>lt, is clearly attested;
(2) the highly Canaanized dirge over the king of Tyre in
Ezekiel 28 refers, in verse 14, to har qodes ?3ldhim, "the
holy mount of God" (see also Ps 36:7, har?ré-’el [compare Ps
50:10]); and (3) in the lament over Hé1é1 ben Sahar in Isaiah
14, the prophet mentions the har-m6‘ed (v. 13), “the mount of
assembly,'' which meets “in the extremities of the north."28
As we shall show below, these references are indeed correctly
called upon, and bear directly upon the identification of the
mountain where the assembly met. Since the phrase gr 21 oc-
curs only twice, and only in this text (ll. 14, 20),79 and be-
cause there is no orthographic or linguistic reason for the
confusion of *z and Z, we are hesitant to adopt this emenda-
tion. As we shall show in our treatment of the abode of ’EB1
and the ''mount of assembly," sufficient evidence exists for
the identification of the mountain and possibly for an ety-

Hi OCS, among Others On bass

te kG bem Une S osteo Wie
Schmidt, Kéntgtum Gottes, 8; F. M. Cross, CMHE, 37; and R.
Clifford, The Cosmte Mountain, 42.
28. The expression b@yark®@té sapdn will be treated be-
low in our analysis of Isaiah 14, pp. 147-155.
29. We note that the phrase actually occurs only once,
in line 20. The expression in line 14 is reconstructed on
this one occurrence.
 128)

mology of its name.

The assembly itself is designated by the term puhru
m6“‘tdu, which we have rendered "the gathered assembly."
This formal designation occurs only five times in Ugaritic,
and all five occurrences are limited to CTA 2.1 (ll. 14, 1S
16-17, 20, 31). While the term pufru occurs numerous times
outside this text, the designation mé‘idu is limited to this
Single phrase. As R. Clifford has noted, the term mé‘idu
seems to define further the meaning of pukru. =e The term it-
self may mean "meeting" or “appointed meeting" (cf. Hebrew
md*éd).>- Thus, we have adopted the meaning "the gathered
assembly.'' The connection of the puhru md‘idu with the mount
(gr 22) and with ’El is made explicit by the parallelism in
CTA 2.1. In lines 14 and 20, puhkru md‘tdu stands in clear
parallel with the phrase guru 212, marking the assembly and the
mountain as parallel expressions--i.e., poetic equivalents.
Likewise, the pukhru mé‘idu twice parallels the phrase pa‘né
Saie (IL, IME. SOS) Cie Ixia, Ones (elie yaiae Tee@nanabeys,
part of the idiom "to bow' with tappula). This identification
of the council with ’El is further confirmed by the occurrence
of the phrase in lines 15-16, where puhru mod‘tdu parallels the
phmasemconrtaaDt hye? lt. DneSe Ehree occurrences (Of punny
mO‘itdu in parallel with ’iZu make explicit the fact that ’E1
is regarded, at least by Yamm, who commissions his messengers
in these words, as equivalent to the council. This connec-
tion, along with the identification of the council with Mount
Ll, requires us to investigate the nature and location of the
dwelling of ’El.
The descriptions of the dwelling of ?E1 occur in numerous
places in the Ugaritic texts, always in one of two set formu-
ae eee et Gk a RE ed Es Sa ee ee
30. The Cosmie Mountain, 43.
31. This fact is further emphasized by the occurrence of
the word mw‘d, meaning ''the assembly," in the Wenamun text
from ca. 1100 B.C., which gives us a picture of an assembly of

the city of Byblos led by Zakar-Ba‘al, the prince of that cit-

y. Cf. J. A. Wilson, "The Assembly of a Phoenician Gait ee
INES 4 (1945) 245, and H. Goedicke, The Report of Wenamun

(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, IY Si), MAE

130

lae. 24 Directly connected with the concept of the "mount (OBE

assembly" is the description of °E1l's mountain dwelling:

*iddaka la yattil[n panima]

[‘im lutpani] ’ili di pa‘idi
tokashursa
| ni
beokay/-Srmes suai esi)
(CEA TLDs 2223)

Then he (Kotar) set his face

Towards Kindly One, ’El the Compassionate,
lo the mountain [| )-—— ]
Moy Mounts hse.

Though the passage is broken, it is reconstructed with cer-

tainty £rom parallels in ors lili. 10-2 (whene the readins
guri ks is attested) and 1.11.23 (which attests tdka hursant).
The word hursanu, here designating the mountain of SEE oe as
attested only in these three passages in the mythological
texts (reconstructed in kwea epee Regretfully, each occur-
rence of the term is followed by a lacuna, and no reconstruc-
tion is possible. On the basis of other evidence from Ugarit,
we may be quite certain that the name of ’El's mountain fol-
lowed its designation as the hurgadnmu. The Akkadian pantheon
list, RS 20.24 (Ug. V.18.4), lists 4adad be-el fur3an ha-at,
"Hadad, Lord of Mount Hazzi (Sapan),'' as the equivalent of
ba‘ [lu galpant in CTA 29.5.°4 Thus, we would expect hursanu

52. KR. Clritonrd, The Cosme Mouncaun. So-51 ail at omd

includes CTA 2.1.19-24 and 13-15 as a third formal description
of ’El's dwelling. Since we have not adopted the emendation
of gr Lt to gr <?t>L, we shall refrain from including these
descriptions until we have analyzed all the relevant data.
33. The word fursanu also occurs in two economic texts,
CTA 119,111.40, in the name bn frén in a list of recruits
(eine) 5 Eels] Shik PRU WI WOR
A
34. Ug. V.18.18 (RS 20.24) further contains the reading
dhursanu™ u a-mu-tu[m], which has no correspondence in CTA 29,
due to the broken nature of the latter text. Furthermore, no
Ugaritic reconstruction for the terms is apparent. In his
 iL il

to be followed by the name of ’El's mountain in the descrip-

tions, and we would also expect the name to be paralleled by
ks. Since, however, the ks is probably not complete and de-
fies reconstruction at the present time, it is totally impos-
sible to derive a name for ’E1's mountain from the present
descriptions. °°
The descriptions do give two highly important pieces of
information, however. The first is the designation of his
mount by the term Ruréganu, which has two meanings in Akkadian:
(1) mountain(-region); (2) the place of the river-ordeal.°°

commentary on this line, J. Nougayrol (Ug. V, 52-54) suggests

that the name of ’E1's mountain is contained in the term
amutu, the precise meaning of which is difficult to establish.
In Akkadian, amutu is used mainly in liver-omen texts, and
this meaning is obviously out of context here. It is possible
to read the form ammutu, a plural form of ammu, attested as a
name for the Tigris, or as amutu, a plural of amu, which means
SOOG «4 (Oi EMeESS WOES, Cir, Clos Wy eo Hl A Kooy eho!
AHWe 7, 44-47.) The latter suggestion of the “floods” as
associated with the mountain is indeed attractive in view of
the descriptions of ’El's abode as being located "at the
sources OL thes xivers, Js the lack ot Ugaritie parallels to the
phrase amu/ammu, and the problems of the -utw ending, which is
not attested in Akkadian for these words, makes the adoption
of Nougayrol's thesis impossible at the moment. Also, as R.
Clifford has pointed out (Phe Cosmie Mountatn, 39, n. 10), the
word Qfursanu is marked as a plural in this text and all other
mountain names of the gods are singular in Ugaritic.
35. Because of the broken nature of the text and the
parallel gr ks, we are unable to accept the suggestion made by
U. Oldenburg (The Conflict Between EL and Ba‘al, 106, n. 9)
that grgn is the proper name of ’E1's mountain.
36. For references, especially to the river-ordeal, see
CAD VLRO 55=255) AHN 559-500. Alsonsee Ma Rope), HUM, 69
70, and R. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, 38. For a study of
the several reflections of the ordeal by water which are con-
tained in Hebrew literature, see P. McCarter, ''The River
Ordeal in Israelite Literature," 403-412.
7,

That the fZursanu dwelling of *E1l refers to a mountain is clear

from its parallelism with gr. The designation of the mountain
as hursanu, the place of the river-ordeal, is highly signifi-
cant with respect to the concept of the meeting place of the
divine council. As P. McCarter has noted, the connection be-
tween the two meanings of hursgadnu is obvious. Mythologically,
the fursanu is the place of judgment and interrogation upon
entry to the Underworld. Likewise, the Qursanu symbolizes the
cosmic mountain at whose base was the source of the waters and
the entrance to the Underworld. >’ Thus, the mount of ’E1 is
the location of the scene of the river-ordeal--i.e., the scene
of legal pronouncements. The concept of the gursanu provides
us with our only clue to the location of the meeting place of
the council. It is on the fZurganu, the mountain of ’E1, that
the gods meet to make decisions. It is the place from which
*E1 pronounces his decrees (cf. CTA 1.I111.26-27, where ’E1
apparently commissions Kétar to build a palace for Yamm, who
is proclaimed "lord" in the next column [compare CTA 2.III(?).
7-9]; and CTA 2.1.36-37, where *’E1 delivers the decision of
the gods from the mount of assembly).
But the Ugaritic literature reveals much more than this
about the nature of the kursanu, for it explicitly notes this
as the location of the dwelling of ’E1:

yagliyu dadi ’i[li wa-yaba’u]

(qaraSi malki] ’abi Sanima
(GTAP ILL 25224)

He (K6tar) opened the domed tent of ’El, and entered

The tabernacle of King, Father of Years.

Kétar's journey takes him not only to the hursanu, but also to
the tent-dwelling of ’E1. While the text is broken, its re-
construction is unquestionable, for the expression y/tgl(y) dd
a a aa a Sn ee
37. “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature," 407. As
we have suggested above (p. 49, n. 83), the original meaning
of Hebrew 8°?32 may be "place of interrogation," thus locating
the entrance to the Underworld in Hebrew literature at the
base of the furésanu.
 133

occurs in Ugaritic only in those passages which describe the

entrance of a god into the tent of hams hewGextsmcomtaran
numerous representations of ’El's abode, always described in
the following set formula:

?iddaka la tattina panima

‘im ’i1i mabbiké naharémi
qirba ’apiqé tihamatémi
tagliya dadi *ili wa-taba’a
qaraSi malki ’abi Sanima
(CPAs4 1Vi20>24; CE. 20411 (2).4-5:
SaNe E35 ROSA WLS=2a Ge tas 2-56 +
LY WE AO =k) ))

Then they (*Atirat, “Anat, and their band) set face

Toward ’El at the source of the two rivers,
To the midst of the streams of the double-deep.
They opened the domed tent of ’E1 and entered
The tabernacle of King, Father of Years. 39

This formula gives another description of the location of the

dwelling-place of ’E1. His tent is located at the sources of
the waters at the entrance to the Underworld. This descrip-
tion solidly connects ’El's mountain and his tent-shrine with

S85 CE, CHA Zo NMI? )o@-S8 SoWoikse Los 4. IW AW Zao So Wits

SIEPS Wolo
OF SOs Ii Wala aide)
59) Bach ocGcurrence- ot this formula as adentical with
changes made only in the verbal form to designate the proper
number sand gender.) In 3. V.IS-16), O71.32-56, and 17-Vil.46-490),
Gime GOSS tO NEI S Temes aim PoMUUC odes, Momence ehwel sk Soils
3*-2, the messengers of Ba‘l. For the meaning "to enter by
molliwms inerwcle ine were stileye Te@i Tele Weve) gli, Sie iy Wilatieicoeelr,
Linc hen tO trrinancdmchemisrael iter) entmote Mee tamer) eZi2cm Ty 4
On the meanings of "tent" for dd and "shrine" for qrs, see
Clifford, Phe Cosmte Mountain, 51-53. For a discussion of mbk
and *apq, see W. F. Albright, ART, 191, n. 7, and the litera-
ture cited therein, and M. Pope, #ZU@%, 62-68. On the biblical
occurrences of the root nbk/mbk, see G. M. Landes, ''The Foun-
Caineatewiazere eee ASO wl Aes (@LOI5I6)) sli Sia7
134

the hursanu, the place of judgment in the river-ordeal.

“OBL ts tent is further described as being of somewhat
elaborate construction. When ‘Anat goes to visit the god to

request a palace for Ba‘l (CTA 3.V.13-17), she enters his tent

and addresses him with threats (CTA 3.V.27-33). When he hears

her, ’El answers from his tent chambers:

ya‘niyu ’ilu ba-Sabi‘ati hadri-mi

ba-tamanati ’appi sugarati
(GEARS ais
Sao 5)

El answered from the seventh chamber,

From the eighth enclosure.

This glimpse of ’El's tent shows that it contained more than

one room, It is not possible to state the exact number of
chambers from the passage, however, since the parallelism of
the ordinals is common to poetry, and is not to be taken
lrterally.. = Levis =ditricult not co think or ethesdeseripevon
of the Israelite Tabernacle (miskan) with its divided cham-
bers and elaborate construction (cf. Exod 26:1-37; 36:8-38) in
connection with ’El's tent. Further parallels between the
functions of the two shall be studied below. For the present,
however, we shall note only two other parallels. The biblical
account notes numerous pieces of elaborate furnishings which
were constructed for the tabernacle under the direction of
B&sal’é1, who was "filled with the spirit of God" (Exod
35:31), and *Oh617’ab (Exod 35:34), who was skilled in every
craft. Both master craftsmen were appointed by Yahweh to con-
Struct his stabernecile “and Mares SaurndShamnigS a(S550) emeiasae aes
analogous to the situation depicted in CTA 4.1, where the di-
vine craftsman Kotar (called hyn and hss, 11. 24-25) is pic-
tured constructing the many elaborate ornaments of ’El's tent
("the throne of RIG" kahew PP2de Jd. 1342 thentootstoulmos
?E1,"" hudumu °ilt, 1. 35; "the couch of °E1," nat lu HA eee Hla
37; “the table of °E1," tulhanu °¢1<, 1. 39; and various
other pieces made of gold and silver) .19 We may conjecture

40. The exact meaning and translation of this text has

led to great scholarly debate, and a complete translation
 BS)

that *B1's tent was surely an elaborate structure, and that

in the mythological texts, ’El's dwelling was a CSG, WOE el
temple. 41 ora 15.I111.18-19 shows clearly that the other gods
were pictured as living in tents, for after the gods assembled
and finished the business of the council, the text depicts
their departure:

tabarriku ’iluma ti’tayu

ti’tayu ’iluma la-’ahalihum
daru ’ili la-miSkanatihum
(OBL ABs Wiis
w= Ae)9)

The gods bless (and) proceed,

The gods proceed to their tents,
The assembly of ’El to their dwellings. +2

The complaints of Ba‘l that he has no house (CTA 3.V.46-52;

4.1.10-19; etc.) also show that the gods, especially ’E1,
WEGemsecelhmasmectiEmdWe lets smi nmthesem passages ma tas se lear
that Ba‘l requests a bétu, which is quite distinct from the

stilt eludes scholars. On the major problems of the text, see

iweiomGascer. lhemrurnituremot Hiletin iGaniaanite Mythology.
BASOR 93 (1944) 20-23, and "A King without a Castle--Baal's
Appeal to Asherah," BASOR 101 (1946) 21-30, esp. pp. 29-30;
W. F. Albright, "The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology,"
BASOR 91 (1943) 39-44, and "In Reply to Dr. Gaster's Observa-
iealome."" BVO OS (AWD) Ae Ae hatch Oo West
che , 1e LN
41. It is true that both °El and Ba‘l have a palace
(bétu) in the ’Aqhat epic, and that ’El has a temple (bétu and
hékaltu) in CTA 21. Likewise, in the banquet text RS 24.258
(Ug. V.1.17), ’El is pictured going to his house (la-bétihu).
The latter two references will be considered below in our
treatment of the Rephaim texts, pp. 261-267. His dwelling is
clearly a tent in the myths! of the Ba i icyele,
42. Note here the parallelism of ’*ahalihum and
miskanatthum, thus equating the tent with the tabernacle
structure. The same parallelism is common in Hebrew litera-
Enme (ee, Num BESS aise SUSAN wicks SORIS Cheeni \iPekowee »6hel
and miskan are in parallel).
136

dwelling of ’E1, called a métibu, which serves as the shelter

(magltlu) of the gods, his sons.
Likewise, evidence outside the Ugaritic materials also
suggests that ?El's dwelling was a tent-shrine and not a
permanent structure. A Hittite version of a Canaanite myth
shows ’El (@fl-ku-nt-tr-sa) dwelling in a tent:

He (the storm-god) went on his way and be-

took himself to the well-spring of the Mala-
River. [He] came to El-kunirsha, the hus-
band of Ashertu, and entered El-kunirsha's
tent. ote

This fragmentary episode reveals that the Canaanite °El had

his tent dwelling at or near the source of a river, a connec-
tion that is made throughout the Canaanite literature between
*El's tent and its location. The account of Sanchuniathon
makes reference to a "yoke drawn shrine" (vadv CuyogopovuEvoy,
Praep. evang. 1.10.12) belonging to the god Agrotes
(CAvoétne) eee ouch arshranescoulds parallel enthenstines Aric,
which could be drawn on a cart (cf. 2 Sam 6:3-6), or a tent-
44
Like Structure. asim vanmaco ether pmes
isd amicegwopaln. Our
Phoenician sources thus provide further evidence of a god's
being linked to a tent or movable shrine. *>

43. For the translation, see A. Goetze, ANET, 519. For

the Hittite text, see H. Otten, "Ein kanaandischen Mythus aus
Bogaskoy 4 125-0507,
Aa, On wthe qubbah,) seesthesdescripti onsot) Pa MeCross.
"The Priestly Tabernacle," Biblical Archaeologist Reader, I >

ed. G. E. Wright and D. N. Freedman (Garden City, N.Y.:

Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961), 217-219; and J. Morgen-
stern, The Ark, the Ephod, and the "Tent of Meeting" (Cincin-
nati: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1945), 55-71.
45. The identification of Agrotes with the Canaanite
7E1/’E1 Sadday has been suggesived ibe. sc lanpham esJSian=
chuniathon: The First Two Cycles," 120-123. While the iden-
tification is appealing because it connects an °El-figure with
a portable shrine, the evidence seems tenuous at best. It is
 oy

With the exception of the present text (CTA 2.1), °E1 is

consistently pictured throughout the Ba‘1l-Yamm and Ba‘1-Mét
cycles as dwelling in his tent. Indeed, he is not seen in any
other location. In order for the gods to consult or deliver a
messageto ’El, they (or their messengers) must journey to
*Bl's abode. It is from this tent that °B1 proclaims his word
to the gods/messengers who enter it. ’El's tent is the POde =
ical focus in the mythological texts, for the decrees which
issue from that tent control the hierarchy of the cosmogonic
deities. This is clearly seen in each representation of a
Wise wor VEINS emia
In) GTA 1.11713, 21-23, “Anat a5 commanded to journey
iesorm Inge enelliktiyes (Mowimie Sarnaias Who IWR were wiieps Nib
d/ PAU) ADRS) 72046
244]) to ’El's abode. It seems that she has been summoned by
?E1, who then commands her to cease her hostilities against
Vanniwance COMmDaInN op pOaces backwetontheneantiim (CLAM Wl iryl 7-12 1) ipa
command elsewhere given to “Anat by Ba‘l (CTA 3.111.10-14; IV.
mesa t® That the command is from ’El is explicit. The
messenger addresses ‘Anat in the common formula for the divine
address in Ugaritic:

tahumu [todri ’ili ’abiki]

[huwatu lu]tpani hatikiki
(CfA AC TIGI7=18)
Message of Bull ’E1, your father,
Word of Kindly One, your patriarch. +’

As we shall see below, the word-pair tahumu//huwatu consti-

tutes, in Ugaritic, a messenger formula which is commonly fol-
lowed by imperatives to the messengers. The repetition of
pe a tl I a i eM IR a a es

sufficient to note that the Phoenician account records that at

least one of the gods had a portable shrine, perhaps a tent,
as did the Canaanite ’E1.
46. We here follow the interpretation of R. Clifford,
The Cosmic Mountain, 40-41.
47. For the meaning "patriarch" for Ugaritic htk, see

F. M. Cross, "The Canaanite Cuneiform Tablet from Taanach,"

A Sy tle ea 4c
138

this formula gives the messenger the authority of his send-

Bae! °EB1 himself does not go to ‘Anat. Rather, the goddess
must journey to his dwelling, which she does in I1.21-23.
The missing sections at the end of the tablet recounted, no
doubt, her reception of ’El's message from his mountain dwell-
ing (hursanu, 1. 23). It is also most probable that some
reference was made to Yamm's kingship, for in the next column
of CTA 1, Kétar is summoned by the messengers of °El to come
to the god's dwelling (I111.1*-12). The message to K6tar is
introduced by the identical formula (11. 5-6) announced to
‘Anat. Upon arriving at ’El's mountain (fursanu//guru ks, 1.
22), Kétar receives the command to build a temple (1. 27).
Though it as unclear for) whom the temple) is to be built peit
appears from G2A 2.1112).
7-9 that a palace 1s to) be erected
for Prince Yamm. These two references to gods visiting ’El's
mountain clearly show the connection of the gursanu with the
decree of ’El. The power of decree from this mount is further
illustrated by ’El's proclamation of Yamm's kingship (CTA 1.
IV.13-20) and what appears to be the command by ’E1 to Yamm
to drive Ba‘l from the throne (11. 24-25). The function of
the fursanu of ’El is clearly illustrated in CTA 1. The de-
cree of the high god issues forth from this mountain, ending
war and proclaiming a king--the rule of the pantheon is inex-
tricably connected with ’E1's mountain and his decree.
The; texts: further Gilustrate thiseract, dn connections wire
the tent-shrine of ’E1 located at the source of the rivers
(mbk nhrm//qrb ’ apq thmtm). 7° In order to request a house

48. Notesthat in’ CPASS LIT Sl0-14 iVSd 54. alana

ba‘ lti//?al’tyt qarradima has replaced the titles of ’E1, show-
ing that the same message is here being sent by Ba‘l.
49, This expression is firmly fixed in the descriptions
of H's) tent: (cfs GEA 3 V cd-
1S 4. 1Viegia22eS. Vile
se a Ge
33-34; 17.V1I.47-48). Only once is this frozen expression al-
tered, in Ug. V.7.3 (RS 24.244), where mbk nhrm is paralleled
by b‘dt thmtm rather than qrb ’apq thmtm. While the meanings
of these two phrases are equivalent, it is noteworthy that
this substitution occurs in a text which does not mention the
tent-shrine of the god.
 IESE)

for Ba*‘l, both ‘Anat and ’Atirat must journey to the tent-
Shrine (dd//qré) of °H1 (CTA 3.V.13-163.4,.1V.20°26). While
the details of SAnat's visit are not cillearweLted Se ob mous sthat
she did not receive the permission from ’E1 which she sought.
No decree came forth from the tent of the high god. Hence, no
temple could be built for Ba‘l. ~’*Atirat was more successful
in her attempt to influence the aged deity. After hearing her
request, ’El delivered the decree to the gods: "Let a house
DS wus steie Ber” (GWA dl iW OA 58S), Wane Lainie sha pmo tab alee
was sanctioned by the high god from his abode, as the kingship
of Yamm had been.
In her desire to obtain the great bow of ’Aqhat, the god-
dess ‘Anat journeys to the tent-shrine of ’El (CTA 17.V1.46-
51). While her request is prefaced by her standard threats
which ’El has previously ignored, here she achieves her de-
sired goal. The aged deity declares to her that she may have
the bow of ’Aqhat (CTA 18.1.15-19), beginning his decree with
AnmeLUEpeitatdlVemlce bat, ella) ent SmpassageeissOL omeat inten
est, for in the ’Aghat epic, ’El is generally assumed to dwell
inmomcenpLem (Cee mt)/ beue CLaInelye DnoeaOo sell ASS 2-292)
Here, however, he is pictured in his tent-shrine (dd//qrs, 11.
48-49). Our present text obviously contains a mixing of tra-
ditions. While ’El may be seen in the epic texts as pos-
sessing a temple, when a god seeks his decree the tradition
of the tent-shrine comes to the fore, since the ancient mytho-
logical memories connect the concepts of the tent-shrine and
the place of decree with the utmost consistency.
Two further accounts of visits to ’El's shrine reveal
that it was the location of the supreme power in the pantheon.
In CTA 5.VI.3*-2, the messengers of Ba‘l enter the tent of ’El
and announce that Ba‘l is dead (11. 9-10). No verbal decree
is issued, but the actions taken by ’El reflect his role as
cult leader. Upon hearing of Ba‘l's death, 7E1 immediately
begins mourning rites for the dead god (11. 11-24). When he
llearnsefrom his dream that Back as alive (6.111.2-9;) ci.) 20-
21), ’El commissions ‘Anat to deliver a message to Sapsu.
?B1's command to the goddess is framed with imperatives
(Sim*t...vtgmi, 11. 23-24). ‘Anat then dutifully delivers
the message in the standard formula:
140

tahumu t6ri ’ili ’abiki

huwatu lutpani hatikiki
. (CTA 6.1V.34-35; cf. CTA 1.1.17-
IS AE Rano)

The message of ’El is then repeated by ‘Anat exactly as it has

been delivered to her (11. 25-29, 36-40). Messages as well as
decrees emanated from the tent-shrine of the high god.
Beyond the pronouncement of the divine will, another ac-
tion takes place specifically within the divine abode. The
decree and sanction for kingship comes forth from ’El's tent.
In CTA 6.1.43-65, the actual choice and enthronement of a king
to replace Ba‘l occur at the dwelling of *Elcy SAnatis arrival
at the tent-shrine (6.1.32-38) and her announcement that Ba‘l
is dead (11. 41-43) firmly locate the action at °E1's tent-
shrine. Here, once again, ’El pronounces his decree, using
imperatives, | lo vAtirat he vannounces- |) iieart! (SimSZ, 1. 44)
and "Give (ttnzt) one of your sons and I will make him king
(-amallikunna)"' (11. 45-46). When *Atirat suggests Yadi‘yilhan
(11. 47-48), °E1 explicitly rejects him (11. 49-52), but ac-
cepts the suggestion of ’Atirat: namalltka ‘attaru ‘arigu,
"Let us make ‘Attar the 'Terrible' king" (1. 54). The decrees
and actions are clear. The god ’El controls the rulership
over the cosmogonic deities through his decree, which comes
either from his mountain, the hursanu, or from his tent-shrine
located at the sources of the rivers.
Yet this does not complete the presentation of the de-
crees of ’El as they appear in the Ugaritic texts. ’El gives
forth one further decree: he gives Ba‘l over to Yamm in the
council scene, ing C7A 02. 1.i50=S57n) slhdss passage dseorecentral
importance to the issue of the divine assembly and its loca-
tion, for in this passage the rulership of ’El and the power
of his decree are both emphasized and related to those pas-
sages just cited. In this text, °El receives the messengers
of Yamm in the full manifestation of their terror, "A fire,
two fires//Their tongues like sharpened swords" (11. 22553) coe
I a ee
50. Fire imagery played a most important role in the
religion of the ancient Near East. To this image of Yamm's
 141

The messengers repeat their message, which is introduced by

the phrase takumu yammt ba‘likum, "message of Yamm, your lord"
(Gili SI Kepen. tl. 17),°2 exactly as it has been presented to them
(11. 34-35, 18-19). Following common practice with respect to
messages from gods, the request is introduced by imperatives
(ttnu, 11. 18, 34-35) by the messengers, who have been commis-
sioned by their master in the same way (rigma, "Speak;" CUNY,
"Repeat'’ [1. 16]). Their demand is clear: Yamm, who has been
established as king by ’E1l's decree, demands that the council
hand over the god Ba‘l.
The reaction of the members of the council is vividly
portrayed--they are terrified. They lower their heads before
the messengers of Yamm, and are not encouraged by the exhorta-
tions of Ba‘l (Gili, 21-28) <> The crucial reaction to the
DRCSeIMENSD cUAtOM sSenOGm cia trom EnemmembeGs sot —themcouncall,
however, but the response of the god ’El1, whose position it
is to deliver the decree. Most scholars see ’El as simply
one among the puhru ’tlima who is terrified before the messen-

messengers as flames of fire, > compare Ps 104:4:

‘oSeh mal’akaw rihdt
m°Sar°taw ’6S5 lohet
He made the winds his messengers
Flames of fire his ministers.
The concept of messengers as being firelike in appearance was
Gommoneto, both Israel and Ganaan (ci. also. Ps 5725) For va
detailed description of this motif, see P. Miller, "Fire in
the Mythology of Canaan and Israel," 256-261.
Sin) Note that the ull formula, thm=paralleled by hur,
is not used in these two instances. The second member of the
formula has been dropped in order that the full title of Yamn,
2adanikum tapttt nahart, might be used and metrical balance
still be maintained in the bicolon. This variation of the
messenger formula illustrates clearly the freedom which the
ancient poet could exercise in maintaining both poetic formu-
lae and variation, while at the same time preserving meter.
eNom pos t1onmandenolemoreBagilei ne thescoune1 les ypre-
sented in detail below. See pp. 255-260.
142

gers and the request of Yamm.°> While it is quite possible

that ’El is frightened before these messengers, he does not in

any way lose his authoritative position in the council. Rath-

er, he delivers his decree: Ba‘l is Yamm's eternal servant
(11. 36-37). This decree is final within the council and the
divine realm. When Ba‘l attacks the messengers of Yamm (11.
38-39), he is restrained by ‘Attart, a member of the council
(JL. 40-41). Ba®l as forced to fight Yamm himself, outside
the auspices of the assembly.
Peculiarly, however, the council members themselves re-
main in the background throughout the entire episode. It is
clear from the parallelism of puhru md‘tdu with *tlu noted
above (pp. 129-130) that the god ’E1l is equivalent to the en-
tire council. The decree of ’El is the decree of the gods.
It establishes the order of kingship within the divine realm.
It also has the power of removing or denying kingship, as was
the) casi with) 2Attamy (C2452 ai C2) Sat) peMoOte(GiAMomyn «25
29), and Yadityilhan (@7A 651.49-52)). Wath “Attar andeMot,
°E1's decree is not directly proclaimed to the gods, but the
threat of the negative decree carried by Sapsu is sufficient
to make the two gods withdraw their bid for kingship. From
each decree concerning kingship of the gods, it is apparent
that ’El had sole authority over the realm of the cosmogonic
deities. While they were allowed to vie for power among them-
selves, the outcome of each conflict was sanctioned by ’E1
alone. This makes ’El's decree in CTA 2.1.36-37 perfectly
intelligible. ’El was in no way coerced by the messengers of
Yamm or their request. Yamm was king by the decree of ’El.
As king, he was entitled to rule over the other deities of the
cosmos. Thus, he had legitimate claim to take his adversary,
Ba‘l, as his prisoner and slave. Far from threatening the
council of the gods, Yamm may be seen as simply requesting
what was rightly his by divine decree. This request, quite
naturally, was granted by ’B1.
Decrees are indeed delivered by other gods, especially

53. Cf. A. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, 92;

M. Pope, ZUT, 34; R. Clifford, The Cosmie Mountain, 40, among
others.
 143

using the formula thm//hwt noted above. These decrees, how-

ever, do not have the power of the decree of SIEM 5 Se@re they do
not exert control over the realm of the gods. We have already
noted the usage of the formula thm ym b‘lkm in CTA 2.1.17, 53%
which recounts the request of Yamm for the affirmation of his
kingship from the council. The full formula (thm//hwt) is
used seven times by the messengers of Ba‘l, each time in the
following formula:

tahumu ’al’iyani ba‘ li

huwatu ’al’iyi qarradima
(CGA S Sr D Trou OMe esTVS
tS ee Vite
3 GhOMANI Soe. Bye Mtge
ali, aly
TAS, Gig Ig Ie 1)
Message of ’Al’iyanu Ba‘ lu,
Word of “I prevail over the warriors.">4

In each occurrence of the formula, the decree is presented by

imperatives. Ba‘l commissions his messengers in CTA 3.1I1.8-9
with the common imperative used to send messengers--rtgma,
MSaCal el" wwemiiGes Mieeciel! (eles AR alhes SeubioSee)s. 7 plik tec
The messenger formula is then repeated, followed by the mes-
Sagem (lea) nth smaMsitance,, sthesmessagemlusmthe decree
tomaAnat tomeease her hostalaties (cf, IV. 52-545) 711. 14-16;
and 1.11.19-21). The decree itself is announced by impera-
EMVeSe(C Emel elieAre Viy S25Are sale ldo) ee When the mes sen=
gers repeat Ba‘l's proclamation to ‘Anat, they do so in the
identical words in which it was given to them (I1V.52-54).
This same sequence of Ba‘l commissioning messengers is found
in the fragmented text CTA 7.11.13-16.

54. This formula varies in only one occurrence (CIA 5.

II.17-18), where bn is inserted into the formula (thm ’al’tyn
bn b°1). The fact that there are six other occurrences of
this frozen messenger formula without bn leads us to assert
that the word here is intrusive and the result of a dittogra-
phy by the scribe, since it is obviously the doublet Guz ails
102 tiee One thes formula 2al-tyw bactw, see above, p. slp ms 385.
144

Ba‘l uses this formula in 5.11.8-9 when he sends his

messengers to MOt. Here, he invokes them with the impera-
tives ttb‘a, "'Arise!," tinya, "Repeat!" (11. 8-9), followed
by the formula and message (11. 10-13). This is not a decree
from Ba‘l. Rather, Ba‘l answers Mot's demand by sending his
messengers to announce that Ba‘l is Mét's servant. The mes-
sengers then repeat Ba‘l's message. One other message is
delivered to M6t by the envoys of Ba‘l (CTA 4.VII1.31-37).
The commissioning of the messengers has been lost, but the
deliverance of the message is clear. After descending into
the domain of M6t (11. 1-14), they repeat Ba‘l's message that
he has built his temple (11. 35-37). Notably, this message
is repeated in the first person, as though Ba‘l himself were
delivering it. This first person usage is analogous to the
utilization of the imperative in the message formula, for it
signifies that the messengers not only are envoys of the god,
but actually embody the power of their sender.>>
This message/messenger formula is well established in
the mythological texts from Ugarit.°° It is employed by Ba‘l,
Yamm, and ’El. The messages are delivered by imperatives or
their equivalent. The messengers who deliver the proclama-
tions are commissioned in the same manner and repeat the mes-
sage they receive verbatim. There seems to be little differ-
ence between the method used to deliver decrees and that used
to deliver messages among the gods. Yet one significant fact
is readily apparent. Only ’El delivers decrees that affect
the) rulieso£ the cosmos, — He declares itingshap earanes spatacess

55. The message formula of Ba‘l is used one other time,

in CTA 3.V1.24-25, when the messengers of ’Atirat are dis-
patched to Kétar (11. 10-19). The message has been lost, but
it is probable that it referred to obtaining Kétar's help in
constructing a temple for Ba‘l.
56. This same message formula has been adopted, though
slightly modified, in the royal and personal correspondence of
Ugarit, where it takes two basic forms: (1) "To the queen/
king message (Chm) son ePNIN (Ch CHA SOc ye SollSmo Rane lle
Pod, ete.)s and) (2) Message \(cym)l one PNe tOePNi (Gh aC umes on
se PUI Teal: Sredl=eerswel Oo)elect ere Cen
 145

and refuses kingship, a fact confirmed by the Phoenician ac-

count recorded by Philo when Ba‘1-Haddu and ‘Attart are given
dominion "by the consent of °E1" (Praep. evang. 1.10.31).
Yamm simply requests that the council give what is rightfully
his in his demands to the council in CTA 2.1. Ba‘l gives de-
crees to ‘Anat and sends messengers to other gods, but nowhere
delivers a decree that establishes his kingship. This func-
tion belongs only to ’El. The only decrees that Ba‘l utters
CEvecChh year eeLOuUnGm In eCHAG =f
siiles Omanide Ville b4—1 OMpmeTnientihe
first he commands Kétar to construct his temple, which has al-
ready been decreed by ’El. In the second, he proclaims his
intent to construct a window in his temple. Neither command
affects the other gods or the cosmos.
The exaltations of ’El's decree and wisdom in CTA 3.V.38-
39; 4.1V.41-43; and 4.V.65-66 show clearly that his decree is
the controlling power within the cosmogonic realm:

tahumuka ’ilu hakamu

hakamuka ‘imma ‘ dlami
hayyatu hizzati tahumuka
(CLATS Ve 58-59) =e 45 IV e443)

Your decree, 0 °E1, is wise,

Your wisdom is eternal,
Ari toro setoncune. vyOUr mdeeree,

This exaltation of ’El's wisdom and decree is uttered by the

goddesses “Anat and *Atirat. In 3.V.38-39, “Anat praises
TUNcomdeereerorebettenathne wack sot sthemdesined decree, in
her unsuccessful efforts to procure a house for Ba‘l. When
the house is obtained through ’El's decree by ’Atirat, she ut-
ters the same praise. Both occurrences of this formula appear
in connection with the deliverance of a decree by ’Bl. When
Ghmee DSSS elie sosanilel, We aS ie) Chobe eey wets Teo *El's de-
cree denying a house for Ba‘l. ’Atirat praises the attri-
butes of ’El when he delivers the decree that Ba‘l's house
shall be built. The poetic structure of the tricolon is used
to emphasize even further the nature of the high god's decree.

We analyze the parallelism as follows: abc:ba“:b“a. The

parallelism is both synonymous and chiastic, and employs a
146

high level of euphonic repetition. 7El's decree (tahumu) and

wisdom (hakamu) are equated. Their domain is eternal ( ‘tmma

‘Slamt) and results in a "life of fortune" (hayyatu hizgatt).
The connection between the decree and the wisdom of ’E1 is
quite explicit, for the term "wise" (hkm) is applied to Ds)
alone in the Ugaritic texts (mote that in CTA 16.1V.3, Kirta's
wisdom is compared to that of °E1). No other god in the
Canaanite pantheon is denoted as "wise" in these texts, for
no other god has seniority and position like Bats eet ha Seder oi
place in the pantheon is further illustrated by ’Atirat's
praise to *Bl in CTA 4.V.65-66:

rabita ’ilu-mi la-hakamta

Sébatu daqanika la-tasiruka

You are great, O ’El; indeed you are wise;

Yourserey beard sims tructs you,

*El's position in the pantheon, as we have noted, is the re-

sult of his ability as a-warrior. This war-like function,
however, has now passed to the younger, cosmogonic deities
Yamm, MOt, and especially Ba‘l. The aged warrior has com-
pleted the theogonic battles. Now, standing at the transi-
tion point between the theogonic and the cosmogonic gods, he
sits as the patriarchal judge. ’E1l's decree is taken for
granted as a prerequisite for any important matter influencing
the realm of the gods in Ugaritic mythology.
Whenever the need arose to decide an important matter
relevant to order in the cosmogonic realm, the gods would
journey, as we have seen, to the dwelling of ’El to receive
the decree or permission of the aged patriarch. ’El's decree
is connected explicitly with three locations: the pugru
méO*‘tdu on the mount, guru 22; his mountain, called the
hursanu; and his tent-shrine at the source of the double-
deep. The equations of the mount of assembly with the puhru
m6‘idu and the assembly with ’El himself lead us to suggest
that the three must be seen as identical. The tent-shrine of
?E1, which indisputably functions as an oracle-tent, the place
of decree, is explicitly connected with the sources of the
rivers, the meeting place of Heaven and the Underworld. It is
 147

at this location that judgment is passed in the river-ordeal.

This is the location of the gurdanu. The consistency of the
tradition within Canaanite mythology places the assembly of
the gods under the leadership of the high god upon the
Qursanu/mountain of ’El. The meeting place of the gods must
be seen as the tent-shrine of the aged deity, for it is from
that place that ’El dispatches his decree. When the high god
issues his decree from the chambers of his tent, the action
is tantamount to the issuance of a decree from the assembly,
for the power of the council of the gods is expressed only
through the decree of ’El. As we shall see in the remainder
of the present work, the other pictures of the divine council
within Canaanite mythology, as well as the depictions of the
council of the gods presented in Hebrew literature, are total-
ly consistent with this concept of the assembly.
The location of this mount of assembly is more difficult
to establish. The Canaanite, Phoenician, and Hebrew evidence,
however, presents a consistent picture of the location of
7E1's dwelling. The epithet Ba‘l Hamén, applied to 61°! an
the Punic colonies, especially in Carthage (founded in 825
reveals much about the traditional home of the high
god. It is now evident from the studies of F. M. Cross”
that the epithet Ba‘l Hamon means "Lord of the Amanus," not
"Lord of the Brazier."99 This identification is further con-
firmed by a-Hittite hymn-to *E1l, RS 24.278 (Ug. V, 510-516),

Seno this wdentitication, see W. F. Alibraght, VGC,

203, and BF. M. Gross, CMH, 24. Classical sources identify
Ba‘l Hamon with the Greek Kronos and Latin Saturnus.
58. On the date of the founding of Carthage and the
chronology of the Tyrian kings, see F. M. Cross, "An Inter-
pretation of the Nora Stone," BASOR 208 (MSHA A 5 the IES
59. "The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,"
inepaais
rae Mao ClL96y lence OMA. ZO-25,. 55-50). 9Hox
references to the discussion of the meaning of the name, see
CMHE, 26-27 and nn. 72-82.
60. The evidence from Ugarit reveals that the laryngeal
in hmn is a @ and not a h (as in kamman). For references, see
CMHE, 27 and nn. 77-78.
148

which reads £l¢ pabanht-wi-nt haman oe (°tt pbnhwn hmn, 11. 9-

10), "’E1, the one of the mountain, Haman. "62° T¢ this identi-
fication is correct, then this epithet from the periphery of
Canaanite culture would locate ’El's dwelling in the Amanus
mountain range, to the north of Ugarit.
This location is further confirmed in Hebrew literature.
In Isa 14:13, embedded in the myth of the fall of hélel ben-
Sahar (v. 12), ~ we read:

mimma‘al 1°k6k®bé-°é1 *arim kis’7

w°’?8Séb behar-mé‘éd beyark©té sapén
Above the stars of ’E1, I shall exalt my throne,
And I shall dwell in the mount of assembly (of
the gods) in the far reaches of the North. °4

This highly Canaanized dirge places the har-md‘éd, the "mount

61. We follow here the vocalization and interpretation

CI Vee DIE LALOChe Ug Visimowl on
62. Compare the epithets ’él Sadday and Sadday, "'’El,
the One of the Mountain," and "'the Mountain One."' For a dis-
cussion of the problems of the identification of this deity,
SGCel Man Cross Glen, Sida Ol
63. The myth of the fall of hélél ben Sahar will be more
fully investigated in our study of the revolt of the gods re-
flected in Psalm 82. See below, pp. 238-242.
64. For the translation "mount of assembly (of the
gods),"' cf. H. J. Kraus, Psalmen, Biblischer Kommentar Altes
Testament, XV/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag der Buchhandlung
des Erziehungsverein, 1960), 343. We take har-md‘éd as paral-
lel to yark®t@ sapén. Note that R. Clifford (The Cosmic
Mountain, 161-162, n. 85) reads yark®t@ sapdn in parallel
with bamdté ‘ab, "the backs of the clouds," in v. 14, and
refers to the usage of sapdn in Job 26:7. We would read v.
14 as a reference to Selydn, who is here embellished with the
imagery of Ba‘l, the rakibu *arapatt, “the rider of the
clouds,'' and Yahweh, who is designated by the same title,
SOIC) JaemuemaayeOin (2S HSS iis WSS WOESS Wasi jj 2 Senn
fae SMD 9
 149

of assembly," the equivalent of gr 1l//phr m*d, "in the ex-

tremities of the North" (b@yark®té sapdn). Elsewhere in
Hebrew literature, the expression yark?té gapén is used to
designate the region of the Amanus and the far North (cf. Ps
48:3; Ezek 38:6, 15; 39:2). This fact is further confirmed
by the reference to the kdk°bé-?é1, "the stars of °E1," iden-
tified by W. F. Albright as the circumpolar northern stars
which never set. on) Both Albright°® and M. Dahood®’ anemcen=
tainly correct in their observations that the expression
yark°’té sapdn is the semantic equivalent of the Ugaritic ex-
DUETSUON Brie kan Certs Cel Soils Nese Ol le Si, Ae
VI.12-13), the common designation of Ba‘1's mountain. Their
equation of the har-md‘éd with Mount Sapan, however, is incor-
rect.°8 As we have shown, ’El is the leader of the divine
assembly which meets on his mountain, the furganu. No tradi-
tions within Canaanite mythology associate the assembly with
Ba‘l or his mountain, and ’E1 likewise is never associated
with Sapan. The proper location of the har-méd‘éd of Isa 14:13
is found in the Amanus mountains, where Mt. Haman, as noted by
F, M. Cross, towers over even Sapan (Mt. Casius) and has foun-
tains bubbling forth from its base. 69 We must conclude, then,
that the har-mé‘éd assembled at the mountain dwelling of ’E1
in the far North-at the source of the rivers.
Biblical tradition gives us further information on the
location of the abode of ’E1l and the assembly. In Ezek 28:1-
19, the lament over the king of Tyre, numerous allusions are

65, VEC, 202, i O95 NS He Siieidl Seem ieukeiny, whi Seekes

are seen in both Ugaritic and Hebrew literature as members of
the council.
66. "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Liter-
eee, Sil ame thal
67. Psalms I, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 16 (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 19735), 290.
68. For this identification, see W. F. Albright, "The
Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature," 31, n.

88; M. Dahood, Psalms I, 289-290; and M. Pope, ZUT, 102-

MOS
O9e ee NCMEE . S8i.
150

made to the dwelling of ’E1, which present a consistent pic-

ture with that which we have already beams ine vies 2, the
prince of Tyre has asserted that "I am God" (’e2 Cre Be (Cae
231dhim °ant, v. 9), "I shall sit enthroned in the seat of
God (mdsab °81ahtm) in the heart of the seas" (b°léb yammim).
The allusions to Canaanite mythology are transparent./! The
location of the "seat/dwelling of God') "an the heart of the
seas" is a connection found in the Ugaritic texts. The phrase
mtb ?il, the description of ’E1l's tent dwelling, the abode of
*Atirat, and the sons of ?E1l in Ba‘l's requests for a house
provide the background for the mdsab *216h%m in v. 2. Like-
wise, the reference to its location in the lé@b yammtm reflects
this same tradition. While "in the heart of the seas cer-
tainly provides an accurate description for the island situa-
tion Of tyne, Vt) 1s sampossibLe) tOmdivoxrce thes mererence er om
the picture of ’El's dwelling:

‘im ’ili mabbiké naharémi

qirba ’apiqé tihamatémi
CORA 2 ed EDEN rots Suet Vir es see oleined
Dee Ore lag D2 mors) Mt Ville eae)

Towards ’Bl at the sources of the rivers,

Inthe midst ot “the double-deep,,

Impreterences tos thevexaltatlonwom theuprancesorn 1 yneemcnhe

prophet obviously drew on the traditions of the ancient

70. The background of the myth will be taken up below,

in conjunction with the myth of hélel ben Sahar (Isa 14:12-21)
and Bisalm 82. See pp. 258-242).
iy Wes cannot pagreeswi ths themassce
rt von sOs aH mW eeryenie rey ik
(Ezektel's Prophecy on Tyre [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Insti-
tute, 1968], 97) that there is no reason to presume allusions
to Canaanite mythology in this verse. The explicit references
toy thesmalil ot thes pirinces (Vv o- L0le ye) Con them oandentand
mountain of God (vv. 13-19), and the comparison of his wis-
dom to that of the Canaanite dani’él (v. 3) all argue that
the background of the entire lament is to be found in Canaan-
ite mythology.
 i Syl

dwelling of the Canaanite/Phoenician ’E£l as in the heart of

the seas.
Just as this location for the dwelling of ’E1 is associ-
ated with a mountain in Canaanite lore, Ezekiel also places
the abode of ’El ona mountain, the har ’&lohtm (v. 16; cf.
v. 14), and provides further evidence for the location and
nature of this mountain. In vv. 3-6, the wisdom (hakam) of
the prince of Tyre is exalted, connecting him further with
Canaanite mythology, for, as we have seen, wisdom (hkm) in
the Ugaritic material is explicitly connected only with the
god ’El. Further, this wisdom is an attribute of ’El's decree
manifested from his tent-shrine on his holy mountain. In the
second half of the lament (vv. 12-19), this mountain is ex-
plicitly connected with Paradise, the biblical Eden, which is
described in the most magnificent of terms. Verse 13 records
that the exalted prince was "in Eden, the garden of God"
(be* den gan-°&lohtm), a place filled with every manner of
precious stone. The garden is explicitly connected with the
mount of God in v. 14:

b®har qédeS °816him hay

b©tdk ’abné-’é5 hithall
You were on the holy mount of God,
Among the stones of fire you walked about. 4

The garden was guarded by the k’rib (vv. 14, 16), who was also
associated with the garden of God in the account in Gen 3:24,
and was a place of eternal life and perfection for both the
prince of Tyre and Adam, to whom he is compared. /°

72. On the problem of the "stones of fire" (?abné-°é8),

see M. Pope, BUT, 99-102. Pope here connects them with the
precious stones and the fire used in the construction of
Bavltssabode by Notar (CPA A Vi/5-80 5)VIV22-55).
PSs Oo Wa Ba Op WIeme teins als Eogellivenieilhy, GuEnsocls
we? attah adam w°ld’-?él. While it is certainly probable that
2adam is here best translated simply as "man," the underlying
myth of a revolt in heaven and the comparison CLmbuepmilncemod
iyce to Adam, a rehlection of the original rebellion against
£S2

Further descriptions of the motif of the garden of God

confirm the picture given in Ezekiel 28 that the garden was
the site of the life-flowing rivers emanating from the dwell-
ing of the deity. According to the standard interpretation of
Gen 2:8-14, the garden was planted in the east (mtqqédem, v.
8) and contained every good tree for food, as well as the
trees of "Life'' and of "the Knowledge of Good and Evil" (v.
9). Flowing from a common source in the garden were four
rivers: the Pisdn, the Gihdn, the Hiddéqel (the Tigris), and
the P’rat (the Euphrates) [vv. 10-14]. The biblical Paradise
is often compared to the land of Dilmun in Sumerian mythology,
"the land of the living,” “the place where the sun rises."
It was here that the Sumerian flood-hero, Ziusudra, was given
eternal life by the great gods. This was "The Cedar Lana"'?®
(compare =arze ek Psesvsiiy, the land oreceermal lace. seainc
Epic of Gilgamesh explicitly connects this land of the living,
the garden of God, with the life-giving rivers. When Gii-
gamesh meets UtnapiStim, the latter tells him how he gained
eternal life by the decree of Enlil and the gods:

enennam "UtnapiStim u sinniStu 1t ewt

ki ilani naSima
1a aSibma “UtnapiStim ina raqi ina pt narati
ilquinnima ina ruqi ina pf narati uStéSibtinni
enennama ana kaSa mannu ilani
upahharakkumma
balata Sa tuba’’u tutta atta
(Epic of Gilgamesh XI.194-198)7°
God, cannot be overlooked. The same comparison is found in
Ps 82:7, where the gods are condemned "like Adam."' See be-
LOW DD. 245-244),
74, E. A. Speiser, 'The Rivers of Paradise," in Ortental
and Btbltecal Studtes, 29. For descriptions of Dilmun in
Sumerian lore, see S. N. Kramer, "Dilmun, the Land of the
Living," BASOR 96 (1944) 18-28, and The Sumerians (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1970), 281-284.
75. S. N. Kramer, The Sumertans, 281-282.
76. For the text, see R. C. Thompson, Vhe Epie of
Gilgamesh (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), 64.
 1B)

"Now, let UtnapiStim and his wife be like unto gods;

Let UtnapiStim dwell in the distance, at the mouth
Of mthcum i vems
So they took me and made me dwell in the distance,
at the mouth of the rivers.
But now, who will assemble the gods for you,
That you may find the life you are seeking?

The location of the land of UtnapiStim is stated as ina riqt

tna pt naratt, “in the distance, at the mouth of the rivers,"
a description that can hardly be divorced from the description
of ’El's dwelling at the "sources of the rivers," the center
of the life-giving waters of the universe. Likewise, it must
be noted that UtnapiStim obtained entrance to Paradise only
by the decree of the divine assembly. Gilgamesh, lacking
such a decree, would be unable to remain.
The descriptions of the garden of God, biblical Eden, re-
veal that it was pictured in the same terms. It was the place
of luxurious growth (Gen 2:9) and was traditionally associated
with all manner of wealth (note especially the trees of Eden,
BZeCKe cys Zon eole oe LOG ls) =beawase thessourcesotetheswaters
which fed the universe (Gen 2:10-14). It was the place of
eternal life (Gen 2:15-17), the gan-’&l6him (Ezek 28:13, 14;
CEemGenmZins) Nile wtotSsemoOst COMMON tomas sOGLatom thes Dub lai
cal Eden with the Mesopotamian "land of the living" and the
Sumerian Dilmun, the Canaanite and biblical evidence points to
the fact that the "garden of God" (gan-’élohtm, Ezek 28:13),
which is equivalent to the "mountain of God" (har ’&ldhim,
Ezekuesolonmctum v4) s1setonubeslocated ingthe North, the
yark@té sapdn (Isa 14:13), the meeting place of the heavenly
assembly. The reference in Gen 2:8 to "the east" (mtqqédem)
may just as properly be read "from of old." Indeed, we be-
lieve the latter to be the more correct rendering of mtqqédem,
for when Yahweh dispatched the cherubim to guard the garden,
he placed them "from the east" (mtqqédem, 3:24), i1.e., to the
west. More specifically, this refers to the Northwest, the

region of the Amanus and Antilebanon mountains, the abode of

*£1. That the garden of God was associated with the northern

mountains is clear. Here, in the Lebanon/Antilebanon mountain

154

ranges, were found the choice cedars (cf. ’arzé °él, "the
cedars of ’B1,"' Ps 80:11) from which the wood was taken for
Ba‘l's palace (CTA 4.V1.18, 20). This region was the land of
the "Cedar Mountains" in Mesopotamian thought. The equation
of the mount of God with the garden of God in Ezek 28:13-14
leaves no doubt that the luxurious garden on the mountain
dwelling of ’E1 was to be found in the far North--the Amanus
mountains, the sources of the life-giving waters. While the
Sumerian and Mesopotamian accounts of Paradise are indeed
helpful for the purposes of comparative mythology, they re-
flect their own concept of the location of the garden, which
should not be confused with the West Semitic placement of
Paradise in the far North, the abode of ’El.
During the biblical period, many of these traditions came
to be associated with the mountain of Yahweh, Mount Zion, the
ancient fortified hill between the Kidron and Tyropoeon Val-
leys. It was on this mount that Yahweh dwelt (cf. Pss 46; 48;
Isa 2:2-4; Mic 4:1-3). Life-giving streams flowed forth from
Lesmbase (lsaS5¢20=2255Rzek 4721-12: Joel 4518s) Zech 1423)
The dwelling place of the god and the presence of the life-
giving streams establish the cosmic nature of the mountain.
Like the mount of ’El, Zion is associated with the mountains
in the far North:

2Great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised,

in the city of our God, his holy mount (har-qods6d)
The beautiful height, the center of all the earth
(m°838 kol-ha? Gres)
Mount Zion, the extreme north (yark°té sapén) ,
the city of the great king. 77
(Ps 4822-3)

77. M. Dahood (Psalms I, 289-290) argues for the identi-

fication of Zion with Canaanite sapan. As we noted above,
however, there is no reason to attribute this confusion to
Hebrew literature. It was the mount of ’B1, not Ba‘l, that
stood in the far North and was the meeting place of the divine
council. We are not asserting, however, that traditions have
not been mixed, for the biblical literature has most certainly
 ISS

Here the "holy mount" is placed in the yark’té sapédn, "the

extreme North," the place of the council of the godsma(eca sa
14:13). To place Mount Zion even closer to the traditions of
the mountain dwelling of ’°El, biblical tradition expressly
notes that it is the mount of decree:

ki missiy6n tésé’ toérah

Gd@bar-YHWH mirisalaim
(Cesar 7273S)

For the law goes forth from Zion,

And the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.

The traditions of the council of the gods meeting on the di-

vine mountain, the abode of the deity, in Paradise, the
sources of the life-giving waters, are transferred to Zion
iwEnclUteraturesotethe Olid Testament. This fact vs) further,
illustrated in the prophetic visions of the council, which we
shall consider below, in which Yahweh and his council deliver
thear decree trom the temple’ (Iisa 671-13; 1 Kes 2219-23;
EeCin SZLALOS omens COW. Mbbniles Soll ssh tie Gipsy
lil yale KRG onli
In the same manner, the Sinai traditions (Exodus 19-24,
34) reveal-the connection of Yahweh"s decree with his holy
mount. Here Yahweh appears in the cloud on the mountain
(Exod 19:16-24) and delivers his decrees to Moses. The di-
vine imperatives (19:21, 22, 24; 24:1) are once again charac-
teristic of the decree from the holy mount. The Decalogue

combined many traditions concerning Yahweh's holy mountain

with the mythology surrounding the mountains of Ei, gual B09 i
While our major concern here is the influence of "Bl tradi
tions om Zion, we must also note the influence of Ba‘l tradi-
tions. Two major traditions associated with Ba‘l's mount have
been transferred to Zion: the battle against the holy moun-
taineandeche inviolabality of Zi0n (er. Psalms 25°46) 485 50);
one Ness wool sae 2 OpeS ols Moet a, <Compare the
descriptions of Ba‘1's mountain in CTA 3.111.34-I1V.48; 4.VII.
25-35). The influence of these traditions on the concept of
Zion has been studied by R. Clifford, The Cosmte Mountain,
P41=1587.
156

(AOE AoW) sks revealed as the decree of Yahweh, delivered from

his mountain abode. The theophany of Yahweh in the dark storm
cloud (*anan kabéd ‘al-hahar, 19:16; compare 20:18; 24515-1589
is pictured. by the texts as a great thunderstorm. The combi-
nation of this mode of theophany with Yahweh's function as
lawgiver provides an excellent example of the mixing of El
and Ba‘l traditions. As we have seen, ’El's mode of theophany
is in his decree from his mountain shrine. The appearance of
Ba‘l in Canaanite mythology is in the thunderstorm. Here,
though the traditions have been thoroughly mixed, /8 the motif
Of the giving Of the laws seen as) the pn imancy function. 79
The post-biblical material continues these traditions,
portraying Yahweh's mountain, especially Mt. Zion, as the

78. The distinctions between the theophanies of Ba‘l,

*E1, and Yahweh have been studied in detail by F. M. Cross,
CMHE, 147-194. His treatment of the mixture of the storm
theophany with the deliverance of the decree in the Sinai
traditions is contained on pp. 163-169. The term ‘anan kabéd
Of Exod a19216) (2)y,) which) asp parallel
edi bys Sanan (Exod pote
[J]) and kabod (Exod 33:18, 22 [J])), Seems to refer to the
radiance surrounding the theophany of the deity. The kabod
can be related either to an hypostatization of the abstract
"majesty" of the deity (cf. Akk. melammu, which designated the
headgear or mask worn by the god), or it can be taken as a
shortened form of the technical term ‘nn kbd, "storm cloud."
For the discussion ofthis {temm, see Cross, cman. 155m. oon
165-166, n. 86. The relationship of the ‘aman and kabod to
the Akkadian melammu is discussed by G. Mendenhall, The Tenth
Generatton (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1973), 32-66 (cf. the comments by Cross, CMHE, 165-166,
n. 86). We shall treat the ‘nn as the messengers and entou-
ragewor Bakdl eseen below pp recom eueore
79, Other passages where Yahweh reveals himself in theo-
phoric terms similar to those of the Sinai tradition are
abundant (ce feaPss ees 70a pie some dia 820) ea Olig 8 8-0. Judg
5:4-5; Hab 3:3-15; etc.). Since these traditions do not re-
count the deliverance of the decree of Yahweh, they lie out-
Side the scope of the present study.
 Ike)

place from which streams flow and from which decrees of judg -
ment are delivered. The description of the streams of Zion
is vividly portrayed in the vision of Enoch:

And I went from thence to the middle of the

earth, and I saw a blessed place in which
there were trees with branches abiding and
blooming of a dismembered tree. And there
I saw a holy mountain, and underneath the
mountain to the east there was a stream and
it flowed towards the south.
(1) Bosh 2621-2)"

Jerusalem and Mt. Zion are seen here as the middle of the
earth (Cha eSm48is)uiaaplace o1 luxumbant igrowthe(ce., the gan—
*élohtm, Ezek 28:13-16), the place of the life-giving rivers
Ceci oGene2 0-14) eeeihnnsmeismexpected sot mune: divines mountain.
But in v. 3, the vision continues: "And I saw towards the
east another mountain higher than this....'" The fact that
this mountain, the Mount of Olives, stands higher than Zion,
the holy mountain, presents no problem to the ancient mind.
As F. M. Cross has noted, the mythological pattern connecting
the concept of the mount of God with the cosmic rivers, the
entrance to Heaven and the Underworld, may be applied easily
to any mountain with springs at its base or side where a sanc-
tuary to the god exists. oh Thus, any raised hillock combining
such traditions could easily take on the aspects of the ''cos-
mic mountain."°2 Enoch's vision refers further to the valley
of Gehenna (v. 4). It is this valley that is associated with

80. All quotations of apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic

materials are taken from R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and
Pseudeptgrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols.
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973), unless otherwise
noted.
ik, nici, Ss
S20 horsardetinition of the cosmic mountain’ as it ap-

plies in the ancient Near East, see R. Gintitord. The Cosme

Mountatn, 7-8.
158

the motif of judgment in Enoch, which likewise is associated

with Zion. In 1 Enoch 18:1-19:3; 27; and 90:24-26, the scene
of judgment and condemnation is implicitly connected with the
cosmic mountain, Zion.
In addition to Zion and Sinai (Horeb), Yahweh's theophany
is also connected with other mountains. In 1 Enoch 13:7-10a
and 7. Levt 2:3-6, the theophany is seen as occurring upon
Mt. Hermon in the Antilebanon range. In the vision of 1 Enoch
13, Enoch is invoked by the Watchers, who have sinned against
the "daughters of man" (1 Enoch 6-16; cf. Gen 6:1-4), to
intercede on their behalf:

And I went off and sat down at the waters

of Dan, in the land of Dan, to the south
of the west of Hermon: I read their peti-
Clon gti 1 eset wasleep.. Andes behosd ra:
dream came to me, and visions fell down
upon me, and I saw visions of chastisement,
and a voice came bidding me to tell it to
the sons of heaven, and reprimand them.
(1 Enoeh 13:7-8)

The heavenly voice encounters Enoch on Mt. Hermon and in-

structs him to reprimand the Watchers. The waters of Dan are
at the source of the Jordan River, and the picture here pre-
sents Hermon, the place of theophany and judgment, as the
source of those waters. Hermon becomes the cosmic mountain
whose summit represents the gates of Heaven and its base the
entrance to the Underworld. It is used here as the site of a
special revelation of Goa, 83 fT. Levt 2:5-6 provides a text
Similar to the passage from Enoch. Here, Levi finds himself
upon a high mountain:

Then there fell on me a sleep, and I beheld

a high mountain, and I was upon it. And be-
hold the heavens were opened, and an angel
of God said to me, Levi, enter.
Fae enRars neem ES nts. ue eminent ee AW Aad
83. J. T. Milik, "Le Testament de Lévi en araméen.
Fragment de la grotte 4 de Qumran," RB 62 (1955) 404-405.
 15:9

The Aramaic text of this passage, dated to ca. 100 BriGan pene
veals that this mountain is also Mount Hermon. s Thus, the
extra-biblical writings reveal that the mountain of Yahweh
was the place of decree; it was most specifically a place of
judgment. Its cosmic nature is seen from its location--at
the entrance to Heaven and the Underworld. As we stated
earlier, the mountain did not have to be the most prominent
of the area. What was necessary was that (cosmic) springs of
water flow from its base, and that either a shrine to the dei-
ty or a theophany represent his presence there. From this
point the decree of the deity could go out to man or to the
other divine beings.
The highly mythological description of the court scene
inj Daniels 7 further motes, the cosmic nature of the rivers and
Phesconceperctadecrec sand Gudement win thesbublical matendaly,
Mhicwsiceniemish recounted sinmvve oSh0N, si) Herne “thesicosmitc
aspeces ol Nthe CcouUnciI are most vexpilwert:

°Thrones were placed

And the Ancient of Days enthroned (‘atttq ymin
y°ttb).
His garments were as white as snow,
And his hair (#8@‘ar ré’seh) was like pure wool.
His throne was flames of fire (8°btbin dt-nir),
Its wheels burning fire (nir daliq).
mr river of fire (n’har dt niir) issued
And came forth before him.
A thousand thousand (?élep ’al°pim) served him,
And a myriad of myriads (w°ribbd ribwan) stood
(y@qtmiin) before him.

ec ees By WA A BS eS ee ee ee ee ee ee

84. TIbtid., 404. Here Milik presents the reconstructed

Aramaic text, which differs only in minor detail from the
translation given above. According to Milik, the Greek trans-
lator has misunderstood 8tryén in 6:1 of the Greek text of

the 7. Levit. For &tryén as Mt. Hermon (Hermdn), see Deut

3:9, where the text notes that the Phoenicians called Hermon

éiryon, the Amorites, 8ntr.

160

The court sat in judgment (dina’ y°tib)

And books were opened.
@an® 79-10)

The setting for the judgment scene reveals the transparent

identity of the "Ancient of Days" (‘atttq yémin). He can
only be the reflection of the god ’E1, the "Father of Years,"
*abi Sanima, who sits enthroned, surrounded by other gods in
thesU garni tice pamtheon mcf wigs). eno.=25s PRS iA erZiors
I)seer reer
II.6-9 [RS 24.252]; etc.).°° In addition to the epithet and
posture of this deity, the description of his hair, which was
as white as wool, immediately recalls the literary and icono-
graphic representations of ’El. The texts from Ugarit de-
Scribe bileas havingeeneye Naini (eDiien CLAUS).
Vi NOerS ais) eehadeetal))
and fasbeande: (dant puGiAl OS Vid mes yl. keel) ieee Suedotsemeasiag
description of ’Bl is confirmed by the iconographic depiction
of the gode © where the aged deity is shown as having a long
beard. He is enthroned on an elaborate dais, his hand raised
in blessing to the worshipper (the king?) who stands before
him. The depiction of the throne of the "Ancient of Days,"
though not paralleled in Canaanite myth, recalls the elaborate
furniture of ’E1 (¢fA 4.1.21-44), and the vision of the "Glo-
ry ' leaving the elemplemin Ezekiel 10=a0 Siskewase,. though
fire is not associated with the rivers of the cosmic mountain
in Canaanite mythology, it was a common motif in both Israel-
ite and Canaanite theophanies, and its inclusion here occa-
sions no surprise. |ihe vwssuance methic Yrivem oe erie trom

85. We cannot agree with the assertion of J. A. Emerton

("The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery," J7S 9 [1958] 242)
that the "Ancient of Days"' is to be identified with the old
Canaanite deity ‘Elyén, who was associated with Jerusalem (cf.
Gen 14:18, 22), but had long lost his theological signifi-
cance. Surely Emerton is correct in his overall reconstruc-
tion of the Canaanite background of the enthronement of the
"Son of Man" by the aged deity who sits in judgment (cf. pp.
225-242), but the passage itself clearly reflects the mytholo-
fay Kone “asi
86. See ANEP, no. 493.
 161

before the "Ancient of Days" places the judgment scene at the

divine abode of the god. That this is a council scene is
explicit, for the deity is surrounded by innumerable beings.
They serve no active purpose, but are there to adore and .
serve the high god, which is their function throughout the
Canaanite/Israelite descriptions of the divine council. °/
Having given a full description of the heavenly court of
?El, the text notes that "The court sat in judgment/And books
were opened." It was now ready to pass judgment--i.e., to
announce the decree of the assembly/’E1.

And behold, with the clouds of heaven (‘im-‘anané

3?mayya?)
One like a son of man (k’bar *Snos) was coming.
And he came unto the Ancient of Days,
And was presented before him.
Manwie15)

The identification of this being, the "One like a son of man,"

has resulted in many varying hypotheses. °8 The mythological
DAGckonOUNndEOtethtSeELoUrerhoweVed, 15 quite scleans, Thempac-
ture of the "Son of Man" descending from the heavens with a
cloud entourage immediately brings to mind the storm-god Ba‘l,
for whom the clouds (‘nn) serve as messengers and as part of
his coterie. Likewise, his position before the "Ancient of
Days'’ in the council corresponds exactly to the position of
Ba‘l in CTA 2.1.21: "Ba‘l-was standing beside ’E1" (ba‘lu
qamu ‘alé ?ilt). The "Ancient of Days" then gives the "Son
of Man" dominion, glory, and kingdom, and "his dominion is an

Si SCenDelowsepp ml 5—209 salhese beingsmare moved as

"standing" (y@qiimtn) before the deity, a technical phrase for
participating in the heavenly assembly (see below, p. DMO) 6

SCueFoneandetalled bibliography, seed. J. Collins The

Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of

Daniel," JBL 93 (1974) 50, n. 1. The various positions are

reviewed on pp. 50-52. Collins identifies the "Son of Man"

with the archangel Michael, who is called "the great prince”
(12:1), and figures so prominently in chapters 10-12.
162

everlasting dominion" (v. 14). The pronouncement of ever-

lasting dominion to the figure is closely paralleled by the
speech of Kétar to Ba‘l, predicting his victory over Yamm:

tiqqahu mulka ‘dlamika

darkata data dardarika
(CTA 2.1V.10)
Thou shalt take thy eternal kingdom,
Thy dominion forever and ever.

This eternal dominion and kingship was later conferred upon

Ba‘l by ’El's official decree. The mythological background
of the present text leaves no doubt that the "One like a son
of man" is the young storm-god Ba‘l, who appears before the
aged patriarch in the assembly to receive dominion over the
earth. It is clear, however, that the author of Daniel 7 has
modified and reused the old Canaanite myth. The figure of the
"Son of Man" is democratized, being identified with the
"wSaints of the Most High Vv. 18s 22) White the mythologa
cal background of the court scene is transparently Canaanite,
the motifs of judgment and dominion have been radically al-
tered to fit this new context.
We have thus established the nature of the cosmic abode
of ’Bl as it is reflected in both Canaanite and Israelite
traditions. As we have shown, the mount of °’El was the
qursanu, the place of entrance to both the Underworld and
Heaven. It was the place of judgment, the seat of the divine
council. The tent-dwelling of the aged deity lay there, at
the sources of the life-giving rivers. It formed the cosmic
center of the earth, the region of Paradise. From there the
high god delivered his decree from within the divine council.
It was this mountain which became the central focus of the
mythology of the high god and his council.
The precise location of this mountain remains unknown,
as does gr 22, its designation in CfA 2.1. Though we are
unable to mark a singular location for the mount, it is
necessary to turn to the work of M. Pope, who has sug-
gested that ’E1l's abode is to be located at Khirbet Afqa
 163

cit Syria. °9 This location certainly meets the mythological

qualifications to be considered a setting for the location of
?E1l's abode, for it has vigorously flowing streams emanating
from the base of the mountain. Because of the nature of the
divine mountain in ancient thought, we do not feel that such
an identification should lead to a singular location for the
mount of ’El. Rather, it is best to see this mountain dwell-
ing elaborated by Pope as an excellent example of the location
of a shrine to ’El, since the mountain's setting most certain-
ly agrees with the literary descriptions of the dwelling of
the god.
Most significant to Pope's identification of the abode
of ’El, however, is his assertion that the dwelling of the
high god was in the Underworld. 20 This is based on the loca-
tion of *°E1's dwelling at the mbk nhrm//? apq thmtm, which
designate the sources of the cosmic river at the base of the
hursanu. Yet this location is not in the Underworld. Rather,
it is the entrance to the abode of the dead. The texts them-
selves, as we shall show, display no knowledge of the dwelling
of ’El as being located in the Underworld. ’El1's dwelling, as
we have seen, is clearly connected with the gursadnu. That it
is not located in the Underworld is clear, for there is no
account in the Ugaritic texts of a mountain in the Underworld.
This is seen in the description of the Underworld dwelling of
M6t, described in Ba‘l's charge to his messengers to proclaim
the completion of his temple:

*jiddaka ’al tattina panima

“imma guri trgzz
‘imma guri trmg
mma tilen ica
> ke sans
$u’a gura ‘alé yadémi
hiliba la-zari rahtémi
wa-rida béta huptiti ’arsi
tasuppara ba-yaridima ’arsi
se eS SS SS SS ee
SiC mE UTere eal
= 0)lire
OO, wWeeGo 5 By, Wie ioe Wale; ceeilil chisremssiauenn Cue wets

Underworld setting of ’El's abode, see pp. 61-72.

164

*iddaka ’al tattina panima

toka qaritihu hamarayyi
m-ku kissi’u tibtihu
hahhu ’arsu nahalatihu
(CTAB VLD. baa Sete ealsomonkh i520)

Then set your faces

To Mount Trgaz
Toward Mount Trmg
To the hills that stop up the Underworld.
Lift up the hills upon your hands,
The mounts upon the backs of your hands,
Go down to the house of pestilence
And be counted among those who go down into
the Underworld.
Then set your face
To the midst of his ‘city, Ooze,
Decay(?), the throne on which he sits,
Slime, the land of his heritage.

91. Several words in this passage require comment. The

mountain names trgaz and trmg are non-Semitic designations of
the mountains at the entrance to the Underworld. Note that
M6t's mountain is also called gr knkny in CTA 5.V.12-13.
Whether the description denotes two mountains or simply one is
uncertain. tim indicates that they are taken as plural, but
gr//hlb argue for a singular. The same difficulty is found in
the description of ’El's mountain: furéanu X//guru ks[, CTA
Mii
l= 222 ltaseems bes tava regards Uhuiseds supose tic
expression denoting one mountain, whose location is unknown.
bt Rptt. This expression (bét hahopstt) is used in 2 Kgs
15:5 (= 2 Chr 26:21) to describe the house in which King Uzzi-
ah spent his days as a leper.
tepr byrdm ~arg is to be taken in light of Ps 88:5a:
nehsabtt ‘im-ydr@dé bor, "I am reckoned with those going down
to the Pit,'' a poetic expression for the dead.
hmry//mk//gh. The final tricolon describes the watery
nature of Mot's abode. hmry may be compared with the Hebrew
mahamordt, “the watery depths," in Ps 140:11. fh may be re-
lated to the Akkadian Gahhu, “slime, spittle;" mk is dubious.
 165

Ba‘l's messengers are instructed to enter the Underworld via

the bases of the mountains. From this description, it is
clear that mountains form the entrance to the Underworld,
which is exactly the function of the gur3anu. They do not
form a part of the Underworld itself.
Likewise, the texts reveal that ’El is not in the Under-
WOielcl, iit CH! SW, Wine In aS iodlel qelogwe Bali aS clo! (lal,
9-10), he begins elaborate mourning rites for the god (ll. 11-
24) and then exclaims: "I shall go down into the Underworld
after Ba‘l!"" (*atara ba‘li *’artdu ba-’arst, 11. 24-25). Pope
recognizes the problem presented by this line, but suggests
that the abode to which the dead Ba‘l had descended lay at a
level of the Underworld lower than the dwelling of a Aiee ©
The location of the council at the mount of ’E1 further
argues that his abode was not in the Underworld. The council
met on guru 11, the fursanu-mount of ’El, at the entrance to
the Underworld. There is no indication whatsoever that the
council met in the Underworld. Rather, the accounts of the
meeting place of the divine council in Enima elis reveal that
the assembly met at the point where Heaven and the Underworld
converged. In column V, the meeting place is specifically
noted by Marduk, who prepares to create his city, Babylon:

enuma ultu apSi tella ana puhri

aSrusSu lu nubattakun ana mahar puhurkun
enuma ultu Samami turrada ana puhri
aSrussu lu nubattakun ana mahar puhurkun
(Enuma e1ts V.125-128)

When from the Apsu you go up for the Assembly,

There will be your night's resting(-place)
to receive all of you;
When from the heavens you come down for the
Assembly,
i a a SS

The parallelism suggests that it is not to be taken as an

adverb. Rather, some meaning analogous to "Decay" is neces-

sary.
OP, IHU 5 OSeOG.
166

There will be your night's resting(-place)

to receive all of you.

The meeting place of the assembly, then, is located in neither

the Heavens nor the Underworld. Rather, it is positioned at
the midpoint: in Enuma elis this becomes Babylon. Prior to
the building of Babylon for its meeting place, the assembly
meets in UbSukkinna, the court of Assembly in Nippur (11.126;
UI Oh, SLSR eS Nr
Likewise, the Ugaritic assembly meets on gr 72, a moun-
tain. More specifically, it meets on the mountain of ’El,
the hurganu, the place of judgment at the entrance to the
Underworld. Because of this, Pope is forced to interpret the
meeting of the assembly in CTA 2.1 as taking place at a time
when °’El rules in the realm of the gods from his holy mount,
"before he was vanquished and banished to the infernal re-
gions."94 But, as we have shown in the first part of our
study, there is no evidence whatsoever that ’El was overthrown
and cast into the Underworld. Like the entire conflict motif,
the effort to place ’El's abode in the Underworld is the re-
sult of comparison with the Theogony of Hesiod (645-735). No
Semitic myths record the banishment of the high god of the
pantheon to the Underworld, and the mythology reflected in
the Ugaritic material is certainly unaware of any such situa-
tion. The sequence which Pope has set up, of a supernal
dwelling of ’El before he was dethroned, and an infernal abode
after he was dethroned, is nowhere attested in the mythologi-
cal accounts. Likewise, the contention of U. Oldenburg that
?E1l was dethroned by Ba‘l?> from Mount Sapan is incorrect, for
»Bl was never associated with Sapan. This mountain belonged
to the storm-god alone. ’E1 was associated with the mountain
of judgment, the Qgursanu--gr 11.
As we have suggested above, the location of this mountain

93. For the text and translation, see B. Landsberger

and J. V. K. Wilson, "The Fifth Tablet of Enuma FLis,"" JNES
AO (CUES) eA i.
QA Bua 95
95. The Confltet Between EL and Ba‘al, 109.
 167

is most probably to be found in the Amanus range, north of

Ugarit. The identity of gr ZZ remains obscure. Unless we
Suppose a scribal error, which we find most unlikely in the
present case, the emendation of ZZ to <’¢>Z must be dismissed.
Careful examinations of the photographs of CTA Recon reveal
that the proper reading is 22 and that the word is complete.
Despite the absence of a compelling etymology, we can find no
reason for emendation. We do feel, however, that an attempt
at an etymology should be made. The first cognate that comes
to mind is Hebrew Za@ylah (Phoenician 22), "night," as noted by
ie Oldenburg. 2’ It is difficult to see the connections of
"night" with the meeting place of the assembly. It is con-
ceivable, though we do not deem it likely, that it could re-
fer to the darkness at the source of the springs at the en-
trance to the Underworld. Several Akkadian cognates are also
possible, and somewhat intriguing. The word Zulu, a Sumerian
loan word meaning, possibly, a kind of ore, could be connected
with the meaning of amutu, “iron,'' which J. Nougayrol has sug-
gested is found in Ug. V.18.18 [RS 20.24], %hurdanu™ u a-mu-
balm). © This could refer to the wealth associated with the
concept of the garden of God where the cosmic mount was lo-
cated. Even more attractive is the Akkadian lali, another
Sumerian loan word, 2° meaning “pleasant appearance, abundant
vegetation.'"' This would be a perfect description of the
mount of ’El in the garden of Paradise. One further possi-
bility seems more attractive than those above, however. In
the "Song of Ullikummi'' 1.1.16, we encounter the phrase tkunta
luli, which H. Gtiterbock assumes to be the name of a place.
luli means “"pond;"' tkunta, if properly related to the Hittite
tkuna, means "cold, oot Though Gtiterbock, evidently
ea es ete at A ee ge, I a I Ta eo
OS... CH, Weil. Wil, Fodkentas, Wl Eleych units
97. The Conflict Between Et and Ba‘al, 135.
Saige Vian ods sees above, pp. 150-151) in 34.
OV Gren AU, eA Wee
100. "The Song of Ullikummi ,"' 34.
(continued) For the

meanings of ZuZi and ikuna, see J. Friedrich, Hethittsches

Worterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter - Universitatsverlag,

IOS 28 chile USOe

168

because of the problems in the form of tkunta, does not trans-

late "cool pond," the word luli presents a very interesting
parallel to Ugaritic ZZ. In the "Song of Ullikummi" tkunta
lult designates the place where Kumarbi (= *E1) has inter-
course with a rock (1.1.17-20). U. Oldenburg has suggested
that this may be the furSanu of the Ugaritic ’El. If ’E1's
mount were to be connected with the Hittite word Zult, "pond,"
the choice of names would be transparent. The designation of
?E1l's mountain as "Mount Pond'' would be completely consistent
with the description of his dwelling place at the source of
the rivers. 29 Regretfully, none of the above etymologies
can be proposed with any certainty. We can, however, be cer-
tain that the mount of ’E1l was located in the far North at the
source of the cosmic rivers. On that mountain, the hursanu,
the divine assembly met under the leadership of ’E1, who
delivered his decree--the controlling power within the realm
of the gods--from his tent-shrine.

The Tent of *EL and the *dhel md‘éd in the Earliest

Hebrew Tradttions

As we have noted above, the tent-shrine of ’El served as

the place of his theophany--the location of the announcement
of his tdecerée=-an the Ba‘iecyele trom the diteraturestromenas
Shamra. The biblical material, especially Exodus 25-27, 35-
38, contains the narrative account of the building of the
Tabernacle (mtskan), designated in the JE material as the
»6hel mo°ed, "the Tent of Meeting" (Exod 33:7-11; Num 11:16-
29; 12:4-10). This account shares many parallels with the
tent-shrine of the god ’El. It was constructed by a crafts-
man appointed by God, one B&sal’é1 (Exod 31:2; 35:30), who
was "skilled in every craft."' In the same way, the tabernacle
and furniture of ’El were constructed by the divine craftsman
KOtar, called hayyanu and fastsu, "skillful" and "“understand-
a ee BY 6 a
101. The Confltet Between El and Ba‘al, 108-109. We
should note here that M. Pope has asserted that it "would be
rather far-fetched to suggest a connection of this word with
ThesU Gar itiic meee UL OOr
 169

ing"
+ W
(CTA 4.1.24-25), and hayyanu di haraéu yadémi, "the
skillful one with trained hands” (CTA 3.V1.22-23). Likewise,
the construction of the tent of ’El and the °dhel mo*éd share
common features. Both employ the word grs (Hebrew qgéres,
‘Ugaritic qarsu) to designate the wooden frames over which the
fabric of the tent-shrine was placed. Both were divided into
chambers, and both served as places of revelation of the will
of the deity. The two shrines shared elaborate furnishings
for the rituals at the tent.12
While the pre-Islamic qubbah, a small red leather tent
with a domed top, 194 still serves as a close parallel to the
portable *dhel mé‘éd, it is no longer necessary to see the
Israelite traditions of the tent as belonging purely to the
desert period. Rather, it is certainly possible that the con-
cept of the tent as a place of revelation was influenced, if
not borrowed, from the sedentary population of Canaan with
WhonmEnce People sob Isnaclecamesinto contact during sthe syUwa l-
demness. apenlod wa lne Labernaclesserved as gas tangible ysymbol
of God's presence" !4 fOr EME jAOTIS Coxe Monee Choris aealze
HOUMMey EOIN Sse (ie, edo ZS) SG Mle SiembreemNeS Ose Thos
Tabernacle was given to Moses by Yahweh. Moses was to con-
Senucemmutmaccondingm tO, themprapny tr (ExOd. Zoro 40saCiee EXod
2/esen Nunmen4 clea pattem. were vealed stommimeby ether deity.
Thus, the earthly Tabernacle or Tent would correspond to the

KOZ EOnepanallelsmberweens che stUnnlshimese. sce) Re @ lat =

LOnde Ene mCOsnEcEMOoUun Lath. lA)
=lZ9ewhenes hie mprescnts, the text
sand wogmSlletaen, Ox Cm A. No 2seAa, Ore hie chistienebilkewas wih Teds
text, see the works of Albright and Gaster cited above, pp.
154-1355, ne 40. The major parallels between thie 2bhel mo‘éd
and the tent-shrine of ’El have been pointed out by U. Cassu-
to, A Commentary on the Book of Hxodus, trans. Israel Abrahams
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967), 322-324; and R. Clif-
Lordy Themten trot ll lmmanadmrnemisrae lites lent or Meeting, |
PME TIAN
0S Bom descriptions: OL the qubbah, see F. Ms Cross:,
"The Priestly Tabernacle," 217-219; and J. Morgenstern, The
Ark, the Ephod and the "Tent of Meeting," 55-71.
104. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus,
BINS) 5
170

heavenly dwelling of the deity. In accordance with the an-

cient principle of "like is like," common to the religious
thought of the Near East, this would bring about the presence
of the deity. Several vivid examples of this exist. The tem-
ple of Ba‘l, excavated at Ras Shamra, contains an opening,
which corresponds precisely to the descriptions of Ba‘l's tem-
ple in the literature (CTA Avi essen Likewise, the
fifth-century B.C. Phoenician inscriptions of Béd’aStart and
?ESmun‘ azor describe the temple precinct in Sidon by the terms
3mm vmm, “the high heavens" (KAI 15), and smm ’drm, "'the
mighty heavens" (KAT 14.16), respectively. — Notably, the
goddess ‘Anat is called "mistress of the high heavens"
(baslatu saméma rdméma, Ug. V.2.1.7 [RS 24.252]) in Ugaritic
literature. It is apparent that the mtskan/’Shel m6‘°éd is an
earthly representation of the heavenly abode of the deity,
especially in light of its parallels with the tent of °E1.
That the deities were pictured as tent dwellers, even by
the highly urbanized culture of Ugarit, is illustrated in the
texts ime che Kirta epac, where the carehin kangsmancsac-
picted as having well-built palaces, the gods are still pic-
tured as dwelling in tents:

tabarriku ’iltma ti’tayu

ti’tayu ’iluma la-’ahalihum
daru ’ili la-miSkanatihum
(CfA 15 TIT 17-19)
The gods bless, they proceed,
The gods proceed to their tents,
The council of °El to their dwellings.

The parallelism of °hAZ and msknt is significant. The miskan

may be equated with the °SheZl. This is precisely the case
a a
105. For a description of Ba‘l's temple and the window,
see Cl. F. A. Schaeffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-
Ugarit, 66-68.
106. For the dates of these inscriptions, see J. B.
Peckham, The Development of the Late Phoentetan Sertpts
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 87.
 yl

with the oldest Hebrew traditions of the °Shel mo*éd, which

are contained in the JE traditions (Exod 33:7-11; Num 11:16-
29; 12:4-10). These passages reveal that the tent-shrine of
Yahweh was conceived as the place of the dispensation of his
will.
In each of these passages, the °dhel mo*éd is specifical-
ly pictured as an oracle tent--the place of the revelation of
Yahweh's presence and will. The language employed to describe
that theophany is markedly similar in each. The description
of the tent in Exod 33:7 notes that everyone who sought Yahweh
would go to the *dnhel md‘éd. When Moses would enter the tent,
"the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of
the tent" (yéréd ‘ammiid he‘anan w?‘amad pétah ha’Sbhel, v. 9).
Verse 11 explains, ''Thus Yahweh spoke to Moses, face to face,
as a man speaks to his friend.'' The theophany of Yahweh oc-
curs at the Tent of Meeting. There he would talk with Moses,
giving instructions to his people. The other two passages in
the JE tradition also reveal clearly this same mode of revela-
tion at the Tent. Num 11:25 recounts that when Moses took the
seventy elders to the Tent and placed them around it, Yahweh
descended in the cloud (be‘anan) and spoke unto Moses. In
Num 12:4-5, after calling Moses, Miriam, and Aaron unto the
Tent of Meeting (’el-’6hel md‘éd), Yahweh descended “in the
pillar of cloud" (b?@‘ammiid ‘anan) and stood at the opening of
the Tent and spoke. In all three, the mode of revelation is
the same. Yahweh appears at the opening (pétah) of the Tent.
This parallels ’E1's address to “Anat when the god stands
within his tent-shrine to address the goddess (CTA 3.V.33-35).
The mode of the revelation, in the “pillar of cloud," is simi-
lar to the theophany on Sinai, which contains, as we have
noted, a mixing of the traditions of the ’E1l and Ba‘l theoph-
AiCsmElcMlsmclearemhoweviernethateinmlsnael!’ sseanliest tradi-
tions, the Tent of Meeting served as the place of Yahweh's
theophany. It is also clear that the Tent served as an ora-
cle tent. It served as the religious and political center
for Israel. The Ark, the symbol of Yahweh's presence (cf.
Num 10:33-36; 1 Samuell 4-6, esp. 4:6-7, 22; 6:20-21; 1 Kgs

8:10-13; 2 Kgs 19:14-15), was sheltered in the Tent (Exod

Ez

26: 55a cL er
The Tent of Meeting was thus pictured by the Epic sources
as an oracle tent in which Yahweh appeared to direct his peo-
ple (see Exod 25:22; 29:42-43; 30:36; 40:34-38; Num 9:15-23;
compare Exod 24:15-18). As such it served as the political
rallying point for Israel during her wilderness wanderings.
It was the place where leaders were chosen (Aaron, Num 17:19-
24); the place where atonement for sins was made (Lev 4:13-
14)% the! location of the casting of lots an"order tovdivade
the land among the tribes (Josh 19:51). Clearly, Israel con-
sidered the *dhel md*éd to be more than a symbol--it was the
"dwelling" of Yahweh in her madseee
The ancient tradition of Yahweh's dwelling in a tent-
shrine is seen in 2 Sam 7:6:

ki 16° yaSabti b©bayit 1°miyyém ha‘ 416ti

?et-b©né yisra’él mimmisradyim w©‘ad hayy6ém
hazzeh wa’ehyeh mithallék b©’éhel fib®miSkan

107. On the relationship of the Ark to the Tent of Meet-

ing, see R. de Vaux, "Ark of Covenant and Tent of Reunion," in
The Btble and the Anctent Near Fast, trans. Damian McHugh
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1971), 136-
151; and M. Haran, "The Nature of the '’Ohel Mo‘edh' in Penta-
teuchal Sources," JSS 5 (1960) 50-65.
108. The traditions of the miskan and ’éhel md‘éd were
taken up and developed in a highly technical manner by the
Priestly writer. In P, the verb Skn, most probably a denomi-
native from miskan, is used in the archaic sense of the deity
tabernacling in his shrine. The term miskan, in P, is used
of Yahweh's 'tabernacling' on earth. The common verb "to
dwell" (yasab) is not used by P to designate Yahweh's mani-
festation to Israel. Cf. F. M. Cross, "The Priestly Taber-
nacle," 224-227. In the Deuteronomic writings, the problem of
immanence/transcendence led to the development of the "Name
theology" (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27-31), which envisioned that Yahweh's
name dwelt in the temple, but not Yahweh himself. On this
subject, see S. Dean McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1969).
 v7.5

For I have not dwelt in a temple from the

day I led up the sons of Israel from Egypt
unto this day. Rather I have gone about in
astent vand) in a tabernacle,

This passage demonstrates the tradition that Yahweh dwelt, un-

til the Solomonic temple, in a tent--specifically in the *bhel
mo‘éd. The parallel usage of °3hel and mtskan to designate
one and the same tent is further confirmed by the parallel
passage in 1 Chr 17:5, which reads: wa’ehyeh mé’Sdhel *el-
»Shel iimimmtskan, "I was (going) from tent to tent and from
tabernacle (to tabernacle[?]).'' Only with the erection of
the temple by Solomon was the use of the Tent of Meeting dis-
continued. in 1 Kgs 8:4 it is explicitly stated that the "Ark
of Yahweh" (?ardn YHWH), the "Tent of Meeting" (*Shel md‘éd),
and "all the holy vessels" (kol-k°lé haqqéde&) were carried
into the temple.
This tradition of Yahweh's dwelling in a tent is unbro-
ken, with one exception. The traditions concerning the sanc-
tuary at Shiloh designate the tabernacle as a temple. 1 Sam
le® wing! GES Westen TO wie Maal sieht Els Sioahikoly, earl il Sen Wey,
24 mention the bét YHWH there (cf. Judg 18:31). In Hebrew, as
in Ugaritic, hékal and baytt consistently represent permanent
structures, as opposed to the temporary dwellings denoted by
Shel and mi&kan. But the traditions concerning the temple
at Shiloh themselves are not consistent. Josh 18:1 notes
explicitly that the >bhel mo°‘ed was set up in Shiloh. Like-
wise, two early liturgical poems, possibly dating to the peri-
od of the early monarchy, +99 note that the Tent was in Shiloh.
In Ps 132:5-7, the dwelling of Yahweh is called a mié&kan (vv.
5 and py and clearly refers to the » Shel mo“éeéd in the time

O08, Hor 2 CSCS Gael One Me GCleueSsS whi hese WSEbi, SSS
M. Dahood, Psalms II, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 17 (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1973), 238-239, and Psalms
III, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 17A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday

and Company, Inc., 1970), 241-242.

110. Note that in both instances the singular dwelling
is designated with the plural miskandt (v. 5) and misk°ndtaw
(v. 7), as is common with bht and hkt in Ugaritic.
174

before the erection of a permanent temple in Jerusalem. This

fact is further confirmed by the actions of David in 2 Sam
6:17. When the Ark was brought from the house of Obed-Edom
into Jerusalem, David pitched a tent for it and placed the Ark
in that tent (wayyassigi ’otd bimqdmd b?tok ha’? ohel *&ser
natah-16). The usage of *Shel (2 Sam 6:17) paralleling mtskan
(Ps 132:5-7) thus reflects a tradition different from the one
in 1 SamueLel.) ButePs 78360 as “evensmoxe explicit gel t notes
that the tabernacle in Shiloh was, most specifically, a tent:

wayyittos miSkan $116

*Ghel Sikkén ba’adam
And he abandoned his tent in Shiloh,
The tent where he dwelt among men.

These verses would seem to alleviate the problem. They are

filled with the archaic vocabulary used to designate Yahweh's
tent-shrine. Here the miskan is paralleled by the ’Shel. The
location is Shiloh. Further, Yahweh "'tabernacled" (stkkén)
there "among men."’ This passage certainly goes back to the
traditions of the Tent of Meeting as the place of Yahweh's
revelation and decree among his people. We must conclude,
because of the overwhelming support from the traditions, that
Yahweh's dwelling was a tent-shrine until the construction of
the temple by Solomon. The prose sources which designate the
sanctuary at Shiloh as a temple must be taken as anachronis-
tie
The pre-Solomonic traditions of the dwelling of Yahweh
reveal that the *Shel md*éd was considered to be the earthly
abode of the deity, a concept later highly theologized by
both the Priestly and Deuteronomic writers. This tent-sanctu-
ary was primarily an oracle tent--the place of Yahweh's mani-
festation in the "column of cloud" (‘ammiid he‘anan). As R.
Clifford has noted, the °dhel mo°éd originally meant "'the
tent of meeting (of the divine assembly under the presidency
of El).'" This background is further confirmed by the speci-
fication of Yahweh's tent by the noun md‘éd (a maqtil forma-
Sh ee ee ee ee ee 0 ee ee ee
LUI CE erbsa ita CBOs SmavOMaay maior merce miley
 7S

tion from ya‘ad), "to appoint," the Canaanite designation of

the heavenly assembly in CTA 2.1. The Priestly writer has
modified this original meaning of ’éhel mo°éd to designate
the tent of meeting (of Yahweh with the people Israel; cf.
Exod 29542), 412 The numerous parallels between the ’dhel
m6°éd and the dd//qré of ’El, both in description and func-
tion, make it undeniable that the heavenly prototype for the
Hebrew tent is to be found in the Canaanite concept of the
tent of ’E1, located on the cosmic mountain--the location of
the divine assembly.

The Members of the Heavenly Assembly

Thus far, we have described the basic location of the

heavenly assembly, i.e., at the dwelling of the high god. We
shall now investigate the identities and functions of the mem-
bers constituting the assembly. In Mesopotamian mythology,
the council was composed of all the major gods and goddesses.
Of these gods, fifty were designated as tlu rabiutu, ‘the
great/senior gods," and seven were called ilu Simati, "gods
of the fates," or musimmu Simatt, '"'determiners of the
ateSr n1l3 their role is explicitly stated in Enuma elié:

rabfiti hamSassunu uSibuma

ilu Simati sibittiSunu ana [nisé Simati] uktinnu
(Enuma elts V1.80-81)

The fifty senior gods sat down,

And the seven gods of fates fixed the fate
of man, >t?

a SS
i? Uinemben taoten lands thesisnraclites Lent oLeMee ting),
226-227; see also F. M. Cross, CMHE, 321-322.
Mise te wacobsen, UPrimicive Democracy, in) Ancient Meso-

potamia," 165. For references, see nn. 49-50 on pp. 404-405

Gus IES,
114. For the text of Enuma elis, see R. Labat, Le Poéme
babylonien de la Création (Paris: Libraire d'Amérique et
dvOmitenity a9 S50).
176

Clearly, the gods composing the Mesopotamian council were very

active during the proceedings. Though Anu was the head of the
pantheon, other gods also wielded power in the assembly. The
activity of the gods in the Mesopotamian concept of the divine
council is further illustrated when Marduk demands that in
order for him to deliver the gods from Tiamat, the gods must
make his decree immutable (11.123-129; II1.58-64, 116-122).
In tablets III-IV, the members of the council are assembled
and indulge in a banquet before announcing their decree. The
council of the gods, needing a deliverer, concedes to the de-
mands of Marduk:

ilt rabfiti kaliSunu muSimmu Simati

irubima muttiS anSar imlfi ubSukkinnaku
inniSqi ahu u ahi ina puhri innindi
1iSanu iSkunt ina qerréti uSbu
aSnan ikult iptiqt kurunna
Siresa matqu usanninu ratiSun
Sikru ina Saté habasu zumriSun
ma’?diS egii kabbattaSun italli
ana 4Marduk muter gimilliSunu iSimma SimtaSu
idduSumma parak rubati
mahariS abbéSu ana malikiti irme
attama kabtata ina ili rabitim
Simatka 1a Sandan seqarka 4Anum
dMarduk kabtata ina ili rabitim
Simatka 1a Sandan seqarka “Anum

dMarduk attama muterru gimillini

niddikka Sarrutu kiSSat kal gimréti
tiSSamma ina puhur la Saqata amatka
(LII.130-IV.6, 13-15)
All the great gods who decree the fates
Entered before AnSar; they filled UbSukkinna.
They kissed each other when they met together
in the assembly.
They conversed as they sat in the banquet.
They ate bread, they poured wine,
 en

They made their throats flow with sweet drink;

As they drank the beer, their bodies swelled.
Quickly they became carefree as their spirit rose.
For Marduk, their avenger, they fixed his decree,
They erected for him a lordily dais.
He took his place before his fathers for counsel.
"You alone are most honored among the senior gods;
Your decree is unrivaled; your command is Anu!
O Marduk, you are the most honored among the
senior gods;
Your decree is unrivaled; your command is Anu!"

"Q Marduk, you alone are our avenger!

We-have given you kingship, the totality of all!
Take your seat in the assembly (of the gods)
that your word might be exalted."

The function of this assemblage of the gods is the same

as that in Ugaritic text CTA 2.1--the investiture of kingship
to the warrior-god of the cosmos. In Enuma elis, the king-
ship) iss eranted to Marduks ians¢C7A 2.15 to Yamm. The method
in which the council meets in Enuma elts is instructive to the
pLHCture OL che assembly any Ugara tic myth because of the simi-
larities and differences. In the Mesopotamian account the
gods, all the major members of the pantheon (tlu rabitt
kalisunu musimmu Simatt) come together at the temple UbSsukkin-
mas the cosmac abode, the analogue to Ugaritic gr 727i. Here
they greet each other and engage in a lively banquet, as did
the gods on ’El's mount (2.1.20-21). In the Ugaritic account,
no interaction among the members is noted. The only actions
noted are the arrival of the messengers, Ba‘l's invocation of
the frightened gods, ’El's decree, and Ba‘l's attack upon the
messengers. The members of the council on ?E1's mountain play
nomactives role. "Only, CHl and Basi act... “Ihe! 227m of CTA y2.1
seem to have no identity apart from ’E1--their decree is the
decree delivered by ’El. This passage from Enuma elis pro-
vides an excellent background for understanding this phenome-
non. When the assembly invests Marduk with power, his "decree

is Anu" (seqarka danum). The decree of Marduk carries the

LR

power of the decree of the high god of the pantheon, the lead-
er of the assembly. Thus, Marduk obtains the position he has
requested:

epSu piya kima katunuma Simata 10Sim

1a uttakkar mimmu abannu anaku
a itur 4 inninnad seqar Saptiya
(Enuma elis 11.127-129; cf.
Ti,
O28 04 2022

Let my word, like yours, determine the fates!

Anything I create shall remain unaltered!
May the command of my lips be neither recalled
nor changed!

When the gods granted him kingship and the power of decree, he
became equivalent to the assembly itself. Unlike the action
depicted in the Ugaritic material, the Mesopotamian gods
clearly elected Marduk as their head. They actively invoked
him to take power. Even having granted this power, however,
the gods of the assembly remained active in the affairs of the
cosmos (cf. VI.80-81). The investiture of Marduk did not make
him a rival of Anu, though his command carried the same
weight, Rather, it was a method of ritual exaltation of the
champion, much like the fifty great names attributed to him in
WMA
W IL SO,
The major gods of the assembly and the role which they
played is readily seen in Eniuma elt&8. In Canaanite mythology
and Israelite literature, however, the identities of the mem-
bers of the ‘council remain obscure.) In jOrAw2 Wl ethey ane
simply sdesignatedeas 'eodsl” WC ceruma peel lew Lchmee Ul, eee nee Simmel
260, 27, 295734). No further description us) orrered.) iCollec—
tively they constitute the pugru md‘tdu. The other references
to the council in Ugaritic literature provide little addition-
al information. CTA 4,.III.14 refers to the pulflru bani *ilt-
mi, “the assembly of the sons of *EI," i.e., "the assembly of
the gods."’ Throughout the texts, the fact that the members
of the council remain unnamed and have little or no function
in the assembly proceedings makes the task of identifying them
more diftticult, The appearance™of the council anoras LS emi.2—
 72

7 does, however, provide some clues. Approximately the first

twenty lines of the column are missing, and gaps remain in the
first ten lines of the text. It is apparent that the council
is assembled to consider Kirta's request for progeny (14.11.
57-58). The arrival of the council is recorded as follows:

[?ilu wa-’al’iy]anu ba‘lu

[SSS anaes ] yarihu zubulu
[--?k6ta] ru-wa-hasisu
[- - - - ]n rahmayyu raSpu zubulu
[wa-‘i]datu ’ili-mi/’ilima talituha
(Crass Lo =7)
[-------- i) Jeu La
[PED gue) QML 11°al
————— ] Prince
(Yarihu) Moon
[--Kéta]r-wa-Hasis
[- - - - ]n Rahmayyu, Prince RaSpu
[And the ass]Jembly of ’E1/the gods (and)
its retinue.

Six major gods are noted in this text, and the spaces
leave ample room for two more. The verb yrd could possibly
be reconstructed in the first line, and be read as a third
Plucaieum thevyadescended. us? 7uedts =tOmbDesreconstrucced sins the
second line, since the epithet tr seldom stands alone as a
designation of ’El. The conjunction w would then fill the
lacuna between ’il and ’al’?tyn b°l. The assembly, led by ’E1l
and Ba‘l, descends to the earthly meeting place, most probably
a temple. In line three, several possibilities are apparent.
To parallel yarifu zubulu, ''Prince Moon," we suggest reading
Sapsu, "the Sun," who frequently is seen in conjunction with
Bills decree (CRA A, NTU (PolS-UBeS OewloAF=AQ)o WMossallyibie, rele
common epithet of SapSu, nirtu *ilima Sapéu, "the torch of
the gods, SapSu" (GH De MIC)
oMSS. Scala GOR Aha NAe Ge Lobes Aes
IV.32; etc.), is to be read in the gap, though there does not
seem to be sufficient space for the entire appellation. That
zubulu is to be read as an epithet of yarthu and not with the
next line is clear from raspu zubulu, "Prince Raspu," where
180

zubilu is obviously a designation of the god RaSpu. The small

break before Kétar-wa-Hasis does not leave room for the inclu-
sion of much more than the conjunction w. The name preceding
Rahmayyu (possibly ’Atirat) is totally unclear. Strangely,
‘Anat is missing from the list of gods of the assembly, and
the gods who are mentioned, apart from °B1l and Ba‘l1, are not
gods who play a major role in the mythic cycle from Ugarit.
Nevertheless, the list does name some of the gods in the
council. This is made clear by the final line, where ‘tdatu
2ili-mi/?ilima, “the council of ’E1''/"the council of the
gods,!' as correctly restored(cts i. 11) Why these parezcu-
lar gods were selected, however, remains somewhat obscure.
The inclusion of ’El, the head of the council, and Ba‘l, the
young warrior-god, is certainly a prerequisite of the council.
Likewise, the importance of Kétar among the gods gives him
sufficient status to be included. The other gods, however,
are not nearly so important, except perhaps Rahmayyu, if the
identification withp Atinat Gis commect. — le SapSu or her epi-
thet is a correct reconstruction, she was possibly included
because of her connection with ’El's decree. The inclusion
of the moon-god Yarihu, called nyr smm, "the torch of the
heavens" (CTA 24.16, 31), could then be explained by the par-
allel pair Sun and Moon, the luminaries of the heavens.
This leaves only the mention of RaSpu, the god of pesti-
lence, to besexplaimed 5 Though in» the mytholopical texts
RaSpu, like Yarihu, plays no important role, the sacrificial
lists show that he was a deity with an active cultus. EYS tn

Ug. V.18.26 (RS 20.24), RaSpu is identified with Nergal, the

lord of the Underworld, the god of pestilence and war. The
development of the nature of RaSpu as explained by W. F.
Albright best accounts for the inclusion of this deity in a
text which is concerned with fertility. In a text from ca.
1300 B.C., RaSpu is identified with Sulman, a deity of heal-
ing, in the composite name RaSap-Salmén. Such an identity
a a ee
115. Cf. M. Pope and W. Réllig, WM, 305-306. Numerous
personal names with the divine element rsp are also attested
at Ugarit. For these, see F. Gréndahl, Die Personennamen der
Texte aus Ugarit, 408-409.
 181

illustrates the tendency in Canaanite/Phoenician religion to

bring such opposites together. Hence, one would pray to the
god of pestilence for health, for the god who caused diseases
would also be best fitted to heal them.116
The final term tlth presents an important clue to the
identities of the ’iZm who constitute the council. We have
followed P. Miller's interpretation of the noun ¢Zt, taking
it from Hebrew salts, “officer, 1117 translating it here "reti-
nue.'' We do not, however, follow Miller's interpretation of
the term as a reference to the military retinue of Baka
As we shall show, tZt does designate a military retinue, but
it is the retinue of the divine council, not of Ba‘l. The h
suffix is best taken as a third person feminine singular
(-ha), with the feminine noun ‘tdatu as its antecedent. Thus,
the council of the gods is pictured as being, or at least hav-
ing,-a military retinue. This 1s confirmed by the designa-
lon Ge tae Gods aim CHA Boll, Wells 4or hal ake Me oW 5 A0= 2b}.
The council members are to be seen as members of a military
company surrounding their aged leader, ’E1.
Before presenting the evidence for this view, it is
necessary to cite one further Ugaritic text depicting the
council of the gods. This text vividly displays the leader-
ship of ’El in the council and the powerlessness of the other
members before him, as well as presenting additional evidence
for their designation as military personnel. It also provides
an excellent background for the inclusion of several important
biblical depictions of the council which show that the Israel-
ite conception of the members of the assembly closely paral-
lels that of the Ugaritic materials.
In CTA 16.V.1-28, the assembly has been convened for the
express purpose of healing the ailing Kirta. 2B sits at the
head of the assembly and addresses the gods:

ee
ene

116. ARI, 77-78; see also M. Dahood, "Ancient Semitic

Deities in Syria and Palestine," 83-85.

117. fhe Divine Warrtor, 19-20.
Wathen Teforbek.
182

yataddit yaSabbi‘ rigma

[miya] ba-’ilima yadayu marsa
garraSa-mi zubulana
°?6éna ba-’ilima ‘anayuhu
wa-ya‘ni lutpanu ’ilu d!i pa‘idi
tibu baniya la-métiba[t]ikum
la-kahati zubuliku[m]
[?a]naku ’ihtarasu
wa-Sakan ’aSkanu
yaditu [ma]rsi
gariStu zubulani
(GEAY LOW 19-28)

A sixth, a seventh time he (’E1) addressed the word:

"Who among the gods will cast out the illness,
Wilivdrivesout thersdeknesss)
No one among the gods answered him.
And Kindly One, ’E1 the Compassionate, answered:
Sse, Ibe SOs, CM yOwe SELES
On your princely thrones.
I myself will practice sorcery!
tesa lieandeedsere ate
One casting out the illness,
One driving out the sickness!"119

The high god ’El then forms a creature called Sa‘ tigqat, 12° who
proceeds to drive out the illness and heal Kirta. The ritual
by which this being is formed was no doubt contained in lines
28-53 of this column, which are broken beyond reconstruction.
When the ritual is complete, ’E1 proclaims the power of this
creature over death:

119, We take both ydt and qrst to be G participles,

feminine simeulares SC Le Ma GroSse CMH sual oiesmcemml Si5e
120. The name s*tqt is a third person feminine singular
S formation from the root “tq, toe proceedge duvancews ine the
causative stem, it has the meaning "'to remove.'' The name of
the creature means "She removes (illness)."
 183

[mo]tu dama hatta

Sa‘tiqatu dami la’i
(CTA 16.VI.1-2; cf. 13-14)
Let death be now shattered,
Let Sa‘tiqat now prevail.

Sa‘tiqat immediately goes to the house of Kirta and heals him

(ii 228).
This passage displays the power of ’E1 over sickness and
death. The gift of life, in the divine and human realm, be-
longed to the god ’E1 alone, as we shall show more fully be-
low (pp. 244-255). Our concern with the present passage fo-
cuses on other issues for the moment. This view of the heav-
enly assembly gathered at the feet of the god ’E1 is unique
among the descriptions of the divine council in Canaanite
material. Only in this scene does ’El address the members
of his council. Four times the rhetorical formulaic question
is ‘repeated:

"Who among the gods will cast out the illness,

Wisi dicivesoutmtheesickness71
No one among the gods answered him.
COLA WSs WoO U5, Wee. Ifo19 ZOSZ A)

The form of the address is closely paralleled in the Hebrew

aAccOUnESHOLE YYahwemusmaddressm tons cour trerseins Msa so 21-8
and J Kes 22:19-235, which we shall consider later in this sec-
tion. The other gods are clearly powerless before 7H. The
council sits before him to obey and carry out his decree.
They are unable to heal Kirta.
Thetmeideitityels once agdlnnOt est Ven)yueAS in ONAN Z I,
they are designated simply as gods (’?tlima) and *B1's sons
(bantya). They obey the decree of the leader of the council,
who delivers his command to them with the characteristic
plural imperative, "Sit!" (¢¢bu). Yet this text, like CTA 2.1
and 15.11.2-7, does provide some clues to the identification
of the members of the council. In both CTA 2.1 and 16.V, the
thrones (kht) of the gods are modified by the adjective
zubulu, "princely," a term which, as we have already noted,
184

has definite military connotations. This is further confirmed

by the term talitu, "military retinue," applied to the unnamed
members of the council in CTA 15.11.7. Both the Phoenician
and early Hebrew references to the council confirm that the
members of the council are to be identified as the military
retinue of the high god of the pantheon.
The Phoenician account of Sanchuniathon recorded by Philo
Byblius reveals that ’El was conceived to be a mighty warrior
in the theogonic myths from Phoenicia. As a warrior he was
surrounded by allies, who were named after him:

ot 6€ ovuuaxot “HAov tod Kopdvou *EAwetu

ETLEKATSNOAV.
(Praep. evang. 1.10.20)

And the allies of Elous, who is Kronos,

were surnamed Eloim.

The attempt at an etymology for the allies of ’E1 reveals

clearly that they were the Ugaritic *’tlm/bn -tim. More spe-
cifically, as P. Miller has asserted, !*! they were the phr *27
or the dr (bn) ’?t1 of our texts. They were no doubt the minor
deities who surrounded ’E1. They remained unnamed in all our
ancient traditions from Canaanite, Phoenician, and Israelite
sources. Luckily, Philo's account goes further in his de-
scription of the ovwwaxot. ’E1 himself is explicitly Dic=
tured with four wings upon his shoulders, two for flying and
two folded (Praep. evang. 1.10.36). His allies are similarly
pictured:

totc S€ AoLMotg BEote Sto éexdotw ntepduata

ae eae aie
ETL THV Ouwv, Oa StL Sh ovvintavto tH Kodvy.
(Praep. evang. 1.10.37)

But to the rest of the gods two wings to each on

the shoulders in order that they might fly with
Kronos.

—
se

LZ BA thes Water ior Suareet Or

 185

The descriptions of the lesser divinities in the ancient Near

East as winged creatures are well known. The banquet text
from Ugarit (RS 24.252; Ug. V.2) reveals that the major dei-
ties could also be pictured as flying:

wa-‘anatu da’i da’ita

rahhapatu [kima naS]ri-mi
(Ug. V.2.1.8-9)
And verily ‘Anat flies swiftly,
She soars like an eagle.

This confirms that the gods could be depicted in literary and

iconographic materials as possessing wings. ’El's retinue was
composed of gods who were named and fashioned after him.
Their function in the texts of Sanchuniathon and Ugarit
is clear. In the Phoenician account it is these allies of ’E1
(ot oduuaxot “HAov) who surround the deity and go into battle
with him in the theogonic wars of succession (cf. Praep.
evang. 1.10.18). Once these wars have ended and ’El1 has
firmly established himself on the throne, the Phoenician ac-
count gives us no further information on these beings. The
-tim/obuuaxo. disappear into the background. They remain in
that background in the Canaanite sources. In the Ugaritic
material the assembly appears frequently as the recipient of
SAcihtlces mil achemliturotedlabexts:.. | (nePhoenveranes nsicElp\-
tions they are invoked in blessings and curses. While we
shall defer our treatment of these references to a later sec-
tion, these texts plainly show that the assembly of the gods
continued as an active object of worship. This can be ex-
plained by the fact that the assembly, in Canaanite thought,
had no true existence apart from the decree of the high god
?E1. The wars of ’El had been fought and won. The function
of the council members as allies in battle was no longer
needed. They constituted the membership of the assembly.
They were seated around the older patriarch, awaiting his de-
cree. The designation of their thrones as kaktu aubulu,
"princely throne,"' in both accounts of the assembly where the
council members are present (CTA 2.1.23-24, 25, 27-28, 29,
16.V.25) verifies their position as warriors. As we noted in
186

the first section, zubulu, in Ugaritic, designates the vic-

torious warrior-gods Ba‘l and Yamm (cf. pp. 47-53). As a ti-

tle, it was applied only after victory in battle. So here,
the designation of the thrones of the council members by the
term zgubulu must also be seen as a reference to the military
exploits of these gods who were once active military personnel
alongside their mighty leader ’E1. The designation talttuha
inecZA Sle whachewes take yas mayne serences couche councilin
GefLens) touts (cher councils))) military ecetanuc aa imdeeds
‘tdatu in 15.11.7 presents the only logical antecedent for the
suffixed noun. This then designates the remainder of the
gods, who are not specifically named, as members of the coun-
Gill, wine joie Oi hee
Early Hebrew poetry depicts the Divine Warrior, Yahweh,
in the same manner in which the Phoenician account of San-
2 :
chuniathon describes the warrior ’El. wes Hebrew literature

122. There is some evidence of a group of gods who were

analogous to the Mesopotamian tZu rabutum. In a wine list,
RO Wie
IO) sli, Bb eae Kone akg) acS: fae EO) Tela IMSMSS Cul ine
"great gods'"' (Kd bt ?tlm rbm). A terribly mutilated tablet,
RS i244 22/ 2 (Uo™ WNi.0.L—2)) needs cane etm bm. ines eetinery,
lord of the great gods," who is called to give judgment in
the case Jot “a child) (ntpe ytd). thew tathen/ lord jorethe
great gods can only be a reference to ’El1, and his position
as judge here is consistent with the picture of the high god
obtained through other texts. One, and possibly two, refer-
ences to the “22m rbm remain in Ugaritic literature. In Ug.
Visi 2605 Sl (RS 24 riZjol) ee isa Nel stinare schism pop lone pods
are the deities invoked for protection in this serpent charm.
For a discussion of this etext, see My Astour, "lwo Ucaritue
Serpent) Charms, Vis) 27) (Looe) 50-50. Whiner it asicermtadn=
ly possible that these gods may be likened to the "fifty
great gods who determine the fates'' in Mesopotamian litera-
ture, sufficient information does not exist for such an iden-
tification.
123. For complete studies of Yahweh as the Divine War-
rior, see F. M. Cross, CM#H, 91-111; and P. Miller, The Divine
Warrtor, 64-165.
 187

uses a much broader variety of terms to describe the divine

beings surrounding the high god than do the Canaanite texts.
In early Hebrew literature the divine beings accompany Yahweh
in Holy War with his people. They are active members of Yah-
weh's military retinue. This is a function of the members of
the Hebrew council of the gods that is only vaguely reflected
in the Ugaritic materials. Nowhere in the Ugaritic depictions
of the divine assembly are its members pictured as going out
in the company of ’El (or even Ba‘l1) to heavenly battle. The
archaic poetry contained in the Hebrew scriptures, most spe-
cifically the "March in the South" passages, reveals that Yah-
weh, the warrior-god, is commonly accompanied by his retinue
OL divine bergsi.
The biblical descriptions of Yahweh himself reveal that
he was originally conceived as a warrior/creator god, like the
Phoenician description of ’El preserved by Sanchuniathon.
While much literature has been devoted to the meaning and
derivation of the name YH#WH, — the most convincing argument
HG. Teles jos wOpmely ly To Wu WeReOrieE hae The name YHWH is to be
Gakeneasman causative impertect Om the verbenuy, “to tbe!
(*yahwi > yahweh). The expected object of this verb is found
in the expression Yahweh s@ba°dt, “he (who) creates the heav-
enly armies. ied The fully reconstructed epithet would read:
*°31 2u yahwi saba’ot, '"'*E1, who creates the (heavenly) ar-
mies.'' The original setting of the biblical epithet, YHWH
e°ba*ot, is to be found in the liturgical name of the Ark:
YHWH g@ba’dt yoséb hakk@rubim, "Yahweh g°@ba’dt who is en-
throned on the cherubim' (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 622)00°! Ie TeTeORS
is correct in asserting that Yahweh is to be seen as original-

124. See the works listed by F. M. Cross, CMHE, 60-61,

Me “Olli
125, meds, OO-Wils Ses pils@ Ai, Ws INiMopeaelae, saeror, Mey
149.
126. As Cross notes (CMHE, 70), s?ba’?dt in Hebrew serves

as the common designation for heavenly armies (i.e., the gods)

and earthly armies,
127. Note that this epithet is used apart from the ark

imebsses0 a7 e997 lomcompanesPs 181) (= 2 )sam DROWN

188

ly having been part of a cultic epithet of °El (compare such

epithets as ’al’tyu qarradima, "I prevail over the heroes"
[Ba‘l], and ’attratu yammi, "'She who treads upon Sea"
[’Atirat]), then the warrior aspects of the deity reach back
to the earliest traditions and are to be seen as *E1, not
Be ik, Eenvilnews)o
‘Qur most archaic biblical traditions, those found in
Israel's early poetry, verify this assertion. In Exodus 15,
the most archaic piece of poetry in the Hebrew corpus, which
dates to the twelfth century Eeaeoe feet seexplacitiy desire
nated that Yahweh is a warrior:

YHWH ’7S5 milhamah

YHWH $©mé6
(Exod 1525)

Yahweh is a warrior,
Yahweh is his name!129

128. While numerous problems and debates still abound in

the efforts to date early Hebrew poetry, the linguistic analy-
sis of Israel's earliest poetic pieces by D. AY Robertson
gives a firm basis for the date of the most archaic poems
(Linguistte Evidence tn Dating Farly Hebrew Poetry, SBL Dis-
sertation Series 3 [Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical
lateratune, 1972) Robertson notes that onlyea very few po-
ems contain linguistic evidence for an early date. While the
time period from the thirteenth century B.C. to the eighth
century (when standard poetic Hebrew was in common use) is too
great to permit absolute dates or a precise relative chronolo-
gy, Robertson dates the most archaic pieces as follows (pp.
Ps4=.5 oc" SExoduss is» (i Zthecent. BaGa)in Judces =sa(emdmo cate oh
cent. B.C.); Deuteronomy 32; 2 Samuel 22 = Psalm 18; Habakkuk
5; dralogues of Job (lth-W0th cent. B.C.)): PsalmysaGlate
10th/early 9th cent. B.C.). Cross dates Exodus 15 to the date
i2th/early llth cent. B.C. (CMHE, 121-124). W. F. Albright
has dated the poem to the first quarter of the 13th cent. B.C.
(WGCR ORT)
129. Note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX read
gtbbér bammilhamah for the MIT's °%& mtlhamah. According to
 189

This designation of Yahweh as a warrior is also found in Ps

24:8, 10, where Yahweh is once more identified as a warrior:

mi zeh mélek hakkabéd

YHWH ‘izztiz wegibboér
YHWH gibbér milhamah
(BS AA Se its Wo 1h0))

Who is this king of glory?

Yahweh mighty and powerful,
Yahweh the warrior!

This tenth-century fragment (vv. 7-10) has been thoroughly

studied by Cross, who has noted the explicit council back-
ground in the personified gate towers (vv. 7-9) which are de-
picted as the members of the council in CFA De nereray ams
Paralleling the reference to Yahweh as a warrior inv. 8 is
the explicit epithet YHWH s¢ba’dt in v. 10. There can be no
doubt that in the early Israelite cultus, Yahweh was vividly
pictured as a mighty warrior. />4
Though the deity is described as a warrior, he is rarely
depicted as engaged in battle alone. Rather, he fights in
conjunction with the "'Holy Ones,'' the members of his council,
as is vividly portrayed in Deut 33:2b-3, a composition dating
to the liith century: Boge a 34

2bi }>ittd-mi ribebst qedo3<tm>

mimino ’as©<ri ’é>1itm
»e>

Cross, we have two ancient variants here, YHWH gtbbér and 278
milhamah. Cross takes gibbér as the preferable reading for
metrical balance (CMHE, 127, n. 53);
U30R VCUEE, SL-94"
131. This is further seen in later prose traditions,
such as 1 Sam 18:17, where Saul asks David to "fight the wars
of Yahweh" (htllahem milhamdt YHwWH). The "Book of the Wars
of Yahweh" (séper milh&mdt YHWH) is noted in Num 21:14.
132. On the dating of Deuteronomy 33, see F. M. Cross

and D. N. Freedman, ''The Blessing of Moses," 192; Cross, CMHE,

1253 We FP. Albraght, vec, 14-15.
190

?ap hob©bé ‘ammim

kol q@dosSi<m> b&yadéka
[ Jhimtakkii 1°ragléka
yiss©’t-mi dibrétéka
(Deut 33:2b-3)

2b With him were myriads of holy ones,

At his right hand marched the mighty ones,
Yea the guardians of the people.
All the holy ones are at your right hand.
They prostrate themselves at your feet,
They carry out your decisions >

This passage presents an excellent picture of Yahweh, the

Divine Warrior, marching in the Southlands (v. 2a), surrounded
by his coterie of divine beings. Though the heavenly host are
present, they have little existence apart from Yahweh. They
march with him and they worship him. More importantly, they
carry out his decisions. Their existence is clearly depicted
as being dependent upon the decree, the word of Yahweh. Their
FUNCELON 1S sto: Canny: ht ato) Comnplletronn, slats snuncts
Onepan als
lels that of the recipients of ’El's decree in Ugaritic liter-
ature. The other divine beings obey and carry out the command
of the high god. They serve as messengers for the deity. As
the Ugaritic materials reveal, these messengers are charged
by their master to deliver a message, which is then repeated
by them in the exact words of their master.
The identity of the "Holy Ones" (q@ddsim) with the mem-
bers of the council is explicitly noted in Ps 89:6-9:

133. We follow here the emendations proposed by Cross

and Freedman, ''The Blessing of Moses," 193, 198-202. See also
CMHE, 101. The emendation of qds to qdsm in v. 2 is supported
by the plural, qdsn, in Targum Onkelos on this verse, and the
LXX G&yyeao.. It is also possible that qd&s is a collective
plural here, as it is in Exod 15:11, where gédeS is in
parallel with the plural ’élt%m. For the emendation of
q°ddsaw to q@ddstm, cf. the LXX reading: uat ndvtec ot
HY LacHEVOoL.
 Qa

Sweysdt Sam4yim p°1a’éka YHWH

?ap *Emfinat®ka biqhal q®ddsim
"kt mt baSSahaq ya‘3r6ék la-YHWH
yidmeh la-YHWH bibné ’élim
8
761 na‘aras b&sdd-q°d6Sim
rabbah wnéra’ ‘al-kol-s®b?
9
YHWH *810hé s&ba’6t mt-kamék
hasin yah we’Sminat®ka s&b hy
Ulsyo>
m ict“>a iu)

rhe heavens praise your wonders, 0 Yahweh,

And your truth in the council of the holy ones.
Bor who in the skies can compare to Yahweh?
Who is like Yahweh among the sons of god (i.e.,
the gods)?
Bq dreadful god in the council of the holy ones,
Great and terrible above all those around him.
2vahweh, god of (the heavenly) hosts, who is
like you?
Mighty Yah(weh), your faithful ones surround yous.

This passage vividly reveals the connection of the "Holy Ones"

with the council of the gods. The q@ddstm are the members of
the council, designated itself by q?@hal q?@ddstm (v. 6) and
sdd-q@déstm (v. 8). They are the b@né °élim, a term occur-
raingronily twice in biblacaly lvterature (cf. Ps’ 29:1). On
analogy to the Ugaritic designation of the council members as
bn tim, “the sons of %E1" (-22it=mz), F. M. Cross has noted
the possibility that in Pss 89:7 and 29:1, the more proper
reading may be b@né ey oe eune identity of the q@ddstm

134. We read the plural p?@la’é@ka with the LXX and Vul-
gate for the singular, ptl*dka, of the MT in v. 6. Inv. 7 we
follow M. Dahood (Psalms II, 313), reading "faithful ones," a
collective plural, for ’&8mitinat®ka, which is in chiastic paral-
lelism with q@ddstm of v. 8. Yah is an apocapated form of
Yahweh. For a full discussion of the concept of Yahweh's
uniqueness among divinities, see C. J. Labuschagne, The Incom-
parability of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental
Semles iO Vel bedden aE. Jicus Biase. 9.6,6)))x.
135. CMHE, 46.
92

is clear. They are the divine beings who surround Yahweh in

the council (cf. vv. 8, 9). Elsewhere in Hebrew literature,
q’dostim serves as a common designation for the members of
Yahweh's council (Zech 14:5 [reading q?@dosim ‘immé with the
ipOcls Wise Yioitin OieSe wire Sols (weeais Wem “eld, Wh, AUS wite
Hos 12:1; Prov 9:10; 30:3; Exod 15:11). Though Yahweh himself
LS qelte) Usyiby Oni" (Ghoar LOSBOS sa Oesn BS Ges, By Sin was
members of his assembly are designated by the same term (com-
pare "HAoc-"EAwetu, Praep. evang. 1.10.20).
But the members of the council are clearly inferior to
Yahweh. This is revealed in numerous biblical passages where
the presumed background is the council of the gods. Ps 89:7
notes that none of the b@né °él%m can be compared with Yahweh.
Yahweh is greater and more fearful than all the beings who
surround him (vy. 8). The antiquity os this (concept xs, seen
in its occurrence in the archaic poem in Exodus 15:

mi-kamokah ba’élim YHWH

mi-kamodkah ne’dar baqqédes
(Cre)

Who is like you among the gods, O Yahweh?

Who is like you, terrible among the holy ones?

The parallelism makes it clear that no god (?éZt%m) nor "Holy

One" (qédes) can be compared with Yahweh. Significantly, the
occurrence of ’éZ%m in this verse constitutes the only bibli-
cal example of the plural ’éltm as a designation of divine
beings before the time of late apocalyptic works, as Dan
Lasonee® The "Holy Ones'' who constitute the assembly are
gods, but they are not Yahweh's equals. The high god stands
apart, greater and more feared than all the divine beings
(‘al kol-*élohim, Pss 95:3; 96:4 =<] Chr 16:25) who surround
him in his court. The only setting for such a comparison and
exaltation of Yahweh is the scene found within the heavenly
councils (cfs allsomDeus Si243) LO< 17S WkKas S2559 Jer w0:6sePss
HOSA aR ISS ALR SeoNc
Thus, the "Holy Ones," the q@dosim of Deut 33:2-3, are
a a a ee ee ee ee
SO) CMA ER AiO),
 1s

the members of Yahweh's court and of his army. Yahweh is e=

tured with his heavenly chariotry and entourage in Psalm 68,
which W. F. Albright analyzed as a collection of incipits of
songs composed between the 13th and 10th centuries B.C. and
first written down during the Solomonic period or slightly
later, 137

rékeb ’€lohim ribbotayim

6 Son©né [YHWH]
] z
misstnay baqqédes! 38
(Ps 68:18)

The chariots of God are two thousand;

Thousands are the warriors/archers of Yahweh
When he came from Sinai with the holy ones.

Here the military functions of the "Holy Ones" are made even
more explicit. They compose the heavenly army, the chariotry
and archers, of Yahweh when he marches out to battle. This
psalm also contains reference to the reaction of the earth at
the appearance of the Divine Warrior: all nature blanches
(WiVinGno OG Cte OUC SES: 4 Opes as 4a JODEZ Ocul compare alsa
AA3235; 49:15). That the appearance of Yahweh with his host
was indeed a frightening theophany is seen in the archaic
psalm of Habakkuk:

137. “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm

LAD EGA ee) (ANOS
OS sab} Bile).
138. We have followed the reconstructions of Cross
(CMHE, 102) and Albright ("A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric
Poems," 14, 24-25). We read YHWH for ’adddnay, a later litur-
gical substitution for the divine name. On the meaning of snn
as "warrior,'' which we have vocalized as a plural G participle
in the construct state, see Albright's remarks, p. 25, and
Ugaritic tnn, "composite bow." In the final line bo’, the G
infinitive construct, has been lost by haplography. It is
obvious that the tricolon requires a verb, which must be
reconstructed.
194

1€panaw yélek daber

weyésé’ réSep 1°raglaw
(aby 335)

Before him Pestilence marched,

And Plague went forth at his feet.

The Divine Warrior's march in the South is clear from verse 3.

Here, the designation of the members of the military entourage
as Pestilence (daber) and Plague (résep) shows the terror in-
volved in the theophany of the Divine Warrior. 139 The inclu-
sion of ReSep, the god of pestilence and disease, is not sur-
prising. As this god could be invoked in the assembly when
the concern was tom progeny (cin €TA15 700. o)),eso ne could
also accompany the warrior-god in combat.
Beyond this designation of the warrior-entourage as gods
and “Holy Ones," the biblical traditions explicitly note that
the host of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars, comprised the
army and council of Yahweh. In the Song of Deborah, dated to
the 12th/11lth century pace Gheas tars “are scemeas partner.
Pantsmaneehes Dateler

min-Samayim nilhami hakkékabim

mimm€silldtam nilhami ‘im-sis®ra’
(Judg 5:20)

From the heavens, the stars fought,

From their stations, they fought with Siseras

USO One thesstructures of ethespsalmea seem Nims menlibwachite

"The Psalm of Habakkuk," in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy,
Kolo Wel aly Awontelene (@achinayemmels Whoa, Wis KGalekele., MOS Ae Wal, “isons
an interpretation of the poem and its setting, see J. H. Eaton,
"The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk:3," ZAW 76 (1964) 144-171.
140. F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studtes in Anctent
Yahwtstte Poetry, SBL Dissertation Series 21 (Missoula, Mon-
weblele — SKelMoicines) insists, UGS SS Wo I, JAirelesate. ¥GO ea Ll 138
141. For the translation “stations, constellations" for
m@stil6t, see F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studtes in An-
etent Yahwistte Poetry, 17, n. g. Compare the Ugaritic mal
(CTA 14.11.99-100; IV.187-188).
 IOS

The battle led by Deborah is here seen as being cosmic in

scope, since Israel conceived of the battle as being divine-
ly led. It became cosmic with the entry of Yahweh and his
heavenly host into the field. That these stars were consid-
ered divine beings, members of Yahweh's council, is clearly
Sta cede nmdiobees 8 c/=

b€ran-ydhad k6k®bé béger

wayyari‘ti kol-b©né *&16him

While the morning stars sang together,

And all the sons of God exulted.

The parallelism of kdk@bé béger with kol-bené *31dnim clearly

includes the stars among the assembly members. They consti-
tute, in part, "the host of heaven" (s?ba’? ha&sSamayim). They
form the assembly and act as allies and instruments of praise
for Yahweh (cf. Isa 40:26; Ps 148:3), their creator and lead-
er. the stars and heavens are also included as members in the
assembly in Ugaritic literature:

[wa-rigmu] du lu yada‘u banu ’ili

[du lu yabinu] puhru kakkabuma
[ - - - - ] daru data Samtima
(GZA10inb 53-5)
[And tell,] that the sons of ’E1l may know,
[And that] the assembly of the stars [may
understand]
[= -)—— I) the council ot the heavens [may aa

Thus, the host of heaven, specifically the stars, are to be

included in Yahweh's retinue. Like the ''Holy Ones," the stars

142. We have followed here the reconstruction of G. R.

Driver (CML, 114-116) for the first two lines. Driver recon-

structs the third as [k ttb tr]d rdt émm, "that the downpour
of rain will again come down." If our interpretation of the
first two cola is correct, we would expect a similar expres-
sion to complete the parallelism.
196

can serve as military members in Yahweh's heavenly army.1*?

In OTA 15.11.4, if our reconstruction is correct, both

Sapsu, the sun, and Yarihu, the moon, are included in ’El1's

assembly. Hebrew tradition also notes that the sun and moon
are members of Yahweh's entourage:

12bzémeS begib‘én dom

weyaréth be‘émeq ’ayyalén
15avayyiddom haS$émeS w°yaréh ‘amad
‘ad-yiqqom géy ’oy©baw
(Josh, 10: 12b-13.a)

12bictand Sigawe O) Sei, i CEvalllayexoiay,.

And Moon in the valley of Aijalon!"
13a,na the sun stood and the moon stayed
Until the nation took vengeance on its enemies.

These verses contain a remarkable personification of the sun

and moon, who are depicted as members of Yahweh's military
host. In Joshua's fight against the five Amorite kings, the
Divine Warrior appears with his host, casting down "large
stones" (?dbanitm g@doldt), i.e., hailstones (*abné habbarad),
killing more of the enemy than "the men of Israel killed with
the sword" (v. 11). The command of Yahweh to the personified
sun and moon comes forth as an imperative: ddm, “Stand
still." The command to battle is clear. The forces of na-
ture 7 O1n ‘thes Divane Warrior wan hus tc tory anes Sune anc
moon, like the stars, are included among the host of Yahweh.
In Ps 148:2-3, Yahweh receives praise from the members of his
council: “his messengers! (nate akaw), “has host (62 ba-iaw
[@°ré]), “the sun" (Sémes), "the moon" (yaré%h), and "all the
stars of light" (kol-kdk®bé ’dr),. All the heavenly bodies are
included in the council. They are all members of Yahweh's
military retinue. Though they are divine beings, members of
the heavenly army, their cult and worship is explicitly pro-
hibited in biblical tradition. The worship of the sun, moon,
ee a Rc a ee ee eg OL Se ee og,
143. Note that Philo records that Ouranos was deified
upon his death (Praep. evang. 1.10.29). The host of heaven
andy thes sitans are valisomidentitted imum enone 04 2emonmetes
 O77,

and "all the host of heaven" (kol-s%ba’? haSSama@yim) is ex-

pressly forbidden in Deut 4:19; 17:3 (cf. Jer 8:2). That such
worship was practiced is evidenced by 2 Kgs 21:2-5, which re-
cords that during the reign of Manasseh, altars were erected
to Ba‘l and °’ASérah (Ugaritic ’Atirat), and the people wor-
shipped "all the host of heaven" (compare Josiah's attempt to
eradicate these practices, 2 Kgs 23:4-5). To worship: the
"host of heaven'' was to worship "other gods" (?81dhtm ° Zherim,
JeGelo sts). this creation om Yahweh (er. Vsiay 4026) was: not
to be worshipped. These olden gods, completely demythologized
in Israel's liturgical life, were not viewed as active members
of the cultus. The Israelite cultus could recognize the wor-
ship of Yahweh alone. Yet alongside this only god, it was
possible to place the personified members of the heavens as
the warriors and allies of Yahweh.
Biblical tradition records further evidence of Yahweh as
DivinesWarrTonr.= Inthe waddressein Joel 1419-17, the Davine
Warrior is seen mustering his troops. Here the assembly is
called by the herald to proclaim holy war: 144

qir’t-zo’t baggdyim

qadd©St milhamah
ha‘irti haggibbérim
yigg®st ya‘alt
kol ’ansé hammilhamah
(Joel 4:9)

Proclaim this among the nations!

Sanctify war!
Arouse the warriors!
Let them draw near and go up,
All the men of war.

The call is for the warriors to sanctify themselves for bat-

tle. It is the call to arms. Inv. 11 the nations are in-

voked to gather round. Then the address shifts: "Bring down,

0 Yahweh, your warriors" (hanhat YHWH gtbboréka, Lib) Glean=

ee ee Se Se ee

144. 'P. Miller, Phe Divine Warrtor, 137.

198

ly, this can only be a request for Yahweh to come to the aid
of the nation with his heavenly host, here designated by the
term gtbbérim (cf. Ps 103:20; Isa 13:3). Similar calls to
the divine host are found in Isa 13:1-5, where, in v. 3, the
warriors are designated as "my consecrated ones" (m@quddasay) ,
"my warriors" (gibbéray), and "my proudly exulting ones"
(rabveze galaee we The failure to respond to the call
to holy war brings about the curse, vividly proclaimed by
the messenger of Yahweh:

?6rfi <’ardr> mérodz

?amar mal’ak YHWH
-O6rfi *arér yos©béha
ki lo?-bazu NS%ezrat YEWE
1©*‘ezrat YHWH baggibbérim
(uid gse25))

Bitterly curse Meroz,

Saith the messenger of Yahweh,
Bitterly curse her inhabitants
For they did not come to the help of Yahweh,
To the help of Yahweh with warriors ./*

The address of the messenger of Yahweh is in plural impera-

tives, the same form used in the Ugaritic messenger formula.
The decision of Yahweh is announced to the council by the
mal?ak YHWH.
This figure, the messenger, is found throughout the bib-
lical material as a member of the assembly. It was the func-
tion of the heavenly host to praise Yahweh in the council and
to accompany him in war. The mal’?ak YHWH served in both

145. Other examples of this motif are found in Judg

SAS SOS ORME1 Sime lscial acs O)see
Onsemeas sateloe
146. We have inserted *ardr into the first colon for
metrical balance. The word was lost through a vertical
WMEYOMOweehoayen (Gres 15 Wl, CiMeOSS—. Guy, I, wm, I, Cross
omits mal’ak as secondary; while the phrase mal?ak YHWH is
most probably a gloss, we have retained the reading of the
MT, which is supported by the versions.
 IS

Capacities. In Gen 32:2-3, Jacob encounters "the messengers

of God" (mal?aké °Sldhtm, v. 2) and identifies them as the
“army of God" (mah&néh °&1dhtm, v. 3), which provides an
aetiology for the place Mahtndyim, 147 ThilsP ri gunemis also
encountered in Josh 5:13-15. When in Jericho, Joshua sees
"a man standing before him, his sword drawn in his hand" (Ga
13). The warrior identifies himself as "the prince of the
army of Yahweh" (Sar-g°ba’-YHWH). That he is a messenger is
made clear in v. 14, for Joshua asks him, "What does my lord
(?Gdont) have to say unto his servant?" Regretfully, the mes-
sage of the heavenly courier has been lost or omitted from the
text. “Despite the) lack of the message, it is clear that this
being was a part of the heavenly host of Yahweh. To this fig-
ure may also be compared the mal’?ak ha?&lodhtm who led the peo-
ple in their march from Egypt, appearing as a pillar of cloud
(Exod 14:19). A frequent part of the messenger imagery in
Hebrew literature is their bearing of swords (cf. Gen 3:24;
Num 22:31; Josh 5:13). Like the flaming messengers of
Yamm in CTA 2.1.32-33, the messengers of Yahweh are also
aeGconpantedsDythemimageryeOreti re: (Ps. UO4s4 =Poe S0n sn er.
Gen 3:24; Amos 1:4, 10). While their function is clearly one
of war, they serve also as the herald of the council. Their
function in the assembly is also to praise the deity (Pss
MOS
a7Ole Ot) nena pad Marya rule’ HOM, —MOWeViet mt Smas stile
herald, the messenger who delivers the decree of Yahweh.
In addition to their participation in divine warfare,
another function of the members of the council is to praise
and adore their leader. This is most clearly seen in Ps
BQ)
Ne 152
ct a le Se te a ee EY 5 OE a eee ee ee
147. Note that the "messengers of God" evoke a place
name that is dual in its formation. That messengers generally
travelled in pairs is clear from the Ugaritic texts where Ba‘l

has his two messengers, gpn and ’ugr, and ’Atirat hers, qds
and ’amrr. While both sets of messengers are joined by the
conjunction w, and appear to be compound names, like ktr-w-

hss, that they are actually two distinct messengers has been

shown by H. L. Ginsberg, "'Baal's Two Messengers,"' BASOR 95

(1944) 25-30.
200

Inaba la-YHWH bené *élim

habfi la-YHWH kabéd wa‘ oz
*habfi la-YHWH k@béd 3&mé
hiStahiwi la-YHWH b®hadrat-qédes
lascribe to Yahweh, O gods!
Ascribe to Yahweh glory and honor!
2\scribe to Yahweh the glory of his name!
Prostrate yourselves to Yahweh when he appears
in holiness!!*8

Here, the gods, the b@né *élim (or possibly b@né *él-mt), are
invoked to praise Yahweh in his council, in the midst of his
temple (cf. v. oy Though the psalm has been shown quite
convincingly to have been originally a hymn to the victorious
150
Wanrione Bards the imagery of the council members giving
lavish praise to the Divine Warrior has been transferred to
Yahweh. It is Yahweh who is king:

YHWH lammabbil yasab

wayyéSeb YHWH mélek 1°614m
(vice On)

148. We follow the reading “appearance" for b?hadrat in

v. 2 proposed by F. M. Cross, "Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in
the OldeTestament3 2Asor 117 (1950), 2s Cues yi S2—155 anne
28-29 andwH. Ww. Kraus, featmen, Band i we2son shnausmnotes
that hdrh also has the meaning "appearance" in Ps 96:9 and
1 Chr 16:29 (cf. Ugaritic hdrt, which parallels him in CTA
Ts SSS Nic
i40n- “lv HeiGaster res cores the corrupts texto Leveeeomte
read:

The congregation of the holy ones praise him,

And in his palace, all of it recites his glory.
The line has dropped out by haplography. "Psalm 29," JQR 37
(1946-1947) 62.
150. For this interpretation, see the works cited in
the previous two notes.
 201

Yahweh sits enthroned over the Flood,

Yahweh is enthroned as the eternal king.

Through his victory over the Flood-dragon (vv. 3-9; cf. Pss
Cee lee) eo pOcli2 ee LO Auenee L SaeS 1/9) 8 Valhiwehdss eni=
throned as king over the gods, the members of the council.
Yahweh is viewed as king in the earliest poetry of Israel
(Exod 15:18; Deut 33:5; Ps 68:25) and throughout her litera-
EUS (Gio PSs MET oNOS ASO, Ossi O5S5e COeIs thea chile vis
ASSNSR Cbs: QS 7S Were Cos iiss WS SS isi C15 i/o eee hy le Shs
clear that Yahweh, like ’El, was viewed as king within the
heavenly realm from the earliest period of Israel's histo-
eae His kingship, like the kingship of ’El (called malku
“O6lamt), was eternal (Exod 15:18; Jer 10:10; Pss 9:8; IO Io?
ZR O IO On anodeOe Sis 2 onloa CC.) mut Was esttabienshed
over the gods and over the nations via his victories as the
Divine Warrior. The parallels with both the Phoenician ac-
count of the kingship of ’El and the Ugaritic depiction of
the kingship of Ba‘l are readily apparent. Thus, the proper
attitude of the gods constituting the assembly was one of
adoration and praise for their victorious warrior-king.!°?

151. W. H. Schmidt (Kéntgtum Gottes, 53-54) asserts that

the passages which refer to Yahweh's eternal kingship go back
originally to the kingship of Ba‘l (cf. CTA 2.1V.10). The
epithet malku ‘dlamt, which is applied to ?E1, makes such a
clear distinction impossible. The mixing of ’El and Ba‘1 tra-
ditions in biblical descriptions of Yahweh compels one to stu-
dy the form of each application of eternal kingship in order
to determine whether its origin lies in Ba‘l or ’El imagery.
152. One important reference to the gods giving praise
to Yahweh is contained in Deut 32:43 (LXX). The first two
lines of the Greek text, missing from the MT, reflect the
following underlying Hebrew:
harninfi Samayim ‘immé
wehiStahawi 16 b©né *é1/’é1d6him

Rejoice with him, O heavens!

And prostrate yourselves to him, O gods!
202

But Hebrew tradition alludes to one further aspect of

the council of the gods. The members of the assembly seem

also to be the gods of the nations. This fact is portrayed

ain Deke SAS =8)s

8 ehanhél ‘elyin goyim

behapridé bené *adam
yasseb g©bulot ‘ammim
1€mispar bené <’élohim>
9 kit héleq YHWH ‘ammé
ya‘aqob hébel nahalaté
SWhen ‘Ely6n apportioned the nations,
When he separated the sons of man,
He established the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of God.
But Yahweh's portion was his people,
Jacob was his allotted inheritance.

While the LXX reading, dyyYéAwv Gc00, "the sons of God," for
the MT's b°né yiéra’él, "the sons of Israel," has long been
known, the discovery of fragments of Deuteronomy 32 from cave
4 of Qumran has finally provided sufficient evidence to deter-
mine the proper reading. The best fragment from cave 4 clear-
ly contains the reading bené °815ntm, 1° which we have adopted

The reconstruction of the full text of the passage is filled

With difficulties. The Greek records ezpht full cola, the
seventh of which appears to be an interpolation of 32:41. The
MT preserves only four cola. The fragment from cave 4 of Qum-
ran preserves six full cola. On the problems of the verse and
its reconstruction, see W. F. Albright, "Some Remarks on the
Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII," V7 9 (1959) 340-341;
P. W. Skehan, "A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut. 32)
from Qumran," 13-15; F. M. Cross, The Anetent Library of Qum-
ran and Modern Btbltcal Studtes, revised edition (Garden City,
Neva |Doubleday and Company: Inc, shGollieee eal San
153. Cf. P. W. Skehan, "Qumran and the Present State of
Old Testament Text Studies," 21, and "A Fragment of the 'Song
of Moses" (Deut. 52) trom OQunran," 2-13 Thestragmentnot
 203

in our text. No longer must commentators attempt to explain

the reading of the mr. 254 The insertion of b@né *215htm into
the text vividly elucidates the form and impact of the poem.
This piece, written in the ninth century B.C., 155 records the
account
of the apportionment of the nations among the members
of the divine assembly. The concept of the distribution of
the nations among the gods is well known in the Deuteronomic
corpus. In Deut 4:19, the people of Israel are explicitly
prohibited from worshipping the sun, moon, stars, or any of
the host of heaven, or from serving those "whom Yahweh your
God allotted (halaq) them to all the peoples under the heav-
ens" (cf. Deut 29:25). As we have seen above, these beings
are the members of Yahweh's council. Allied to him in holy
war, subservient to him in the council, they serve as the
guardians of the other nations. This theme is repeated in
apocalyptic material:

For every nation he appointed a ruler,

BuEwusracl vss che? LordYseportzon.
(Saag WY SMS Cabo. Simao IMS3 Sala 7)

Later material presents the members of the assembly as guardi-

ans over the peoples (Dan 4:10, 14, 20; 1 Enoch 10:9; 12:2,
A Vas S25 ete.)). But. the combined emphasis o£ the
literature preserves the view that Israel was Yahweh's por-

Deuteronomy 32, it should be noted, is late. The reading b@né

28lohtm may reflect an earlier, more original b@né °é1, as is
commonly found in the Ugaritic designation of the gods as bn
CEL
TO)re
154. See, for example, the defense of the MT reading
given by S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, The International Critical
Commentary (Edinburgh: T. @ T. Clark, 19735), 355-356.
SS GeEeicacht eine Lawsuit vot God. A Form=Critical
Study of Deuteronomy 32," 62-65. Wright places the composi-
tion of the hymn between ca. 815-805 B.C. (p. 67). W. F.
Albright dates the poem to ca. 1025 B.C. (YGc, 15)),. but the

evidence cited by Wright makes the ninth century B.C. date

more probable.
204

tiem, °
In Deut 32:8-9 the assembly is gathered, the nations are
apportioned. Verse 8 notes explicitly that it is the god
‘Elyén who distributes the nations among the members of the
assembly. This has given rise to two interpretations of the
position of Yahweh in the council. 0. Eissfeldt has defended
the view that ‘Ely6én here appears as a superior to Yahweh. It
is ‘Ely6n who appears at the head of the council and appor-
tions the nations among the gods, one of whom is Yahweh. This
argument is supported by the position of ‘Elyén in Gen 14:18-
24. Further, it is probable that Yahweh recognizes the supe-
riority of ’E1/‘Ely6én, here regarded as a distinct deity (cf.
Isa 142135 Baek 282) The preservation of such a view in
Hebrew literature would be most remarkable, however. We find
the better interpretation to be in the view that ‘Elydén and
Yahweh are to be identified in vv. 8-9. Though ‘Elyén is
noted as the god of Jerusalem in Gen 14:18-24, neither bibli-
cal nor extra-biblical tradition reflects the exact nature of
the olden god °Elyon (ci. Praep.. evang=sd.U0), 14). ie es
clear, however, that within biblical tradition ‘Elyén was
regarded as a suitable appellative for Yahweh (cf. Num 24:16,
where ‘Elyén parallels °E1 and Sadday; Ps 18:14 = 2 Sam 22:14,
where it parallels Yahweh; Gen 14:22, where ’El ‘Elyén is ap-
plied as an epithet of Yahweh; Ps 47:3, where ‘Elyén is an
epithet of Yahweh; etc.). Traditions in Hebrew usage of the
term make it most probable that the writer here equates ‘Elyén
and Yahweh. According to the analysis of W. F. Albright, this
is "another example of parallelism carried over groups of
verses ."198 If our interpretation that ‘Elyén = Yahweh is
correct, then Deuteronomy 32 becomes a conceptual unity. This
unity, the r?b, or covenant lawsuit, which has been studied
thoroughly by G. E. Wright ,1°9 depicts the deity as judge and

156. On the significance of the term nahdlatd, see

AD OVE epic Solomon
LS MEivands Yahweh! 7Sicude. (O56) a8 —s0e
158. ‘Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy
XN Eee SAS
159. "The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of
 205

plaintiff. Yahweh both prosecutes the apostate nation and

delivers judgment upon it. The setting is clean vartha tor
the law court. The other deities seem to have no function
in the proceedings. As in the scenes of the assembly in Uga-
ritic literature, they are simply present. But Deuteronomy 32
presents them as the guardians of the other nations. Though
they perform no actions in this piece, their subservience and
responsibility to Yahweh are vividly seen in the court pro-
ceedings recorded in Psalm 82. use The identity of ‘Elyén and
Yahweh in vv. 8-9 seems clear. Yahweh/‘Ely6n distributed the
nations among the members of his council (compare the actions
of Kronos in Praep. evang. 1.10.31-35), preserving Israel as
his own portion.
The members of the council in Hebrew literature are seen
throughout as being much more animated than the shadowy gods
who compose the puhru mé‘tdu in the Canaanite texts. Their
functions are clearly the same, however. They are the warri-
or-allies of the high god. They worship and adore the head of
chewassemnblye Uhelreaprimanypurposelas comserve. —Thas as
vividly illustrated in two views of the council in prophetic
literature--the visions of Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kgs 22:19-23;
Gina Chmaikselo=22)mandwot Lsavahs(lsarah (6) ein ieach ot ithe
visions the members of the council function as servants and
executors of the decree of the assembly pronounced by Yahweh.
The meeting of the council is described in some detail in
thesvision of Mucataheaim 4) Kese22919-23. "Ahab om Israelyand
Jehoshaphat of Judah, having received a favorable oracle from
the four hundred prophets (22:5-6), summoned Micaiah (vv. 8-
9), whose oracle (v. 17) differed quite drastically from that
of the other prophets. The vision of the proceedings in the
council reveals the reason for the discrepancy--Yahweh had
commanded a false oracle from the prophets and one of his
council members carried out his decree. The vision of Micaiah
a a a

Deuteronomy 32," 26-67. See also H. B. Huffmon, "The Covenant

Lawsuit in the Prophets," JBL 78 (1959) 285-295. Other exam-
ples of the rtp pattern are found in Mic 6:2; Jer 2:4-13; Ps
SOLAS Cre Jeo AUS Ala
160. See our treatment below, pp. 226-244,
206

is introduced with an imperative and the announcement of his

authority: 8@ma‘ d®bar-YHWH, "'Hear the word of Yahweh" (v.
19). Like the messengers in the Ugaritic texts, the message
to or from the council is accompanied by the explicit mention
of the sender, thm DN, the semantic and literary equivalent of
d’bar yawn. 2° Having stated the authority for the message he
was to deliver, Micaiah proceeds with his vision: "I saw Yah-
weh enthroned upon his dais, and all the host of heaven (kol-
s°ba’ hassamayim) were standing about him (‘oméd ‘alaw) on his
right and von his ete (vael9) the heavenly es ceneerscteans-
Yahweh, like ’El1, is enthroned among the members of his coun-
CLINE (CEN IOLA SUG ViO 28s eugene Ve2d 2-4 ERS a2 a2)521) ee hemchen
directly addresses his council: "Who will entice Ahab...?"
(mt y@patteh *et-’ah’?ab, v. 20; compare ’El's question, "Who
among the: gods will drive o£f the alimess...%5.) my 1b 7 tm iydy
ache LE IN
5 OSM WIE aay Oa helt. TelNe WWyreie
ritic council, where the gods sit helplessly by, unable even
Co “anisweniC ened Liman ha) LO View 2 Se hone, 22) clemmre nm
bers of Yahweh's council discuss the matter among themselves:
"One said one thing and another said another" (v. 20). When
the matter has been decided among the members, one of them
addresses the head of the assembly: "The spirit came forth
and stood before Yahweh" (wayyésé’ hari%h wayya‘amod 1ipné
YHWH, v. 21). The volunteer from the council is designated
as "the spirit" (hara%h), a common designation of Yahweh's
MESSienGewSsa (Cie PSSM 4S Si See Samnee Zi lela) ome Gere eenOlly
SOMA Dit C2 oC CG eh. me ehh Ss pale Volunteer SmendatsmUuCse
tioned by Yahweh as to his plan (v. 21). When he reveals that
he will become "a lying spirit in the mouth of all the proph-
ets," Yahweh pronounces that he will succeed (wv. 22))5 Final-
ly, the messenger of the council is commissioned with impera-
tives, "Go forth and do so" (sé? wa‘aséh-kén, v. 22), in the
same manner that messengers in the Ugaritic myths were dis-
patched. Verse 23, the final part of the vision, recounts
that the messenger has carried out his function--the decree
case St el A ee Sr ai a ke a ee re ee
161. The role of the prophet as the messenger of the
heavenly council will be considered in the next section (pp.
209-226).
 207

of the assembly has been fulfilled. The parallels with the

Ugaritic council are evident. The gods surround the high god,
who is enthroned in their midst. They "stand" (ma) 162 before
him and respond to his questions. Yahweh selects his messen-
ger and commissions him to proceed, after guaranteeing the
success of the mission. The word and decision of the council
are the same as the decree of Yahweh. The council only serves
to reemphasize and execute his decision. Its members carry
out his decree exactly as commissioned.
The vision of Isaiah 6 provides another description of
the council which closely parallels that of Micaiah. Isaiah's
vision begins with a statement similar to that of Micaiah: "I
saw the Lord enthroned upon the dais" (wa’ereh *et-* dddnay
yoséb ‘al-kissé’, v. 1). The setting is designated as the
temple (hékal, v. 1), the earthly prototype of the heavenly
abode. In place of the “host of heaven," who surrounded Yah-
weh in Micaiah's vision, Isaiah sees the seraphim (8?rapim)
standing (‘dm?@dtm) about the throne (v. 2). The seraphim are
described in v. 2 as having six wings each; with two they cov-
ered their face; with two, their feet; with two, they flew.
Nothing more is said of the seraphim in biblical literature
outside of the vision of Isaiah. 163 If the name is taken from
the root Srp, ''to burn," then the description of these flaming
winged creatures would fit well with the description of the
winged allies of °El (cf. Praep. evang. 1.10.37) and the fiery
messengers of Yamm (CTA 2.1.32-33). Undoubtedly it is against
this mythic background that the seraphim, as well as the cher-
164
ubim, are to be viewed. The members of the council speak

162. For the discussion of this and other technical

terms in Hebrew which designate participation in the assembly,
see below, p. 231.
163. Elsewhere in Hebrew literature the noun sarap re-
fers to "fiery serpents" (Num 21:6, 8; Deut 8:15). In Isa
14:29 and 30:6, it refers to a flying serpent. Only in the
vision in Isa 6:1-8 are the 8?raptm personified.
164. Many different pictures of the cherubim (k?ribim)
are portrayed in the biblical material. The cherub serves as
the armed guardian of the garden of Eden in Gen 3:24. The
208

to one another and praise Yahweh: "Holy, Holy, Holy is the

Lord of (the heavenly) hosts!" (YHWH s@ba’?dt, v. 3). Inv.
4, the narrative records the theophany of Yahweh, announced
by the herald of the assembly: "The foundations of the
thresholds shook from the voice of the one calling" (mtqqdt
haqqoré’ ; compare Isa 40:6). The announcement of Yahweh's
appearance in his council is not given, but it is noted in
the fact that "the temple was filled with smoke" (habbaytt
ytmmalé? ‘asan, v. 4). Isaiah's lament over his unclean state
(v. 5) is answered by one of the heavenly attendants, who pro-
ceeds to cleanse the prophet (vv. 6-7). Inv. 8, Yahweh
speaks to his council, framing his decree as a question to the
assembly (cf. Micaiah's vision and ’El's address to his assem-
blyje “'Whom@shalie i "sendy and whowshald go “for us! (anc, tie
assembly)?" (mt *eSlah timt yélek-lana, Vv. 8). “Instead of “one
of the members responding to the question, as in Micaiah's
vision, here the prophet himself responds, saying, ''Send me!"
(v. 8). He is accepted as the envoy of the council and is
commissioned with the imperative "Go!" (Zeék, v. 9). The mes-
sage “he is “to delaverris ‘given to him (vv. 9-10). On analogy
with the commissioning of the messenger in Ugaritic litera-
ture, the prophet here would be expected to deliver the word
of his master to its receiver exactly as it had been given to
him.
These two biblical accounts of the assembly of Yahweh
show a remarkable amount of similarity, both with each other
and with the Ugaritic account in CTA 16.V.9-28. In all three

wings of the cherubim support the throne of Yahweh (Pss 80:2;

99:1; Isa 37:16). Mounted on the cherub, Yahweh flies through
the heavens (2 Sam 22:11 = Ps 18:11). In the visions of Ezek
1:4-28 and 10:3-22, they are pictured as having four wings and
four faces and being accompanied by whirling wheels. Images
of them were upon the Ark, and upon their outstretched wings,
Yahweh was enthroned (Exod 25:18-20; 37:6-9; Num 7:89; 1 Sam
4:4). These creatures, though not portrayed in the litera-
ture as members of the court, obviously serve as helpers and
messengers for the deity, and should be seen as members of
the assembly like the seraphim.
 209

the assembly meets under the leadership of the high god. The
lesser divinities who comprise the council receive the GES =
tion from the deity. In the two Hebrew accounts, a member of
the assembly volunteers to carry out the decree of the high
god. In Micaiah's vision, it is a member of the heavenly en-
tourage, "the spirit" (har#%h). In Isaiah's vision, the
prophet himself is commissioned by Yahweh to deliver the mes-
sage of the council. In both, the council envoy is dispatched
via the imperative "Go!" (sé’; 2ék). The replacement of the
council member by the prophet Isaiah requires us to consider
briefly the roles of the messenger and the prophet in the set-
ting of the divine council.

The Messenger of the Council and the Prophet

In the previous section, we have discussed the major

active members of the divine council and their functions as
well as can be determined from the evidence presently avail-
able. The members of the assembly were the gods of the pan-
theon. The council was headed by the high god of the panthe-
on: Anu in Mesopotamia, ’El in Canaan, and Yahweh in Israel.
The various members of the council, especially in Canaanite
and Israelite literature, served numerous functions. They
accompanied the major deity in warfare and they gave praise
to his glorious position. These gods served one further, even
more important function--they could be employed as the heralds
of the council who proclaimed the decisions of the high god.
If our equation of the decree of ?El with the decree of the
council is correct (and all available evidence justifies such
an equation), then the deities who carried the message/decree
of the council in Ugaritic literature have their definite
counterparts in the Israelite concept of the divine assembly
(cf dl Kes) 22719-2353). We have noted above! °° the messages
delivered by the envoys of the various gods and the strict
literary formula (tahimu//huwatu) accompanied by imperatives

used to commission them. After the commissioning of the

messenger, the message was delivered in precisely the same
J a eee EEE ee

UGSaa GL weppo7-144 and nm.) 56.

210

words that had been given to the divine couriers. The form of
the message, as repeated, leaves no doubt as to the concept of

the authority of the messenger--the envoy had the same author-

ity as the deity who dispatched hie
Though we have studied the dispatchment and deliverance
of the message in the Ugaritic materials, the exact nature of
those gods who served as messengers remains to be considered.
The most common designation for "messenger" in Ugaritic is
ml?ak (cf. Hebrew mal’ak), which is employed twenty-one times
in the texts from Ras Shamra. Nine of these occurrences are
Eontained aC Awe2a Clee de e2i2)— ed Oe S ames Ore OL eb mec ela)
and all refer to the messengers of Yamm. It is clear from the
verbal forms employed and by analogy with the messengers of
Ba‘l and ’Atirat that they are dispatched in pairs. 167 Saxo
these occurrences specifically designate the messengers as the
personal envoys of Yamm (mal’?aka yammt). Despite the numerous
references to messengers in the texts from Ugarit, the word
ml?ak is directly connected only with the god Yamm in the
mythological texts. The description of these messengers in
CTA 2.1.32-33 ("A fire, two fires, they appear//Their tongues
a sharpened sword") reveals the power displayed by the envoys,
who were no doubt part of the military entourage of Yamm (com-
jens (Ce SSS IN AAS Sls Ios Salsowss Wag S7s5g ids ahs
etc.). Apart from their specific designation as 'messengers"
Pe Ee ray ee they are also called ta‘aidata, “envoys,

166. Cf. J. F. Ross, "The Prophet as Yahweh's Messen-

ger,'' in Israel's Prophette Heritage, 101.
167. See the discussion of the messengers of Ba‘1 by
Hedi. Ginsberg, “Baall's!) Two Messengemsi,"" 25-505) ©Cio. Genius2c ee
BR cosa “ail.
lG8ee In they Bari cycle; mwlrlam
Gn mocaums) omy sing Om ae
in reference to the messengers of Yamm. The term occurs three
times in other mythic texts, but each occurrence is broken and
the deity with whom the messengers are to be connected is dif-
ficult to determine. In the broken text of Ug. V.6.10b-12
(RS 24.272) we read "and your messengers arrive" (w ymg
ml?akk), possibly referring to the messengers of ’El (cf. 11.
IZ, k ymgy D *adn -tim rbm)i..) GRA 326),6 valiso icontaims) the word
 Bilal

representatives," and galma-mi, "lads, military personne1,"'1©9

The former designation (t‘dt) is restricted solely to the
messengers of Yamm, while the latter term (gZmm) is also used
to describe the envoys of Ba‘l and *Atirat.
ee eS ee Sy
"messenger(s)" (m]Z?akm th), as does 13.25 (niz ak), but- the
one who commissioned them cannot be determined. The term al-
so occurs outside the mythic cycle in the Kirta epic, desig-
nating the messengers of King Pabil to Kirta (14.111.124; VI.
264; cf. 111.137) and Kirta's messengers to Pabil (14.V1I.300).
"Messenger" is also employed in royal and personal correspond-
Meo. (Gs AT WiseAelys UASSSG WSS WIGS Cale Ale AlaWleainis.
all royal/personal letters presume the usage and presence of
messengers.
169. The terms t*dt and glmm as designations of messen-
gers require comment. For t*dt we have followed the vocaliza-
tion of Hebrew ¢?*idah, "'testimony, attestation,"' from the
denominative verb ‘wd. In biblical literature the word is at-
ESSteG omy Cmeee imMeS. ln Se Geilo, 20, we aieleie ais (eons
nected with tdrah, which gives an authoritative sense of
"law, pronouncement" to the word. (t?‘tidah also occurs in
Ruth 4:7; on the authority implied in the term t?*‘idah, cf.
Isa 2:3, where térah, the poetic parallel of 4° “tdah, is in
parallel with d?bar YHWH.) J. Aistleitner derives the term
from the root y‘d, translating "Vollmacht, Bevollmachtigter"
(Wirterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache, no. 1195). G. R. Driver
(CML, 152) derives ¢*dt from the root w‘d (cf. Hebrew ya‘ad).
€. Gordon (U7, no. 1852) derives 1t from ‘wd, in agreement
with the etymology we have suggested. One further etymology
is possible. In the Zakir inscription (KAZ 202.A.12), the
word ‘ddn, "messenger," occurs, suggesting the root ‘dd (cf.
Arabic ‘adda, "to count, number;"' ta‘dad, ''enumeration, count-
ime”), Hor € Gi seWSSa@im C2 ide HOOU Wiel)» SEO da Ba NASSip
"Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari," HTR 63 (1970) 4-7.
C.-F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer define the word ‘dd (CTA 4.VI1.46)
as "envoyer,'' and compare it to the Ugaritic ‘dd and t‘dt
(Dictionnaire des Inscriptions sémitiques de L'ouest [Leiden:

EJ.) Brille) 1965), 204), which refer specifically to the

divine realm.
Zyl2

The word “representative, envoy" (ta‘idata-mt) occurs

only seven times in Ugaritic. Six of these occurrences are
restricted to the fixed formula designating Yamm's messengers:

mal’aké yammi
ta‘fidaté tapiti nahari
(CLA, ZS B26 28), 50, 404 a4)

The messengers of Yamm,

The representatives of Judge River.

The parallelistic schema reveals that ¢‘dt is always the B

word in this invariable formula. In 2.1.11, which is partial-
ly reconstructed, ¢‘dt is once more found in parallel with
ml*’ak. In this instance, however, a verb is inserted between
the messenger designation and the title of the god:

{ma]1’aké-mi yal’aku yammu

[ta‘ fidaté yal’aku(??) tapitu naharu]

Yamm sends the messengers,

Judge River dispatches the representatives.

In addition to occurrences of ml’ak ym//t‘dt tpt nhr, Yamm's

envoys are designated simply as mal’aké in CTA 2.1.41, 42. In
11. 13, 19, and 39, however, these same deities are called
galma-mt, “‘lads, warriors.'' This designation, in conjunction
with the description of the messengers in 11. 32-33, shows
clearly that they are to be conceived as part of a military
entounage.). Simce, the enti nelassue ateStake: in GUAR? ale dsm the
kingship of Yamm, the sending of members of his military reti-
nue is most logical.
This fact is even more apparent in the usage of glm as
the designation of Ba‘l's entourage. glm(m) refers to the

The term glmm (cf. Hebrew ‘élem) refers in biblical lit-

erature to a young man or military retainer (1 Sam 17:56;
20:22). Semantically, the term is equivalent to the Hebrew
na‘ar, which often refers to military retainers and messengers
(ci. 2 Kes 19cio5 sa S7i6)p as) weld sass toswanriors (ie San 25s
Shy 7 SN ZAG INCE seh 7 Semi Isehe eS i Clie WPS)
 “iliz§

members of Ba‘l's retinue in C7A 3.III.5 when they carry a

message to ‘Anat (cf. IV.49). In Sn, Mears Sebovlecregw
(galméhu) are sent to ’Atirat to request a house for the
god. They also appear as members of his entourage in CTA
4.V.105°and 10.11.3. Their military function is confirmed
in CTA 5.V.8-9, where stb ‘atu galamuka is in parallel with
tamanu hinztruka ("your seventy lads//your eighty nobles") ,179
The militaristic character of the term gZmm is seen further in
eee where the galama-mt are obviously warriors (l.
4). The warrior character of the messengers, who can be
designated by gZmm, cannot be disputed. Commonly, however,
Ba‘l's messengers are given specific names: Gapnu ("Vine")
and ’Ugaru ("Field"). Both of these names are most appropri-
ate for the messengers of the god of fertility. While their
names always occur joined by the conjunction w (gapnu wa-
> Wigreneys (CHUA 355 WILE Seg CEA IRIE CES AER
GCerias yall7.8 Ache (eq ale
is clear that they are distinct personalities. 172 These two

170. The word Gmzr presents another instance of an ani-

mal name used to designate a noble or a warrior. The word
means literally "boar, swine" (cf. Arabic Rinztr; Hebrew
hadztr).
i/MueNote: thateG. Rin Driver translates: “servitors' (CMD,
85), while H. L. Ginsberg renders the term "picked fighters"
(AMET, 136). Ba‘l's military entourage is further designated
by the term ’tlanu™ til-la-at 4adad in Vg. V.18.25 (RS 20.24),
counespondimg tole @ [Curl ws pealeaneCTA29r
lh 4 These vanes the
"helper-gods of Ba‘1,'' the members of his military retinue
(ek, Nikachiam witiaid.. Marperilieiy jerdtoyoyesig Wis. ielemee “serrloin Wey
Venakesmitmcleam that wcheUraniti cle’ /e is. tor bey read: asia con
struct plural. This same group of gods is mentioned in Ug.
WeOo
le So UUW RS 24.6015) aiacl sah (ONS BG Aa) els veeeeniiiddls
sacrifices. These gods might be compared to the "helpers/
allies of Rahab" (‘d2@ré rahab) of Job 9:13b. J. Nougayrol
(Ug. V, 57) and M. Astour ("'Some New Divine Names from
Ugarit," 280) suggest that these gods are to be identified
with the sb‘t glm(m) of Ba‘l.
i? Gore ie Gaimsbheneeweubad lus lwo Messengers.i" 25=5i0%
The same usage of messengers with personal names is found of
214

messengers are also called ‘anané ’ilima, "divine messengers"

(iit. “clouds (6r7A4eVllI. 15) ctl i. 54) pe showin mtitat “nn
("cloud[s]") may also designate Ba‘l's entourage. That these
make up part of his coterie is clear from the command by Yamm
that “Ba‘l and his storm-clouds” (b°? w°nnk, CTA 2.1.18) 35)
be handed over as booty. That Ba‘l's entourage should include
the clouds is to be expected, for it is the storm-god Ba‘1 who
is called °tlu haddu du ‘anant, "The god Haddu of the storm-
CMoyeicly ™ slaay G0, MO Win ein | WINS Ele sites joSiescreei: Grineln el? ils
designation as the "Rider of the clouds" (raktbu ‘arapatt, CTA
Arlistis 2S Salita. SOS Washi se i iS MO Ways de ods =
Mae

The designation ‘nn *tlm, "'the messengers of *BL, OC Cus

TNwCLA Welt.Le (aks Onde [is oie 9) a DliLenbida Sees clei samtOmibemse le
only association of the clouds with ’El. Indeed, ’El does not

the envoys of ’Atirat--qudsu ("Holiness") and ’amrr. The ety-

mology of the first name is transparent. It is also an epi-
thet’ of the goddesis hemsellt (cis Cra 14 IV .1S7-198). Samer as
Grevanonlommieauhile wbhtzeseeeilieg ly Mulsieilesuemeir weeaeliosis it as 2
variant form of ’amurru (Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache,
NOs, eee Wa Goreclemy (Uys ines 25S) COMUISCES Ve Wiel meee, “EO
bless (CL. Nowe USSG ands thetArabicumarc2 asic Ome em Paumien)ie
This formation, meaning perhaps "most blessed,‘ would make an
excellent parallel to the name of the other messenger, ''The
Holy One," and would concur with the parallel usage of the
verbo nnrs wath) Orke (ciw CLAN SRL i hO 20): euli.
55) Sun) eeleaice
Ba‘ 1's messengers, the names qd&s w’?amrr are commonly joined
by thes conjunction WC TAR Se VL aller sale 2 malic: heel murEd
4,IV.16-17, they are placed in parallel, and are obviously
separate deities. Also like the envoys of Ba‘1, they are
CaM! eiGaig, “aere Tacks (au al ri. BS).
173. Compare the figure of the "Son of Man" accompanied
by the "clouds of Heaven" (‘anané 8°mayya’ , Dan 7:13) and Yah-
weh as the "Rider of the Storm-clouds" (rékéb ba‘arabét, Ps
OS ones PSM Sl 2s Sanec2 ale NOGenalicomMahwehus theoph-
any at Sinai in the ‘anan kabéd (Exod 19:16; cf. Exod PAN SALES S
24:15-18; 34:5) and his epiphany at the Tent of Meeting (Exod
STS. Nu Gk gwASe aye 53).
 AWS)

have specifically named messengers as do Ba‘l and ’Atirat.

Remarkably, the phrase ml’ak *i1, "messenger(s) of EL," is
lacking in Ugaritic. Clearly, however, the high god employs
messengers. ’E1 may use either the major gods of the pantheon
to deliver his decree (SapSu (CIE A INP) GUIS ey WAL 2 2e)i|
or ‘Anat [CTA 4.V.82-85; 6.I1I1.23-IV.40], who serve as his en-
voys), or he may give forth his decree to the messengers of
other gods (cf. ‘CTA 2.1°36-57). Rather than being bound to a
specific messenger or pair of messengers, ’El may employ other
members of the pantheon, i.e., the members of the council, to
deliver his decree.
In the Hebrew material thus far investigated, we have
seen the importance of the messengers of the council, specif-
ically "the spirit" (haru%h) in 1 Kgs 22:19-23. While the
term ml’ak *t1 does not occur in Ugaritic, the corresponding
phrase mal’ak YHWH is frequent in the Old Testament (Exod 3:2;
PAO) NUM ead. Ole Josh Sls lowe2eoameaZae load 7 [cts LiCchr
Deh SONS MeSk Ship Seo SCO AlS@ ulliS mei wake Werelewen tone
Gen 32:2-3). The messengers of Yahweh are also frequently
alluded to in Hebrew poetry (cf. Pss L03:20; 104743 14822;
is ae44 om obe4 wiSserss25) 4.8 AS ets Obvious stnomeboth =the Uga-
ritic and Hebrew materials, the messengers of the gods are di-
vine beings who constitute the membership of the heavenly
court of ’El/Yahweh. Yahweh is pictured in Hebrew literature
as "sending" his messenger from the council (ytslah mal? ako,
Gen 24:7, 40; Exod 23:20; Num 20:16; compare Judg 13:8). Most
significantly, this usage of the verb "to send" (salah) in
reference to the commissioning of divine messengers by Yahweh
also occurs in whis dispatching lor the prophets (cf. Exod 3:10),
iSs Poies Meue Bese Dosh HAs Wile (RMR is IOS SHG) [hose
Mosesicmlasanmi sie lsamuclli eZ usamel Ziel» Zo Nathan) 5) isa’ 61 8-
Qe Wei Weye PASS IOC mAe lepae 78 ous JaleWe, WUE IAe WAKei 2.8 Abang May
ANS smal e225.)
The prophetic material makes it clear that the prophet
was viewed as the messenger of Yahweh. Indeed, Haggai is
explicitly called the "messenger of Yahweh" (mal’ak YHWH,
Hage ils cee also Maines ioe MASNG Ey Wragiit has asserted,

when the prophet proclaimed Yahweh's indictment Gus Jspeaieil, 2s

in Isa 1:2 or Mic 6:2, the background must be seen as that of

216

the divine council. Ls In like manner, F. M. Cross has noted

that the address of the divine assembly is marked by plural
imperatives or series of imperatives, as well as by the usage
of the first person plural form of address (cf. Gen 1:26;
Bees ase Wiles HOS, Ao Wise Sec we APIs AEROS nis ws =
On S714 <62 ek0A1Os qZech usage The same plural/dual form
of the imperative has been shown above as the common method
for commissioning messengers in the Ugaritic texts (CTA 2.1.
MOS Saino s So lileyale
roe CENOME
AO S28" Salil aCe 7 pala
dSie
14.V.2483 ete.). This common torm of address, makes 2t meces=
sary to consider the role of the Hebrew prophet in relation to
the divine council. As noted by C. Westermann, the entire
phenomenon of prophecy could exist only in the period of his-
tory during which the oral message was still regarded as an
authoritative decreas This period of classical prophecy
fell within the time of the kingdoms, when the messenger was
the means of communication between suzerain and vassal. It is
also clear from the prophetic material that the prophet was
more than simply the mouthpiece of Yahweh. He was Yahweh's
Messenger. The very designation nabt’, “one who is called"
(cf. Akkadian nabt’um) implies the background of the council,
for the prophet was called to proclaim the will of the deity
which was issued from the assembly.
That the divine council formed the background for proph-
ecy was first shown beyond dispute by H. W. Robinson. 177 thee
position was even further established by F. M. Cross in his
analysis of Isa 40:1-8, which he calls "a parade example of

174. The Old Testament Agatnst Its Environment, 36.

Tjon “Wher Couneiiigois Yahweheintiseconds lsiadahe' 205-2 jee
and nn. 4 and 8; cf. also CMHEF, 187. The Hebrew and Canaan-
ite evidence of the plural form of address from the council
shows clearly that such passages as Gen 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7
need not be traced back to Akkadian polytheism, contrary to
the assertion of H. W. Robinson ("The Council of Yahweh,"
155).
176. Baste Forms of Prophetite Speech, tr. H. C. White
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), 104.
WH VS MCoweeR Il tose Weimyiela,, SW
=1597
 27

this literary form in Second Isaiah.""278 According to this

analysis, Yahweh addresses his herald in v. 1: nah&mat nah&ma
‘ammt ("Comfort ye! Comfort ye my people!"). Inv. 2 the
imperatives continue: "Speak!" (dabb@rf#i), "Declare!" (qtr*-%).
Verse 3-recounts the announcement by the herald:

q6ol qoéré’
bammidbar pannfii dérek YHWH
yasS©rfi ba‘arabah m®sillah 16’1ohénd
The voice cries:
"In the desert prepare the way of Yahweh,
Make straight a highway for our God in the
Wilderness."

The proclamation is made with plural imperatives. It is in v.

6a that the prophet is addressed by the herald:

q6l ’dmér gra’

wa’Omar mah ’eqra’

The voice cries, “Proclaim!"

And I said, "What should I proclaim?" /9

As in v. 3, the herald delivers his address via an imperative.

In this instance, it is a singular form, addressed to the
prophet. The response of the prophet is similar to that of
Savane sa sO Lene inerusTOns Ott nemint gst person: Form
into narrative, as noted by N. Tidwell, is to be expected from
the various depictions of the council scene in Hebrew litera-
ture, for in almost every instance of such a description, the
proceedings of the assembly come to a climax with the inter-
vention of one of the participants (cf. 1 Kgs 22:20-22; Isa

178. "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," 275.

For Cross! examination of this passage, see pp. 274-277 and
CMHE, 187-188.
179. We read *dmar, a first singular converted imper-

fect, following the reading of IQIsa? (w’wmrh) for the third

masculine singular of the MT.

218

GeSsGa dol evils PepeSe ween dsG-l4Bs Se2=553 Gedqws isa

oye In Isa 6:8 and Zech 3:5, the participant who brings
the scene to its climax is the prophet himself.
This fact requires that we investigate the role of the
prophet in the heavenly assembly. No parallel to this con-
cept of prophecy, or even to Israelite prophecy itself, has
thus far-been found inthe ancient Near Bast. “two texts: Gn
addition to Isaiah 6) show that the prophet conceived of him-
self as standing in Yahweh's assembly: Jer 23:18 and Amos
3:7. Most explicit is the reference to the prophet in Jeremi-
ah:

180m “Wationan, (Zech. S25), and) the Genre) of Zechazvahis

HOUBth Vaso me Siz 94 (ClO,5)\n 554 sel Lawmeddastd ent eS macnaGeS
basic elements common to all the scenes of the council: (1) a
description of the scene with Yahweh surrounded by his hosts;
(2) the dialogue of the council is brought to a climax through
the intervention of one of the hosts; (3) the council con-
cludes with the word or deed of Yahweh which determines the
LU CURE des any, Otay PeDSOM On STOUp. Hem thcmapresent SaanmouiS
isiaey Ose wlne eOuines il jemi (o>, SSA):

Ke See 7. Esa 0) sia ON Ciobe di JOD mee mecha Zech sihae chad
i 1) ISB Sas 6 1 8 il USS
2 ZOewa Sats WEG) ||Wewi ZS Siler, OOS RES (Sy)
3 Ze 20) 8 12 OnG@7 iS Gade rail 8
(Cites Scatal y

Regretfully, however, the council descriptions contained in

Psalms 29, 82, 89:6-9, and Deut 32:8-9 cannot be fitted into
this outline.
181. The Mari letters have provided many insights into
the background of prophecy in the Old Testament, but no con-
cept of the prophet standing in the assembly of the gods is to
be found in this material. On prophecy at Mari, see W. L.
Moran, "New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy,"
Bepi cece 0 (L069) ils Om andect hema tema tuinemci6ted sonmn emsGremene
1 and in the addenda, p. 56; J. F. Ross, “Prophecy in Hamath,
Israel, and Mari," 13-20; C. Westermann, Baste Forms of Pro-
phette Speech, 115-128.
 AWS

ki mi ‘amad b©s6d YHWH

weyére’ wyiSma‘ ?et-d© bars
mi hiqSib d©bar6é wayyiSma‘
(23:18)
Who has stood in the council of Yahweh
And seen and heard his decree (lit. "word")?
Who has carefully obeyed his decree
(lit. "wora") 27182

This is the true prophet's claim to authority. From the pro-

nouncement of the council he receives the decree that he is
to deliver. Those prophets who have not participated in the
council are unable to proclaim the divine decree:

wo ?im-*am°dGi b©&sédt
w°yaSmi‘fi d°baray ’et-‘ammi
(Jer 252224)

But if they had stood in my council,

They would proclaim my decrees (words) to my people!

The participation in the council allows the prophet to receive

his commission directly from Yahweh. The prophet serves as
more than a messenger. He is the herald and courier of the
council. The word that he is to proclaim is placed in his
mouth by Yahweh (cf. Num 12:6-8; Deut 18:15-18). The prophet
is privy to the actions of the assembly:

16’ ya‘ aseh ’ddonay YHWH dabar

ah Fe
(ar eps ‘im-galah s6d6 ’el-‘%badaw hann°bi’im
(Amos 3:7)

For the Lord God does not issue a decree

Unless he has revealed his counsel unto his
servants, the prophets!

This position belongs to the prophet alone; it is not a posi-

tion that can be attained by an ordinary man. While Job was
nn ene UEEa EINE UIEIEEInRRnIREESER RRR

182. Reading d@bar6é with the k°@tztb.

220

far from being considered an ordinary man, he was not allowed

to participate in the divine council. In the second discourse
Of Eliphaz) Job us sasked:

habséd ’&16%h tisma‘

w°tigra‘ ’é1éka hokmah
(Job 15:8)
Do you overhear the council of God (i.e., the
divine council)?
Or do you have a monopoly on wisdom?

In this passage sdd 2316%H, Mthel councid of God>"™ is parail—

leled by hokmah, "wisdom." This is the source of the authori-
ty of the prophet. He is called by Yahweh and receives the
word of Yahweh directly from the council.
Just as significant, however, is the fact that the proph>-
ets were sent by Yahweh:

From the day which your fathers went forth

from the land of Egypt unto this day, I
have diligently sent (wa’eSlah...haském
w’Sal6%h) unto you my servants, the proph-
ets.
Gen 7225)

The prophets were commissioned with imperatives, as were the

messengers of the council in Hebrew (ei. 1 Kes 222223) isa 0:9)
and in Ugaritic literature. The fact that the prophet was the
herald of the council is seen most explicitly in the message
formula commonly found in the prophetic pronouncement of judg-
ment: kdh °amar yawx, 183 According to K. Koch, this message

183. This is the most primitive form of the pronounce-

ment formula. The formula is expanded frequently by the
embellishment of the divine name with epithets: koh *amar
YHWH s@ba’dt (Zech 1:14; 8:20; Hag 1:2; etc.); koh 2 amar
?adonay YHWH (Jer 7:20; Isa 30:15; etc.); koh °amar YHWH
s?ba?ot °élohe ytéra’al (Jer 19:3; 42:15; LEZO OeC mie
 aa,

formula, "Thus says Yahweh,'' may be presumed to have intro-

duced any orally delivered prophetic message. a? The authori-
ty of the messenger and the authenticity of his message were
confirmed by this announcement. Though the expression koh
?amar YHWH is not limited to the prophetic books, it finds its
most frequent expression in those writings.
This pronouncement of authority is most commonly accom-
panied by the phrase d@bar YHWH, "'the word of Yahweh." The
connection of kéh ’amar YHWH with d?bar YHWH parallels the
Ugaritic message formula thm//hwt. Unlike the Ugaritic formu-
la, the Hebrew message formula is not so rigid. Either phrase
May occur in the A or B position, and the two are not always
in strict parallelism. Like the Ugaritic message formula, the
Hebrew formula used by the prophets is also used by human
messengers. The best example of the expression koh °amar PN
is found in Gen 32:4-5, where Jacob sends messengers to Esau:
"And he commissioned them saying: 'Thus you will say (koh
t6°m’riin) to my lord, to Esau: '"'Thus says your servant Jacob
(koh “amar “abd’ka ya aqob)....""" Verses 4b-5 contain the
message to be delivered. Although the delivery of the message
is not recounted, we may assume that it was delivered exactly
as given. In Gen 45:9, Joseph sends his brothers to Jacob to
deliver the message that he come to Egypt. Here, the message
formula is followed by imperatives, as is common in Ugaritic:
"Thus says your son Joseph...come down unto me! Do not tar-
ry!" (kh *amar bin’ka yosép...r°dah *élay ’al-ta‘admod). In
the same passage, the brothers are commanded with imperatives,
"Make haste! Go up...." (maha@ri wa‘4la%). This message formu-
la, ''thus says PN," was the standard way in which messages
were delivered in the human realm, and the use of imperatives
Wasstandarda(tc sem Num eZOkubA Iie 2205-0), Log 2 Kes) iis Usa 9%
ADeI=95S 1a BOPIGSWAS Bega s Weim WES eles is WOM = Chae ISI
was the form used to convey royal and personal messages, just
as thm PN was used in Ugaritic or amat garri ana PN in Neo-
Assyrian royal eourespondencess” In these messages, three
Me Se eS ee ee ee ee Se

184. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition, tr. S. M.

Cupitt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969), 89.
185. For references to the Neo-Assyrian forms, see J. S.
Ze

events may be distinguished: (1) the commissioning of the

messenger; (2) the transmission of the message; and (3) the
delivery of that message. 18
These same three events may be distinguished in the ora-
cles delivered by the prophets. The commissioning of the
prophet (i.e., the call narrative, as Isaiah 6, Jeremiah 1,
etc.) is not recorded in each oracle. Commonly, however, the
message is to be understood as having been delivered to the
prophet in the phrase: '"'And the word of Yahweh came unto PN"
(wayht d? bar YHWH *\el-PN; ct. 2 Sam 7245 1 Kes 20217-1935) der
RONG lite, SSeS Wsbaete WOLS SHSIWS tie. ja Wine “elieiay AF “ele
message is then generally followed by the pronouncement koh
2amar YHWH plus imperatives. 1° We have selected six passages
which vividly display the relationship of the messenger formu-
la (koh °’amar YHWH plus the characteristic imperatives of the
divine assembly [1 Kgs 12:22-24; 13:20-22; 2 Sam 724b-5; Isa

Holiadayee CAssyrvaneStatecrart) andathe Prophets on sismaciim

HTR 63 (1970) 42-43, n.> 54.
186. C. Westermann, Baste Forms of Prophette Speech,
101.
187. Because the number of occurrences of this message
formula and its connection with the d°bar YHWH is so high, it
is impossible even to list all the passages here, let alone
give a detailed analysis of each. We shall attempt in the
remainder vot, this) section to select several examples mors thas
message formula and to show its connection with the prophet
as the herald of the council. In addition to the sax passages
cited aime the text, see sallsom dy Kesii2 elo 22 10-27 aos
ZA SANs. Viste Vaiss teas Meh IES INO eI S GOS Tass TS Sil ys
LMA ISOS AIANaly SOS Se So ase UW aS Sae “hile OWS S
PAE iG Wc IOR SS (era es SNe OSes Tee eae le?
IIE SIVA SES ISSO Wael VSPA MIS Ase SS v= aiks waiees Wine
two formulae d°bar YHWH plus an imperative and koéh *°amar YHWH
plus an imperative are also employed independently of each
wleise, Win whi Homans, SES Yas 73s Usa Wois jew AleilMe
Hose 4 Lae eZee ete. FOr mches Latitnem. see mulemmr 202s
MESS Walken UES. FoR 2 Clue Slory Pho BEC.
 oe

38:4-S; Jer 21:11b-12; Ezek 28:1-2a]) to the pronouncement of

the prophet.

(1) 1 Kgs 12:22-24: The prophecy of Shemaiah to

Rehoboam and the house of Judah.

22and the word of God (wayht d@bar ha’%13him)

was unto Shemaiah, the man of God (°78
ha? élohtm), saying: 23Syeak (?émdr) unto
Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, the king of
Judah and unto all the house of Judah and
Benjamin, and the remnant of the people
saying: 24 Thus says Yahweh (koh ’ amar
YHWH): "You shall not go up (16°-ta‘ &li)
and you shall not fight (16’?-ttllahamfiin)
with your brothers, the sons of Israel.
Return (Saba), each man to his house, for
this matter has come from me.'''" And they
obeyed the word of Yahweh (d®bar YHW#),
and they returned, doing as the word of
Yahweh (ktdbar YHWH).

(2) 1 Kgs 13:20-22: The prophet of God and Jeroboam's

apostasy.

20 and While they sat at the table, the word

of Yahweh (wayht d®bar YHWH) came unto the
prophet who had brought him back. 21nd he
summoned the man of God (?@& ha’2ldhtm) who
had come from Judah, saying: ''Thus says
Yahweh (koh ’amar YHWH): ‘Because you dis-
obeyed the word of Yahweh and did not obey
the commandment which Yahweh your God com-
manded you, 22but returned and ate food and
drank water in the place where he (i.e.,
Yahweh) said to you: “You shall not eat
(?al-t6’kal) food and you shall not drink
(?al-tést) water, your corpse shall not
come unto the grave of your fathers!"'"
224

(3) 2 Sam 7:4b-5: The prophecy of Nathan.

4Dand the word of Yahweh (wayht d@bar-YHWH)

was unto Nathan: ""Go and speak (lék
w??amarta) unto my servant David: ‘'Thus
says Yahweh (kdh ’amar YHWH), "Shall you
build a temple for me for my dwelling?"'"

(4) Isa 38:4-5: Isaiah's address to Hezekiah.

After Hezekiah had implored Yahweh to let him live (cis

vv. 1-3), Isaiah addressed the king:

4and the word of Yahweh came unto Isaiah

(wayht d°bar-YHWH ’el-y®sa*yaha) saying:
"Go (haldk) and announce (w?’amarta) unto
Hezekiah: 'Thus says Yahweh, the God of
David your father (kdh-’ amar YHWH °élohé
dawtd ’abtka), "I have heard your prayer
and have seen your tears. Thus I shall
addWiaPeeéeneyeanrs) Untosyoumeliete sl

(5S) Jer 21:11b-12: Jeremiah's address to the

Royal House of Judah.
11b
Hear the word of Yahweh (Sim‘a d@bar YHWH),
WZ,
O house of David: Thus says Yahweh (koh
?amar YHWH), “‘Execute justice daily (dtni),
and deliver (hasstli) the robbed one from
the power of the oppressor, lest my wrath
come forth like fire, and burn so that none
can quench it. So evil have been your deeds
(reading the Q°ré)."'

(6) Ezek 28:1-2a: Ezekiel's prophecy against the

PRINCES OF eityaces

Tand the word of Yahweh came unto me (wayht

d°bar-YHWH *élay) saying: "0 Son of Man,
Speak (?émor) against the Prince of Tyre:
'Thus says my Lord, Yahweh (kdh-’ amar
°adonay YHWH)....'"'
 225

The connections between these passages are readily appar-

ent. In each case, the prophet receives the d°bar-YHWH. The
transmission of the decree to be delivered is noted in each
instance by the verb "to be" (hayah). The manner of mani-
festation is not given, though it is possible that 2 Sam 7:4
refers to a dream, since it notes specifically that Nathan
received Yahweh's word at night. It is best to interpret this
notion of the word "being unto" the prophet as the communica-
tion of the will of the council (i.e., Yahweh), from which the
prophet derives his authority and proclamation. This is con-
firmed by the fact that the "word (decree) of Yahweh" (d’bar
YHWH) or the messenger formula, "Thus says Yahweh" (kdhk ’ amar
YHWH), is followed, in five of the passages, by an imperative
Cl Kes ALSO. one TE tess eS Sel ISS liene aegialienies elle
ute used asvansimperativell; Jer 2Lsllb, 125° Ezek 2832). Note
that in the one passage in which the imperative does not fol-
low these phrases (2 Sam 7:4b-5), the prophet himself is com-
missioned via the imperative (lék w®’amarta, v. 5; cf. Isa
Spo eezek 2822). Le is important to note that in this same
passage no decree of judgment is delivered. Rather, David's
request to build a temple for Yahweh is denied with a rhetori-
cal question (vv. 6-8). In each of the remaining passages, a
decree of judgment is proclaimed.
Most Significant to the relation of the prophet to the
council 1s the fact that thesmessage is not that of the proph—
et, but rather the message of Yahweh. This is the signifi-
cance of the formula kdh ’amar YHWH (as with koh ’?amar PN, or
the Ugaritic thm DN//hwt DN). The message is the decree of
Yahweh, the proclamation of the council. After the repetition
of the messenger formula, the prophet delivers Yahweh's de-
cree, which determines the fate of a people or an individual.
The prophet's role is clear--he is the herald/courier of the
council, whose task it is to deliver the judgment of the
assembly. K. Baltzer has correctly noted that the expression
koh ?amar YHWH is technically a formula for the pronouncement
of judgment, rather than simply a messenger-saying.1®® We
a ne a Ee Be

188. "Considerations Regarding the Office and Calling of

the Prophet," HTR 61 (1968) 574.
226

cannot agree, however, with his view that the prophet is best

seen as the "'vizier'' of the king, who acts as his representa-

tive, a designation drawn from the Egyptian concept of the
vizier. i The prophet has been described by J. Holladay as
one having the power and authority of a royal messenger or
ambassador. 1?" While this certainly stresses the authorita-
tive position of the prophet, it does not fully describe what
we believe to have been his true function. The prophet is the
herald of the divine council. He delivers the decree of Yah-
weh, which ts the decree of the council. The authority of the
prophet as the herald/messenger of the assembly is that of the
power which sent him. He is the vocal manifestation of the
deity who dispatched him. The parallel position of the proph-
et and the messenger-deity in Canaanite literature makes this
fact undeniable, Due to the sheer amount of prophetic materi-—
al that requires examination in light of our present discus-
Sion, OUT Investigation has been, of mecesstty., cursory) Lt
is clear, however, that C. Westermann's assertion that "there
is no explicit, institutionally defined office of messengers
iG das .
of God in any of the religions known to us" LS" iNeCOTrereer.

The Hebrew prophets, like the messenger-deities described in

the Ugaritic myths, are clearly envoys who carry both the mes-
sage and authority of the divinity who dispatched them. In
the case of the prophets, this was Yahweh, and ultimately the
council that surrounded him.

The Judgment of the Counetl: Psalm 82

As the role of the messenger/prophet was to deliver the

decree of the council, the role of the council leader was to
pronounce that judgment. The very ratson d'étre of the coun-
cil was to pass judgment, in both the heavenly and human
spheres. This is seen in the Ugaritic and the Mesopotamian
depictions of the heavenly assembly. In Eniima el1tS III.130-
a i a eh
IQ, Warges SHOWS 7s.
190. "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,"
ASL
191. Baste Forms of Prophette Speech, 116.
 Papat

IV.15, the gods pass their judgment that Marduk shall be their
leader and king. Later in the account (I1V.119-128), they de-
cide that Kingu must die. Clearly, the powers of kingship and
life or death were judgments rendered in the divine assem- —
bly. 192
'In Ugaritic literature, the decree of the council
(= the word of ’E1) likewise passed judgment concerning king-
Sina) ghel ilaeey @ae Goal iin CW, AW),VO) (ess il In Gey ye
the kingship of Yamm is proclaimed; in 2.1.36-37, the fate of
Ba‘l is decreed; 4.1V.58-V.63 is the declaration of Ba‘l's
kingship; the fate of Kirta is proclaimed in 16.V.9-VI.2. 193
This same view of the function of the heavenly council is pre-
sented in Hebrew literature. Deut 32:8-9 allots the kingdoms
anongachesgOdsst ce te proclaims kingship. | ingi Kese22is17-
23, the death of Ahab is proclaimed. Isa 6:1-13, the commis-
sioning of the prophet, proclaims the fate of the nation. The
failure of Méer6éz to send troops to the aid of the Divine War-
rior brings condemnation by the council in Judg 5:23. Indeed,
as G. E. Wright has shown, =” " Deuteronomy 32 (the divine law-
suit) contains an indictment against Israel for her apostasy.
inevieche sl 0p the sheraldwor the council “Wraliak vaWE)) pro
claims that Joshua, the high priest, is pure from all iniqui-
ty. Likewise, the judgment to determine the faith of Job is

192. The destiny of man is also proclaimed by the coun-

cil in Gilgamesh, for it is the assembly of the gods which
declares that UtnapiStim should have eternal life (X1.196-
198). The council is also very active in determining the
fate of man in Atra-Hasis, where its members declare the
catastrophes upon earth to destroy mankind. For the text
and translation, see W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-
Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxtond sae lie
Clarendon Press, 1969). For references to the council in
Ceais mye, SCE wo MEAL
193. ’El as creator-god also grants progeny to Kirta
and Dan’il, and the assembly of the gods takes part in these

events. We shall treat this subject in the following section

(pp. 244-255).
194. "The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of
Deuteronomy 32," 26-67.
228

decreed by Yahweh to the Satan (Job 1:6-12; Zieh:reg eerie ade

our traditions of the divine council, its major function is
to decree the fate or destiny of a group or an individual.
Hebrew tradition reveals this concept of the judgment of the
council most clearly in the pronouncements of the courier of
the assembly--the prophet.
The most vivid depiction of the pronouncement of judgment
within the assembly itself is found in Psalm 82. Though this
piece is one of the most perfectly preserved psalms in the
Psalter, the contents have given rise to numerous interpreta-
tions. 195 Hopefully, we shall be able to show the background
of the psalm, the divine assembly, its participants, the law-
suit presented against the condemned members, and the mythic
background for their condemnation. In the present passage,
the role of Yahweh as judge in the assembly clearly corre-
sponds to the role of the Canaanite 7E1. The date of Psalm 82
is still debated: ib is possibile that sthe) psalm asi teosbe as-
signed a date during the period of the monarchy. +? We read
Psalm 82 as follows:

195. Three major interpretations of the members con-

demned to death have been proposed: (1) that they are Israel-
ite rulers and judges; (2) that they are the rulers and judges
of the nations; and (3) that they are the members of the di-
vine council (i.e., the gods). As we shall show, the latter
two must be combined in order for us to interpret the text
correctly. On the various positions taken on this psalm, see
J. S. Ackerman, "An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82," 1-783 and
H.-W. JlUngling, Der Tod der Gétter, 11-37.
196. (Cf. Ackerman, (“An xegetical Study onePsalmas2."
441-457; H. J. Kraus, Psalmen, Band II, 570; M. Dahood, Psalms
If, 269. Note that J. Morgenstern ("The Mythological Back-
ground of Psalm 82,'' HUCA 14 [1939] 119-121) argues that the
psalm dates to ca. 500 B.C. Regretfully, the psalm itself
presents no linguistic or conceptual evidence for its dating.
If the psalm had been composed during the period of the mon-
archy, we would expect it to be very early (ca. tenth century
B.C.), and to display some literary or linguistic evidence
for an early date. Since there is no such evidence provided
 229

1 <YHWHD nigs4b ba‘ dat-’61<-mid

b€qéreb *8lohim yispot

2ead matay tiSp°®td- ‘awel

HANS SSAC Feausei ||

$Sipta-dal weyatém
‘ani waras hasdiqf

45a1l°ta-dal w©’eby6én
miyyad r©Sa‘im hassilti
"16° yad@‘a welo’ yabint
bah&Sékah yithallaké
yimmétG kol-més°dé *4res
6 ?an T-’amarti ’€lohim ’attem
fib€né ‘elyén kull©kem
7sakén ke?adam t@maton
Gk°’ahad haSSarfm tippolt
8qfimah <YHWH> Soptah ha’4res
ki-’attah tinhal b©kol-haggéyim

1 eyvahweh> has taken his place in the divine council,

In the midst of the gods he passes judgment.

2 HOw long will you judge unjustly,

And exalt the case of the wicked? [ ]

5vindicate the poor and the orphan,

Maintain the justice of the afflicted and needy!

‘Deliver the weak and the poor,

Rescue them from the power of the wicked!"

> They neither know nor understand,

They wander about in darkness,
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.

67 had thought, 'You are gods,

And all of you, sons of ‘Elyén

ge ee SS ee

by the psalm, we are inclined to date it later (ca. sixth

century B.C.).
230

7Instead like *Adam you shall die,

And like one of the 'Shining Ones' you shall fall."

8iarise, O Yahweh; Judge the earth!

May you take possession of all the nations!"

In this psalm, Yahweh speaks as the supreme judge in the

council. We read YHWH (vv. 1, 8) as original to the psalm,
which belongs to the body known as the Elohistic Psalter (Pss
42-83). The term nissab is used to designate Yahweh's posi-
tion in the assembly, a technical term which we shall define
more precisely in this section. His stand is taken in the
“adat °é1<-mi>, "the divine assembly" (lit. "the assembly of
spy) 197 O. Eissfeldt asserts that Yahweh is here clearly
in the assembly of the gods, which is led by the god ’El, who
judges that the gods must die for their failure to dispense
their duties of proclaiming justice. 198 While we have cer-
tainly shown that ’El's position in the council was as dis-
penser of decree and justice, the concept that ’El is here
considered the highest god, not yet replaced in Israelite
tradition by Yahweh, is most tenuous. It seems apparent that
él is here used not as an epithet of Yahweh, but rather as
part of the frozen formula, ‘dt °l(m), "the divine council,"
borrowed from Canaanite literature. If *°’é@2 is to be taken as
a divine name’ in v. i) 1t as obvious that at is employed as an
epithet of Yahweh and not as the designation of a god of supe-
rior rank.

197. Most interestingly, the LXX reads Ev ovvaywyf] Geadv,

which reflects a reading of either °élim or °él-mz. It is
possible that the LXX preserves the original reading (cf. Uga-
ritic pRr °tlm). The LXX could, however, contain a dittogra-
phy of the mém from *&lohtm, which occurs twice in this colon.
It is most probable that the original reading was ‘“adat °élim/
?el-mt, an expression found in the Ugaritic texts (cf. CTA
Lowlivn, Lin sde = cin. With thevexcept rons om Ps soz calm (@icde
?2~), ‘dt never occurs with the divine name to indicate the
divine council. When used with the name Yahweh, it always
designates the congregation of Israel.
198. "El and Yahweh," 29-30.
 231

Yahweh's position as noted in v. 1b is in the midst of

the gods (b°qéreb °&l6htm). This corresponds exactly to the
other Israelite conceptions of the position of Yahweh in his
council--he is enthroned, surrounded by the other deities (ear,
Kas ZESIIS MUSE OF 7s Mss 29S eels aes) 156% 221) Nahweh
is clearly the central god in the assembly, the deity about
whom the other council members gather. This is explicitly
noted in v. la by the usage of the verb ntssab, one among many
technical terms for participating in the council. The most
common term in Hebrew literature that is used in this tech-
nical sense is ‘amad, as first noted by F. M. Cross. es This
verb is used of the prophet "standing in the council of Yah-
Wehm(SodaVHWE msodut erm 2518, 022e6 ct 2ech Sill, 5, where
Joshua, the high priest, stands before the messenger of Yah-
Wel) g lin i ies 2g) (es 2 Gave IIe), MEM Tele Iiegie Cre
heaven are positioned about him (Yahweh) [‘dméd/‘dm?dtm],"" as
are the seraphim in Isa 6:2 and the spirit (hari%h) in 1 Kgs
HA2 Tk Iii Selle TeCsail sks WOE!) abe ah Behl Mos Ail hovel dice Ag
LOmEpmesenMcinlomonesebE abDeLOnes them TrOyalmcOuULt amine che same
Manner, the Hithpa‘él of yasab is employed as a technical term
One paar lcipatin cumin EMemasSeMmb lvam(Cil) J ObDedejO)) eZee compare
ROv~ecZin2 ones ViexDequnmasmd lsiomenplovedern) thirse sense: in
Hebrew, in Aramaic, and in Ugaritic. In Dan 7:10, the Ancient
of Days is surrounded in court by his myriads who stand
(y’quimiin) “before him."' The verb is also used of the heaven-
lveego cemine Jobe Lo 5i(Ch Loss nol: 4s Deut 926), where: qum
is used of witnesses at a trial). These terms clearly display
that nissab is also to be understood in the technical sense of
standing in the council. Yahweh here has assumed his position
as judge and leader.

199. "The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," 274, n.

3. This is compared to the Akkadian uzuzzu, "'to stand," and
wasabu, "to sit," which are "technical terms for participating
in the pufrum" (T. Jacobsen, "Primitive Democracy in Ancient
Mesopotamia," TIT, 401, n. 24). For references to this usage

in Akkadian, cf. pp. 401-402, n. 24. Cf. also the Akkadian

mangaz pant, “one who stands before (the king)," i.e., a
courren (ABW, 11, 6359).
232

As we have noted above, the function of the council was

to pass judgment. As ’El passed the decree of judgment among
gods and men in Canaanite literature, so Yahweh is the dis-
penser of judgment in the Hebrew texts. He is the judge of
the oppressed and poor (‘ant w@‘ebyén, Ps 74:21; cf. Pss 9:8-
On WSO Cs, Wee ORSES PEE o Unlkeycise., Ie ae, Wine juucliae
of the widowsand orphan) (Psisv D014, ss) OSs 1 46.9) ecerr.
Hemis also the judgesor= the mations (Pssy 75-15-9557 025-10)e
Here, he stands in his council to pass judgment (cf. vv. 1,
8). Beyond judgment in the human realm, Yahweh is also the
judge of the divine beings. His angels, as well as the heav-
enlye hosts, can bes judgedas) Inthe first dascourse Of. Ela pharm,
Job is told that God mistrusts and charges with error the mem-—
bers of his council:

(Job 4:17-18)
Can a mortal be just before God?
Or a man pure to his creator?
Even his servants he does not trust;
And he charges his messengers with error.

It is clear to Eliphaz that God has complete control over the

divine beings. He may find them faithless and even accuse
EINEM Ost SITET)
This view of Yahweh's judicial power is seen even more
vividly in Isa 24:21, where God exercises judgment over both
the "host of heaven" and the "rulers of the earth":

w°hayah bayyém haht’

yipqod YHWH ‘al-s©ba’ hammarém bammarém
wf al-malké ha’&damah ‘al-ha’4damah
And on that day:
Yahweh will punish the host of heaven (lit.
"heights'') in the heights
And the kings of the earth, on the earth.
 ZS

This is the judgment of the council. The host of the heights

and the kings of the earth are to be punished for some mis-
deed or misuse of their power. Exactly what the crime was is
not stated. What is clear, however, is that Yahweh is the
judge and that both heavenly beings, members of his court,
and earthly kings are condemned. It is noteworthy that in
connection with this judgment, the "foundations of the earth
will tremble" (yir‘%3a mds¢dé °aGreg, v. 18), which can hardly
be disassociated from Ps 82:5c. This same connection of the
decree of judgment affecting the foundations of the earth is
found in Mesopotamian mythology. In the ''Myth of the Eleva-
tion of Inanna,' the gods address Anu, saying:

"QO father of the gods, thy command,

the very foundation of the earth,
what god could spurn Cit) 2290

Here, the order of the cosmos, the very foundations of the

earth, are dependent upon the word of the high god. His de-
cree provides the order of the cosmos. In Canaanite lore,
the decree of the god ’El confirms the kingship which deter-
mines the state of the cosmos. Thus, the order of the cosmos
is dependent upon the efficacy of the word of the deity who
leads the pantheon.
In Hebrew literature, Yahweh is clearly pictured as judge
of the poor, the widow, the nations, and the heavenly beings.
In like manner, ’El is pictured as being enthroned in judg-
ment, giving forth his decree from his tent or throne. As the
power over life and death belonged to Yahweh, so also was it
a possession of ’E1. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than
in ‘Anat's promise to ’Aqhat in an attempt to obtain his
mighty bow:

wa-ta‘ni batilatu ‘anatu

*irrisSu hayya-mi la-’aghatu gaziru
?irrisSu hayya-mi wa-’attinuka
bal méta wa-’aSlahuka
ee eRe en ee Se A
200. Translation by T. Jacobsen, "Mesopotamia," 153.
234

*aSaspiruka ‘im ba‘li Sanati

‘im bini ’ili tasappiru yarihima
(CTA 17.V1.25-29)
And the Virgin ‘Anat spoke:
"Ask for life, O Hero ?Aqghat,
Request life and I shall give it to you,
Immortality (lit. "no death") and I shall
give it to you!
I shall make you count the years with Bas dl,
With the son of ’El you will count the months."

But ’Aghat answers the goddess wisely:

wa-ya‘ni ’aqhatu gaziru

?al taSrigunna ya-batulatu
dama la-gaziri Saraguiki hahhu-mi
mét!u *uhriyati maha yiqqahu
maha yiqqahu motu ’atriyatu
Ssapsagu yissiku [la]-ri’Si
hursu la-zari qadqadiya
[wa]-mdtu kulli ’amitu
wa-’ani m6ta-mi ’amitu
GUA SVilS 5=S8)

And the Hero, ’Aqhat answered:

Do not Lie) OF Valagan',
For dies are, refuse, to the) Hero,
What other things can death take?
What can death take that is left?
Glaze will be poured out on my head,
Lyiey One themtOpe Ost sly askudkin
And I shall die the death of all (men),
Surely, I shail die. "20d

201. In lines 35-36, we have followed the translation of

W. F. Albright, "The 'Natural Force' of Moses in the Light of
Ugaritic,'"' BASOR 94 (1944) 33, nn. 17-18. On the forms -uhryt
and *’atryt in lines 35-36, see H. L. Ginsberg, "The North-
Canaanite Myth of Anat and Aghat," BASOR 98 (1945) 21, nn. 52-
 255

*Aqhat obviously knows that ‘Anat does not hold the key to
immortality among men or gods. This is clear from the coun-
cules Cenem ing clAglonV.o- Viln2ae where only ’El can grant life
to the ailing Kirta (compare the role of Yahweh in Isa 38:1-
5). The* power of life belongs to the high god alone. He may
PIvic wilt mOrmhemnavetakems tmawaya(cts laKgse 22 ule )e
A remarkable address by Yassib, son of Kirta, notes one
reason for illness and death--the failure to dispense justice:

la tadinu dina ’almanati

14 tatputu tipta qasiri napSi
1a tadiyu taSima ‘alé dalli
la-panika 14-taSalhim yatéma
ba‘da kisléka ’almanati

kama ’ahhata ‘arSi madwi

2anasta ‘arsi zubulani

ridu la-mulki ’amluka

la-darkatika >atibu<nna>nna-??
(GHEY WSSNAL ASS ears “SS si3))

You do not judge the case of the widow,

Nor do you judge the case of the wretched.
You do not drive out the oppressor of the poor!
You do not feed the orphan before you,
Nor the widow behind you!

You have become a companion of the sick-bed,

You have become a friend of the bed of sickness!

Descend from the kingship that I might reign,

From your dominion that I might sit enthroned
over it!

This address by Yassib reveals two concepts: (1) Kirta's il1l-

mess is the result of his failure to dispense jjustice proper-
ly, especially to the orphan and to the widow; and (2) this
ee
54. spsg is to be taken from the Hittite zapzapa(y)a; (CiA4
Gig WR Daesinyene, Gua, BIS oN wee
202. Reading ’atbnn with C. Virolleaud. Cf. CTA, 77,
236

failure removes Kirta's claim to the throne. The dispensation

of justice was the responsibility of the king (cf. also CTA
17.V.4-8; 19.1.19-25). The earthly king, like the heavenly
king, ’El, was responsible for legal decisions. This fact is
also clear in the biblical material (cf. 2 Sam 15:1-6).
It is clear in Psalm 82:6 that the beings condemned to
die (v. 7) are gods (?8ldhtm; bené Selydn), the members of
Yahweh's council, and not human rulers or judges. The crux
of the interpretation of the psalm revolves about vv. 2-4,
which concern the problem of the dispensation of justice. As
we have seen, this task was specifically given to the members
otethe divine council, sin Meut os) s.cnes “HolysOnes sare
called specifically the "guardians of the peoples." It was
their task to administer justice rightly. Likewise, Deut
3228-9. (cf. Six L717 s dubs TSS -52)) reveals sthat the various
nations were placed under the rule of the other gods, the b?né
?810htm, while Israel was Yahweh's portion and inheritance.
By the principle "like is like," if failure to govern properly
(especially in regard-to the dispensation of justice) consti-
tuted reason for removal of the earthly king, then it would
also justify the condemnation of the divine rulers of various
nations. The Canaanite parallels (CTA 16.V1.45-54; cf. 33-38)
make this clear.
The failure to see the Canaanite parallels to vv. 4-5 as
reason for the condemnation of the gods has forced J. Morgen-
stern to assert that vv. 2-5ab are an insertion for what was
originally the reason for the condemnation of the gods in vv.
Geneeue Likewise, a consideration of vv. 2-4 fails to con-
vince one that they deal with human and not divine judges.
As we have seen, it is precisely the divine beings who were
responsible for the dispensation of justice (compare Ugaritic
tapttu naharu, "Judge River'') who are condemned. As Morgen-
stern asserts, what followed v. 1 in the original form of the
psalm was the arraignment of the divine beings and a formal
indictment of their crime.” oe What he has failed to see, how-
ever, is that this is precisely what is contained in this
a ee
203. "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," 71-76.
PAVERS NEC, MSS
 Zou

section. Because of their failure to dispense justice, they

were condemned to death. Like any earthly king who did not
fulfill this function, they were unworthy to rule. The Hebrew
and Ugaritic evidence both point to the originality of vv. 2-4
COMES alma siZ%
This is further confirmed in v. 5, where their failure to
perceive their responsibility for justice causes the very
foundations of the cosmos to be shaken. The cosmic order in
ancient mythological thought was under the constant threat of
the disorder of chaos, which, if not properly controlled,
could destroy the established order. The Mesopotamian ritu-
al celebration of Marduk's defeat of Tiamat at the ancient
Akitu festival is a vivid representation of the cultic ritu-
al used to insure the order of the cosmos. 205 The Canaanite
stability of the cosmos was dependent upon the god who ruled.
So long as Ba‘l kept the power of Yamm and M6t in check, the
cosmic state was free from the powers of chaos and death.
This was dependent, however, upon the efficacy of ’E1's de-
cree, for it was he who declared which god would rule. Psalm
82 presents a parallel situation in Hebrew thought. So long
as the gods of the nations maintained the proclaimed justice,
the cosmos was firm. Once they failed in this function, how-
ever, the cosmic order was in danger of collapse.
It is this failure, noted in vv. 2-5, that leads to the
condemnation of the gods in vv. 6-7. In fact, it is noted
that they were only thought to have been gods. Their inabili-
ty to carry out their function proved them to be lacking the
power necessary to be "gods," "sons of the Most High." The
phrase "sons of the Most High" (bené ‘elyén, v. 6b) occurs
only here in the biblical tradition. As we have noted
throughout, ‘elyén is used in Hebrew tradition as an epi-
thet of Yahweh, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise
in this instance. It would perhaps be better to render the

205. See T. Jacobsen, "Religious Drama in Ancient Meso-

potamia," in Unity and Diversity: Essays tn the History,

Literature, and Reltgion of the Anctent Near Bast, ed. H.

Goedicke and J. J. Roberts (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Uni-

Versitya Press, 1975), 75-74 and nn. I= /0 Gace Vee)

238

phrase "members of the class of ‘elydn," i.e., "high gods."

In any event, they are identified with the *glohtm, the mem-
bers of Yahweh's council. It is even possible that the term
bené Selydn reflects the tradition behind Deut 32:8, where it
is noted that ‘Elyén/Yahweh apportioned the nations among the
pene °sl1ohtm. Yet v. 6 makes it clear that Yahweh, here act-
ing as judge, prosecutor, and jury, denies them divine status.
The climax of the psalm comes in v. 7, where the gods are
condemned to death, which may reflect a myth of the revolt of
the gods in heaven. As we have shown, however, this revolt
is not the reason for their condemnation. The myth of the
rebellious gods is used here, however, to emphasize the fate
of the gods who failed to carry out their appointed functions.
That gods could be killed, or condemned to death, is not un-
paralleled in the ancient Near East. In Enuma elis, Kingu was
condemned (1V.119-128). In Atra-hasts, dye-ila was killed
(1.1V.123-124) for his rebellious actions. But in neither
the Ugaritic nor the Hebrew material is a god condemned to
death. Reflexes of the revolt of the gods against the high
god and their expulsion from heaven are reflected in both
Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. In Isa 14:12, we read:

6k napalta miSSamayim hélé1 ben-Sahar

nigda‘ta 14’a4res h61é5 ‘al-géyim

How you have fallen from heaven, O Hé1é1 ben SAhar

You are cut down to the ground, O one who
prostrated the nations!

The reason for the expulsion of Hé1él1 ben Sahar, "Shining One
(Day Star), son of Dawn," is explicitly stated in vv. 13-14:
Hé1é1 aspired to place himself above "the stars of ’E1," to
“sit enthroned in the Mount of Assembly (of the gods)," to
“be like ‘Elyén." Obviously, rebellion is here explicit.
One god attempts to usurp the throne of another (a common
motif in Canaanite, Hurro-Hittite, Phoenician, and Greek
mythology). But it is clear in vv. 15-20 that the revolt
fails, and the god is cast from heaven. The identity of
Hé1lél is problematic. The most persuasive argument for the
identification of Hé1é1 with the morning star, Venus, and
 259

with Ugaritic ‘Attar is given by P. Grelot. 72° Grelot accu-

rately notes that the Ugaritic material preserves broken
knowledge of ‘Attar's bid for kingship, but a myth of his be-
ing cast into the Underworld is missing. A possible portion
of this myth is contained in Isa a ca sec The name Hé1él1
means literally "Shining One," The LXX translates 6 éwopdpoc
6 tewt avatérAAwv, "The morning star, the one that rises in the
morning" (i.e., Venus). The Vulgate renders Hélél as Lucifer,
"the light-bringer, Venus." That the Venus-star should be
identified as the son of Sahar, "Dawn," would be expected in
mythological thought.
The Ugaritic texts provide further evidence of such a
god, called "the Shining One," apart from the god Sahru. In
CTA 23, "The Birth of the Gracious Gods," Sahru (Dawn) and
Salimu (Dusk), we find an interesting tricolon:

métu-wa-Sarru yatibu
badéht hitta tukuli
badéhu hitta ’ulmani
(CTA 23.8-9)
Mot (Death) and "Shining One'' sits enthroned.
In his hand, the scepter of bereavement,
In his hand, the staff of widowhood.

We take Sr to be part of a double-name, common to the Ugaritic

texts, meaning "Shining One" (cf. Akkadian Sararu, "to be
Driditantetomshine!™= «ctw alsomAnabic earran, 'sparkling'™).
Such an epithet would provide a perfect parallel to Hélél/
208
Lucifer in Isa 14:12. Interestingly, the god Hélél, the

206. “Isaie XIV 12-15 et son arriere-plan mythologique,”

Revue de l'Htstotre des Religions 149 (1956) 18-48. Note the

minor criticisms of this view by J. W. McKay, "Helel and the

Dawn-Goddess," V7 20 (1970) 451-464. Grelot (p. 30) notes

that Hé1é1 may be identical to Phaethon, son of Eos (cf.

Hesiod's Theogony, 986-989).
207. “Isate XIV 12-15 et son arriére-plan mythologique,"

43-45.
208. This etymology and the concept of Ugaritic ér as
240

"Shining One," is cast into the Underworld (8¢°62, Isa 14:15),

precisely the realm of the god M6t in Ugaritic literature. In
CTA 23.57, we also have reference to Sarri pugrt, ''the Shining
Ones of the council.'' That these gods, presumably the forces
of chaos and death, constitute an assembly should occasion no
surprise. In Fnuma elie, the olden gods, the forces led by
Kingu, have their owm assembly (cf. 1.151-155; El.39-42; Til.
42-46, 101-104). The Atra-fasits myth further displays that
death holds the power of bereavement and widowhood over man-
kind. After the flood had failed to destroy mankind, the
assembly created certain demons to control the population of
Ehiemea tela:

In addition let there be a third category

among the peoples,
(Let there be) among the peoples women who bear
and women who do not bear.
Let there be among the peoples the pasittu-demon
To snatch the baby from the lap who bore it.
(Atra-hasis II1.vii.1-4)?°

Thus, the role of M6t as the deity who deprives the mother of
children is not surprising. Regretfully, however, the Uga-
ritic texts give us no further information on this being or

"Shining One" and its parallels with the biblical reflections

of unsuccessful revolts against the high god were first
pointed out to the writer by F. M. Cross (oral communication).
We note that a different approach has been taken by D. T.
Tsumura, "A Ugaritic God MT-W-SR, and His Two Weapons," UF 6
(1974) 407-413. He derives sr from the Arabic Sarr, "evil,"
hence the name means "Death-and-Evil."' On pp. 408-409 he dis-
cusses the various interpretations of the name, and on pp.
TOS 3) hesintenpre:seieimes So lilunon sci Sco mh emp rmUndnic mors
the fields of M6t. Because of the parallel with the bibli-
cal figure of Hé1é1, we are unable to accept his interpreta-
EMO

209. The translation is that of Lambert and Millard,

Atra-hasts, 103.
 241

these beings, called "Shining One(s)." The parallel with

peAchs who was cast into the Underworld, is, however, obvi-
10
ous,
The biblical traditions, however, present two more ac-
counts of rebellions of the gods. Similar to the revolt de-
picted in Isa 14:12-15 is the rebellion of the Prince of Tyre
in Ezek 28:1-19. The Prince of Tyre, like Hé1é1, aspired to
occupy the throne of God, asserting, "I am *#1/?81l6him" (°é1
S27? me 2eeciLontmenand ayo). eeimneboth instances.) Yahweh's
judgment comes forth, "but you are a man, and not a god"
(we? attah °adam w’ld°?-*él, vv. 2, 9). For his attempted
exaltation above ’El, he is condemned to the Underworld (ir, 139)
and is driven from Paradise (vv. 14-16). Most significant is

210. Only with the greatest caution does the author sug-
gest that the biblical material contains one, and possibly
two, references to the "Shining Ones" (Sartm). In Ps 49:15,
a passage universally regarded as corrupt, we find mawe t
paralleling y@sartim. If the initial ydd of y@sartim is dropped
as a dittography or, better, read as the conjunction, having
become y via orthographic confusion, we may have the parallel
of "Death" and “Shining One." ~The total confusion of the text
in this verse, however, makes no reconstruction possible at
the present time. A similar reference to the "Shining Ones"
could be contained in m@sarim of Ps 58:1b, but we regard this
as much less likely. On the problems of Ps 49:15, cf. M.
Dahood, Psalms I, 300-301. At the present time, however, we
can only note that Psalm 49 in its entirety is concerned with
the problem of death and its inescapability. The concept of
Mot/"Shining One" as the shepherd who leads people down into
the Underworld presents numerous affinities with CTA 23.8-
9. The attempt of J. Morgenstern to read @k?hélél ben-
Sahar tippdla in v. 7b of Psalm 82 for the text of the MT
on the basis of Isa 14:12-14 is totally unnecessary ("The

Mythological Background of Psalm 82," aur Walt, euowal sol, Me 7/)))5

As we shall show in the remainder of this section, the

parallel of "Adam" and "Shining One" is the proper read-

ing, and the consonantal text of the MT requires no emenda-

EuOM.
242

the parallel, "you are a man, and not a god" (vv. 2, 9) with
Ps 82:7, where the gods are sentenced to death "like a man."
The Prince of Tyre receives this same punishment.“
It is impossible to agree with M. Pope that the myth
underlying Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 was a revolt by 2E1l him-
self in an attempt to regain the position taken by Bah
Both texts make it perfectly clear that the revolt was
against, not by, the god ’El. For this rebellion the gods
were cast into the Underworld. The final rebellion of the
gods recounted in Hebrew literature, and the one most empha-
sized by Morgenstern, is the consorting of the "sons of God"
(bené-ha’? ld6htm) with the daughters of mankind (Gen err ay
According to Morgenstern, this was the reason that the gods
were condemned in Ps 82:6-7. It is his view that vv. 2-5ab
have been inserted into the original psalm, to avoid mention
of this reason for their condemnation. poy A link between Ps
82°7b “and Gen 6:4 is found ian the concept of the “Lalilang™ tor
the gods. Ps 82:7b states that "dike one of the "Shining
Ones' you shall fall," in reference to the condemned gods.
Likewise, after "the sons of God' consorted with "the daugh-
ters of man" (Gen 6:2), it is noted that "the fallen ones"

211. The mythological background of both of these myths

is placed in an historical framework in Dan 11:21-45. Here,
the figure Antiochus IV Epiphanes exalts himself in the same
manner as Hé1é1l and the Prince of Tyre:

And the king shall do according to his will.

He shall exalt and magnify himself above
every god (yttgaddél ‘al-kol-*é1) and against
the god of gods (w?‘al °é2 °&Ltm) he shall
speak eas Conus
ha me at han eSirae eae elds
5Os Geen Sip)

Thus, the myth of a revolt against a high god is here accorded

to a human. But the text confirms that his fate shall be the
same as that of the deities who led the other revolts. 11:45
notes, "yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him."
2ill Degen EULA M Olhe
213. "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," 76-114.
PW SBE oy IGS TMS)
 243

(hann°piltm, Gen 6:4) were in the land. Further, post-bibli-

cal passages refer to the myth of certain stars which fell
from heaven (1 Enoch 86:1-6; cf. also 1 Enoch 64-69; 3 Macc
2:4; etc.) and were later condemned for their acts (2 Enoch
18:1-6). Indeed, the concept of gods revolting against the
high god and being expelled from Heaven is common in the post-
biblical writings (cf. 17 Enoch 6:7; 8:3-4; 69:2; etc.). While
this myth provides ample reason for the condemnation of the
gods, we do not feel that it in any way pertains to Psalm 82.
Rather, Ps 82:2-4 contains quite explicitly the reason for
the condemnation of the gods--they have failed in their task
to maintain justice, the foundation of the cosmos. Thus, they
shall "fall," i.e., be cast from Heaven into the Underworld,
as were the "Shining Ones."
The only problem remaining in the text is in v. 7a, "like
a man you shall die." The reading "man" (’?adam) does not form
a good parallel with "Shining Ones" (Sarim) in 7b. One solu-
tion, proposed by M. Dahood, is possible. “+> He cites the
Egyptian evidence noted by W. F. Albright that the consort of
RaSpu was called *a-tu-m (normalized as either Atum or
Ley oee The root *dm, meaning literally "the red earth,"
was then the wife of Raspu. In Ug. V.18.26 (RS 20.24),
d2nergal is equated with ra&gpu of CTA 29.11.5. Likewise, his
wife qal-la-tum (1. 22) is equated with ’arsayyu of CTA 29.11.
1. Thus the MT's *adam could be revocalized ’adum/’addm and
read as a chthonic deity in parallel with the condemned gods
of v. 7b. But there is no revolt involved on the part of
tnusmeoddess noOceanrallucesonsher part to) fulfill any,
responsibility. We suggest that the reading of the MT (’adam)
be maintained and read as biblical ’adam. By this reading we
retain the concept of a revolt by the first man in biblical
mythology/history (cf. Genesis 3). Here *adam rebelled
against God by accepting the fruit of the "tree of the knowl-
edge of good and evil," for which the punishment was death
(Gen 2:17). For his sin, *a@dam was driven out of the Garden
of Eden (Gen 3:24; cf. Ezek 28:14-16), and the garden was then
cus Vea el ee ee ee

215. "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I," 292.

ibs — VACKG, WWI
244

protected by the cherubs. By reading ’adam as a reference to

the primal revolt of the first man against God, an excellent
parallel is given to the heavenly revolt leading to the gods'
being cast into the Underworld. Thus, no emendation of the
consonantal text is necessary. The gods were indicted for
their failure to be the guardians of the peoples (cf. Deut
33:3; 32:8-9). This failure constituted a revolt for which
they were condemned. We therefore regard Psalm 82 as a com-
plete unity in itself, requiring only a proper interpretation,
but no emendation. There is also no reason to excise v. 8 as
a later addition, for its originality to the psalm has been
most persuasively argued by J. A. Ackerman. AN tive tcalily for
Yahweh to arise and judge the nations himself after having
condemned the other gods is an integral part of the psalm.
It is clear that Psalm 82 adds a great amount of knowledge
to our understanding of the nature and function of the heaven-
live Council,

The Divine Counctl tn the Eptes of Ktrta and Dan°’tl

In the epic accounts of both Kirta and Dan’il, one of

the central concerns is life--specifically the insurance of
progeny for the king so that the dynasty might be continued.
Since this issue revolves about procreation, it is natural
that the leading deity in the story is ’El, "the creator of
created things."" Accompanied by his council, ’El decides the
matter of progeny for both Kirta and Dan’il. Interestingly,
Ba‘l takes part in the proceedings, not as a warrior or as a
fertility god, but rather as an intercessor for the human
king. As we shall see below, the situations of Kirta and
Dan’il and their need for an intercessor are paralleled in
the biblical material, specifically in the book of Job. Both
the Kirta and Dan’il texts also share a common theme with the
Patriarchal narratives. As R. Clifford notes, in both tradi-
tions the ancestor is without a male child to continue his
line. The god then appears either in a dream or by messen-
gers, and enables the patriarch or king to produce the desired
TTS

217. "An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82," 424-441.

 245

offspring. Since both the Patriarchal narratives and the

Ugaritic epics come from the same basic period (Middle/Late
Bronze Age), we may presume a cultural continuum for much of
the second millennium B.C. from Ugarit to the eastern Delta
region. £18
The Dan’il epic begins with the depiction of an Ugaritic
incubation ritual. 219 The text begins with Dan’il's involve-
Menteineches cul tacmi tual ewhrcheasston bemseensas taking place
InecIeMEcipleemMost laukely (ClAM Welt =54)n, ASewelwoulid rex-
pect in such a sacred ritual, the rite lasted for seven days:

[hlamist taditt <Sabi‘i> yami

Cbvecey {Oarilsamen) (clei ayi
?uzra ’ilima yilhamu
[?uzra] yaSqiyu bani qudSi
(CBA Aol oleae)

A fifth, a sixth, a seventh day

Dan’il (gives) an offering of the gods,
An offering he feeds the gods,
An offering he gives the sons of QudSu to drink. 279

Dan’il here entices the gods to come to him via his food and
drink offerings, a common concept in the Near East. The rea-
son that Dan’il indulges in this ritual is stated to ’El by
Baal:

tS Nem WOrcdmOtmiGoGmin wtnewUgarltiGerpucs and an tiie

Patriarchal Narratives," in The Word in the World: Essays tn
Honor of Frederick J. Moriarty, S.J., ed. R. J. Clifford and
G. W. MacRae (Cambridge: Weston College Press, 1973), 7.
ZIG eHOreandescniptlonoL thiseritual, see J. Obermann
How Daniel Was Blessed with a Son: An Ineubatton Scene in
Ugaritte, Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental
Society, no. 6 (Baltimore: The American Oriental Society,
1946), 7-10.
220. Though the tablet does not have adequate space for
the reading 3b‘ in line 12, we have inserted it. It may have
been lost by haplography. On the term ’uzr, “offering, obla-
tion," cf. Arabic wadratu, ''a portion of meat without bones"
246

makka ba-Sabi‘t yami-mi

[wa-]lyiqrab ba‘ lu ba-hannatihu
*?abyanatu [d]4n’il mutu rapi’i
*anihu gaziru [mutu] harnamayyi
da ’6na bina laht kama ’ahihu
wa-SursSa kama ’aryihu
bal ’éta bina lahu k!ama ’ahih cr

wa-Sursa kama ’aryihu

?uzarima ’iluma yilhamu
?uzarima yaSqiyt bant qudSi
1a tabarrikunnanna la toéru ’ilu ’abuya
tamarrunnanna la baniyu binwati
wa-yakun binuhut ba-béti
SurSu ba-qirbi hékalihu
(CCA eel
OS ez7)

Then on the seventh day

Ba‘l drew near with his supplication.
"In need is Dan’il, man of Rapi’,
Moaning is the Hero, the Harnamite,
Who has no son in his house like his brothers,
Nor scion like his kindred.
He has no son like his brothers,
Nor scion, like his kindred.
(He has given) offerings for the gods to eat,
Oblations that the sons of QudSu might drink!
Will you not bless him, O Bull ’°E1, my father,
Strengthen him, O Creator of created things?
Let there be a son in (his) house,
A scion in the midst of his palace!"221

(Go iy Whee Clik sv. my IE )ic

221. vapt?u, as we shall show below (pp. 261-267),
means "Hale One," and refers perhaps to a class of warriors
whose patron deity was ’El. The term Arnmy is the place name
Harnam, modern Hermel, plus the common gentilic -ayyu, “the
ONS eke Whe WG Ma Gieeiss, Gata, ANA, ails AN25 ator bibliog-
raphy.
 247

Ba‘1l's speech reveals several important facts. First of

all, despite the ritual performed by Dan’il, it was necessary
for Ba‘l to act as an intercessor before ’E1, the patron deity
of the king. Also, it states that the ritual came to its cli-
max on the seventh day. Clearly, Dan’il was bereft of proge-
ny, for this is twice emphasized by Ba‘l in his supplication.
The efforts by Dan’il are stated as reasons for ’El's pro-
nouncing a favorable decision--the king had fulfilled the
proper cultic rituals. It is also clear from the references
to bt//hkl that the ritual was performed in the temple, most
probably a royal sanctuary. In the following lines, ’E1 re-
sponds favorably to Ba‘l's intercessions:

[yi] had ’*ilu ‘abdahu

yabarrik [dan’i]1l muta rapi’i
yamarri gazira [muta har]namayyi
(GHA Mi slo SS=57/)

wa-yakun binuhu [ba-béti]

[SurSu] ba-qirbi hékaliht
(CLAS pal
AS 4,45)

*E1l took his servant (into his carey"

He blessed Dan’il, man of Rapi’
He strengthened the Hero, the Harnamite.

"Let a son be established in (his) house,

AN Bergin aim elas inshelsie Ore Insis jedleveci™

The word of ’°E1 brings forth the desired results. Though

lines 40-43 are terribly broken, it is apparent that the wife

of Dan’il conceives and bears a son. Though the actual birth

of *Aqhat is not recorded, due to the broken nature of the

text, it is apparent that his birth occurs toward the end of

ee ee ene oe her iene er we Se aes ah ee

27 For the translation (into his) care),() ci. Fo M.

Grosse Glin l7i8 anden,. 58%,

248

this column. 225 The revelation of ’El's decree to D&n’il is

not recorded, but it is most likely that it was by way of a
dream, asain athe: Kirtasepic, (Gian 7ANV4® ten 5 5-20 Ie56)
In the passage from the Dan’il epic, the assembly plays
little or no role. Only ’E1 and Ba‘l are seen as major par-
ticipants in the act of procuring progeny. In the Kirta epic,
however, the assembly is not only present, but is also very
active. The assembly visits Kirta (CTA 15.11.2-7) after he
has performed the incubation ritual, as had Dan’il. This
ritual ws: mecounteds an 10d iA 26SS56

ya‘rub ba-hidrihu yabkiyu

ba-tani <r>igamima wa-yidma‘
tinnatikanna ’udma‘atuhu
kama tiqalima ’arsah
ka-mahmaSati mittatahu
ba-ma bakayihu wa-yaSsin
ba-dama‘ihu nahamimatu
Sinatu tal’u’annu wa-yiSkab
<ba-ma> nahamimati wa-yaqmis?74

He entered his chamber weeping,

As he repeated the words, he wept.
His tears were poured out
Like shekels to the ground,
Like pieces of five on his bed.
As he wept, he fell asleep,
As he cried, drowsiness.
Sleep overcame him and he lay down,
In his drowsiness, he curled up.

Like Dan’il, Kirta was lacking progeny. CTA 14.1.7-25 re-

counts the destruction of his entire household. He thus per-
formed an incubation rite to procure progeny, as did Dan’il.
No doubt part of this rite, not recorded here, included
ai
225. OL RENC Ere sitOGaeLonsmpropose dar nec caus Oman tmrOr
224, The final line is metrically too short. We have
inserted <bm> at the beginning of the line for metrical rea-
sons.
 249

offerings to the gods. Kirta went to his chamber, possibly

part of the royal sanctuary, and uttered words (rtgamima) ,
which constituted the liturgical part of the ritual. When he
fell asleep, ’El appeared in a dream, asking what Kirta de-
sured (4 71°35-11.56). Kinta explicitly. requests offspring
(11.57-58). In the remainder of CTA 14, ’°El directs Kirta
in a campaign against Pabil of ’Udum, in order to obtain his
wife, Hurrayyu. Having obtained a wife, Kirta now requires
the blessing of progeny.
thes council comes) to Kinta (CrA 15, 01.2-7). and the same
pattern as that found in Dan’il is found here. Ba‘l inter-
cedes for the king, and ’E1 and the council grant offspring
Om Ka rita’:

[?’ah]ara magayu ‘if[dJatu ’ili-mi

[waleyaena tal2ayvainul ba<diu
PCBMEl) Mew iur they ene aewabe [Pani Gllibr joyebO unelal
la tabarriku [kirta] ta‘
la tamarru nu‘mana [galma] ’ili
(COAL sve Vie Wak als)

Then the council of ’El1 arrived

And ’Al’iyan Ba‘l1 spoke:
"Come now, O Kindly One, ’El the Compassionate,
Will you not bless Kirta, the Noble,
Will you not strengthen Nu‘man, lad of ser enees

225. We have rendered ¢° as "noble," a common epithet of

KimtayeeGeshw Dielvem =nendenss at —'Munita cent, fromia root oy
(Cite) eAtctlelinemetakesai tan roms the Old South Ana -
bic, mt‘y, “an offering" (Wérterbuch der Ugartttschen Sprache,
MO, 2B2O7). Cs Gorcdom (Wir, nim, AVS) mores me eS while clogugine
tion of the clan to which Kirta belongs. The proper etymology
is most likely to be found in the Hebrew s0%°, "independent,
noble," as noted by H. L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret:
A Canaanite Epte of the Bronze Age, BASOR Supplementary Stu-
dies, 2-3 (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research,
1946), 33. The epic notes throughout that Kirta stands in a
special relationship to the god ?E1 and his consort ’Atirat.
The texts not only refer to Kirta as galmu *ilt, "lad/servant
250

We note that Ba’ i"s positiom as iantercessom for Kixta as

placed precisely within the context of the divine council.

of °E1," but also as the "offspring of Kindly One" (siphu

Donaaiie » CH MS
MOS 2MVOR IG, to AO=25)) EWG, AS AS VTOsis prelas
of Kindly One (’E1) and QudSu (’Atirat)" [stphu Lutpant wa-
Cay (Gh Mon detail. oA s Wiles|. Swe is shir eee IS7,
Wareal as called "the son on °hl'™ (b2nu-me bee sOrA hoe. 0):
II.110). This must be seen in conjunction with the epithet of
EL, "father of man" (@abu °adamt), a title restricted to the
KGlaseey ante, (WOU AM NSH ALS ACI ILS, GUILE. Woz eee Wilke
Zh San
297. This does not imply ia divane™ bare, bur rather tsa po
etic method of stressing the relationship of the king to his
protecting/patron God. Two biblical parallels confirm this:
Ps 2:7, where Yahweh addresses the king, "You are my son (b?nz
-attah), today I have begotten you," and 2 Sam 7:14, where
Yahweh again says of the king, "I will be to him a father
(1°°ab) and he will be to me a son (2°%bén)." For discussion
and bibliography, seeé=A. Fr. Rainey, “institutions: ~Pamaly,
Civil and eval tary. inka Shamma Pana ete i liemrod mil mens
Fisher (Romese) Pontitieally Biblacals instr tute Ov75)n os-coR
We should also note that Kirta, like Dan’il, is included among
the® UtatesOnes Poly them Wand (apes wears) Galeria Spee
14), a concept which we shall treat below (pp. 261-267).
Kirta's relationship to ’Atirat is vividly displayed in his
vow to the goddess in return for success in obtaining a wife
and offspring:

yam[giyu] la-qudSi [ ] surri-mi

wa-la-’ilati sid[yani]
-mi
tamma yaddu[r ki]rta ta‘
?2 ?itatu <qudSu> surri-mi
wa-’ilatu sidyani-mi
himma hurriyya bétiya ’iqqahu
?aSa‘ribu galmata haziraya
(CTA 14.1V.197-205)

They came to Qudsu of Tyre

And stom Elartoersadon
There Kirta, the Noble, made a vow:
 Ba

It is to ’E1l, the head of the council, that Ba‘l) makes his

supplication. Following the plea of Ba‘l, °E1 pronounces his
favorable decree from the council--Kirta shall be granted
progeny:

késa yi’hadu [’ilu ba]-yadi

karpana ba-ma [yamini]
baraku-mi yabarriku [‘abdahut]
yabarriku ’ilu kirta [ta‘]
[yamarru]-mi nu‘ma[na] galma ’ili
?a[ttata tiqq]ahu ya kirta
?attata tiqqahu bétika
galmata taSa‘ribu haz!irika
talidu Siba‘a banima laka
wa-tamanu tattamminu-mi laka
talidu yassiba galma
yaniqa halaba ’a[t]irati masisa
tadé batulati [‘anati]
musSaniqa[tu ’ilima]
(CLAM Stal Teel o=2'8))

?El takes a cup in (his) hand,

A flagon in (his) right hand.
Indeed he blesses his servant,
?El blesses Kirta, the Noble,
He strengthens Nu‘man, lad of ’E1.
"The woman you shall take, O Kirta,
The woman you shall take into your house,
The maiden you shall lead into your court,

"As QudsSu of Tyre exists,

And ’Elat of Sidén,
I will surely take Hurriya to my house,
I will bring the lass to my court."

On the text, see W. F. Albright, "A Vow to Asherah in the

Keret Epic," BASOR 94 (1944) 30-31. We have followed the
emendation proposed by F. M. Cross ("Prose and Poetry in the
Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit," 9-10), dropping ’a[trt]
as an expansion.
Zor

Will bear seven sons to you,

Eight she will produce for you.
She will bear the lad Yassib,
Who sucks the milk of ’Atirat,
Who suckles the breasts of Virgin ‘Anat,
The wetnurses of the gods."

The setting of the blessing of Kirta with progeny is

clearly within the divine council. The proceedings of the
councilm Bawls vintencessron, andmthesdeerecwor *El appeared
in a vision to Kirta, no doubt in a shrine or a holy place
(cf. 2 Kes) 220193235 lsavah Gi through) che ancerces sionyor
Batl, “El, the giver of eg pronounces that the son Kirta
desires shall be delivered to him.
Hebrew literature presents the same concept of the high
god, Yahweh, granting progeny to the barren. In Gen 15:1-6,
Yahweh appears to Abram in a dream (v. 1) and promises him
progeny (v. 4). Abram then performs an incubation rite, pre-
paring offerings for Yahweh (vv. 9-11), and a deep sleep over-
comes him. 227 In Gen 18:2, he encounters three envoys of

226. ’El's position as life-giver has been emphasized

Else Oyae be EWE WOEee, Ie Tie Cilegie Ta eel Shy WI,
Bee Ss) TeiNeRe
*Aghat is aware that ‘Anat cannot offer life eternal. This
can only be given by ’El. Likewise, in 16.V.9-VI.2, only ’E1
among the gods can cure Kirta of his illness. The two serpent
Cliglas: ariel Whyemeitic (Wie Wav) (UNS Wael, Bek) ehatel URS eh. BLT)
studied by M. Astour, "Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms," 13-36,
show the primacy of °E1 as a god of healing. For the order
of the gods invoked in these two texts, both led by the deity
7E1, see the collation by C. Virolleaud, Ug. V, 578.
227. Any structural analysis of Genesis 15 encounters
numerous ditirculties ns Gen Silas wsecleanmlysasnedactonlomet=
fort to supply an editorial link between Gen 13:14-18 and
15:1b-21. The usage of the divine name YHWH in v. la displays
the hand of the Yahwist. The epic source of the remainder of
the passage, vv. 1b-21, is less easily determined. Giieanaleys,
vv. 1b-6, the promise of progeny, and vv. 7-21, the covenant
ceremony, were originally independent sources, here combined
 GID)

Yahweh and offers them food (vv. 4-8). Then, in v. 10, Yah-
weh proclaims that Sarah shall surely bear him a son, a prom-
ise that is fulfilled in 21:2. The parallels between this
and the Ugaritic material leave no doubt that a common tradi-
tion was shared by the two. This same pattern of lack of
progeny, prayer to Yahweh, and the granting of a scion is
found also of Isaac (Gen 25:21); Jacob (Gen 30:1-24); and
Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10, 21). Like ’E1, Yahweh granted progeny.
As in the Ugaritic material, each instance of this pertains
to an important personage. We may assume that there was a
fixed ritual of offering and supplication to overcome barren-
ness.
What is suzprising in’ the text is) the role of Ba‘’l as
intercessor for the king. In the dialogues of Job and Ps
89:37-38, we find remarkable parallels to this concept.
Though certainly the figure portrayed in these passages is
not the god Ba‘l, the background and desire for a divine
imtercessoc beLore the high god is clléarly related to the
role Of Ba’ il in Kirta and Dan?il. Four passages in Job (9:33-
Selon oZie LOS
2 5s ss 225-24) ererbect. the desirestor a wit—-
ness or arbiter to present Job's case before God.

DY Taerecictor coe tOnm alunite. —burtherm inconsistencies. in the

passage reveal that at least two sources--both J and E--have
been combined. Verse 5 notes that it is nighttime, while vv.
12 and 17 presume it is only evening. Also, v. 6 affirms
the faith of Abraham, while v. 8 expresses doubt on Abraham's
part. While the major portion of vv. 1-6 must be attributed
to the J source, the possibility remains that vv. 5-6 belong
to the Elohistic source. On the assignment of the sources,
see M. Noth, Htstory of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W.
Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), 28, 1. 85, and p. 265. Noth would further assign
vv. 1b, 3a, 5, 13-16 to E. See also G. von Rad, Genesis,
trans. J. Marks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961),

177-185. Von Rad assigns vv. 5-6 to the E source, At the

present time it is clear that Genesis 15 represents a redac-

tion of the separate JE epic sources which cannot be cleanly
separated due to the work of a skillful editor.
254

In the reply of Job to Bildad, he states the desire that

there be an arbiter (mdkt%h) between them, that his punishment
be removed, and that he might speak without fear (9:33-35).
In 33:23-24, Elihu tells Job that unless a man has an angel
(mal’?ak), an interpreter (mel7g) to proclaim a mans) J USsitalce
and ransom him from Sheol, then he is doomed. These three
figures who serve as intercessors between man and man and be-
tween man and God are related by M. Pope to the figure of the
heavenly witness and redeemer in Job 16:19-21 end 15:25. °5°
JObELepie Sm toni lap naze

Surely my witness “ed

(‘édt) is in heaven,
And my guarantor (&a@hadz) is on high.

The interpreter (mélts) of my thoughts to God,

Unto whom my eye drips .*29

Now he pleads with a man before God

As a man for his friend.
(oR TOE 2 15)

Job states his assurance that his vindication will be brought

about by a witness who will testify to his righteousness be-
fore God and correctly interpret his thoughts. He will plead
Ope RBIS. “Tessas ss ElNe Geese EheellikeleioyN, Eis Clic! Weil seaie
Kirta and Dan’il. Job's faith in this being is further at-
tested in his address to Bildad:

I know my redeemer (g6’°@Z7) lives,

A "guarantor" (?ak&rdn) will arise upon the dust."
(19:25)
228... Job, The Anchor Bible; Viole 1S. (Gardens Citys. Nev oe
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1973), 146. The identification
of the méltg and mal’ak in 16:19 and the ‘éd and sahéd of
16:19 with the go’°éz of 19:25 was first made by S. Mowinckel,
"Hiobs go?el und Zeuge in Himmel," in Vom Alten Testament:
Festschrift fiir Karl Martt, ed. K. Budde (Giessen: Alfred
Tépelmann, 1925), 207-212.
229. For the reconstruction and interpretation of this
VERSE, sce Mie Pope nm cio amalL Zor vor
230. For the reading "guarantor," see M. Pope, Job, 146 >
 DDS

Thus, Hebrew thought was well acquainted with the concept of

a heavenly intercessor--a divine being who could and would
intercede on man's behalf.
A passage reflecting this same concept of a heavenly wit-
ness in the Old Testament has been overlooked by scholars. In
Ps 89:37-38, regarding David, we read, following the MT:

His seed shall endure forever,

And his throne like the sun before me.

Like the moon it shall be established forever

And the witness (w®*éd) in the sky is sure.

Though M, Dahood?> renders ‘d "throne," such an interpreta-

ClO Se Un US ti fred ane oht one ChesUGaritacaconcept or Bac
as intercessor for the king and a heavenly witness as an
intermediary for Job. Indeed, it should be expected from
the Ugaritic evidence that the king would have a witness be-
fore Yahweh.
In the epic texts from Ugarit, one of the major concerns
is the procurement of progeny. This 1s granted by the crea-
tor-god ’E1l and his council. The same concept of a ritual to
produce children is found in Hebrew literature, especially in
the Patriarchal narratives from the same era. Likewise, in
both Ugaritic and Hebrew religion, man must not always stand
alone before God. He may be granted an intercessor, an inter-
preter, to present his case before the deity.

The Role of Ba‘tl tn the Assembly

Apart from the position of Ba‘l as intercessor for the

king before the assembly, this god is seen in the role of
warrior/protector of the divine court. His position in the
assembly is explicitly noted in CTA 2.1.21 ("Ba‘l was standing

who compares ’ah&rén of 19:25b with the statement by Yahweh,

"T am the first and I am the last" (’ahardn) in Isa 44:6.
ASN MPEGS Il SMG Seuss
256

besidsek iis: cA? ee Wal tee posieaon is

Be Tulpan ea beN- OLE)
clear--he is one among the gods of the divine assembly. But
he seems to have at least one special function. He is the
protector par excellence of the divine assembly. A remarkable
parallel between the position of Ba‘l in the council and the
position of the young warrior David exists in the Ugaritic
and Hebrew literatures. In Ug. V.2.1.2-4 (RS 24.252) we read:

?7ilu yatibu ba-‘attarti

*ilu tapita ba-haddi ra‘iyi
di yaSiru wa-dammiru ba-kinnari
*El sits enthroned with ‘Attart
’E1l sits in judgment with Haddu, the shepherd,
Who sings and plays upon the lyre.

This presents the same triad of divinities, with ’El enthroned

as high god, that we have seen in the Phoenician account of
Sanchuniathon (Praep. evang. 1.10.31). The position of the
elderly king, the malku ‘dlamz, and his young warrior son,
called a shepherd, who entertains him by singing and playing
upon the lyre, presents an extraordinary parallel to the pic-
ture of David and Saul as seen in Hebrew literature (1 Sam
16:11-23). David was a shepherd (rd‘eh, 1 Sam 16:11), skill-
ful in playing the lyre (yddé%* naggén, 1 Sam 16:18), and a
man of war (gtbbér hayil w®?t&S milhamah, 1 Sam 16:18). The

232. In the continuing effort to show that Ba‘l was at-

tempting to usurp the position and power of ’El, U. Oldenburg
(The Conflict Between El and Ba‘al, 135) translates this line,
"Ba‘al was rising against EL" (italics mine). The text clear-
ly shows, however, that Ba‘l was subservient to ’El. As we
have seen, Ba‘l was bound by the decree of ’El, as were the
other gods, and ’El was the complete master of the scene de-
picted in the assembly (contra Oldenburg, ibid., 69-70).
Oldenburg's translation is impossible. The various scenes of
the council in Hebrew literature frequently depict the posi-
tions of the other gods of the assembly by the idiomatic usage
of ‘2 with a verb of standing (1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:2; Zech
Aras Stee).
 257

parallels between the two passages are remarkable. Both pre-

sent the elderly god/king being soothed by the younger warrior
who would one day succeed him as the warrior/protector of the
cosmos/nation.
Ba‘l exhorts and rebukes the gods for their fear before
the messengers of Yamm (CTA 2.1.24-29), but he is in no way
aDle@tomexhort the divinities tomaction.» Bas leisounable! to
change the inevitable decree of ’E1l (11. 36-37) and is forced
to battle Yamm outside the assembly, but not until after at-
tempting to slaughter the messengers of Yamm himself (11. 39-
44). This inability of Ba‘l to influence or change the deci-
sion of the council finds a parallel in Sumerian literature.
In the Sumerian "Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur,"
Ningal, the wife of the moon-god Nanna, pleads with the coun-
cil to spare the city of Ur, which the assembly has declared
condemned:

Then verily to the assembly, where the crowd

had not yet risen,
While the Anunnaki, binding themselves (to up-
hold the decision) were still seated,
I dragged my feet and stretched out my arms.
In truth, I shed my tears in front of Anu.
In truth, myself I mourned in front of Enlil:
"May not my city be destroyed?" I said indeed
to them.
"May Ur not be destroyed?" I said indeed to them.
But Anu never bent towards those words,
And Enlil never went with an, "It is pleasing,
Vet at' be," daid= soothe my heart.°°°

Like Ba‘l's rebuke and exhortation to the council, the decree

was firmly established--its fulfillment was immanent.
This Sumerian text vividly displays another parallel with
the Ugaritic material. The two major gods of the council were
a a gl i a ee

233. We have used the translation of T. Jacobsen, "'Meso-

oem, Pino mils, (Cal Else) ielole translation by S. N, Kramer,

ANET, 458.
258

Anu and Enlil. While the identification of the Canaanite ’E1

with the sky-god Anu is not possible, for there seem to be no
astral connotations of the god ’E1, their positions in the
council are identical. Indisputably, they were the heads of
their respective assemblies. Alongside each stood the storm-
god--Enlil and Ba‘l--the son of the high god. In Mesopotamia,
the task of carrying out the decisions of the divine council
was the duty of Enlil. Ba‘l seems to have served no such
function in the Ugaritic mythology. His function as the pro-
tector of the council may, however, be seen in his defeats of
Yamm and M6t, two gods who would have brought the return of
chaos, the destruction of the cosmic order, and the dissolu-
tion of the divine realm. In this function of divine warrior,
vividly seen in Ba‘1's exhortation of the gods in CTA 2.1.24-
29, Ba‘l serves as the protector of the cosmic order (cf. Ps
a eTe Oyo While Ba‘l may be aided in his battles by his
Goistease niche (ere, He) OAM GS0SS5S SUR S5esOh), ine Tis file
accompanied by a military entourage (?tlanu™ til-la-at ddad
[Ug. V.18.25 (RS 20.24) |<corresponding to the 2712 ¢] “dr be
Oty CLA S29°. he ym £ apeatsS On UiGie mic Oc LieG)seelense) mu Gane eG4 Sills anich
13.21 [RS 24.253]). At no time, however, does this military
entourage function in any active capacity in the texts from
Ugarit. Indeed, mention of them is confined to the pantheon
lists and the sacrificial lists, and they do not even appear
in the mythic literature. While the texts may conceive of
Ba‘1l doing battle with a full complement of troops, in the
stories themselves Ba‘l stands alone against his foes, receiv-
ing outside help only from ‘Anat and Kétar (CTA 2.1V.7-20).
A remarkable scene within the council is depicted in CTA
4.I111.10-22, called by M. Pope the "Great Expectoration Pas-
sage,"2>> where Ba‘l arises and spits in the assembly:

ya[tu]b ’al’iyanu ba‘lu

yitcadid nakibulcanrapata
ae ee Ne a ee eee eee
234. See the analysis of these two passages by F. M.
Cross, CMHE, 91-93.
PA THULE, MONS.
 259

[himma] yiddad wa-yaqallisanna

yaqum wa-yiwpatanna
ba-téka pulh]ri bani ’ilima
(CTA 4.I11.10-14)
7Al’iyan Ba‘l returned,
The Rider of the Clouds was restored.

Verily he arose and scoffed,

He stood and spit
In the midst of the assembly of the podse>

Ba‘l's actions display a great amount of hostility toward the

assembly, similar to his actions in attacking the messengers
of Yann ain 2. 1.59-445 The reasons for his) actions are some-
what obscure, especially in light of his enigmatic statements
ineilines V4—22, concerming events that Bayi hates:

dam tina dibha-mi Sani’u ba‘lu

talata rakibu ‘arapati
(hice 18)
Indeed two sacrifices Ba‘l hates,
Three, the Rider of the Clouds.

His complaints seem to center around lewdness at the court.2>/

236. Several words in the present text require comment.

ytb could mean "he sits enthroned" (/ ytb) or "he returns"
(Vv twb). We have chosen the latter because of the parallel-
ism with yt‘dd, meaning "he was restored" (i.e., "returned")
[compare the Hebrew Hithp6lél of ‘wd]. On ydd, "'to stand"
(V ndd), see U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath, 109. The verb
ywptn is problematic. We take it as a by-form (I-w) of the
Mapilemniar acc tOmsplty aplusmene energ1ce sending lt eis poss
sible, though we deem it unlikely, that the w is a dittography
from the conjunction which precedes the verb, and the form
could then be read as yappatunna.
237. For translations of his complaints, all of which
are in basic agreement, see H. L. Ginsberg, AWET, 132; G. R.
Dniver Cine s eeands OyGOLdOnN Ul, 50 geeNt Dest, the passage
remains obscure.
260

The setting of the assembly is not explicitly noted, though we

must assume that it was on the gursanu/mount of ’E1, though
Bl himself is not noted as being present. Indeed, M. Pope
asserts that ’El is not present at the meeting, and that the
entire episode occurs on Ba‘1l's mountain, Sapan, especially
since ’Atirat prepares to visit El in column IV of the same
text. 778
While ’B1l is not explicitly noted as presiding over this
meeting of the assembly, several factors argue for his pres-
ence there. In 4.1.24-44, reference is made to the furnish-
ings of *El's tent. In 4.11.36, the mountain of °E1 is ex-
plicitly mentioned (haru ’t1t). Likewise, the first nine
lines of column III are broken and completely unintelligible.
That the event does not occur on Ba‘l's mount is clear, for in
IV.19, Ba‘l departs for his abode while ’Atirat goes to ’E1 to
request an abode for the god (I1V.20-57), which is granted by
°B1l in IV.58-V.63. The proper reason for Ba‘1's outburst
within the council is that which has been noted by T. H.
Gaster: Ba‘l is constantly rebuked by his brothers , the gods,
since he has won the right to kingship via his defeat of Yamn,
but has no palace. He, like his consorts/wives, must dwell
with his father °£1,7°° Clearly, the setting is the council
on ’El's mountain. Since this episode follows immediately
upon ’El's refusal to grant a palace for Ba‘l through the
young god's intermediary ‘Anat, we would reconstruct that this
episode 1s" the mesullt of Basis frustration atenoet, having at—
tained the divine sanction for his castle and kingship. He
needs the decree of ’El to legitimize his claims, but this
comes only later, through the influence of “Atirat on °Bil. 240
—_ _Yn—X—

DSi AcOH ENG)5 ASS).

239. "A King Without a Castle--Baal's Appeal to
Asherat," 23-25.
240. Such derision in the divine council is not unparal-
leled. In Atra-hasts (II.vi.15-18), Enki is overcome with
laughter within the assembly at the decision of the council to
withhold rain from the land in an attempt to destroy mankind.
Such action in the council by Enki is highly analogous to the
response of Ba‘l to the council's refusal to grant him a
palace.
 261

EL in the Rephaim Texts

While the so-called Rephaim texts (CTA 20-22) do not men-

tion the divine assembly, they contain three concepts which
perhaps connect them with the council: (1) the imperative by
?El to the gods to come to his palace; (2) the fact that these
gods constitute, as we shall see, a class of warriors; and
(3) the meeting-house as the place of a divine banquet. All
three of these factors constitute elements in the concept of
the meeting of the divine assembly. These texts have been
studied very thoroughly by a number of scholars, who have come
to a variety of conclusions on the nature of the beings called
Cosi) etheywane gods 9(2)) they are 'shades,'” i.e... dei-
fied dead; or (3) they are cultic functionaries. oo That they
are gods is confirmed by the parallelism of rp’? um with ’tlnym

241. For a discussion of these views and a bibliography,

seeuG.l Heureux, “The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,') #2R 67
(1974) 265-266 and nn. 1-4. See also J. Gray, The Legacy of
Canaan, 126-131. For a full treatment of these texts, see
L'Heureux, "El and the Rephaim: New Light from Ugartttea V,"
131-174. André Caquot has recently published the translation
of a new Ugaritic text numbered RS 34.126, along with some
brief comments. The text and comments appear on pp. 426-429
as an appendix at the end of an otherwise unrelated article,
"Hebreu et Arameen,'Annuatre du Collége de France 75 (1975-76)
AS A5) ine thaisecext. che ypot Jalrat) 4 the Rape wot the
Undenworl dati 2.m 9)l, ane anvoked in a ritual (ef. 11 4055,
8.9, 24) by the king “Ammurapi’u (1, 31). While the exact
nature of the ritual invocation of the rapi’u remains some-
what enigmatic, it seems quite possible that it is to be re-
lated to the Babylonian kispu ritual--the mortuary offerings
to the deceased ancestors. On the kispu ritual, see J. J.
Finkelstein, ''The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty," JCS 20
C966) 95-118, esperppe LIS-117 5 We see no contradiction be-
tween the rp’um as deceased members of a warrior guild and as
a class of gods who constitute such a military elite. Fora

full treatment of the text, see the interpretation of J. C.

de Moor, “Rapi’tma Rephaim," ZAW 88 (1976) 323-345, and the
262

Gy AN pee NW Sila, , YoOR eas. Satt, W=ik, dlsi2 5

DP ig Seth, SoG, 8, WO WO, 20-7, AHa4O8 Co Solo?
[?tinym]; 6.VI.45-46 [rp?tim//?tinym]).
Both of these terms require comment. As noted by C.
L'Heureux, rp’ should be taken as a gatiZ pattern (rapi’u)
meaning "one who is in a healthy condition," “hale, hearty,
LObUSts Vigorous, lusty, etc." “HalesOne, Hero sappl2 es iver
well to the beings designated as rapt’uma in the Ugaritic
texts, especially Dan’il and Kirta. Most interestingly, it
is an exceptionally apt description of the god ’E1, who is
called rapi’?u malku ‘dlami, '"'The Hale One, the eternal king"
(Ue. Vetul. lel: yll- 425-0 6y 07a [RS @nes
20 yo The term *Znym
can be interpreted as "the ones of ’E1." It may be analyzed
as follows: the divine name ’tZ with a doubly hypochoristic
expansion: -anu plus -ty (the common nisbeh formation) .7*>
It is possible that the term may mean simply “the divine
ones," but in light of L'Heureux's identification of these
beings, it seems best to render the term "the ones of ’E1."
The fixed parallelism of rp’um and *tinym leaves no doubt
thatecheysaremtoubemconsidene. dada vine bedaeSr mend deh Cm aon et
pretations note that the rp’m are invited to someone's house.
After a chariot journey of three days, they arrive at the
"threshing floors/plantations" (grnt/mt‘t). Finally, they
spend seven days in a great banquet. ?*4

bibliography on p. 323, n. 3. De Moor argues that rp’u is

anveputhet of Baal despates thesevidence or Wane Vices 14
(RS 24.252), which clearly notes tbat at is) hi whomasmco
be identified with rp’?u mtk ‘im, "The Hale one, the eternal
king." Likewise, it is ’El who is accompanied by ‘Attart
and Ba‘l and who, in Ug. V.2.11.6-10, sits in judgment over
his offspring and blesses Ugarit.
242. "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim," 269-270.
243. C. L'Heureux, "El and the Rephaim: New Light
from Ugaritica V,"" 125. Note also that the terms rp’m and
?¢mm occur in the mid-fifth century B.C. inscription of
?ESmun‘azor.
244. "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,™ 265)
 263

The designation of Kirta as "exalted among the 'Hale

Ones!) ots theMearthu@apt?t elaret,, CPA USI Ase, Isha th)) heal
the common designation of Dan’il as "a member (lit. "man'') of
tne Wie Ome" Cimn maple, Gl 7.0.2, 18, BO, B7=58°
Wo Ais8 Wot55 UNG SO=37/3 Ils WR Ife ese seen) Ines
long led scholars to connect these texts with the ’Aqhat epic,
especially in view of the fact that Dan’il is specifically
mentioned in CTA 20.11.7-8. Of great significance in both
cases is the warrior aspect of the king, which is seen most
explicitly in Kirta's campaigns against ’Udum. Likewise,
Hebrew tradition records the existence of a race of giants
(v?pa’?tm), evidently warriors, in the land (Gen 14:5; 15:20;
Mewes ASI, 208 Seiletse sJjoOsin iy eebo ibesosbes aly sae yy Sena Ak eal
Bas I Chie AOSA) 5 kone alee Terteyclit restos qyetcelatslin Israelite hacexal=
ture also refer to the r?pa’?tm as the "shades" of the dead
CUSey TEs Bogich, AES 1k yeni dolar Ogee Irony A silts pcabtstis
21:16). The two seemingly contradictory concepts have been
synthesized by C. L'Heureux, who sees the divine rp’um as
chariot warriors. Used in the divine realm, the singular rp’u
refers to °El, the "Hale One,'' the "eternal King" (cf. Gen
ZO iceeNune 23S, whene 2elontm/2er ts used with the werb
rapa’); the plural (rp’um) refers to the members of this
aristocratre class. »in the earthly sphere, rp-um refers to
a warrior guild (the martyyanu?) under the patronage of ’E1.
45
This militaristic function? may be connected with the

DOS, nis uS CGommedranteel sen Cle WS SW oo (ees Boab).

where we read:

ma’?ida ruma [kirta]

ba=-toka napa?i Zari[si]
ba-pubri qabusi datanu

Greatly exalted is Kirta

Ins thesmidst of the "Hale Ones of the Harth
In the gathered assemblage of the warriors,

On dtn as “warrior, valiant one," see H. Sauren and G. Keste-

mont, "Keret, Roi de Hubur," UF 3 (1971) 206, n. 61, where

they note the equation da-at-nu = gar-ra-[du]. Cf. also CAD,

Tile i225 Aw, 1, 165.) The parallelism argues against taking

264

concept of the "shades," for when one of the warriors died,

he joined the ''Hale Ones' of the Underworld" (rp’t ’arg), a
term which was later democratized to denote simply all those
who had died aan
O. Eissfeldt's recognition that mrz‘*, found in CfA 21.1.
1, 5, 9, ws’ equivalent to the term mrzz (Hebrew marzé*h, Amos
6:7; Jer 16:5)747 connects this rite with the mrzh of ’E1 in
Ug. V.1.15 (RS 24.258). The meaning of marzthu is clear from
the banquet text, Ug. V.1 (RS 24.258),248 and from the LXX
rendering of marzé%h in Jer 16:5 by Stacog. The mrzh/mrz‘ re-
fers to a banquet held by the gods at a designated place.
This is clear from CTA 20-522 and RS 24.258. The house ds
clearly that of the god ’E1, the patron-god of the rapi’uma:

dtn as a place name, as is done by M. Astour, "Place Names,"

kas Shanna wWaravverrs),. lin 20-28
Z46a “The Ucari tic wand Biblacaly Rephaim, 270-2 74.
24 MU Kooltveredniel anm@tivarmint7 vigie V0 = L940 Sess Se
feldt discusses the two biblical occurrences of marzé%h on pp.
188-190 and the Akkadian references on pp. 190-192. The cor-
respondence between mrzh and mrz* is based on the Akkadian
variants btt awtlé ma-ar-za/at-t (PRU III, RS 15.88.4, 6) and
the more common marathu (RS 14.16.3 [for the text, see Ch.
Virolleaud, "Six Textes de Ras Shamra,"' Syrta 28 (1951) 173-
175]). The semantic equivalent to the Akkadian awilé marzai
is found*in»RS 1957570251105, me mrah, “aman of the marazh.”
(For the text, see The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, ed. L. R.
Bisher )[Romes) Pontifical, Biblicale institute, LOM em onooce)
Ch. Virolleaud asserts that mrz‘y is without doubt a gentilic,
as in the phrase mt hrnmy or ?tinym. “Le Rephaim," Syria 22
(1941) 9. As we shall see, however, the final y is the first
person suffix and refers to °E1. It is not a gentilic.
248. For a recent bibliography on Ug. V.1 (RS 24.258),
see M. Pope, "A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,"' in The Use of the
Old Testament tn the New and Other Essays, ed. J. M. Efird
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 170, n. 2. For later
occurrences of the term mrzh, see B. Porten, Arehives from
Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968),
TeYS) IEG)
 265

?ilu dabaha ba-bétiht maséda

sda ba-qirbi hékali [ht]
siha la-qassa ’ilima

talahhimuna ’iltma wa-taStina

taStuna yé(na) ‘ad Suba‘i
tiréta ‘ad Sukari
Wiga Walle! [NNS 245 258i)))

7El prepared game in his palace,

Provisions in the midst of his temple.
He summoned the gods "to mess "1249

The gods ate and drank,

They drank wine until satiated,
New wine until inebriated.

The banquet scene is obvious. The gods are summoned to the

house/palace (bt/hkl) of ’E1, who has either prepared the
banquet himself or had it prepared by ‘Anat and ‘Attart (ll.
9-12). The picture of the gods gathered in an assembly is
reminiscent of the depictions of the divine council in Meso-
potamia, where great feasting and drinking preceded the deci-
sion by the council (cf. Eniuma elté III.130-138).¢°>° Indeed,
this is precisely the picture that is obtained of the assembly
of the gods in Ugaritic myth:

appa ’iluma la-<la>hhima yatabu

bana qudsi la-tarrima
(CTA 2.1.20-21)
Now the gods were seated to eat,
The sons of QudSu to dine.

249. We follow M. Pope's interpretation of qs (/ qss),

POMC ERO LLC hmm COmDEediqpcead mc ONMesSnll AaDaV IIe
Banquet at Ugarit," 176-178.
250. Apart from the present text and the Rephaim texts,
banquets play a large role in Ugaritic mythology. Cf. CTA
Pe Ose Sella ZO oA Vin O6- IM OS eon le dS = 29%
LSPGH OR WP SW WSO SNS Wer WEA aia Ikee (ORS) AChE Asal)
266

Our present text (Ug. V.1 [RS 24.258]) continues, however,

depicting ’El, the host, at the banquet:

yatibu ’ilu [ba-]’ati[rihu]

?ilu yatibu ba-marzihihu

yasSti [’ilu yé]na ‘ad Suba‘i

tirota oad) suicar a
(14. 24-16)
°E1l sits enthroned in his shrine,->+
El sits enthroned at his banquet.

*E1 drinks wine until satiated,

New wine until inebriated.

The high god himself eventually passes out and is confronted

by an otherwise unknown being called Hubbay, "he of horns and
Cans” (hit, USS 20)).
It is impossible for us to separate this text from the
Rephaim texts, where the gods come to banquet at the invita-
tion of Els or from vge V2 (RS 24.252) where 28) ist acai
seen at a banquet and is given the epithet rapt’u malku
‘6lami.75* In ug. V.1.15-16, *atirihii, "his shrine/place,"
parallels smargsehrny, “has banquet.) 9lters "ObVtots suhate thas

251. We follow here the restoration of M. Pope (atrh)

in line 15. "A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,"™ 190.
“oes. Ro LOS? 702 recounts the procurement of va house
(bt) for the meeting of the mrzh. The text reads:

marzihu du qanaya Samumanu ba-bétiw (Obv. 1-4)

The margthu which Samamanu established

in bes ehousery.ae

The text continues, showing that Samimanu established the

marathu in his own house (bbty, Obv. 8), and concludes with
the witnesses to the agreement that he would maintain the
neshe HORvan analySaseohe thism text. see PaeD jeMadWvereal ihe
MRZH Text," in The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets, 37-48; and
M. Dahood, "Additional Notes on the MRZH Text," in The Clare-
mont Ras Shamra Tablets, 51-56.
 267

is the scene of the banquet. The gods participate with ’E1 in

the cultic celebration. The participants are, no doubt, the
vrapt*uma. The connection of the marathu with the assembly may
be seen in the fact that the gods, the rapt’?uma, are warrior-
gods, as were the members of ’El's council. Further, they in-
dulge in a feast, involving great eating and drinking, a com-
mon feature of the divine assembly in Mesopotamia. Finally,
the rapt’ima are summoned by ’El1 with plural imperatives,
which, as we have noted, are characteristic of the summons to
the assembly, or decree from the council:

liku bétiya [rapi’wtma]

[rapi’uma bé]tiya ’asihakum
?iqra’a[kum ’ilaniyuma ba-hé]kaliya
(CA BiwiolsS, O=Mils 2A .0 Sac,
S=1O0F Ge, 2ZA5 lo ik=
20)

Come to my house, O Hale Ones!

I summon you to my house, O Hale Ones!
Dvcald you, “ones of EI," into my temple.

Here the banquet takes place. The location is the bt//hkl of

?E1, which differs from the portable shrine tradition of the
mythological texts. It is not, however, impossible to see the
bt mrzh as a “banquet house," similar to the bit akttu of the
Mesopotamian New Year's festival, where the gods retired to
determine the destinies for the coming year. We suggest,
therefore, that the Rephaim texts and the two texts from Ug.
V are to be connected with the mountain dwelling of ’E1 where
the gods would go to participate in the assembly, the meeting
of which was preceded, like the Mesopotamian puhkrum, by a
MajOtteasti.

2FL and the Council tn the Liturgical Texts from Ugartt

and the Insertpttons from Phoentcta

Like the mythic and epic cycles from Ugarit, the litur-
gical lists show quite distinctly that ?E1l was the paramount

authority, not only in the realm of the gods , but also in the

cultic realm. We cannot agree with the assertion of A.

268

Kapelrud that the sacrificial texts do not say anything about

oS
the importance of a god or his place in the pantheon. The
olden gods, the gods of the cosmogonic myths (i.e., Heaven,
Earth, Mountains, Rivers, etc.), do not have cults or temples,
nor do they receive sacrifices. Only the active gods in the
pantheon are the recipients of sacrifices in the cult. We may
assume a prtort that a god who is offered sacrifices is a dei-
ty who was worshipped by at least a segment of the population.
Regretfully, the sacrificial and liturgical texts from Ugarit
provide very little if any description of the nature of the
ritual that was performed. We may, however, legitimately in-
fer from the position of a deity and the sacrifices offered
to that god what position he held in the pantheon. Like ’E1,
the divine assembly is offered sacrifices, a fact that would
seem to indicate that the council was in some sense hyposta-
tized, becoming an entity unto itself. This will be developed
MOnCwLUL LViedSeWemcOns 1Ce Tune ls tom chem sede Ss same in Ep Osi
Ugaritic times, to judge from the small amount of inscription-
al evidence available to us, the assembly continued to be
treated as a divine entity, alongside the major deities of
the area, but not necessarily including them.2°4
One major source for a study of the position of ’El and
the council is the pantheon list, fortunately preserved in
two corresponding versions: 2°95 CfA 29, in Ugaritic, and RS
20.24 (Ug. V.18), in Akkadian. The Ugaritic list is headed
by *t¢t epn (29.1), the “divine Sapan," which seems to corre-
spond to “yurgan ga-zt (18.14) in the Akkadian list. Since
°tl spn does not stand at the head of the majority of parallel
texts, J. €. de Moor asserts that at as adentical) to Churdan
Ga-2t (18.14) and should be regarded as a later addition to
the text. 7°° We are not inclined to agree with this asser-

253. The Violent Goddess, 113.

254. R. Clifford, The Cosmie Mountain, 45.
255. <A third, heretofore unpublished pantheon list,
which agrees with the two that have already been published,
is described by J. Nougayrol, Ug. V, 63-64.
256. "The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit," uF 2 (1970) 204,
PAUS
 269

tion. Since Ba‘l was obviously the most important god of

fertility in Ugaritic religion, we see no reason that his
deified mountain (indeed considered a source of Fem tality:
itself) should not precede the major deities of the panthe-
on. Both pantheon lists agree in their ordering of the next
deity—=*77[2tbs (2922) = DENGPR a-bt (18.1). “It is agreed
that this god is an ancestral god, "the god of the fathers."
He does not, however, belong to the cult of the cosmic, execu-
tive deities. The final part of his name, °tb (a-bt), is
generally connected with the Hebrew °6b, "ghost, spirit."7°/
The list then continues, with °z[2Z] (lum lum) | dgn (4da-gan),
xl Eiloxe (4adad be-el Gursan ta-zt), followed by six separate
ba‘lm (b‘2 = dadad), who are all, no doubt, local manifesta-
tions of the god (cf. CTA 31.1-11, where at least ten b*lm are
mentioned).
Deets enot Until Ne7AS ZO Iie that thespoyres2 (meus men
euoned esrendered in RS 2024 (Ug. V.18.28)) by dnu-hur tlani™.
The inclusion of the assembly of the gods shows clearly that
the assembly was regarded as a divine entity. Yet its posi-
tion ine thes text, far below 2HI, Dasnu, and) Basi, shows that
it referred to minor gods. An analogy from the same list is
helpful. The members of the heavenly assembly were accorded
the same basic deification as were "the helper gods of Ba‘1"
(il t) ‘dr b*l, CTA 29.11.4 = tlanu™ tit-la-at dadad, 18.
25). Both the assembly and auxiliary troops were composed
of numerous deities, but they were minor gods. In a sense
the council has been hypostatized, and references to it may
be equated with references to *E1 and his decree. An excel-
lent example is found in the analogous phrase tlu rabtutum in
napharisunu, "the great gods in their totality," as analyzed

D5i. INgrmljslie, We, LaPom mes Isms cuaeikehe wl Ain aWale

connection of Ugaritic *ib with Hebrew ’db is somewhat dubi-
ous. We should expect Ugaritic to represent the first vowel

with ’a (or perhaps ’u). [On the problems of the three

Glep's iim Upemenigie, SOO Cy Genco, Wir, Seo Uatleta Whe wine

deity Il-ab (DINGIR. AB), see J. J. M. Roberts, Yhe Farltest

Semttte Pantheon, 34-35.
270

LAY Wo dis Mle Roberts. °° This is similar to the phrase pur

2iim in the pantheon and liturgical lists and can be taken as
a summary statement of all the other great gods that the
scribe did not explicitly note.
This status is vavidly illustrated by the sacrificial
lists, in which the assembly is offered small sacrifices, but
never the same sacrifice as that given to ’El or the other
kay OCS, Ik CMA Sais Aah CES ISA BSRMO Billél SOSH 5
we read:

yVaiteasieus La=abusbaniessa du
yittasi’w la-dari bani 211i
la-mupahhirati bani ’ili

Let it be carried to the father of the sons of ’E1

Let it be borne to the assembly of the sons of ’E1
To the council of the sons of ’E1.

This passage clearly distinguishes between ’El, called °abi

bant °tilt, and the council, designated by dart bant °tilzt and
259
mupakhtratt bant *tlt. This same distinction is found in
NS asses Gerais UNS wre GyWl Se

SciGeh [oeWiruBue “suit

daru bani ’ili
mupahhiratu bani ’ili
tuk! amunu wa-Sumanu
*ilu wa-’atiratu
(il. 125)

258. The Harltest Semitte Pantheon, 150. For refer-

ences to the phrase; see n. 90), p. 62. We might also note
that the two incantation texts, Ug. V.7 (RS 24.244) and
V.8 (RS 24.251), give lists of the gods, with ’E1 noted
at the beginning of each text. Cf. above, n. 226, for
bibliography. The council of the gods is not cited in
either of these texts.
259. For a discussion of the various views of CTA 32,
see Ms Pope, ZUr, 88-910),
 ?E1; the sons of ’E1;
The assembly of the sons of ’E1;
The council of the sons of °E1;
Tukamunu and Sumanu
*E1 and *Atirat. 290

The first line of the text presents the most problems,

for it is open, as is the entire text, to numerous interpre-
tations. Since the text is not in poetry, we have not felt
obligated to render a parallelistic translation. It should
beynotedyhowever, that 67 2225 dr pn 2-22, and mphrt bn *tl
domsicandmingpanra lle ly aaLince |nm27 Pepieacbcould: possibly abe
translated "’E1, the son of ’E1.'' This could be inferred
from Philo's account (Praep. evang. 1.10.25-26), which re-
counts that three sons were born to Kronos--Kronos (Kpdévoc
oudvowos TH tatel), Zeus Belos, and Apollo. We regard the
statement by Philo as a doublet, the original name of the
first son either having been lost or having been transferred
from another tradition. 0. Eissfeldt views ’El as being the
essence ("Inbegrtff") of the other gods listed, compares this
text to the position of °El in CfA 32, and renders the first
line "Gott der Gdtter,'' with which the next two lines are in
parallel. kmn and Smn are both Kassite deities, possibly
introduced into the Ugaritic pantheon through some political
development. 7°! JeeAtstlertnemecrans labtesm anemia Oh. Ei
and views the entire text as a litany invoking the high gods,
especially ’E1, for protection. MOE Lines 6-19 are extremely
enigmatic, and no solution can be attempted here. aoe What

DOU OnE cull a bi biography One tls mtext .aSee mdi AlSit
leitner, "Ein Opfertext aus Ugarit (No. 53.) mit Exkurs Uber
kosmologische Beziehungen der ugaritischen Mythologie," 1; and
Mis TORS 5. JU Se
Wie GUI» CL -O7
BOD. Misthioy (Ojoae@arisen
een aNe
263. For a discussion of the treatments of lines 6-19,
see M. Pope, HUT, 85-89. Aistleitner's interpretation is

found in "Ein Opfertext,'" 4, Eissfeldt's in ZUP, 61-62. At

the present time, too many problems remain for a final solu-
tion to the meaning of this text.
LidlPd

this text does show us, however, is that 7E1l, as in the pan-
theon lists, clearly stands at the head of the Ugaritic pan-
theon. It is also clear that all seventeen occurrences of ’7t2
in this text refer to the god ’El.
°E1's position as high god is further confirmed by the
sacrificial texts from Ras Shamra. They provide little infor-
mation that is not already available, and will be treated only
briefly. BOP In every sacrificial list, ’El precedes Ba‘l1 and
Dagnu asi the recipient of sacrifices. This order is vividly
displayed in CTA 36.1.3, which reads *ti ¢ b*2 es dgn 3, "a
sheep to ’El, a sheep to Ba‘l, a sheep to Dagnu." The coun-
cli"s wrolevas= recipient of Sadcrutnceseis Seen To Wg. Vee soe
9 (RS 241643): 2922 °alp w8[...°b*lm *alp wal.... ” phr ?tlm
8, "For ’E1 an ox and a sheep...for Ba‘l1 an ox and a sheep...
1205
for the assembly of the gods, a sheep. In column II of
the same text, ’El receives a sheep, as does Dagnu (11. 3-4).
In Ug. V.13.13-14 (RS 24.253), both *EB1 and Ba‘l receive only
a sheep. CYA 34.2, 6, 14 refers to "an ox and a sheep for
Pag (Gls Aye. areata Sineein” (Gl, Ol), ging) “Hore Bo, a
heifer" (1. 14). Though this by no means represents a com-
Dieteesitudvyaot thessacti
td Gi ale tarde
tS medical Sms tia diGrencmmeO
show that despite the type or amount of sacrifice offered,
the god ’El always stands before the other gods in the lists,
with one exception. As in the pantheon lists noted above,
°tL, even in the sacrificial lists, is generally preceded by
the shadowy ancestral deity °7¢2°?tb.
One final group of sacrificial texts remains to be
created: | CLASS 4555, and Apple (RGe S05 ne HAlemiS Oss on
where the phrase dr ’tl wphkr b‘l seems to be attested (CTA
34.7; 35.16; App. 11.17-18). The question of an assembly of
Ba‘l has been mentioned above, and it was there suggested
that it may refer to a "morning offering to Ba‘ d,'*°9° “The

264. An excellent study of the sacrificial texts from

Ug. V has been done by J. C. de Moor, "Studies in the New
Alphabetie Texts from Ras Shamra 11," UH 2) (1970) 9505-3527.
265. J. €. dé Moor, tpid-, 307, notes that possibly six
b-t(m) are to be read in the text (che T4 2016-1410 Wicia, Mig llishc
BEM [WS AO 6 Ai)
AMs (Giho Lexie we ibs jog aly
 273

problem revolves around the fact that nowhere is Ba‘l seen as

the head of the divine assembly. Furthermore, every instance
of pkr b*‘l is reconstructed on the basis of CTA 34.7 (dr 2t1
wpl Jr b*t). In our opinion, phr b‘2 is the correct restora-
tion. This does not mean that there was a council led by ’£1
and another led by Ba‘l. The line is to be translated "'the
council of ’E1 and the assemblage of Ba‘1" (daru °?t1t wa-puhru
bait). °°! The dary -tie reters specifically to the council
of the gods, the sons of ’E1l (i.e., the pyr *iim). The pgr
Dupeceners to, thes "auxilvarystorces of Bal,") the °7.7 t‘dr
b*‘2, as well as to his cloud entourage (‘nm) and the other
members of his coterie. It is also possible that phr b‘Z2 re-
feESecO the totality of the manitestations of Bal (cf. CTA
29.6-11 and CTA 31), though we would expect phr b‘im to be
written. We do not feel that phr b‘l refers to an hyposta-
tization of the totality of the manifestations of Ba‘l. Rath-
CHC NCE Di ED manerersmGonisemi ld tary: entourage. -°8
Our extra-Ugaritic references to the council provide the
same picture that we have seen throughout. Several Phoenician
inscriptions mention the council, but add little to our knowl-
edge of the assembly. In the Yehawmilk inscription from the
PentiMmmcentlan ver DaGr mi(KAdm 4. 15.— 5))ipe bati Samém, the lady of
Byblos, and ''the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos" (wmphrt
21 gbl qdém) are invoked to prolong the days of the king over

267. H.-W. Jiingling (Der Tod der Gétter, 57) translates

"Familie Els und Gesamtheit Baals.'' Cf. also W. H. Schmidt,
Kéntgtum Gottes, 26, 31 (n. 6).
DOSMOENe REOCCUMGeNGCCSmOL Eres LOOL ODym mdi Uiga ilede fOC=
cur in CTA 23.57 (pyr), referring to the "Shining Ones of the
Ascenbiny nEC HAA Zo nmpoymiere Louse LOeKingtals tama Ly,
(Gia cru lind44 035 phym bem, the entirety of his household,"
and pgry ’a[ in a broken letter in CTA 56.2). In RS 17.100.
Tie 4a(Appeal, GA, 134-136), par occurs at the end Gee f) jee

ken line in the text, and no antecedent can be restored. In

PRU I1I.1.11.9-10, purk, which may refer to the divine assem-

bly, occurs in a text which W. F. Albright ("Specimens of

Late Ugaritic Prose," BASOR 150 [1958] 36, n. 5 en OceSmdSe a:

liturgical text and possibly an incantation.

274

his city. KAI 26.11I.18-19, the Karatepe inscription from ca.

720" BaGay invokes Bact Samém and ’El, the creator of the
earth, the eternal Sun, and "all the assembly of the sons of
2E1" (wkl dv bn *lm) to destroy anyone who defaces his city.
Likewise, the Phoenician incantation plaque of the seventh
century B.C. from Arslan Tash (KAT 27.11-12) invokes “all the
sons of ’El and the great (ones) of the council of all the
holy ones" (wkl bn ?1lm wrb dr kl qdén), along with ’E1 (called
"the Eternal One") and ASerah. The Sipit-Ba‘l inscription
£TOM ABYDOS (cases 00 Bae.) sKAme 9D.
5 6 jeinvokese Bast), Bagiacm
"and every god (wkZ *[Z...) to guard the sarcophagus.'"' These
inscriptions point out that “as late as the sixth century Bsa,
the divine assembly was still invoked as an active part of
Canaanite/Phoenician religion. Like the council in the Uga-
ritic material, however, the assembly seems to be more an
hypostatization of the minor gods not mentioned in the in-
Scription 1tself. “ihe council tseto bewscen=as a davine cnt
ty which, though still considered active, was actually only an
extension of the decree and will of the major god of the pan-
theon.

The Development of the Counetl-Mottf in Late Hebrew and

Post-Btblteal Wrttings

In all the biblical depictions of the council studied

thus far, the divine beings constituting its membership have
been without identity. They have served as warriors, messen-
gers, and intermediaries. But three later, post-exilic texts
(Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Zech 3:1-7) reveal a development unparal-
leled in the Ugaritic/Phoenician materials. In these pas-
sages, Yahweh, though still quite obviously the supreme head
of the council, has withdrawn somewhat from the council pro-
ceedings, and the other members of the council begin to
develop specific functions. In each of these passages, the
role of Satan (Satan), though not yet an independent figure
as in post-biblical writings, begins to develop.
In Zech 3:1-7, Joshua, the high priest, stands for judg-
ment before the messenger of Yahweh (‘dméd Lipné mal’ak YHWH
vo I) eandethesSatan) (lite “thesadversany sas standing at
 Qiks

Duserachts tomacecuse) names ini veces Vahwelh (note that the Syri-
ac reads mal’ak YHWH) rebukes the Satan. The mal’ak addresses
the ones standing before him using the plural imperative that
is characteristic of the council (hastrf@, v. 4; w@étm&i [with
LXX], v- 5), in reference to the changing of the garments of
Encmhauch= priest. winevview O=7, the mal’?ak YHWH invokes Joshua
with the common message formula, kdh *amar YHWH s@ba’?dt. At
the end of the passage, the high priest is once more invoked
by the messenger with an imperative (s@ma‘-na’, v. 8). The
significance of this passage is that the mal’ak YHWH, not Yah-
weh himself (with the possible exception of v. 2), leads the
council proceedings. Yahweh has become more transcendent,
leaving his divine couriers to direct the assembly.°°9
A similar scene of the council is presented in Job 1:6-
12; 2:1-7, where the "sons of God" (b°né ha°&lohtm) and the
Satan (ha&satan) present themselves before Yahweh on an ap-
pointed day (hayydm, Job 1:6; Bee ee Only the Satan plays
decOlemhe re mus hunectLOMetS topatrol thesearth (compare
the four horsemen of Zech 1:8-11 and the seven eyes of Yahweh
imac chin4t 0) line bDOLiaccOUntES Or thes Council mmeeting . Yahi
weh gives the Satan the power to test Job, but not to kill
him. In this passage it is clear that Yahweh himself directs
the council proceedings. What is most interesting is the
development of the Satan. In both Job 1 and 2 and Zechariah
3, the word occurs with the direct article, showing that satan
ome metike wand mots ve tua proper name. 2/1 Yahweh thus con-

269. Depictions of the divine council are also found in

HEciiiiaaomanceo 5 CemGoreNn Delve Lidweli yeWazomanm (Zech.
3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah's Fourth Vision," 352.
2708 Lt ts quite possible that "the day" refers to the
New Year, when the fates were fixed for the coming year, a
concept well documented in the Babylonian New Year's Festival.
Cf. E. C. Kingsbury, "The Prophet and the Council of Yahweh,"
JBL 83 (1964) 285.
27 Onkyart nels Ghiae2i: 1 Vdoes satan vappear tas a propes
name and as an adversary to Yahweh's plans. This passage
probably reflects later theological interpretation, for the
parallel passage in 2 Sam 24:1 notes that David's sin was the
result of Yahweh's anger.
276

tinues as the undisputed leader of the council, but more and

more power and position in the assembly are given to the mem-
bers of the ‘counieil-
This development may be seen in the representation of
the Satan. Nowhere in the Old Testament does the Satan ap-
pear as a demonic figure opposed to God. The name itself is
applied in only three passages, all of which are post-exilic.
In the Old Testament, the Satan is indeed a divine being, but
in each occurrence the name is an appellative--it defines the
role which this member of Yahweh's court performed as the "ad-
versary.'"' In post-biblical material, however, this figure be-
came the source and personification of Evil. In the later
descriptions of Satan in the Essene writings from Qumran, he
came to symbolize the Spirit of Wickedness over against the
Syoslaralie se Truth. 77? He developed a retinue of gods called
Watans! Ss (@ Bnoeh 40 cits mCi Soca O40 se ee Coy) aL apPOCiy tial
and pseudepigraphal literature he is often called ma&témah,
WemmditVapmelaO Sytem Dietitian Colted
iovome lelice seumels nS ye eles meeLengictel
Crstrmet Olrc eanetaes
Hos 9:7-8). 2 Enoeh 29:4-5 reveals that a certain Satanail
with his angels was cast from heaven for his revolt against
God (ct. sia 14312-1535 Ezek 282119." Dan iia ws) ne
figure of the Satan as an adversary who patrolled the earth
as a member of Yahweh's council (in Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; and
Zech 3:2) was developed into the personification and source
js 1Byiahl
As with the specialization of the role of Satan, the
other members of the council developed specialized functions.
In) Dan sl0s13, (213) 12s), the angel’ Michael as mameds anes soc
9:21, the angel Gabriel. That these certain members of the
court were given specific names and functions as early as the
book of Daniel shows that during the late biblical period,
an elaborate angelology was beginning to develop. In Jub.
2:2, the hierarchy of angels is presented:

For on the first day He created the heavens

which are above and the earth and the waters
ee ee eee
272. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, 210-
 eile

and all the spirits which serve before him--

the angels of the presence, and the angels
of sanctification, and the angels of the
spirit of fire and the angels of the spirit
of the winds, and the angels of the spirit
of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow
and of hail and of hoar frost, and the an-
gels of the voices and of the thunder and
of the lightning, and the angels of the
Spirits of cold and heat, and of winter
and spring and of autumn and of summer,
and of all the spirits of His creatures
which are in the heavens and on the earth....

The numerous ranks of angels are in charge of the main-

tenance of the cosmos. The members of Yahweh's council, who
had previously had only a collective function in the assem-
bly, are now given specific functions in the human and divine
realms. The angels become mediators (1 Enoch 99:3; cf. TI.
EWE BSNS Ths were (eA) 5 INE (Oheinostehal, Teles Vereatiayees Ce Iiqulologel!” sone
Cicm Opi Gli OLelruchwadsmappoimted=as aghel per to. the chil -
duenwomligh tl a(Cl an LOMeISLOsm 7 26-028 OSes 2452555 compare
Job 16:19; 19:25).275 This division into ranks of angels is
further exemplified by the fact that various numbers of arch-
angels are recorded (four in 1 Enoch 9:1, and seven in 1 Enoch
20:1-8). Each of the archangels is given a specific function
(cf. 1 Enoch 20:1-8). Likewise, the designation "Holy Ones,"
which refers in biblical literature to the members of Yahweh's
council, is used of both men and angels (cf. 1QH 3:21-22;
11:11-12; 1 Enoch 104:6). This hierarchy of divine beings
replaces the "council of Yahweh" seen in the pre-exilic Hebrew
Material. The term “esanh, ‘'counsel/council,"” refers both to
the counsel of God and to the council of the Essene sechac ae
ee SS
Bilin Worbels 5 AMS ALS
274. A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran,
trans. G. Vermes (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961), 43. An
extensive treatment of the term ‘ésah in the Qumran litera-
ture is given by J. Worrell, "n¥y: ‘'Counsel' or U@Oume delete
Qumran’ jn 20 (1970) OS=74-
278

Depictions of the divine council and its members are no longer

given in the literature. Rather, the actions of God are
viewed through the numerous angels he has appointed to govern
the cosmos. According to D. S. Russell, the reasons for the
development of this elaborate angelology are four-fold:
(1) the transcendence of God; (2) the creation of the angels
to form a bridge between man and God; (3) the existence of
human and cosmic evil; and (4) the divisions of the spirits
into. Good versus Evil \(eee fe dudan 202 b)st0S S215
ea)
While this elaborate development of a hierarchy of angels and
demons is difficult to trace, since Hellenistic thought and
Persian dualism were obvious contributing factors,*/® the
early Hebrew and Canaanite sources provided the seed from
which such a development would grow. The depictions of Ba‘l
as an intercessor before the high god and the concept of a
heavenly witness before Yahweh in Job both show that our
earlier sources recognized that the members of the council
could perform certain specific functions (cf. also “the spir-
Le" in I Kegs 2221-235). Slt was) thus background pdiuse thea
fluence of outside thought that led to the great specializa-
tion of the once obscure members of Yahweh's court. With the
development of specific functions and responsibilities for the
angels who were originally members of Yahweh's council, the
depictions of the divine assembly disappear and are replaced
by various divine beings who intercede between man and God and
who constitute the forces of Good and Evil.

The Counetl of the Gods: A Summary

Our study of the divine council in Canaanite, Phoenician,

and early Hebrew sources has revealed a great similarity in
Se
a i
275. The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 237-
240.
276. Ibid., 257-262; cf. also H. Ringgren, Israelite
Reltgton, trans. D. E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1966), 313-316; and E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament,
trans, A. W. Heathcote and P, J. Allcock (New York: Harper
and Row, Publishers, 1958), 68-72.
 ZN)

the constitution and function of the divine assembly. The

council of the gods met to decree the fate of both gods and
humans. The assembly was composed of both the major and minor
deities, whose functions were to aid the high god in warfare,
to carry out his decree, to act as the herald of the council,
and to honor and adore him. They did not have the power of
decree or of life. This belonged only to the high god ’E1/
Yahweh. While the monotheistic tendencies of Israelite reli-
gion prohibited the worship of other gods, we have clearly
demonstrated that divine beings surrounded Yahweh in his coun-
cil, though they were not given names or special individual
functions in the pre-exilic period. In the religion of
Ugarit, the council was an object of worship, as is clearly
seen in the sacrificial tariffs from Ras Shamra. Phoenician
inscriptions reveal that the assembly of the gods was invoked
along with the major gods of the pantheon as late as the sixth
century B.€. In all three traditions, however, the divine
council has no authority or power apart from the high god.
Though a full hypostatization does not seem to have taken
place, the assembly and the decree of the high god are in-
separable.
The Israelite traditions of the council, while parallel-
ing those of Canaan and Phoenicia, introduce a new element--
the prophet as herald/courier of the council. In the Ugaritic
myths, the messages of the council (°B1) were carried by di-
vine beings; in Hebrew prophecy, the decree of Yahweh was
delivered by the human prophet. The similarity between the
divine messenger and the human prophet is remarkable. Both
carried the absolute authority of the deity who dispatched
them. They, in effect, represented the presence of the deity
1M OA COCR.
The Exile and Restoration caused Hebrew traditions to
wrestle with the problems of Good versus Evil. Thus, various
demons, especially Satan, were developed as divine powers in

polar opposition to Yahweh. Likewise, Yahweh was seen as

more remote than in the pre-exilic writings, and a hierarchy

of divine beings, each with specific functions, was developed
to intercede between God and man. By the time of the develop-
ment of pure apocalyptic literature, the eschaton was viewed
280

as a battle between the forces of Light and the forces of

Darkness. With these developments, Israelite traditions of
the council break with those of the Canaanite and Phoenician
religions. Until this time period, however, the three are all
obviously derived from the same traditions.
 CONCLUSIONS

Our present study has placed its major emphasis in two

areas: (1) the relationship between ’E1 and Ba‘l in the
Canaanite pantheon, as exemplified by the mythological and
liturgical texts from Ugarit; and (2) the nature, function,
and constitution of the divine council in Canaanite, Phoe-
nician, and Hebrew literatures. The investigation of the
relationship between ’E1 and Ba‘l was necessitated by the
strong assertions of numerous scholars that ’El was replaced
by Ba‘l in the Ugaritic/Canaanite pantheon and that ’El had
become a senile, powerless deity. As we have shown, however,
just the opposite was the case. ’El and his decree provide
the background for all the actions of the gods within the
Canaanite pantheon. No other god delivers decrees. No other
god can grant or revoke kingship. Only ’E1 can grant life
and progeny. The high god ’E1, as depicted in the texts from
Ugarit, exercises his power over the council like that of a
patriarch over his tribe, or like that of a judge in a legal
case. He stands at the transition point between the theo-
gonic and cosmogonic deities. The battles between the cosmo-
gonic deities are not his concern. His function is the main-
tenance of cosmic order through his decree.
°E1l was the eternal/primordial king of the pantheon who
stood indisputably at the head of the gods as their father
and creator. His kingship was over the cosmogonic deities.
Though the other gods could be proclaimed king, the kingship
and battles of the cosmogonic deities pertained to the con-
trol of the cosmos, not of the gods. ’El's will was made
known through his decree, which was in effect the judgment
of the divine council. Every decree of the council was the
decree of ’El. The assembly met at ’E1l's mountain-dwelling,
at ''the source of the double-deep,'' the entrance to Heaven and
the Underworld. His portable tent-shrine, located on his
mount in the far North in the Amanus mountain range, was the

281
282

place where the assembly members gathered about *E1l to receive

and carry out his decree. The members of *E1's assembly were
without independent existence. They were responsible to the
head of the assembly. They had originally been the allies of
7£1l in his primordial battle for kingship. Now they existed
only to serve him. They represented the aggregation of lesser
divinities who surrounded the heavenly judge and king in his
court. To address the council was to address ’El, and vice
versa.
Just as the dominant image of ’E1l is that of divine king
and judge in Canaanite lore, Israelite literature depicts Yah-
weh as a warrior/king/judge who proclaims his decree in his
council. While it is not possible to demonstrate absolutely
that the Israelite concept of the council was derived from
Canaan and not from Mesopotamia, certain factors argue for a
Canaanite origin of the depictions of the assembly in early
Hebrew literature. In both councils, the high god had the
absolute power of decree. No member of the council could act
without the decree of ’El1/Yahweh. In both traditions, the
members of the council were nameless divine beings with no
developed personalities or functions. They simply served the
judge of the council and fulfilled his decree. This stands in
direct contrast to the depictions of the council in Mesopo-
tamian literature, where the gods who constituted the member-
ship of the council were specifically the major gods of the
pantheon. The terms employed to describe the members of the
Canaanite, Phoenician, and Israelite councils are extremely
vague, making it clear that they were considered to be minor
deities. Indeed, the major clue to their adentaty 1s) found
in the account of the Phoenician hierophant Sanchuniathon,
where it is noted that ’El was surrounded by minor deities
who were warrior-gods. The Ugaritic evidence agrees with
such an identification, as do the various early Hebrew pas-
sages depicting the Divine Warrior surrounded by his heavenly
host. In both traditions, ’El and Yahweh were absolute rul-
ers. In no sense could the Canaanite or Israelite assembly
be termed "democratic," even in the most primitive under-
standing of the word. Both concepts of the council were
marked by the uniformity stemming from the decree of the
 283

high god and judge of the assembly. While the origins of both
the Canaanite and Israelite divine councils are possibly to be
found in an actual assembly where some manner of deliberation
took place, by the time of our earliest texts, the assembly
has become a forum in which ’E1/Yahweh proclaims his decree
to his messengers, the members of the council, who then exe-
cute it. Israelite tradition adopted the Canaanite concept
of the assembly tn toto--with one exception.
One of the most unique aspects of Hebrew religion is the
unparalleled phenomenon of the classical prophets. These men,
called by Yahweh, served as the couriers of the decree of the
assembly/Yahweh. They pronounced the judgment of Yahweh with
the formula koh ’amar YHWH, thus asserting that their message
and authority was equal in power to that of the council it-
self. The usage of this formula, which we have been unable
to treat fully in the present work, deserves a detailed inves-
tigation in light of the council background and messenger
formula used both in Ugarit and in Israel. While the members
of the Canaanite and Phoenician councils remained colorless
minor deities, the hypostasis of the decree of the high god,
in Israel the prophet was introduced as a participant in the
heavenly assembly who then served as the courier of the judg-
ment of Yahweh. This development constitutes a radical break
with all other council traditions in the ancient Near East.
In post-exilic and post-biblical literature, the concept
of the council is even farther removed from that of Canaan
and Phoenicia. In these writings, the formerly colorless mem-
bers of the council are given specific functions. The origin
of both human and cosmic evil was personified in the figure of
Satan, who led the powers of evil in the universe. The mes-
sengers (angels) of the council received specific ranks and
functions. They became the intercessors between man and God.
Yahweh seems to have transcended the worldly sphere. No long-
er are depictions given of Yahweh surrounded by his council
members, with the exceptions of Daniel 7 and 7 Enoch 14-15.
It is clear, however, that there is no longer any need
to trace the Israelite concept of the council to Mesopotamian
religion. With the exception of the phenomenon of the proph-

et as herald/courier of the council, the Israelite view of

284

the assembly agrees in every detail with that of the council

of the gods seen in the Ras Shamra texts. We must conclude
that the major source of influence upon the council motif in
early Hebrew literature comes from Canaan and not from Meso-
potamia. Yet the parallels among the councils in all three
cultures strongly suggest that the concept of the council of
the gods was a common motif in the ancient Near East.
 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, James S. "An Exegetical Study of Psalm 82." Th.D.

dissertation, Harvard University, 1966.
Ackroyd, P. R. "The Meaning of Hebrew 133 Considered," Jour-
nal of Semttte Studies, 13 (1968), 3-10.
Aistleitner, J. "Ein Opfertext aus Ugarit (No.: 53) mit Exkurs
uber kosmologische Beziehungen der ugaritischen Mytholo-
gie," Acta Ortentalta Academiae Setenttarum Hungaricae,
SS Si4 Beas
. Worterbuch der Ugartttschen Sprache. 3rd ed.
Edited by 0. Eissfeldt. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967.
Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel.
- Gencclem (Ciige, ING 58 Wewinleceny euavel Comoginy, iliniees ioe,
"Are the Ephod and Teraphim Mentioned in Uga-
ritic Literature?,'" Bullettn of the American Schools of
Ortental Research, 83 (1941), 39-42.
"Baal-Zephon," Festschrift Alfred Bertholet.
Edited by Walter Baumgarten, et al., pp. 1-14. Tubing-
ene iG. Bs Moh. 19'50).
"A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm
LXVIII),'' Hebrew Unton College Annual, 23 (1950-51), 1-
39).
From the Stone Age to Christtantty. 2nd ed.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1957.
"The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology,"
Bulletin of the American Schools of Ortental Research,
91 (1943), 39-44.
"The ‘Natural Force" of Moses in Light of Uga-
ritic," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, 94 (1944), 32-35.
"The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and
Literature," Catholte Biblical Quarterly, 7 (1947), 5-31.
The Proto-Sinaitte Inseriptions and thetr Deect-
pherment. Cambridge: Harvard 1tye b Tess
Wives olOO!.

285
286

"The Psalm of Habakkuk," Studtes itn Old Testa-

ment Prophecy. Edited by H. H. Rowley, pp. 1-18. Edin-
jibaeulns dhe dy (llebde, MOST o
"In Reply to Dr. Gaster's Observations," Bulle-
tin of the Amertean Schools of Ortental Research, 93
944), 25=25.0
"Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuter-
onomy XXXII," Vetus Testamentum, 9 (1959), 339-346.
"Specimens of Late Ugaritic Prose," Bulletin of
the Amertcan Schools of Oriental Research, 150 (1958),
36-38.
WA Vow to Asherah in the Keret Epic,’ Butteren
of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 94 (1944),
= Sil
Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. London: The
Athlone Press, 1968.
Anderson, B. W., and W. Harrelson, eds. Israel's Prophettie
Heritage. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers,
1962.
Astour, M. C. "Some New Divine Names from Ugarit," Journal of
the Amertean Ortental Society, 86 (1966), 277-284.
"Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms," Journal of Near
Fastern Studtes, 27 (1968), 13-36.
Baltzer, Klaus. "Considerations Regarding the Office and
Calling of the Prophet," Harvard Theologteal Review, 61
(L9G. So7s581,
Benz, F. L. Personal Names in the Phoenietan and Puntie
Insertpttons. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
O25.
Brown, Raymond. ''The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of 'Mys-
tery'," Catholte Biblteal Quarterly, 20 (1958), 417-443.
Burrows, M. The Dead Sea Serolls. New York: The Viking
Piss, IMIS,
Caquot, André. '"'Hebreu et Arameen,' Annuaire du Collége de
Rrance ye o (CUTS =O) 42 oto2k
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Fxodus. Trans-
lated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press,
1967.
 287

The Goddess Anath. Translated by Israel Abra-

hams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1971.
Charles, R. H. The Apoerypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament tn English. 2 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon
DARCSiSay EO5
Childs, B. S. Myth and Realtty in the Old Testament. Naper-
valle, Dillan) Alec R. Allension, Inc., 1960.
Clapham, Lynn R. "'Sanchuniathon: The First Two Cycles."
Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1969.
Clifford, Richard J. The Cosmte Mountain tn Canaan and the
Old Testament. Harvard Semitic Monographs IV. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
"The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meet-
ii GC annolve bEplveqnmauanrentyre 55 (OTM) 22-2211.
"The Word of God in the Ugaritic Epics and in
the Patriarchal Narratives," The Word in the World.
Editcede Dyan Glttsond sand G We aMackaey np pi vail! Sr
Cambridge: Weston College Press, 1973.
Coliincse Jobnet Ehe Sono Man wand) the Saints ot the Most
High in the Book of Daniel," Journal of Biblteal Litera-
CULE eI S (LOA 50 60h
Cooke, Gerald. "'The Sons of (the) God(s)," Zettschrtft fir
dite alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 76 (1964), 22-47.
Cross, F. M. The Anetent Library of Qumran and Modern Bibit-
eal Studtes. 2nd ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and
Company, Inc., 1961.
, and) De N. Preedman. "The Blessing of Moses,"
Journal of Biblteal Literature, 67 (1948), 191-210.
"The Canaanite Cuneiform Tablet from Taanach,"
Bulletin of the Amertcan Schools of Ortental Research,
190 (1968), 41-46.
Canaantte Myth and Hebrew Epte. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
"The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah," Jour-
nal of Near Eastern Studies, 12 (1953), 274-277.
x," Theologteal Dicttonary of the Old Testa-
ment, Vol. I. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H.
Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, pp. 242-266.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
288

Company, 1974.
. "An Interpretation of the Nora Stone," Bulletin
of the Amertean Schools of Ortental Research, 208 S725
Wee Nh.
, Ws Ea Lemke, and) P. D2 Miller) Jr7, edsm sMag—
nalta Det: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Btble
and Archaeology tn Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1976.
"Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testa-
ment,'' Bulletin of the Amertean Schools of Ortental
Research, UI7 (L950) 29-24.
"The Origin and Evolution of the Alphabet,"
Eretz-Israel, 8 (1967), 8-24.
, and R. J. Saley. "Phoenician Incantations on a
Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in
Upper Syria,'' Bulletin of the American Schools of Ort-
ental Research, 197 (1970), 42-49.
"The Priestly Tabernacle," Btbltcal Archaeoto-
gvetv header, Voll. Edited by G. Ey Wright vand DEN.
Freedman, pp. 201-228. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and
Company, welincry. 0 9'6.ies
. “Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts
from Ugarit," Harvard Theologteal Review, 67 (1974), 1-
WS,
» and D. N. Freedman. Studies in Anctent Yahwistie
Poetry. SBL Dissertation Series, 21. Missoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1975.
Dahood, Mitchell J. "Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and
Palestine," Le Antiche Divinitad Semitiche. Edited by S.
Moscati, pp. 65-94. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici,
1958.
"Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I,"' Biblteca, 44
(1963), 289-303.
Psalms I-III. The Anchor Bible, Vols. 16-17A.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1970-
TY Be
Dexinger, F. Sturz der Gdttersohne oder Engel vor der
Sintflut. Wein: Verlag Herdner, 1966.
 289

Dietrich, M., 0. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, eds. Dte ketl-

alphabettschen Texte aus Ugarit: SEtnschliesslich der
ketlalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits. Teil 1:
Transkrtption. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24/1.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976.
van Dijk, H. J. Hzekiel's Prophecy on Tyre. Rome: Pontif-
ical Biblical Institute, 1968.
Donner, H., and W. R6llig. Kanaandische und Aramdische
Inschrtften. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1968.
Driver, G. R. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. §
FT, Clawk, 107A.
Driver, S. R. Deuteronomy. The International Critical Com-
WNSIMEENAo, IXclaabheds I 5 te i sGdhewelen ally sy,5
Dupont-Sommer, A. The Essene Writings From Qumran. Trans-
lated by G. Vermes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961.
Eaton, J. H. "The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3," Zett-
scehrtft fiir dite alttestamentlitche Wissenschaft, 76
(1964), 144-171.
Eissfeldt, Otto. ''Ba‘alSamém und Jahwe," Zettschrtft fiir dte
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 57 (1939), 1-31.
"El and Yahweh," Journal of Semitte Studtes, 1
GIISO) 4 ZE= Shs
El tm ugartttschen Pantheon. Berlin: Akademie-
Wereileyer, NG )eyilrc
"Kultvereine in Ugarit," Ugarttica VI. Edited
ny @il, Wil ON, Selene ce wo 5 (ids HI Sc Welbecte
Imprimerie Nationale, 1971.
Ras Sehamra und Sanchunjaton. Halle: Max
Niemeyer Verlag, 1939.
Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugartt.
Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1952.
Emerton, J. A. "The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery," Jour-
nal of Theologtcal Studies, 9 (1958), 225-242.
Engnell, Ivan. Studtes in Divine Kingship in the Anctent Wear
Baste s OxLord Basi) Blackwell, 1967 .
Evans, G. "Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies," Journal Opec ne

Amertean Oriental Soctety, 78 (1958), 1-11.

290

Fensham, F. C. "The Judges and Ancient Israelite Jurispru-

dence," Dte ou testamenttese werkgemeenskap in Sutd-
Afrika, pp. 15-22. Papers read at 2nd meeting. Preto-
ria: University of Pretoria, 1959.
Finkelstein, J. J. "The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,"
Journal of Cunetform Studies, 20 (1966), 95-118.
Fisher, Loren R., ed. The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets.
Rome’ Pontitucal Brbbvcal instutute, L971"
,» ed. Ras Shamra Parallels. 2 vols. Rome:
Pontifical Bi blicalmins tvtuce.. Lone el Oo.
Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramate Insertptions of Seftre. Rome:
eMiessskCEil WwWalj\ilsveewl Ipseseohes . WSO7
Forshey, H. "The Hebrew Root WHE and its Semitic Cognates.
Th.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1973.
Frankfort, H., et al., eds. Before Phtlosophy. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1966.
Friedrich, Johannes. Hethtttsches Worterbuch. Heidelberg:
Carl Winter - Universitatsverlag, 1952.
Gaster, T. H. "The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology,"
Bulletin of the American Sehools of Ortental Research,
93 USA 4) 20-25%
"A King Without a Castle--Baal's Appeal to
Asherat,' Bulletin of the Amertcan Schools of Oriental
Research, 101 (1946), 21-30.
"Psalm 29," Jewtsh Quarterly Revtew, 37 (1946-
IAT), BSA0S.
Thespts. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1966.
Ginsberg, H. L. "Baal's Two Messengers," Bulletin of the
Amertcan Sehools of Oriental Research, 95 (1944), 25-30.
"Did Anat Fight the Dragon?," Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 84 (1941), 12-14.
The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epte of
the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Ortental Research, Supplementary Studies, 2-3. New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946.
. "The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat,"
Bulletin of the Amertcan Schools of Oriental Research,
Key (CEE a BUSS ai.
 Aga

Goedicke, Hans. The Report of Wenamun. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Goetze, A. "The City Khalbi and the Khapiru People," Bulletin
of the American Schools of Ortental Research, 79 (1940),
S24,
"Peace on Earth," Bulletin of the American
Sehools of Ortental Research, 93 (1944), 17-20.
Gordis, Robert. ''Democratic Origins in Ancient Israel--The
Biblical ‘Edah," Alexander Marz Jubilee Volume, pp. 369-
388. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society,
1950.
Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritie Literature. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1949.
Ugarttte Textbook. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 91965).
Gray, John. The krt Text in the Ltterature of Ras Shamra.
GuGiene IR, ois Eee het,
The Legacy of Canaan. 2nd ed. Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum V. Leiden: E. J. Brall, 1965.
Grelot, P. "Isaie xiv 12-15 et son arriére-plan mytholo-
gique," Revue de l'Histotre des Reltgtons, 149 (1956),
18-48.
Gréndahl, Frauke. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit.
Rome: Pdpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967.
Gtiterbock, Hans G. "The Hittite Version of the Hurrian
Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners of Hesiod," American
Journal of Archaeology, 52 (1948), 123-134.
Kumarbt, Mythen von churrittschen Kronos. New
York: Europaverlag, 1946.
"The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the
Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth," Journal of Cunetform
Sevucwes., % (WOE), We SaWoils CMS), SeeiaG
Habel, Norman C. Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Relt-
gtous Cultures. New York: Bookman Associates, 1964.
Haran, Menahem. "The Nature of the '’Ohel Mo‘edh' in Penta-
teuchal Sources," Journal of Semitic Studtes, 5 (1960),
50-65.
Haussig, H. W., ed. Wérterbuch der Mythologie, Vol. ie

G3tter und Mythen itm Vorderen Orient. Stuttgart: Ernst

Zoe

Klett Verlag, 1965.

Held, Moshe. "'The Root ZBL/SBL in Akkadian, Ugaritic and
Biblical Hebrew," Journal of the American Ortental Soct-
Ceo 5 8 CMO), WW= Vs.
Herdner, Andrée. Corpus des tablettes en cunétformes alpha-
bétiques decouvertes & Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 a 1939.
Mission de Ras Shamra, 10. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale, 1963.
Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homertea. The Loeb Classical
library ss [ransiated bye EaeEvelyn-
Wht tele Newey ork- = ihe
Macmillan Company, 1914.
Holladay, J. S. "Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of
Israel," Harvard Theologtcal Review, 63 (1970), 29-51.
Huffmon, H. B. Amortte Personal Names tn the Mari Texts.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965.
"The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets," Journal
of Biblical Literature, 18(1959) 50285-2951
Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by
A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1958.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat,"
Journal of the American Ortental Soctety, 88 (1968), 104-
108.
"Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia," Unity
and Diverstty: Essays tn the History, Literature, and
Reltgton of the Anetent Near East. Edited by H. Goedicke
and J. J. Roberts, pp. 65-97. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1975.
. Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on
Mesopotamtan History and Culture. Edited by W. L. Moran.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Jean, Charles, and Jacob Hoftijzer. Dtettonnaire des Insertp-
ttons sémtttques de l'ouest. “Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.
Jeremias, Joérg. Theophante: Die Geschichte einer alttesta-
mentlichen Gattung. Wissenschaftlich Monographien zum
Alten und Neuen Testament 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1965.
Jiingling, H.-W. Der Tod der Gdtter. Stuttgart: Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.
 2.915)

Kaiser, Otto. Dte mythtische Bedeutung des Meeres in Agypten,

Ugartt und Israel. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Tépelmann,
1959.
Kapelrud, A. S. Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen:
Greer G aeGadaes OS 2h
"Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings,"
Ortentalta, 32 (1963), 56-62.
The Vtolent Goddess: Anat tn the Ras Shamra
Texts. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969.
Kingsbury, E. C. "The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh,"
Journal of Btblteal Literature, 83 (1964), 279-286.
Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Btblical Tradittons. Trans-
lated by S. M. Cupitt. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1969.
Kraney on Nee Dalmun sche mlandsote thesliving 5 Bieverin of
the Amertecan Schools of Ortental Research, 96 (1944), 18-
28.
» ed. Mythologtes of the Anctent World. Garden
City. Novas) Doubleday, and) Gompany.inc., 19600"
The Sumertans: Thetr History, Culture, and
Character. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1970.
Kraus, H.-J. Psalmen. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament
XV. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
Erziehungsverein, 1960.
Labat, R. Le Poéme babylonien de la Création. Paris:
Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient, 1935.
Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparabtlity of Yahweh tn the Old
Testament. Pretoria Oriental Series V. Leiden: E. J.
Bradlee 19665
Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard. Atra-Hasits: The Baby-
Lonitan Story of the Flood. Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1969.
and P. Walcot. ''A New Babylonian Theogony and
Hesiod," Kadmos, 4 (1965), 64-72.
Landes, G. M. "'The Fountain at Jazer," Bulletin of the
Amertcan Schools of Oriental Research, 144 (1956), 30-37.
Landsberger, B., and J. Wilson. "The Fifth Tablet of Enuma
Elis," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 20 (1961), 154-
294

DO
Laroche, E. "Notes sur le Panthéon Hourrite des Ras Shamra,"
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88 (1968), 148-
TESLON
Lattimore, R., trans. Hestod. The Works and Days, Theogony,
The Shield of Heracles. Ann Arbor: The University of
Mifelisiecin Wreess., IIe.
L'Heureux, C. E. ''El and the Rephaim: New Light from Uga-
ritica V."" Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1971.
"The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim," Harvard
Theologteal Review, 67 (1974), 265-274.
Lapinskis, Ea 'Jugess5 5 .4-Seet Psaume) OS) S-1ikE erotica, ets
C967) Lss=208e
McBride, S. D. ''The Deuteronomic Name Theology." Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Harvard University, 1969.
McCarter, P. K. “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature,"
Harvard Theological Review, 66 (1973), 403-412.
McKay, J. W. "Helel and the Dawn-Goddess," Vetus Testamentum,
20 (1970), 451-464.
Malamat, A. ''Kingship and Council in Israel and Sumer," Jour-
nal of Near Eastern Studies, 22 (1963), 247-253.
Mendenhall, G. E. The Tenth Generation. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
Milik, J. T. "Le Testament de Lévi en araméen. Fragment de
la grotte 4 de Qumran," Revue Btblique, 62 (1955), 398-
406.
Miller, =P. Do ‘Animal Names mass Desupnationssam Upanitacrand
Hebrew,'' Ugartt-Forschungen, 2 (1970), 177-186.
"The Divine Council and the Prophetic Call to
War," Vetus Testamentum, 18 (1968), 100-107.
The Divine Warrtor in Early Israel. Harvard
Semitic Monographs V. Cambridge: Harvard University
PRESS! melon
"El the Warrior," Harvard Theological Review,
GO (oz) 5 AublS eat
"Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,"
Catholte Btblical Quarterly, 27 (1965), 256-261.
de Moor, J. C. "Rapi’tma--Rephaim," Zettschrift fiir dite alt-
testamentltche Wissenschaft, 88 (1976), 323-345.
 ols

"The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit," Ugarit-

Forschungen, 2 (1970), 187-228.
"Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras
Shamra II," Ugarit-Forschungen, 2 (1970), 303-327.
Moran, W. L. ''New Evidence from Mari on the History of
Prophecyju Bebitea, 50 (1969), 15-56.
Morgenstern, Julian. The Ark, the Ephod and the "Tent of
Meeting." Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College Press,
1945,
"The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,"
Hebrew Unton College Annual, 14 (1939), 29-126.
Moscati, Sabatino. The World of the Phoentcians. New York:
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1970.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. "'Hiob's go’él und Zeuge im Himmel," Vom
Alten Testament: Festschrift fiir Karl Martti. Edited by
Karl Budde, pp. 207-212. Giessen: Alfred Tépelmann,
WAR
The Psalms in Israel's Worshtp. Translated by
D. R. Ap-Thomas. New York: Abingdon Press, 1967.
Mras, Karl, ed. Husebitus Werke, VIII. 1. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1954.
Neuberg, F. L. ''An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DOR
Journal of Near Eastern Studtes, 9 (1950), 215-217.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Tradtttons. Trans-
lated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Ines, 1972.
Nougayrol, J. Le Palate royat dadUgarty. Vols. 111, iV.
Panis) Imprimerie Natdonale, 1955), 1950.
Obermann, Julian. How Daniel Was Blessed With a Son: An
Incubation Scene in Ugaritie. Supplement to the Journal
of the American Oriental Society, VI. Baltimore: The
American Oriental Society, 1946.
. Ugaritte Mythology: A Study of Its Leading
Motifs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.
Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conflict Between EL and Ba‘al in Canaan-
tte Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
Oppenheim, Leo A., et al., eds. The Assyrtan Dtcttonary of

the Ortental Institute of the University of Chteago. 12

vols. . Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956-19753.

296

Otten, Heinrich. "'Ein kanaandischer Mythus aus Bogaskéy,"

Mitteilungen des Instttuts fir Oritentforschung, 1 (1953),
WAS
=1S)
Patton, J. H. Canaantte Parallels in the Book of Psalms.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944.
Peckham, J. B. The Development of the Late Phoentetan
Sertpts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Pope, Marvin H. "A Divine Banquet at Ugarit,'' The Use of the
Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Edited by
Je M, Efirdsspp.5L/0-208. 8Durhans N.G.s) Dukes Unmverca
ey PANGS, LUO -
El tn the Ugaritite Texts. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum Lig “Leiden ey bed. bral elO55.
» obs The Anchor Bible, Vol. 25. °"GardensGacye
N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1973.
. “Marginalia to M. Dahood's Ugarttic-Hebrew
Phitlotogy,"' Journal of Btblical Literature, 85 (1966),
455-466.
Porten, Bezalel. Archtves from Elephantine. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968.
Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near Fast tn Pictures.
2nd ed. with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
Satya PTess oy 4.
Anetent Near Hastern Texts. 3rd ed. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969.
von Rad, Gerhard. Genests. Translated by J. Marks. Phila-
delphia: The Westminster Press, 1971.
Rendtorff, Rolf. "El, Ba‘al und Jahweh," Zeitschrift fiir dte
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 78 (1966), 277-292.
Ringgren, Helmer. Jsraelite Religion. Translated by D. E.
Green. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
Roberts, J. J. M. The Barliest Semitte Pantheon. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.
Robertson, D. A. Linguitstite Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew
Poetry. SBL Dissertation Series, 3. Missoula, Montana:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1972.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. "The Council of Yahweh," Journal of
Theologteal Studies, 45 (1944), 151-157.
 Z9H7

Ross, J. F. "Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari," Harvard

Theologtcal Review, 63 (1970), 1-28.
Russell, D. S. The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974.
Sauren, H:, and G. Kestemont. "'Keret, Roi de Hubur,'"' Ugarit-
Forschungen, 3 (1971), 181-221.
Schaeffer, Cl. F. A. The Cunetform Texts of Ras Shamra-
Ugartt. London: Oxford University Press, 1939.
5 OG Cb. SIS, Weenamctae, Wells, WSWila Pemeigs
Imprimerie Nationale, 1939-1971.
Schmidt, W. H. Kédnigtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel. Berlin:
Verlag Alfred Tépelmann, 1966.
van Selms, A. Marriage & Family Life in Ugartitic Literature.
London: Luzac §& Company, Ltd., 1954.
"The Title Judge," Die ou testamenttese werk-
gemeenskap tn Sutd-Afrika, pp. 41-50. Papers read at
ZideMeSting. lbretoriasy sUniVversity of Pretoria 29505
Skehan, P. W. '"'A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut. 32)
from Qumran," Bulletin of the Amertean Schools of Ort-
ental Research, 136 (1954), 12-15.
"Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament
Text Studies," Journal of Btblteal Literature, 78 (1959),
ZLOSZ5r
von Soden, W., ed. Akkadisehes Handwérterbuch. 2 vols.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965, 1972.
Speusers ELwA.) Geneete. |lhe Anchor Bibles, Vol.) 1s) Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1964.
Oriental and Bibltecal Studtes: Collected Wrtt-
ings of E. A. Spetser. Edited by J. J. Finkelstein and
M. Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1967.
Tallqvist, K. L. Akkadische Gdtterepitheta. Hildesheim:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1974.
Thompson, R. Campbell. The Epte of Gilgamesh. OxeromdemeD he
Clarendon Press, 1930.
Tidwell, N. L. A. "Wa?dmar (Zech. 3:5) and the Genre of

Zechariah's Fourth Vision,"' Journal of Biblical Litera-

EULe eo 4 (L975), S45'-50)) 6
298

TsumunapeD a ae AmUicarttaceGods MT-W-SR, and His Two Weap-

ons,'' Ugarit-Forschungen, 6 (1974), 407-413.
de Vaux, Roland. The Bible and the Anectent Wear East. Trans-
lated by D. McHugh. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and
Companys elilcer melon.
della Vida, G. Levi. "El “Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20," Journal
of Biblteal Literature, 63 (1944), 1-9.
VinrolleaudjaChwe ewes palates rovala gard 7m ViO1S eel Lene.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957, 1965.
“ie, Rephatm,tsemea,, 2 cenClO tiem to S0r
"Six Textes de Ras Shamra," Syrta, 28 (1951),
MOB
19/Be
Walcot, P. Hestod and the Near East. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press, 1966.
Westermann, Claus. Baste Forms of Prophette Speech. Trans-
lated by H. C. White. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1967.
Whitaker, Richard E. A Concordance of the Ugarittte Litera-
ture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Whybray, R. N. The Heavenly Counsellor itn Isatah xl 13-14:
A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isatah.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Widengren, Geo. "Early Hebrew Myths and their Interpreta-
tivon,. Myth, attual, and Kengsntpe Edited bys Geile
Hooke, pp. 148-202. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958.
Wilson, John A. “The Assembly of a Phoenician City," Journal
of Near Eastern Studtes, 4 (1945), 245.
Worrell ee =nk) 5 Gounsed. ome Councdima ts Oumiansume tans
Testamentum, 20 (1970), 65-74.
Wright, G. E., ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near Fast.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Spe SSS
The Old Testament Against Its Environment.
Studies in Biblical Theology,-2. London: SCM Press,
1 Xe Sc
Zimmerli, Walther. H#zektel. Biblischer Kommentar Altes
Testament XIII. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag des
Erziehungsverein, 1969,
 tae eo oe

‘ps i )
Te, | ta te: va 7
) TAtT An ian, 2= 21, Me), worn
3 : a pibeve in te =P ae i
: te ee rn ee or 7
Wie ion oe LS Om ‘Saiyidy” Ose Se Aart
?
Rare. 41-7 Awe Se oe ; n

a Le ok oe ‘
DT a a j
»\\

Pe f
ee ae"

= 2

7 -

b '

e
“ee

i ad ot
-

a ~ - wt

be ;

— +
2
 REFERENCE INDEX

Note: An asterisk has been placed after the page number of

each citation which is transliterated, transcribed, and/or
translated either in whole or in part in the body of the text.
The Old Testament references (Canonical Books) correspond with
the Hebrew versification. The Ugarttic Citations are given
according to the text numbers assigned by A. Herdner in Corpus
des tablettes en cunétformes alphabétiques (CTA) or by their
original publication numbers (i.e., PRU I1, PRU V, Ugaritica
V, etc.). Wherever possible, the numbers assigned to the
texts by C. Gordon in his Ugaritte Textbook (UT) or by M.
Dietrich, et al. in Die ketlalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit
(KTVU) have also been noted. Phoenician and Aramaic inscrip-
tions are cited according to the numbers assigned by H. Donner
and W. R6llig in Kanaandische und Aramdtsche Inschriften
(KAT).

OLD TESTAMENT

(a) Canonteal Books

Genesis
eal 23 4a Seon Sa2e Wi, LI, AW,
eS aai 13n MWD, BES
2.6 ZL6G ) 2hon: WED EG
24D = 25 13 4:4 119*
8 WSS AL Se (ye Boe! USB ZZ
228-14 P52 Gira TINDES
RES) IRS SLES) 6:4 PHN DENS
2710-44 WSs NES ALS (esol 73n
2 deco iff SS Giz 73n
ZL 243 hey PAL) 75Abloyia

5 243 spe abel les} 252n

ova 1552 14:5 263
322 UC, “ie 14:18 160n

301
302

14:18-24 204 Sd 25
as 9) 14 Sa 5 215
ihe B22 14, 160n, 204 SAMS 215
aSiaral 252n 14:19 LO9* Sx
PS eb ZS ey 253n LSS 188*
DS esple DSC 5 190n, 192*
eS eal) 2520 253n dS S105) Sil
USB ys) 252n 15508 28n, 201
INS Sao77 252n OSs TSS
Se Se 253n ARS) aM} P5625 oLSi6n specu
Led PSE) 19:16-24 155
eS 253n ish wal 155
5355) =0 253n O22, 155
INS S19 Z55n 19:24 155
ICe7/ 252n ZO
2 ui 156
15:8 ZSom 20:18 156, 214n
Ue—ial 252 ZS 220) 215
Wee Zoi ZA sal 155
Se
es 316) 253n 2415-18 156° L725 24a
iby aby) 253n 2 Seah 168
ISS AW 263 25:38 169
Ie A Zoe 2509 169*
18:4-8 253 25218=20 208n
180 ZO BO ee Ly2
ZV, PASSES 25:40 169*
PRL
B7 253 ZO Sy, 134
PLES 28n 20K edie
2437 RUNES 27:8 169
Tass Call LOS BDOU eS
30:1-24 25S 29:42-43 172
S22 199% 30:36 ibe
SIVA 5) 119; PANDA ZS SA 168
SMS) 199* SSiw 171
3234-5 BRANES 3327-11 168, 174
32 °4D-5 ean a5) aa 5 Sli
45:9 Dele Sorvall iy /alke
53:18 156n*
Exodus SSee 156n
eee Dilys 34 55
 303

34:5 156n*, 214n Deuteronomy

34:6 29 3 ital 263
35-38 168 BO) 263
235)
5 30) 134, 168 159n*
Sg sal 134 263
So o4 134 192
36:8-38 134 197*, 203
7) SG, 208n Cie
40:21 1a 72 207n
40:34-38 dye 192
iLike
Leviticus 219
17:19-20 Lge DSA.
20:26 912 203
126,220
Numbers lon, 25
7289 208n 119%, 204, 238
8:4 169 BOAS PI 20S.
9915=23 Lez DAS, BSS, Zia!
NOWSiS'=36 yal 202n
1s V6=— 2:9 Ie} L/L 201n*
alee 215 171, 214n 190
12:4-5 il7/ile3 190n
12:4-10 IGS 5 mle Ola
1 7seiess 214n 189-190*
TASS 219 236, 244
DZ AIS ZOO 201
19-24 HZ 215
PAO) AEH! APA
ZOVIE6 BANS Joshua
THANE 207n Teel 210n
21:14 189n* aLalk) 199*
BUG ISNA) 221 BSgilesciks) 1 SON 21 Ueats
22216 Dra, Sys 199*
AGES XM PN, A iiSe9 HlOpapaleale 196*

24:5 Lon OG Ae ALS) 198n

24:16 204 10:12b-13a 196*

304

V2 4 263 ily/al
USRH 263 ee
area 20S ZeS
IE35 AL eS 256%
LORS WIZ, 256
24:5 PRALTS Gals: 250%
VAN Zoe
Judges 3510 212n
PALS So Bulg) 189n*
Sia, 93 BDA 212n
329-10 SS) BS) Zion
Sas 53
oe Gull 53 Samuel

434-5 53n Sal) 31

5h: 216 34-16 Z Vom
54-5 USO, 19)3 2) aayee
SiO) 194* BSI8) 136
B45) IO Sie! O Sine 2usOns slay iy fale
RIA! 250mse. 222 eee
6:14 55) Zee 2 AROS
OFS 53 225%
6:25 OS 72 eS
Tk BS) 2a
LSe5 53 Bas
1558) ZALES 215
pha alee 53 98n
ISS Sal WS: 98n
$3n
1 Samuel 236
1 174 212n
Sy 7S FRAN AiN
139 iS * 263
1324 ies 156n
ALS SAK) ZONS Sim, LA Silene
(in dl Bio AUG 2O8n,, 2k
3:33 Wee 204
4-6 L/L 107n*
4:4 ANSI PES 5, PALOReda 275n
AS O77, aya DADS
 305

aiah
W73* sad Sp Zi
W/L 10 222n
192 2-4 154
172n 23 Ie 5 Diliia
222% iin Se Pah
fe:> OBIS
Zia 1 207*
ZZ 1-2 BSA
(apes6 BBS 1-8 USS5) Zon
BIDS Poll 218n
86 1=13 USE, Arey)
eele= 19 EIR
IRZ 222n 3H OP AS, Bon
39-0 205 UOA, AOE
78-9 205 -8 218
eeley 205, 255 208*
BL Sess Zw 208
Ske) PANS? SANS 256n =<) 208
gO= 2:2 Z AS 222n DEF. 2A
10-25 155, 183, PADS- -9 2A
209, 215, Dyss/ 79 POSS. 2 AO
540 206% 9-10 208
ZO 22, Zale TAL EY
3 fad ZV OF ASA 16 211n
SA Ae 278 20 211n
ae BOS? ¢ 220 1=5 198
3S 206 #5 198*
DES 5 PD
49 ils LOS
221 2 148, 238*, 239
222n lai A 241n
164n* Bil ASS) Meri Bik AI)

PS
-=20219 155n swe i= Qual 150n

:19 BAl ould SLO Ae 2a

212n HEATOS A Sa 15) Situs
fal 155, 204
BUM es 4 238
222n 214 148n*
197 Pallets 240
197 20 238
306

14:29 207n PAB 201

24:18 235% a2) SidtU0) 216
24:21 DDDes 53% 118n
26:14 263 54: V35
26:19 263 55 Balak ial:
Dales Sn, son 62 210-12 216
BY SN 155n
30:6 207n Je remiah
SORWNS 220n* Le
BAl8 hea) 155n 25
SZ Oka 154 222n
34 193 222n
Se Oat! 216 205n
Sonus4 221 118n
Sif S16) 212n 5
Shi BANS) 208n 220n*
Bike
IW 5) 224 222n
Soe) DSS 2S), (220%
ays)
6db Deel CN
at
Sa
SoS
Ne
im 118n
38:4 Digs a Ina, Fh(Als ioe} 197
SSIs 225 192
40:1 Zen Zon, 201
UNO) Sil 218 222n
40:1 216, 216-297 222n
40:1 218n 264%
40:2 DWa 222n
40:3 DAT 220n*
40:6a 2 lee PRP
HP
PB
PH
PP
GG
oc
oSGg
OO
w
ss Lo7*
40:6 208 ZA
40:26 LOT eeiem 222n
ATS 21 201 225
43:15 201 IRERIDP SApKNES
44:6 ZO eeaoi HF
NN
wo
FPPRP 225
44:23 193 bh ies) 222n
44:26 2S 222n
ATPL 2 198n NmWwW
fF & :18 119%, 21:85 Zao
48:20-21 216 Prous
A OWS 193 BS Zao
5 P39 201 2s slaMSS A ssilk
 307

Zone DO BE 150n
29: 222n 241
29: 222n TSO. WS Mae? 5
Zo DREDPAN ZA ea
30: 135 222n
ILS ZO USA
Sot D0, NGM Wee
S55 222n 154
42: 220n* ey ee
42: 222n 150n
44: 24-26 222n UDB 5 Isle HLS
44; Zs 220m 241, 243
46: 18 201 US LSS%
48: 15 ZOU 150n
Sak oh 201 053
S58 Lz Zon USS
dS
Ezekiel 222
1:4-28 208n Die.
74,SN 25 149
APD DES 149
U9 Mev 222n 149
160 154
208n
222n
BATE 199
222n 199
222n 218, 219%
PDR 264%
5S 118, 118n*
223% 242
ela) LiL 224*
sis? 222n TiEas

gto) 241 AIG

cpleuleS) 149, 276 aOHZ

a7. 15045205 In* 5 204,

BBS. PANE, 242
USO oS 150n* Ug)es

28: ial Ae Oh, IE

308

Avplel Voy én alll) 155, 227

4:18 154 Sii2. 275% 3 ZnO
B25 218
Jonah 3:3 231
Ae 29 Bi DLO: eco
3:5 2s
Micah 50 27 s=
4:1-3 154 3:8 275*
a7) 35 AOS, AOS 4:10 275
6:4 PAGS 4:14 256n
5 218
Habakkuk Gres, 218n
res 194 6:4-8 218
Si Sial5 156n 6:5-8 2750:
585 194% 8:18-19 222n
Sr28 83n 8720 Drees
arATERS nga
Haggai 14:8 154
ihe lS 222n
ee 220n* Malachi
Hees AIRED Sali 2L5
ea yots 222n 52s 215
daeeeZ) (210s)
T3 ZS * Psalms
22 222n 2 155n
2:10-11 222n Zw 250n*
9:8 201
Zechariah 9:8-9 Bz
ey Siat Dis 10:14 232
goal y) 218n 10:16 28n, 201
eel es 218 10:18 PRESEE!
ele 275n 14:5 118n
abe al 22002 LSss=20 156n
Disnlez BANS Ish lab 87n, 148n, 187n,
eas) 25 AMoy Otero 1lelioy
PANS AACS 18:14 204
3 lalyssiqy Less 107n
$56 Th PRM FAS <P (lta ryehe 2 201
3:1-7 218n, 274 24:7-9 189
 309

24:7-10 IOS AOi 5 ASS pave 232

24:8 189% 76 155n
24310 189* UO DEE
29 156n, AMEN 5 BRI Ons BED
BS) 2A, HAM alkeyalee TIE 192
BN Meee TOS 00% WS 3 i él
AN) 200n* 80: 187n, 208n
ZORS=9 201 80: 152*, 154%
EOE} ZOOR eZ 00m 82 218n, 228
728) Sik) 28n, 200/200" S2e HSN
201 82s Bike
50157 128% 82: Ite, 2505 Z50ins
AZ
=85 230 WED 5 DSS
46 154, 155n S72 2 229-=230%
47:3 204 82: BSS) 1 GEST py THINS
47:9 201 8Ze 2-5ab 256,222
48 154, 155n 32e ES
A872 2-3 154% S2E 236
48:3 149, 157 82: SES
49:15 241n 34S ZioM,
49:20 118n BAe DOM
50 155n Sis 119%, BY. BSE
SiS 199 Si2hs 236, DST gs 7a 7D
50:4 205n Sie Maley
5010 128 82: 241n, Zags ZA3%
S58 5 210 (3742 1S 2n6 BENG 5 238,
SRS 141n 242
58:1b 241n 82: MEO, BBL
68:5 87n*, 148n*, 214n* 84: Aeon
68:6 Se, 86: 192
68:8-9 LSOn eels 88: 164n*
68:18 LOS 88: 263

OSia2o 201 Sion TAGES | ALL 191n*

68:34 87n teh INOS

ao ake 2 A ESialvy,

T3SGL5 118n ZS

ES NENT 201 89: ILAOES 191*, 191n*,

USS
AN ale HeSi L912

74:14 83n 89; 37n, WALI ILE

Oho FAL RS 191n*, 192
310

201 196*
192 oS
13n 206
DE. BOSS
201
201 LV 35:
201 UaOSie 2 St es
201 Z218n, 228 R27 45
192 2752 ee
OZ oe Onl 218
118n UG 2 Sal ees
IS) 2c PW Ma QA
200n ZA S25 eee
257, 218
Oo
vA USL E52
TAF eu 2 215
DSe, 119%
187n, 201, 208n 213n*
192 PASS, |(ae!
192 119* 822.0%
192 192
AOBel Or mea leS wm6ees
aun
wo ayce
oes
FrFrP
fF
HH
ND
NY
On
FY 69
201 231
87n, 148n 254n5) 2707
L4Ins 1995 20, BG Lal
PAUDig ZA 255n
105: 26 ZnS He
Pe
anan
oo
a 231, 253, 254%
118n 254n, e277
16n 205n
17 3n* 69
GS 263
7sns 148n*
192 193
192 om
164n* 206
201 LDH
NY
WAWNnN
ft
(OV
(OV.
sON
1Ov
SO:
tt
8 25
ZS2 16n
28n WW
Ww 215
ISSA vA w Ww 32-24 2 5Si a4
 ibd

SiS 9 195* Eze!

38:8 ILShia eZ BOA
38:8-11 Srme
Nehemiah
Proverbs OR Sil 29
21.8 263
9:10 UQeZ IN Ghronwe
Wels
9:18 263 UZ aZ 107n
Ze? 1.6 263 WEE 29) Z212n
72 NS} 25. MS 325 LQ Bre
SOS US, O29 200n
SOs bile Vs 118n TTS LSE
20:4 263
Ruth Zula if Shah
ALO Zr BL eaF TAL
ZI) BUS
Daniel
10 UZ 9 ZO 2 Chronicles
34 IQ? 203 AMSr es DSalis
720 192, 203 WORMS S212 205
Sn, 283 INS DI 164n*
Ti he 72,Sie 34:23-28 222n
IS) IO
= is) 25%
IS Ie. 21 4n* (b) Apoerypha
159
WG I= 1G) 2s 3 Maccabees
Wes QA: 243
WO 25s
Cy
SS
SSS
SS
OSS
SSS 276 Sirach
276 AS bey DOS, P20)
161n
276
276 (c) Pseudeptgrapha
ove DANTE 276
OZ, 242n* Jubilees
242n Bon BOO 5 LIK)
=29 1
242n 10:8 Paes
161n, 276 WIAs Aloe
312

AILS WAL DIKS*2 104:2 196n

WSs=32 236 104:6 Zi,
L726 270i
49:2 ATK! 2 Enoch
18:1-6 243
1 Enoch 29:4-5 276
Os 7 243
6-16 158 Testament of Levi
8:3-4 243 TBS SAS) 158
yea QHel: Zi oaO) 158%
ANOLES) 203 S565) PEL
Lee 203 (oyeah 159n
WAS ah 203
13 158 Testament of Judah
ASB YKc3} 158 20a 278
ile SOE 158
14:3 203 Testament of Dan
14-15 28S Os 277
WS BASS 203
NS Hepl 9 eS) 158
20:1-8 ET) (d) Qumran Writings
ASS 7 INS ie
Zor Sie Manual of Discipline
26:4 57 * LOSMo ssa 278
ah 158 LOS PS AA Ses earek
40:7 276
SiS) 276 War Scroll
54:6 276 1QM 13:10 PAY P|
64-69 243 1QM 17:16-18 Qh
69732 243
Ke) Gal — (0) 243 Hymn Scroll
90:24-26 158 LOE SoZ al= 2:2 EAA
9905S Dell LORE Gold 2 ZIT

NEW TESTAMENT

Revelation of John
We 8) 83n
 Syl)

EXTRA-BIBLICAL REFERENCES

(a) Ugaritie Texts

CHAM (WHE Winey, Gol IDE O48

ceoy aga’)
Lel7-18 140% INO Led SSX mcd One dizas
Tal? -20 168 105 aki
£i.1-3 137 IV.18 28*, 38
i1.5-6 140% TiV520 38%, 47%
ieteald ss IV.24-25 58, 103 als
Tebed5 =197 24n Wis
ES AAs) 102-103%
Lig 718 esses Woes 103%
Lied2d TS, Woe ile 103
Pinas 30%* V.4 103*, 104%
1 10=20: 143 Woe 104*
mie 21-23 Wi tee V.6 104%
11423 SO 5 Isis Wicd 104*
PLT. 1*-6 (2) Daas V.8 104-105%
fife t*=12 138 Wok) 103
Tein-S 7 epee oo
50) WaPYan@ 105%
Lad «2-3 24n V.10 103*
tides Al 5 SOe3 Wea dha 105%
bilan 5-6 TSS WolBais 105*
Tin l0=22 130% v.14 103
Gisleed 1 130 Wo lL 105
Pivot -42 164n Viewior a6 103%
Coie Ly Zeta WiodlSa45 103
bil, 17-21 BAL Wood IOS, 104%
11t.21-22 28*, 130* V.18 104*
pie25 23n Vizio 104*
Lite 22 ESSES 164n Vez 104-105 *
Blt. 235-24 Mes 0 1 52h VioZz2 62n, LOSER, LOis*
£0i925-25 23n Wee OSs
Hi. 26 21 30% Who 585 LOE
fil f 26-27 OSs SZ V.26 103

ELE AZ, 750, 138 Wall 103

IV.13 38
iVol3-17 Ze
IV.13-20 138
314

CTA 2 (UT 137, 129, 68; KTU 1.2)

Ihgts 120458 £20n* T20 126n*, 126-127n*,
Hiogi NGF NE PUD) 178% > 210 2128
PAN a L2ylh 126n*, 178*
Woks DA Be TZ
ie AO 185, 189
PodeMs 130n Ila Ais} 126n*, 210, 212%
1g WS ING) 1750 aA) 178%, 185
34 120-124%, I.30 21002
124-127n* ING Soil 125n*, 129*
I.14 TL7* Saver Tjoe 117*, 125n*, 129*
128n, 129% Th Se NS 140*, 199, 207,
Ig haba) 24n, 129% 210*, 212
104 ILS 117%, Acne, ILeeks E35 17*, 30*, 127n*,
129% 141*, 143%
17*, 30*, 141%, 1b6 Sai 17n*, 38n*, 46
AES. ZIG RSs // 17
117*, 129% I.34 48*, 125-126n*,
38n*, 46, 48%, 178%
141*, 143% oo 141%
168 A655) 19*, 126n*, 214
125-126n*, 141%, 56 17*, 30%
178*, 214% al
Hy OOo,
Thetis
eet: 46, 54*, 78,
141 126n, 132, 140,
19*, 125n*, 14259215, Sortboss
126n*, 212* 37 SUS 5 IPA ane
130n 38 19%, 4825 eens
117*, 128", 12en, .38-39 142
WARS GS fhe 5 INES 39 22
Us BOS, Bo 'sin 39-44 257, 259
19*, 126n*, 161%, 40 127n*
255-256* 40-41 142, 2L0ee Zale
87 41 212%
141 42 21.0% 202%
178". 210 wees £43 48%
TASES A
|
ae
ee
ee
es44 2A OR eee
i) Ww ' i) a 185 e £45 Son hee oO
ae
eo.
etalk.
et 126n*, 178% 1, ae ae =S 2A
257, 258 trite. 150*
ee
ee
ee 185 GIT (?).4 = 55 USS"5 loon
 HLS

Dit (Pc 6 23n IV.15 Dom

BEC 5 7 Os IDG
US Sales} Hoe
DOE? iS 6 25m IM
5IL® 47%
at?ey 39, 48 IV.16-17 50*
ALC?) 7-9 Us Ue, Sith5 IV.19-20 59> alot
58, Oil, Gain AO. LV 20227, 56n
UES TS DV Z/0'='3'2 48
mi1(2)..8 48% IW
5 Be ANTES 5 510)
TE?) 8-9 SG, Ete IV.24-25 By(0)te
Tih?) 9 48% 1Vi25-27 S25 Hihi, ©)
Loe?) .10 59 MWg ZH 48*
ea 2 s45 AN/ Gis IV.29 Dl les
Mie? \a5-18 4 Omer, DV Si0 Hf dlfeyee
PALES IEW
o SZ AYES 5 GiGhe3
LICH
Neg AS SO, AK,
AS EO 5 TOS CTA 3 (UT SMES KOE hs S)
Pe
(CZ )se 30% 1. 1L=2'6 265n
Wil
)) ileal) Di SB. Wo Aout Salis
AVS ADEs ne go4 52n*
TTI?) 447-19 37n Wil ep 149%
R©T(?).18 5),ae3 p25 62
E62) 9 30% I, Woes Zales
TEC? ).19 220 194 43 11.4 BM
£i1 (7) .70-21 109 Tipe e5 68n*
TAC) 20-22 109% IAL gy i 61
Pir?) a21 OE, Sithales iit. & JEANS)
ATES 5 TO)y Tt SAaG 59)
IIS
(CG)) G7 472 BS Sahin Sr I11.6-7 24n
THE(P) 642 — Bisiakt,, Ciyka, cise: Will =o) 143*, 216
Tale G20) 23 19*, 47*, 50% TI11.10-11 S1*, 143%
rive 48% T11.10-14 137, 138n*
IV.7-20 258 Thiet12 51*, 51n*
IV.8 A8*, 87*, 214% Lit then 143

IV. 8-10 55% TI11.26-28 59%

IV.10 28n*, 162*, 201 Wi BS Zab 3%

IV.11-13 55-56% II1.34-IV. 48 ILS Suet

IV.13-18 S6n II11.35-36 Won s ake

IV.14 47% II1.35-39 258

IV.14-15 50% Iniiein=

4.0 83
316

IV.2*-6 60*, 60n 29*, 30

TVs 225 18n V.46-47 19%
IV.6-V.12 61 V.46-52 60*, 60n, 64,
VAT 30 67 al Bios
TVeTeWs U2 62% V.47-49 18n*
IV.48 214% Vialteo-a'S 21s
IV.49 213 Vio=29 144n
IV.49-64 59 Will
gdeal 214n*
IV.50 214% Vita 114n
IVesi]eso |S S182 Sint er4s* Willig Waste 728) 24n
IV.51-54 a7 1388 Mie =25 216
1Ve52-54 143 Vie 925 169*
IV.79 262% Vie eS BL AS sae aa
IV. 81-82 59 Vin 2s Sain ones
TW. 83 19%
v.10 160% CTA 4 (UT 51; xTU 1.4)
Vaisel6. 230; 240, 613575 ee) 60n
133n, 139% 4-7 167) Lon, a2 ose)
Viei3-17 134 =O 255
V.14-15 138n*, 150% LOE 9 60*, 67, 135
V.15-16 22*, 23n sila 19%
V.18 30% eo =e 18n*
V.25 179% -21-44 160
V.26 15% 23 TRS 3
VET 233 134 ~23-44 169n
V.29-32 63n* ee 5 134*, 168-169*
V.32 160% .24-44 260
V.32-34 63% 34 134*
Viaos 160% ones ons
Ve55-35 134%, 171 OS
Oa
Reao,
SSeS
S&S
Ss
SS
llr 134*
V.35 16% Sait 134*
V.35-36 65 oO 350*
Vees=37 65% ke gba
OHSt
HOH Tess
V.35-44 83n Sao) 214n*
VW 36-37 66 ke
A eS
ee 34 47*
V.38-39 66%. 71,7 045% tb ee) 128*, 260*
V.40-41 2550 598 60k. TL Oded: 258-259%
66-67% UIEH Galo) 47 258
V.43-44 16*, 1l6n, 25%, TII.14 HAR. ASE
 Sy7,

MMe 42 2 259 260

MEIOL7<18 ZO IV.62-V.63 HLA AES. Al58)
cre ols Sie, wala V.65-66 Wooo WAM. IWelest2
PETe23-26 67 V.68-71 86
merso6 © iS VTSa81 151n
ie 427232 67 Wes2s8s 215
PEI 30 Ife} V.84-85 WE
eas a3 VisT=91 Wise
Die 632 gs .90-91 7 ip
III.37-44 265n .103-105 Te,
esl =25 68 105 BAS
i irayae Zana .106-110 Thx GAS ia
IV.8 214n* piles) opal 40
IV.13 214n* PITS -119 YOa YS
EVN 6-217 214n 115 s079 88, 145
IV.18 68 117 149*
IV.19 68, 260 2120-ViP.13 73
IV.20-24 LSS eles Sa) SS
SSSa7? 87%
IV.20-26 DSi, WN, Ase v2 ATs
mvez0-S7 260 .16 ILBe
TVEaL-22 Meson? , AL s(0)E3 b22=25 eS
IV.23-24 22-2 3* Wess I alioh
IV.23-26 TBS 7-78 61
1V.27-39 Ios WO Wits 36-38 74%
108n 39 20%
TWS2 Ife ae
aS
SSee44-45
ee
ee 61
IV.39 30 VI.44-46 74
TVA 45 ANS Vines 4 WG, aby
IV.41-44 aa Vital 4= 19 145

IV.43-44 Mie, OI) 5 EOE VII.14-28 HS

IV.47-48 Io, Iesia, VII 225235 155070
PAS ENG) Vit e29-35 Seal thoy thi

IV. 48 25 VII. 36 Z0%

TV50-57 GOn, ay Oe al VII.42-44 US

IV.50-59 60% VII.46 ADAM Aries

IV.51 19 VII.46-47 16*, 76%
ives? 53 18n* Vii 47-52 i isy2

IV.58 28* VII.54 213*, 214

IV.58-V.63 39-40*, 227, Viti -14—75', 144) os-L64*
318

VIII.14-20 76* Via kSia22 29n

WOT tes) 214* VI.3*-2 23n, 24n,
Vii 6 Les 53) lissnn sels
WAM Gat OX V1I.2*-1* 138n*

WA A= AY) 24n Walp dle 25> aon

Wil, A= Bz 216 VI.9-10 5S LS oS
WU AVosy Wie V1I.10 48*
Wie Slh=Ge 76* Wellin dah ale? OS a. ISS)
WE Sil Sh7/ 144 Volfateh no
WIM BAR SS Balke, beets Vil el 165
VIII.34-35 Byes sellinit? Views —22 79
Wie Se Sy! 144 Valo 19%
VIII.47 Daler: Vane 5 79%
Villas GSE
CRASS (CUR Os EU rey) Vin gZo=50 79
Tiss 83*, 86
res 76% CLANG (UE 495 62 5° EU I6))
wie 15*, 213% 1.6 tS
PLES 15% Syd Meee 80
Peg-14 15% Teas 179%
ve 20% I.16 149*
Teas 1 83% SS = 209 265n
thao -7 TT Lys Z=54 1S OF
Tea? 214% ESS 10 133" essa
Il.8-9 143*, 144*, 216 Wg SAS Se) 23n, 140
II.9 76% I.32-43 80
Piedad 1 51*, 51n*, Toot 138n*
143*, 143n, 144 I.34-38 23n
TRA S12 77% LG SSIS 255°
Tiei3=16 164 US Saat: 64*
IT.17-18 51*, 51n*, 1 Oe) Su!ss 64
143*, 143n* TS = 5: SSS Si/ty
Tiers 51*, Sin* T.41-43 Bl Ss tees LNG)
TI.19-20 77* I.43-65 140
Trsz? 20* T.44 140*
V.6-16 78 T.45-46 140*
V.8-9 Im) 2s T4652 140
V.12-13 164n I.47-48 140
V.18 29n* ea S 2, 142
 Sag

1.53-65 2h 80 Vinede=22 81-82*

1.54 140* Vie19=21 63n
ToS? 149% WI 22-20 58,82 10on
1.62 149 215
[119-12 80 ViNes=79 88, 142
TIG1S-23 80 Ie e- 27 30%
Thv27 17n VI.26-29 hee ie. Lbe3
Tinso-35 80%, 258 VI.29 52%
Tesi 15 V1.30231 42%
TIT. 18-1 Silks Vie ses 4 42
REIL 2-3 51%, 81* VE. 33-35 82
Tie? 9 139 VI.44-46 43n*
TET. 5 is * VI.45-46 262%
Tier? 81%, 86%
Thi. 3-9 51%, Silks CTA 7 (UF 130,131; x7U 1.7)
TII9 48% Wiggs 143*, 216
TIT 11 es Piet 3s=a4 51*, 143%
Privp2-i3 Gyile, 86* Ti s¥3e16 143
III.14 28* Tf. 14 51*, 51n
[II.14-19 81 II.14-16 143
TIT) 20-21 51*, 81%, 139
TTT 21 68* Chin {3 (age il [aereeyenesone.|| 8
arte 3-24 139% KTU 1.8)
TETO2S- IV. 40 ZA, is 67%
IV. 25-29 140 5 213%
IV.28-29 salts 6-7 213%
IV.29 48%
IV.32 iLyg Gil 3) (Wim ISS Tee WAS)
IV.34 ot Sie ig 20%
IV.34-35 140* ii, Wil 20%
Tvess Zoe
IV.36-40 140 CTA 10 (UT 76; KTVU 1.10)
IV.39-40 Giles LeS=h 1b
IV.40 48% TS) 1S)
V.1-4 63n, 83n Wa df! Biyfek n/t:
W156 82 Hide, 20k
V.20-28 181 VM.) ANN
V.25 185 5 5) 20*
Viet a3 149% IAL 5 WU AU lg
320

Ik AW 19 TE Be '4. 211in
Dies Bivakee ge ISS 211in
Cel ee Olev/i i /e2 Dis 5-156 S52
IA) 20* Danse SO 250n*
AEA dal MO) III.145-146 127n
ADP) 19* Det te SO 5:2 25n
THIi ANS) 19* piglet Bow 25i0ne
IE AM 265 29n Pils 4-055 200n
WW 5 SH HO 29n LV el 6 — O97 1. i 31%
IV.169 30
Cha I (ike WSR ey NNNZ) IVeL70 19
T. 41 20* IV.L7L-V.226 Salt
Idk 6) 20* IV.187-188 194n
LG AAG iS)e IVA L9: 7-193 214n
11.54-56 29n* IVe297-205 250-251n*
ib 55) Z0* DVRS 7206 19n
IV.264 21in
CLAMS (UL Os) SEU) eS) IV.300 211in
jab 62 V.248 216
25 211n* Vie258-259 52%
V.259 250n*
GEARS Aan (COLT Kerr roma) Clemente
4) VI.169 30*
Wg f 5 248 V1I.277-278 52%
rei Zion Vin278 250n*
IE Ae) 248% VI.291-293 127n
Tg oaks) Das VI.296-297 25n
i> Serio ye) 248, 249 VLRO? 250n*
1 Shsye Maite) 155 VI.306 24n*
Wey 97) 250n*
1.4041 At eo Oe CLABES ACL 2 SS er mle on)
1.43 250n* Lier? USS), Lys 79,
I1.57-58 255 179), 249 LFO* US 2a weeS
Ahls SS) S0* Lis 196
IL. 61-62 24n* Hig S a) 194
Mas s/s) Sal Nghe, 74 HAS ee dS Acer
TE Oa 77 30* 186*, 230n*
TANG its} 19* lib weil GaN INSHOES 22Sil0lraite
iE AAA 5 PAS 31 Ti wa=16 249
1A SSE Oe 194n Tare ee aoe
 S2ul

ea '6 24n* Wo dl ailih 206%, 206n*

11.16-28 2 oieae Ver LO= 1S 183%
II.19-20 214n Vii 25 206%
Tits Ae 24n* Veda =15 206*
1s Gosia Z 50m 263% V.14-16 183%
Ti2=4 263n V.16 206*
III.13-14 25n* Visas 206%
PLE WSN KOS -, 263n* Wola ls J eho
III.17-19 135%, Oe View 206*
III.18-19 LBS WodiQerwe ISAS
PTE 5UG) 118n* Win COR Zi 206*
IV.6-8 oll We Ze ue ASS
IV.6-9 265n Woz 206%
IV.16-19 31 Wop Bess 182
IV.22 62 Vay aS
V.6 62 Velie 183
Vilas a4 183
CMA ey (We MLAS
oILale KTU 1.16) Wit SASS 53n
PhO 250n* V1533=38 25 236
ICgla Bbbiged 250m Vs 5.8 53n
IL CA ERZAeS 250n* VI.45-54 Sis 235%, 236
iogal Uy V1I.52-54 53n
ag 22 240%, Zone
Tee)
Si= 2016 24n, AIS Qin CTA 17 (UE 2 Aqht; KTU
1 eeOe) 28n* dea BZ)
WM, IEA) 250n* I
Ww mS 245
Ts dng SER SOc ZO"
TW 58 0s uAG NH alight
Iv.4 40n* io) ts
Vie
=k S 40n TSS
IWS 40n* alig}e
LV se/, 40n* 246%
Iv.8 40n* ry co ZOS%
WWro8) 40n* 0

Wig Heal 40n* Si

IW de) 40n* 46, 139%

Vig li=Z,8 181 214n, Z4A7*

Wo DBS 206, 208 .. IOVS

We De Wilees?4 Dill BSS 5 PASS ATB\ Lal

ei
se
|
Rei
eH
Le)
mal
|
La
KH
eH
ke
Lal
263*
32 ie

Ik 43-44 eh ifes2 loses7) 263%

ie 44 61 1.42-46 86-87%
ian mes AGp ls I.43-44 214%
Wi Pet =22 46, 139% ib BY) ZOSe
ih $24 -25 61 Wesel
O aka 61
a 7-28 PAS Es Vide 61
LW 5 ASS29 iLOks JIN Ibi aSALES) 263*
IV.46-49 ibsyied
Vv. 4-5 205" CrASZOM(UT AZ1 4A Aqh ele
We 4-8 236 KTU 1.20)
We 4-18 SSial ey 262*
Vv. Io) 65 265n nie2 262%
Wile DS TRS) 252n II.6 Za
Vale B=) BSS
fhSNES iia7s6 203"
Wars Jiish= 72'S) 254 IT.7-9 Boe
Wil sSOS 26n
WE SIDS 2545 CTA 21 (UP 122; xKTU 1 Aral)
VI »44-51 23n liga 264%
VI - 46-49 133n Less ZO7s
WAL 46-51 139 Logs aoe
Wile 47-48 WeyGines; ILE Mort 202%
Wile 48-49 Bese <I hb i4s 264*
VI Sol 23n Ibe) 264%
Was iat 267*
CTA 18 (UT 3 Aqht; KTV 1.18) TW SL) Subst 262*
I ~9=11 63n* Tenant alee, Zoe
ero 160*
pAbibo i? (StS Wein, wl. CTA 22 (UT 123-124;
65 PU oe)
pelez; 160* 25-4 26:2" 6, ROS
oaoule 139) 555 202%
eo Thats Se) Zo2*
OI L7, 65 Bishaalt0) ZOW*
g LG US) 65 ql thal 262*
cgILM 139 L820 MIS
oil oS)
ee 66* Sil) 262*
eae 262%
CTA 19 (UP 1 Aqht; xTU 1.19) HH
HA
hn
eH
He
nH
AHw 226 WOE
ils IE7Aby DOM gO
 SIS)

CPA 23 (UT $2; KTV 1,23) Tayo 243%

8-9 239%, 241n Tele Is Bose
Sela 240n I1.8 90%
13 18n
28 18n CHA s0 (UT M07 arty 1.65)
31 107 1 ZBifhes
31-64 ey a5 DOS
2 es
53235 72n, 106-107%* 2 118n*
35-36 107 3 Lay
37-39 107
39-40 106-107* GHA Bi (ae els ial ALaly)
40 72n ibe Ta 269
42 18n
43 18n CLAN SZ (UL 2 ek TUN 40)
44 Tem Hil 271%
47 72n 1.2 15*,
118n*
47-48 107 [e2e3 270%
48 18n 123 117%
49 18n 1.6-9 271n
49-52 107 123 15%
57 240%, Dy Su T.9'-9" 270%
60 18n 1.9" 117*, 118n*
1.16 15*
CTA 24 (UP 77; KTU 1.24) [tes a7 270%
180 tiga 15*, 117*, 118n*
180 agit 15%
TPR EIG 118n*, 270%
CLA 26 (Ur 135; KTU 1.62) 1.26 iS* pelts
210 2211n Nase 15%
TS35554 270%
CLAS ZS (Uf 17; KTU 1.47) poss 15*, 117*, 118n*
268*
209% CTA 34 (UT 1; KTVU 1.39)
20n 2 272%
10n, 20n 6 272%
MAO’ 7 Til gagtt SLANE?

PO p Z75 Dif hey Pai) Xe

60n, TAS WZ Voines aap:

Zones BS ISES 269% iS 89%
324

14 272% Tks 127m 2oa

Tat Si= 6 266%
CTA 35 (UT 3; KTU 1.41) ees 2,5 160
16 117n*, 118n*, 272% us Br 135n
VPA, 266
CTA 36 (UT 9; KTU 1.46)
ies 10n, 20n, 272* Ugs V2 (RS 24.252} {x20
1.6 90% 15168)
ta 26*, 27%
CTA 38 (UT 23; KTU 1.50) 1.132 22n*, 27%,
7 90n 262*, 265n
tldes 262n
CTA Appendix I (RS 17.100) 1.233 53
[KTU 1.84] 1.234 26*, 48, 160,
I1.4 27 35n* 206, 256*
ie. 170%
CTA Appendix II (RS 18.56) 1.8-9 185*
[Kn le
SiT) 11.425 22n*, 27*, 262*
OY foe ite} TS merece II.6 22n*, 27*, 262%
18 117n II.6-8 26*, 53
II.6-9 160
Chr i (ume MENS wider PASI II.6-10 262n
1-4 144n* fray 22n*, 27*, 262%

CP BP (Ou? BOS Lay Pols Ug. V 3 (RS 24.245) [xrU

Wes) 144n* 1.101]
1-4 g5%
CTA 56 (UT 21; KTU 2.6)
EY 144n* Ug. V 6 (RS 24.272) [xrU
au 273n* 1.124]
1-2 186n*, 210n*
CHAMILON (UES Sz le RED 1465) 10b-12 210n*
Lies 130n*

Ug. V7 (RS 24.244) [xru

kere, Wk ONS PEER) [ete al 114) 1.100]
I.1-4 265* 3 20n, 138n*
1.9 WPAN 15 20n
Pegs d2Z 265 20 137%
IT,14-16 266*
 S75)

UGeme Vi MSan (RSs 245) 2-S0))) (Kane PRU II 14 (ur 1014; KTU
Its ROA] One)
Si 14 20n 144n*
26 186n
31 ‘ 186n PRU II 15 (ur NROMES KTU
2.16)
Ug. V 9 (RS 24.643) [Kru 144n*
1.148]
Mh BSS ZT aES PRU II 18 (ur TOURSs KTU
iS PASH, Zale} 2525)
9 QO, MMP, Qs 211n
SS = 4: fee
Il.4 10n PRU II 19 (ur 1019; KTU
Lea eal DNS aXe 5.9)
144n*
Ug. V 13 (RS 24.253) [Kru
1.109] isis Wak A (Que LO ZALe KTU
us 20n Bolliy)
13-14 YD 211n
HAV Om, AOing Ailsa.
258 PRU II 24 (ur 1024; KTU
4.141)
Dey Ie i (ae MOOS Heer 1G iA) 4-11 Slral
Ibsal 83n
eo = 10 273on* PRU II 32 (UT 1032; KTU
4.134)
Dee I A) (Coe AUS PU St) 13 50n

47 Z211in
PRU II 90 (UL 1090; KTU
eas team (COE WOO) KE Ulallies 8,3)) 4.149)
SL 83 1-2 186n*

PRU II 12 (UP 1012; KTU 2.33) PRU II 91 (Ur 1091; KTU

35 211n 4.216)
31n

PRU II 13 (UT 1013; XKTU 2.30)

19 211n PRU II 102 (Ur 1102; KTU
4.222)
az 130n
326

PRU TI l44 (Ur 144s ere KAI 26

4.258) TASTE
5Abts} S08) 14, 118n, 274%
3 273n* TT eS 28n*

PRU V 80 (UT 2080; kTU Aeon,

4.360) See rips
3 31n Aa 274s
2 118n
RMS) Sill
al Noy (Cray ILal@al)}
261n* KAT AZ9
261n 1 15n
261n
261n KAI 202
261n* A.12 211n*
261n
LY
fS
©
WN
ON Ss 261n RAR 222
A.8-12 92n
Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets
UST. HOA
I.1-4 266n* (c) Akkadtan Texts
I.8 266n
I 5S 264n* Ug. V 18 (RS 20.24 [= CPA
29))
269%
(b) Phoentetan and Aramate 20n
Texts
fF
WN 10n, 20n
KAT 4 4 130*
3-5 Bor S = 10 272n
4-5 yas 14 268*
18 SiO
al 5 led Gat
KAI 9 22 60n, 243%
B.5-6 274% 25 24S, 250%) eos
26 IK), WALES
KAT 14 28 269%
16 170* 29 90*

KAI 15 170* Enuma Ets

i all Saws 240
 Ad

Hey
oS 412 240 JOU G SIG SALON} 227)
ZS e29) 176
LIES ALAO 166
(d) Greek Texts
Wile
SU eS) 178%
TII.42-46 240 Praeparatto evangelica
TT1.58-64 176 Io Aly, oS 12n
IAEA
3 ull 166 I.10.6-14a 12n
He OZ i= Oe 178 We lOs 7 14n
ie
LO 04 240 OF 2 USO
Hea OZ 2 176 Lo il@ a4 14n, 204
NTOla 22 178 FO. 14b-42 12n, 96
TIPE WSO) ALSite} 265 isa L(g als) 14n
A 5 LOSAY 6 6 PostyHe IG ALO alts) 32n
HIME GSO Sic 5 L2O= 22 fo AO hyo le) 52
ieTie
eh Sk 166 I th) 5 ats GS G5 ISS
iN adh3s) b=Lyf ys te LOo do Us SS
TV. 35-60 58 Ig itO 6 nO= 29 33
IV.93-104 13n lor ZO SA ele 4 cel Oc
IV.95-104 58 ILO, ZSS26 oval
Vrs= 02:8, PRAI PHENS 6 Ls AO 1)
IV.128-146 13n i 5 AO S72 So Pe)4
IW LAS =A WA is 1d). BY) SAM Shs BE.
VW GilADSI) 165-166* 196n
VI.80-81 ISS 5 IS ih ARO). Sil Ailey GLE? 5 IG 5
Viele
2 —Vil 5 Exe 178 MAS eZ 510
TeORS S'S 205

Gilgamesh I.10.34 ales

Nebo ZH Ol0 68 el ORS:5 ALOE OES
VI.96-100 69 Lo IO. SO 184
Wibe
db Sabie) 69 UMpAOs SO OH 34
XT. 194-198 LSA sore tol Oo SH yl ULES 20
 a i!
> pe

Eset

x Oe
whi) Fat ay (aes
7 gi ,@>- °° Cay La
M., : "hel .@,) ee? Soest
— =. Pe, 4 -
yP- “yer ‘ef . a

it SSP j -

7 bee s¥ide
/ ®
4 7

: '
 a
at
if sf
util

itHf
an

His ilietalsiteel
i}
i
eh

i
Hi Fett

i ne
Al

i
H
if

He
is
Hh i