The Gods of Mount Sapanu: Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts 9789042948341, 9789042948358, 9042948345

Citation preview

ÉTUDES BIBLIQUES

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts by Aicha RAHMOUNI

PEETERS

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

ÉTUDES BIBLIQUES (Nouvelle série. No 92)

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts par Aicha RAHMOUNI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2023

ISBN 978-90-429-4834-1 eISBN 978-90-429-4835-8 D/2023/0602/31 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2023, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

PREFACE This project is an extension of my research on Divine Epithets in the Ugaric Alphabetic Texts (Brill, 2008). Whereas my first book deals exclusively with individual gods, the current work examines Ugaritic deity groups through their appellations and epithets. The discovery of ancient Ugarit in the early 20th century prompted a very fruitful study of its language, religion, and literature. However, until now no book has dealt specifically with the deity groups of Ugarit – thus the motivation for this humble contribution to the field of Ugaritic studies. While working on this project I lost two people very dear to me, whom I remember with love, gratitude, and profound sadness, and who would have been happy and proud of the publication of this work: first, my mentor and friend Chaim Harold R. Cohen ‫ז״ל‬, the man who taught me that philology is a vocation; and second, my uncle Muhammad Meftah ‫َّب ﷲ ِذ ْك َر ُه‬ َ ‫ َطي‬, a scholar of Andalusian and Moroccan medieval Arabic manuscripts and culture, who helped me realize when I was a young girl that my path would be the search of meaning through lexicography. I once was accused of being a pure Semitist and feel proud to accept the charge, because I was lucky enough to count on the support of these two amazingly wise and knowledgeable men, both of whom had one key thing in common: they loved books for their glory and neither of them sought glory for themselves. Unfortunately, they left us in the prime of their lives, when we most needed them – and before this project started. I therefore dedicate this work to their everlasting memory. It is my pleasant duty to express my indebtedness and sincere gratitude to the many people without whose help this book would not have been written. Above all, I would especially like to thank Dennis Pardee for reading a version of this study and sending me copious comments, saving me from numerous pitfalls and calling my attention to many points which I had overlooked or misunderstood; and Fedérico Corriente, who, despite his advanced illness, enthusiastically agreed to read all the material related to Classical Arabic. I was lucky enough to have his support on this project as well as on my former publication (Brill, 2015). Unfortunately, some months after sending me his comments, Corriente passed away, leaving a void impossible to fill.

VIII

PREFACE

I am very grateful to Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Jorge Vargas and Emile Puech who had the generous patience to read and comment on the entire manuscript. All have offered valuable suggestions and made numerous corrections. Being in touch with them during their review of this work made me return in memory to the Convent Saint-Etienne, a cherished place where I spent most of my time while a student at the École Biblique and Hebrew University, and during my years of studies when living in Jerusalem. I equally thank the director-editor of the series Étude Bibilques, Paolo Garuti, who has shown an immense support and generosity in arranging the publication of this work at Peeters Publishers. I am most grateful to Ali Humayun Akhtar for undertaking the task of preparing the index. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my friends and English editors Neil Man and Craig Crossen, who managed to clear my text of flaws in the English language. Both have been more than editors; they have been critical readers. Crossen read draft after draft with manifest enthusiasm, while my friend Neil Man reviewed the last draft of the manuscript with great accuracy and professionalism. I am deeply grateful to both for their continued support during the long process of publishing this work. I also thank my friend James Nathan Ford, who has been very supportive of my research during all its stages, and who kindly suggested I contact Takayoshi M. Oshima, who carefully and critically read an early draft of this book, and gave meticulous scrutiny to each Akkadian reference, making acute comments and suggestions. I feel indebted to JuanPablo Vita for unhesitatingly accepting to read the final version of my book right before its submission for publication, making many useful comments by calling my attention to multiple important bibliographical references and more. I also acknowledge a debt of gratitude to my friend George Hatke for his generous support and his discussions, and comments. He kindly read the whole manuscript, corrected my mistakes, and added special comments, particularly on the ASA material. Likewise, I express my gratitude to Gernot Wilhelm, who kindly took the time to answer all my questions. All the valuable data or innovative comments suggested by my readers are included under their names. I am also grateful to Martina Schmidl and Maya Rinder for their unwavering support and respect, especially for their help with updating the Akkadian quotations, and providing me bibliographic references. I particularly thank Maya Rinder for reading the whole manuscript, and Nick Harris for his questioning some comparative data, finding mistakes and making careful editorial comments that helped to polish the final draft.

PREFACE

IX

I extend gratitude to my friends and family for their unconditional and continuous support and love. I am grateful to my steadfast friends Baruch Levine, Ross Brann, Daniel Sivan, Mercedes García-Arenal Rodríguez, Esperanza Alfonso, Javier del Barco, Jorge Aguadé, Ángeles Vicente, Farida El-Imrani, Abd-l-Wahab Meftah, Barak Dan, Julio Trebolle Barrera, Ilyas Tabbal, Rachid El Hour, Christa Clamer, and Izhiman family. I would like to express my thanks to my brother and sister Jalal and Majda Rahmouni, my beloved husband Pablo Sanz, my daughter Sara and my son Elias for their understanding during periods of continuous and intense work, and for giving me the freedom to enjoy the task. Though continuously aware that one cannot expect a philologist to be infallible, I tried to do my best in solitude, welcoming all suggestions, which have helped make this work what it is. However, this lexicographical study embodies a comparative approach based on multiple Semitic languages, each of which is a field in itself, making the goal of full satisfaction for each reader difficult despite the immense effort and incalculable time invested attempting to achieve it. My duty is to stress that the views expressed herein are solely those of the author. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for any errors or inadequacies still in this book. I only hope that such errors and inadequacies were kept at a minimum and that this work will add to the fields of Ugaritic and related studies.

INTRODUCTION 1. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS The purpose of this study is the identification of the deity groups occurring in the alphabetic texts from Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani through their epithets and appellations.1 The references to groups of gods and goddesses show that in the Ugaritic religion deity groups that might not be perceived by individual name and defined in number were nevertheless an important entity for the Ugaritian believer. A “group of gods” could include individual deities of different characters and most probably of a variety of functions. Moreover, “gods” in the plural here does not necessarily refer to multiple deities, but sometimes simply to multiple manifestations of the same divine beings.2 Therefore, an appellation could be a generic and collective noun referring to a particular deity and not to different divinities grouped in a unity whose members occasionally, but not always, share the same character.3 Furthermore, in Ugaritic religion there were groups of gods who were not exactly specified in number or name, but still acted with the same or more divine power in comparison to the individual deities. In addition, individual deities are occasionally perceived in a plural manner, which is a crucial feature of Ugaritic and many other early religions. However, my aim is not to theorize about the polytheism4 of Ugaritic 1 When dealing with groups of deities, the distinction between designations, appellations, and epithets is less categorical than when referring to individual deities (see Rahmouni, DEUAT). In the present study I use the term “epithet” for a descriptive word or phrase associated with a group of deities and which appears in parallel with a divine plural generic noun or a chain of other epithets referring to the same or different group of deities, for example ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses” and klt knyt “the honored brides.” The epithets appear mostly in the myths, whereas the designations and appellations appear mostly in rituals for the purpose of identification or explicit characterization. The latter would correspond to the technical usage of “divine name” when speaking about individual deities. Nevertheless, the boundary between epithets and appellations or designations is blurred at best. 2 The same could be said about other form of religions, e.g., the Mesopotamian and the Hebrew Bible. For discussion see Sommer (2009), and the references in Hundley (2013), 89, n. 117 and 118; Spencer (2015), 25-26. 3 Compare ancient Egypt, where divine unity was waning, but divine diversity and multiplicity were “rich in manifestations.” See Hornung (1996), 125–126, 170–185; Hundley (2013), 70, n. 14. 4 The notions of polytheism toward/versus monotheism would have been strange and unfamiliar to Ugaritian perceptions and world-views. The believer who addressed an

2

INTRODUCTION

society, but to offer a philological and linguistic analysis of each group of divine entities as a first step in establishing a better understanding of the Ugaritic religious experience and divine world. Because the groups of Ugaritian deities constitute a limited repertoire, any conclusions from a systematic study of them should be taken cautiously. Although the study of groups of divinities is crucial for a full understanding of the Ugaritic religion, few scholars have attempted it. This is because the study of groups of gods has been considered marginal to that of the individual deities.5 Probably the pious Ugaritian6 simply considered a divine group as more efficacious than a single deity. Indeed, the concentration of divine power in one figure could not function if not in relation and reaction to other divine figures who were generally, but not always, related to her/him. Thus, groups of divinities appear more often in the Ugaritic ritual and cultic corpus. Indeed, in many ritual Ugaritic texts deities receive a sacrifice under the appellation or epithet of a group of divine entities. They occur in stereotyped groupings, or simply appear in lists of divine names among individual deities. Nevertheless, the belief was that several divine beings subsumed under, and were addressed as, a single divine unity.7 Studies of Ugaritic religion that might relate to groups of gods are of five types: individual divinity did not in fact disavow its possible multiplicity. Contrast Wyatt (2020), 89-128. For background on the occasionally problematic usage of terms like monotheism and polytheism in modern Western scholarship, see Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 1-40, esp. 12ff. and the corresponding footnotes with references. On the theological question of “What is an ᾿ilu?” see Smith (2001), 6ff.; Sommer (2009), 18; Hundley (2013), 68ff. and Pongratz-Leisten (2003); idem (2011c), 83-111, esp. 85-86 and the references there. For a detailed definition of the divine in ancient Mesopotamia, see Pongratz-Leisten (2011a), 5-10, under point 2, “What Is Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia?” For more, see p. 249, n. 9, p. 293, n. 1, p. 294, n. 3, p. 298, n. 17. 5 Except for the studies mentioned below, the study of groups of deities in Ugaritic religion have mainly been marginal to studies of the major individual gods. However, I maintain that a proper understanding of the Ugaritic religious experience demands a full study of the entire divine realm including “all kinds of cultic paraphernalia, statues, symbols, and celestial bodies ...” (Pongratz-Leisten [2011a], 5, n. 14). For more references and discussion, see Spencer (2015), 34-35 and the corresponding footnotes. 6 Ugaritian refers to the people of Ugarit who spoke and wrote in the Ugaritic language, but whose religious pantheon did not necessarily exclude foreign deities borrowed from Hurrian or Mesopotamian tradition. See Wyatt (1998), 25, n. 3. 7 In a written communication Pardee adds that “If there is any proportional relationship between the number of sacrifices offered to a divinity and the perceived efficacity of the recipient of the sacrifices, single deities were far and away the most honored in the cult (see TR 907-8). Of course, several of those ‘single deities’ appear in multiple manifestations, but that does not appear to be your topic of focus.”

INTRODUCTION

3

I. Studies dealing with the Ugaritic divinities in particular, but with the aim of understanding the origins of Biblical monotheism.8 II. Studies devoted to the divine Ugaritic council/assembly.9 III. The translations of ritual and mythological/epic Ugaritic alphabetic texts which refer to groups of deities in their comments relating to the lines in which the divine collective appellations and epithets occur.10 IV. Studies dealing with the “pantheon lists.”11 V. Studies devoted to groups of Ugaritic deities.12 Special attention should be given to the classic study of J. C. de Moor on the Ugaritic pantheon, which includes several groups of deities classified by their function.13 Another important study on the Ugaritic pantheon was published by G. del Olmo Lete,14 who systematically listed under 8 See Caquot and Sznycer, (1980); Korpel (1990); de Moor (1997); Handy (1994); Wyatt (1996); idem (1998), 23-63; and the multiple studies of Smith, see e.g., Smith (2001); idem (2002); idem (2004) and idem (2008). The focus of most of these studies cited here is the origins of Biblical monotheism. 9 MacDonald (1979), 517-526; Mullen (1980); Kloos (1986), 16-23. For more precise references, see my commentary on pḫr, mpḫrt, ῾dt under bn ᾿ilm, ῾dt ᾿ilm, pḫr ᾿ilm on pp. 168176, 247-250, 267-269, 299-307, 313, 318, 321. 10 For ritual texts, see TPM; TRU; de Tarragon, TO II, 125-238; RC; CR1; CR2; TR; RCU. For the mythological/epic texts, see Ginsberg, ANET, 129-155; CML1; KME; MKT; TO I; PLM; CML2; MLC; ARTU; UNP; Pardee, CS I, 241-283, 333-356; RTU; UBC I and UBC II. 11 See de Moor (1970a), 187-228; Healey (1985), 115-25; idem (1988), 103-112; Wyatt (1998), 25, 34, 41f. See also the previous note for the works of del Olmo Lete and Pardee on the ritual Ugaritic texts, n. 10, p. 3. The Hittites boasted of numbering their gods in the thousands (LI.IM DINGIRmeš “Thousand Gods” [texts 34, 85 and KBo 18.77:18-19]), a description that seems exaggerated and intended rather as a figure of speech, a hyperbole. (See e.g., Bryce [2002], 135, 280, n. 4; Singer [1994], 81-102; Hoffner [1998], 21; idem [2009], 59-60, commenting that “‘Thousand Gods’ is the Hittite term for their entire pantheon”; Spencer [2015], 72-73, 200 for bibliographic references). The Mesopotamians knew a greater number of deities (e.g., Lambert [1975]; Uehlinger [2008], 23–69, esp. 40; Rubio [2011], 96, 97; Tugendhaft [2016]164-182). The Ugaritic data do not confirm the saying: Hundley (2013), cites between 100 and 265; de Moor (1970a), 216, n. 22 numbers 265 deities; del Olmo Lete, CR1, 78, n. 89; idem, CR2, 60, n. 91 based on de Moor (1970a), 216, n. 22 numbers 238/265 deities; Pardee, RCU, 222 counts 234; for further details, see idem, TR, 962-996 under Appendice 1 B : Les dieux; Tsumura (2019), 377-395, esp. 384-391; Wyatt (2020), 92-96. 12 Gaster (1937), 148-150; Herrmann (1960), 242-251; idem (1982), 93-104; idem (1996), 275-276; Wyatt (1998), 24-63; del Olmo Lete (2001-2002), 19-32; see also Cho (2007). On Egyptian religion see e.g., Westendorf (1974), 136-141; Hornung (1996); on the Phoenician triad see van den Branden (1981), 35-63; on the association of Hurrian deities see Archi (1979), 7-12; idem (1993), 1-18. 13 See de Moor (1970a), 189-204, 224-225; see Wyatt (1998), 47 for criticism. 14 See the work of del Olmo Lete on Canaanite religion according to the liturgical texts of Ugarit: RC; CR1; and the second, thoroughly revised and enlarged English edition, CR2, esp. 60-62. See del Olmo Lete (2001-2002), 25-26, “De los 1.000 y más dioses al Dios único.”

4

INTRODUCTION

“All the Gods of Ugarit” fifteen generic names and appellations. He added eighteen denominations that “refer to more ‘restricted’ (but still undefined) groups, and even individuals [deities],” including some groups of gods from the mythological corpus, and other unknown Ugaritic deities. Pardee,15 in his master work on the Ugaritic ritual corpus, lists all the gods with their textual sources and vocalization, from which those that he considers groups of gods can be inferred. The first specific discussion of Ugaritic deity groups in the ritual corpus was published eighty years ago by Gaster in a three-page article.16 However, the most successful detailed study of Ugaritic deity groups was Herrmann’s “Die Frage nach Göttergruppen in der religiösen Vorstellungswelt der Kanaanäer,” in which he discussed in depth the most common groups of Ugaritic deities and their Biblical parallels.17 Another important work dealing with deity groups, but with the objective of understanding polytheism through the structure and dynamics of a West Semitic pantheon, was published by Wyatt18 and has twenty-one entries. The above three works are a reliable basis for a study on the topic, but far from exhaustive. The present study is intended to include all the appellations and epithets of Ugaritic deity groups attested in published texts. It also includes the appellations and epithets of one group of demonic beings. It is a continuation of my work on the epithets of the individual Ugaritic gods; therefore the same methodology and approach has been followed: I. First, the deity group must have an appellation, or epithet that expresses that group’s full divine (or demonic) character. The individual deities under a specific group appellation or epithet sometimes have both similar and totally opposite characteristics, which makes the task of distinguishing their group role and function more difficult. The notion of multiple divine beings does not necessarily refer to a totality, but to a unity, especially when there is a grammatical genitive relation to the nomen proprium of a certain god, mostly of higher status: e.g., bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu”; 15

Pardee, TR, 964, 965, 966-967, 975, 976, 977, 982, 986, 991. Gaster (1937), 148-150, esp. 148 wrote, “These groupings obviously throw light upon the affiliations of the deities concerned and upon the structure of the Ugaritic pantheon in general, but it would appear from an examination of the standard literature that the point has not yet claimed the full attention of scholars.” 17 Herrmann (1982), 93-104; idem (1996), 275-276; but the latter article deals only with ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l and dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l. 18 Wyatt (1998), 24-63, esp. 42-46, 52-54; idem (2020); see Tugendhaft (2016), 164182. 16

INTRODUCTION

5

bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” However, such unity does not necessarily mean that the individual deities under the same group title would have the same role or a common character.19 II. Second, the deity group should contain more than two divinities. In other words, it should be a group of deities not paired or double deities, given that the concept of a group begins with three or more, thus representing plurality as opposed to an individual god or paired gods. Assuming that a group would always involve more than two deities of similar or opposite character, appearing mostly in similar religious sources, acting in unity and others in multiplicity. The single/double individual divinity due to the syncretism of two divinities into one (in grammatical terms, “double deities”) sometimes show singular complementation sometimes dual. In addition, there is the double deity Kôṯaru wa-Ḫasīsu, and/or Hayyānu, are excluded from this study.20 In addition, the group of deities must include different gods, not merely different aspects of the same god. Such multifaceted single deities, though reflecting polytheistic influences – e.g., b῾lm [ba῾lūma]; ršpm [rašpūma]21 – are also excluded from this study (see below). III. The divine appellations and epithets must refer to a group of full divine character. When the character of a group cannot be unambiguously identified as divine,22 the appellation, or epithet is considered doubtful and therefore omitted from this study (see below). IV. For an appellation or an epithet to be considered a group of gods in myth, it must parallel that of another divine group. Often the generic “gods, goddesses” ᾿ilm/᾿ilht might be prefaced or followed by a chain of epithets referring in most cases to single Ugaritic gods. This is clear in poetic texts, where an epithet often occurs in parallel with a chain of epithets of single gods that might be integrated under the divine group epithet opening or 19 Hundley (2013), 71 comments, “Viewed through this lens, the modern effort to define the divine, to logically understand the whole and its parts, is problematic from the start. Although many modern scholars are careful in their classifications, they often end up categorizing the divine in binary terms with consistent abstract principles. Such clear and consistent categories consistently limit the deity so carefully described and are consistently distant from the complex textual portraits.” Berlejung (2007), 10, 32 confirms that “Wirklich systematisiert und zusammengefasst findet man das theologische Profil einer mesopotamischen Gottheit nirgends, der Drang zum Kompendium ist ein neuzeitliches Bedürfnis.” 20 Compare Sommer (2009), 18, and the corresponding footnotes on p. 183. For Kôṯaru wa-Ḫasīsu’s epithets hyn d ḥrš ydm “Hayyānu, the one of the dexterous hands,” see DEUAT, 156-158, esp. 157, n. 3. 21 See pp. 45-46, §3.7 below, p. 303, n. 29. 22 Compare Hundley (2013), 76, 77. See pp. 11-21, §3.1 below.

6

INTRODUCTION

closing the chain. For example, the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” parallels the epithets bt ᾿ar “the one associated with light,” bt rb “the one associated with showers,” and bt y῾bdr “the one associated with (/ daughter of) y῾bdr” in KTU3 1.4:I:14-18: mṯb (15) klt . knyt // (16) mṯb. pdry . b ᾿ar // (17) mẓll . ṭly . bt . rb // (18) mṯb . ᾿arṣy . bt . y῾bdr “(No) dwelling (as do) the honored brides, // (No) dwelling (as does) Pidrayu, the one associated with light, // (No) shelter (as does) Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers, // (No) dwelling (as does) ᾿Arṣayu, the one associated with (/ daughter of) y῾bdr.” In ritual, the appellation or epithet for a group of deities normally occurs among other divine names, mostly of individual gods. In this case, the morphological and grammatical state of the appellation or epithet would be decisive for whether or not it is included in this study. When the context where such terms occur has an Akkadian parallel, the latter would help determine if an appellation or epithet refers to a group of divinities. Furthermore, the term must be appropriate for use by anyone (human or divine), otherwise it would be excluded. For example, ᾿aḫk “your (sg.) brothers,” which parallels ᾿aryk “your (sg.) kin” (KTU3 1.4:V:28-29), are considered epithets for a group of deities, the brothers of Ba῾lu. Another example is from KTU2 1.3:I:22-25 ytmr . b῾l (23) bnth . // y῾n . pdry (24) bt . ᾿ar . // ᾿apn . ṭly (25) b[t .]rb “Ba῾lu sees his daughters, // He eyes Pidrayu, the one associated with light, // As well as Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers.”23 The term bnth “his daughters” refers to a group of goddesses, the daughters of Ba῾lu. Because the group of divinities in both contexts are addressed by a single Ugaritic deity, it defines a relationship between the group deity and one specific deity. These groups are therefore excluded from this study.24 V. The generic names ᾿ilm and ᾿ilht are included in this study only when they are a component of the epithets of a group of gods, i.e., ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld”; pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods”; ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses.”25 Otherwise ᾿ilm, ᾿ilht (var. ᾿ilnym) are excluded.26 23 Based on Pardee (1988a), 2; contrast KTU3 1.3:I:22-25 y[[m]]tmr . b῾l bnth . // y῾n . pdry . bt . ᾿ar // ᾿apn . ṭly b[t .]rb. 24 Contrast with UBC II, 115-116. 25 See pp. 115-119, 244-246, 267-269, 300, 301, 315, 320, 321. 26 Some of the instances of the attestation of the generic term ᾿ilm “gods/deities” in the literary and religious texts are: KTU3 1.2:I:18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 34; 1.3:III:32; 1.3:V:20; 1.4:III:9, 41; 1.4:V:48 [reconstructed]; 1.4:VI:47-55; 1.4:VII:6, 50, 51; 1.5:III:20; 1.5:IV:13 [reconstructed]; 1.5:V:16; 1.6:I:31; 1.7:38, 39; 1.15:III:17, 18; 1.16:I:22; 1.16:II:43; 1.16:V:11-12, 14-22; 1.17:I:6; 1.17:V:20, 29; 1.18:I:7; 1.19:IV:23, 29; 1.20:II:2; 1.23:13, 19, 28, 29; 1.43:8, 23; 1.53:5, 6; 1.103:41, 56; 1.104:2, 21; 1.112: 6, 8;

INTRODUCTION

7

When a generic name occurs as an A word (᾿ilm /᾿ilht) in parallel with a B word (group of gods epithet), a reference to it under “parallels” is indicated. The generic name ᾿ilm “(the) gods,” (or better “deities,”) in some instances includes both male and female deities, although occasionally, when required, the exclusive usage of the feminine ᾿ilht “goddesses” also occurs. Sometimes the latter appears in parallel with ᾿ilm (see ᾿ilm // ᾿ilht: KTU2 1.4:VI:44-55);27 at other times both terms are in conjunction, e.g., ᾿ilm w ᾿ilht (KTU3 1.25:2). Nevertheless, the generic names ᾿ilm and ᾿ilht often appear in parallel with epithets of groups of Ugaritic deities, such as ᾿ilm // bn qdš “the children of the holy one,” or ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.”28 In the latter case the generic term ᾿ilm “deities” and its parallel would most probably refer to the same group of divinities that includes both female and male deities. However, when the generic ᾿ilm / ᾿ilht occurs with no parallel, the reference would normally be to all Ugaritic deities, unless the literary religious context indicates a reference to specific group of gods, e.g., ᾿ab w ᾿ilm “father and gods” (KTU3 1.123:1). In any event, the generic terms ᾿ilm and ᾿ilht and their variants are excluded from this study. Similarly, generic components of single deity epithets are excluded, e.g., qnyt ᾿ilm “the creatress of the gods,” and ᾿um ᾿ilm “the mother of the gods”; n῾mn ᾿ilm “the most handsome of the gods”; nrt ᾿ilm špš “the lamp of the gods, Šapšu.”29

1.114:2, 3; 1.123:1, 31, 32, 33; 1.139:17. Letters: 2.1:1; 2.4:4, 20; 2.6:5; 2.7:10; 2.10:12; 2.11:7; 2.13:7; 2.14:4; 2.21:5; 2.31:6; 2.34:3; 2.38:4; 2.41:1; 2.44:4; 2.63:5; 2.68:9; 2.70:6; 2.71:4; 2.72:5. Economic texts: 4.280:14; 4.284:6; 4.381:16. Scribal exercises: 5.9:I:2. Unclassified texts and fragments: 7.37:2. For ᾿ilht: KTU3 1.3:V:28; 1.4:VI:48-54; 1.18:I:16. On the Ugaritic divine family, see UBC II, 46-52. ᾿ilnym refers basically to the dead and deified heroes (see DLU, 29; DULAT, 60, see p. 11, n. 38, p. 13, n. 56 below); however, it also occurs in parallel with ᾿ilm in the expression, ᾿ilm // ᾿ilnym “gods, // deities” (KTU3 1.1:III:19; 1.2:III:2-3 [reconstructed]; KTU3 1.3:IV:34-35). On the latter, see Smith, UBC I, 160, 182 for discussion and bibliographic references; Smith (2014a), 139-140, 146, 152, 153; contrast Pardee, CS I, 245. The equivalence of ᾿ilnym and ᾿ilnm (KTU3 1.19:I:10) has to be categorically rejected. See Wyatt (1998), 42, n. 39; idem, RTU, 291, n. 183 for discussion and bibliographic references. 27 See pp. 40-42. 28 See pp. 162-167, 177-183, 305-307, 318, 320, 321. 29 For the generic component ᾿ilm in individual Ugaritic gods, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 72-73, 246-247, 252-255, 275-277. The Ugaritic generic term refers to gods in general with no specification unless the parallel to the generic name refers to a specific group of gods and/ or goddesses, such as ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt or ᾿ilht kṯrt “the goddesses ᾿Aṯirātu.” Unfortunately, unlike Hittite, where the specification of each group of gods is attested (e.g., IŠKUR a group of storm-gods, LAMMA a group of tutelary deities), Ugaritic does not know such categorization of groups of divinities. See the comparison by Spencer (2015), 94-96 of the later Hittite title to the Akkadian and Northwest Semitic Ba῾al “lord” and Ištar “goddess.”

8

INTRODUCTION

VI. Most deity group appellations and epithets comprise two, three, or even four components, but occasionally expressions consisting of one or two components are used. In the case of single deities the place and function of a divine name and the deity’s epithet are distinct, but with groups of gods the two categories overlap. Therefore, all specifics are included here. Based on these criteria, the present study treats 50 deity groups. 2. STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY Epithets and appellations for divine groups are discussed in expanded Hebrew/Arabic alphabetical order, and therefore no reference to the divine hierarchy is implicit, except when clearly stated. Deity group designations, appellations, and epithets are studied according to the following format:30 1. The deity group designation, appellation, or epithet is first given with an English translation. Wherever possible, the deities to whom these refer, and the text(s) in which they occur (cited according to the text number in KTU3), are then indicated, as are the names of the gods included within the title. Given that unity does not imply totality and that the identification of individual deities within a divine group is difficult, defining the group character of the deities mentioned in each entry is no easy task. Moreover, the classification of a series of gods under the same category by modern scholars does not imply the ancient Ugaritian conception of the series.31 2. Contexts: Under this heading are presented all the contexts in which the deity group designation, appellation, or epithet appears, with an English translation. The contexts are as a rule quoted according to KTU3 and, generally, in the order in which they appear there. In cases where the reading in KTU3’s reading seems unlikely, the preferred reading is given in the quotation of the context and the reading of KTU3 is mentioned in a footnote. If the same context occurs several times, only the first context (according to the numbering in KTU3) is quoted and translated and the others are listed in parentheses. If the first of several parallel contexts is reconstructed or fragmented, the better-preserved context will be quoted. A brief survey of the various translations of the divine group’s designation, appellation, or epithet in the scholarly literature is appended. This 30 This methodology follows that employed in my study of single divine epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT. 31 Compare Schwemer (2007), 123.

INTRODUCTION

9

literature includes the standard anthologies of translations of Ugaritic texts with selected specialized studies (additional specialized studies might also be referred to in the discussion). The translations quoted from these studies are usually that of the divine group’s designation, appellation, or epithet in its first context. 3. Parallels and Sequence: Under this heading are catalogued the various parallel pairs in which the epithet occurs as part of the poetic structure. Moreover, since many of the groups of epithets, appellations, or designations occur in ritual genres without paralleling, the sequence of the appearance of the group’s designation, appellation, or epithet among other divine individual or group designations, appellations or epithets is indicated. 4. Discussion: Under this heading are discussed the position, the meaning, and the religious dimension of the designation, appellation, or epithet of the group of gods and of each of the appellation’s, designation’s, or epithet’s components, its usage in the various contexts, and the identity (if ascertainable) of the gods to whom it refers. Components that are proper nouns are usually discussed only insofar as necessary for the understanding of the epithets or appellations and designations as a whole. The various scholarly views regarding each epithet are presented followed by a discussion based on the “Held and Cohen method.”32 Particular attention has been paid to parallel divine group appellations, designations, and epithets from neighboring areas, given the lexicographical, and historicalcultural affinities between the Ugaritic religious world, and particularly West and Northwest Semitic religions,33 and parallel divine group appellations, designations and epithets in mainly Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic,34 and when the data allows it, I try to give references to the Phoenician-Punic and Ancient South Arabian. Comparisons between documents so far separated in time and space often helps determine the semantic value of difficult terms and identify culture influences, transmissions, and survivals. However, parallels in semantics and terminology do not necessarily imply correspondences in culture, though such 32

For this philological methodology, see Cohen (1989); idem (1996b), 287-309. Though the cultures in Mesopotamia varied both synchronically and diachronically, and my study focuses on the Ugaritic religion in particular, I have made an effort to determine significant common and cross influences on the Semitic monotheistic religions and cultures in particular, and ancient Near Eastern religions in general. Compare Hundley (2013), 69, 70-72. 34 See the previous note. For comparative material from Classical and Qur᾿ānic Arabic, see Gimaret (1988) and Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008). Quotations from the Qur᾿ān follow Abdel Haleem (2016). 33

10

INTRODUCTION

correspondences often are real, given the cultural connections and the shared memory and identity of neighboring peoples in the ancient Near East, which Pongratz-Leisten calls the common “cultural memory.”35 Each case of apparent correspondence, however, must be judged on its own merits. At the end of each discussion, note is made of the use of the component(s) in personal names, when applicable. I should remind readers that this study does not comprise a detailed study on Hurrian or Akkadian deity groups and does not take into account the use of the cuneiform alphabet for writing down cultic and magical texts in the other traditional languages of scholarship, liturgy, and culture at Ugarit (namely, Hurrian and Akkadian). Nevertheless, I explore the latter data with a comparative aim that helps uncover the multicultural reality of Ugarit and clarify the Ugaritic alphabetic corpus in the local language (Ugaritic).36 In addition, I have generally refrained from making comparisons with Hittite, Egyptian and Greek divine epithets and denominations of deity groups because I am not a specialist in the respective languages. I conclude the study with a concise statement demonstrating the relevance of Ugaritic deity groups to the interpretation and understanding of Ugaritic religion in general. This includes a discussion of the structure of the Ugaritic deity group epithets, appellations, and designations, and a summary of parallel epithets in ancient Near Eastern Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, and Classical and Qur᾿anic Arabic. Five appendices are also added: Appendix 1: A Glossary of the Appellations and Epithets of Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (with listings of all epithets and appellations) Appendix 2: A Glossary of the Components of the Appellations and Epithets of Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (with listings of all appellations and epithets in which each component occurs). Appendix 3: A Table of the Number of Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (in descending order of frequency). Appendix 4: A List of Dubious Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. 35 Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 139; Herrmann, DDD2, 274-280, esp. 276 about the Ugaritic god El. 36 E.g., Tugendhaft (2016), 177.

INTRODUCTION

11

Appendix 5: A List of the Common Nouns or Divine Names Incorrectly Classified as Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. 3. APPELLATIONS

AND

EPITHETS NOT DISCUSSED IN THIS STUDY

3.1 Appellations and Epithets Referring to Entities without Full Divine Character Unless a group of deities has full divine character, they have been excluded from this study. Because of the symbolism and ideology of the institution of kingship in our modern studies, the interpretation of the Ugaritic religion as a true inclusive theological statement must be thoroughly revised. Therefore, I suggest that “deified kings” did not possess fully divinity. Indeed, the group appellations rp᾿um and mlkm are classical examples of the ambiguity of divine, semi-divine, or non-divine character.37 At present there is a relative agreement among scholars that the above appellations refer to deified kings, and although this group, the dead, acquire many characteristics similar to those of deities, their classification as fully divine in the Ugaritic pantheon is still controversial. Therefore, I will exclude them from the present study. Rp᾿um appear in the following combinations and parallels: rp᾿u // ᾿ilnym;38 rp᾿um // ᾿ilm;39 ᾿ilm // mtm “the dead/ human(s)(?)”;40 rp᾿i arṣ “the rp᾿u/im / the ghosts of the earth / netherworld”; and in parallel with pḫr qbṣ dtn “the convocation of the assembly of Ditan,”41 qbṣ ddn/dtn “the assembly/council of the Didanites/Ditan/ Ditānu,”42 and the title rp᾿im qdmym “the rp᾿um the old/the ancient ghosts/ saviours.”43At present, there is broad agreement that the latter epithets refer to deified kings, a low-grade apotheosis short of full immortality,44 but the 37 For an updated discussion on the issue, see Krebernik (2013), 183-215. For the Ugaritic context, see Loretz (2003), 211-271, Teil 2; Pardee (2011), 1-65. 38 KTU3 1.6:VI:46-47; 1.20:1-2; 1.21:II:3-4, 11-12 [broken]; 1.22:II:3-6, 8-11, 19-21, and 25-26 [reconstructed]). 39 KTU3 1.20:II:1-2 and 6 [partially reconstructed]. 40 KTU3 1.6:VI:45-48; 1.20:I:3 reads tmtm / mtmtm? [very broken], see KTU3, 63, n. 1. 41 KTU3 1.15:III:3-4 [partially reconstructed], 14-15. 42 KTU3 1.161:2-3, 9-10. 43 KTU3 1.161:8, 24. 44 The condition of immortality as a rule for full divinity is problematic. For a comparable Mesopotamian tradition, see Hundley (2013), 77, n. 49 and the reference to Cassin (1987), 226-235. On the Ugaritic context, see Krebernik (2013), 189-194 for discussion

12

INTRODUCTION

character of the rp᾿um has been the subject of on-going debate45 despite the growing consensus that they are the deified kings. A few scholars consider the rp᾿um to be lesser deities with no connection to the dead.46 Others consider rp᾿um a title for various groups of persons or human agents.47 Still others consider rp᾿um full deities “associated with” the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, the god ᾿Ilu.48 Nevertheless, the main stream of opinion connects them with the dead kings. Caquot49 states, “Les Sémites ont considéré leurs morts sinon comme des dieux du moins comme des êtres revêtus de certains caractères surhumains et redoutables, d’où le titre ‘les divins’ que nous trouvons à Ougarit. Il se peut que ᾿ilnym marque une infériorité de condition par rapport aux ᾿ilm.” Dietrich, Loretz, and and bibliographic references. On related themes in the Bible, see the excellent contribution of van der Toorn (1996), 65, n. 118, 225-235 who states, “The Israelite cult of the dead is in many ways a hidden heritage – hidden because deleted from, or at least disguised and obfuscated in, the written records.” 45 Parker (1976), 29, n. 30; Schmidt (1994), 71-88, esp. 82-83; van der Toorn, DDD2, 360-361, 364; Pardee, CS I, 253, 264-269; and Pardee (2011), 1-65 for reedition of the “Rephaim” texts; Lewis, UNP, 196-197; Wyatt, RTU, 45, n. 35, 315; Wright (2001), 6-7, n. 21, 77-78, n. 27; Pitard (1992), 33-77; idem, (1999), 259-269; Loretz (2003), 217-272; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 279, 703, 707; and the substantial contribution to the subject by Lewis (1989), especially p. 49-50; Krebernik (2013), 189-194, 209. Smith (2014a), 5-6, 12, 20, 34, 101-102,109, 110, 137-154, 208, 308-321, 331, 336, 407, 420, 446-447, 450-454, 456, 457, 458, 461, 559, 567, 569 on the question of the immortality of the rp᾿um heroes and kings, states, “These rp᾿um enjoyed ‘divine’ or ‘semi-divine status’ in their postmortem existence along with the royal line as both minor divinities and ancient heroes.” 46 Lewis (1989), 49-50, 171, esp. 50, comments, “Referring to the deceased as an ilu was an attempt to describe some type of transcendent character, perhaps what we would call ‘preternatural.’” (Contrast Pitard [1999], 259-269, esp. 263-269). Van Selms (1954), 130 points out that the rp᾿um/rpu of Ba῾al are more “a certain class of minor gods than the ghosts of the dead.” 47 Virolleaud (1940a), 77-83; Gaster (1944), 39; MKT, 83-86. Gordon, PLM, 30-32; Gray (1949), 127-139; idem (1952), 39-41 assumed that the rp᾿um are human agents, living functionaries, either royal or aristocratic. Healey (1975), 238, n. 44; idem (1978), 89-91, esp. 91 suggests that “while the more ancient putative ancestors are called rp᾿um (also rp᾿um qdmym[line 8]) the modern ones are called mlk[m] ... Hence we may suppose that rp᾿um is simply a special epithet of mlkm, the two being not identical in meaning but probably used exclusively of the same group of people.” For a survey see L’Heureux (1979), 116-127 (see below); and Smith (2014a), 137-154, 209-314. 48 See e.g., L’Heureux (1974), 265-274; idem (1979), 130-140, 143-145, 148,159, 201ff. says of the earthly rp᾿um, “There is nothing to suggest that the Raphaim are the shades of the dead ... Nor is there any indication that their role is to promote fertility.” According to him, the rp᾿um of KTU3 1.20-22 are major gods connected to the Ugaritic head god El, also called rp᾿u. 49 Caquot (1960), 77-90, esp. 78; idem, TO I, 471, 473, 477, 478, 479. See also Pope (1971), 402 edited by Smith, see Pope (1994); idem (1977b), 165-167.

INTRODUCTION

13

Sanmartín50 assumed that “... in Ugarit bezeichnen die rpum nur die toten Ahnen, die Manen, keinesfalls aber irgendeine ethnische, soziale oder religiöse Gruppe. Die Verehrung der Toten kulminierte in Ugarit wohl in der Verehrung toten Königs. Das Gedeihen der Stadt setzte man in engste Beziehung zu dem Wohlwollen der toten Ahnen. ... Der Mensch hatte das Wohlwollen durch Opfer und Speisung der Toten wachzuhalten.” Following the same line of thought, Xella51 assumes of the rp᾿um, “Sie lassen sich als die Schar der Vorfahren erfassen, in der Könige und Fürsten, Würdenträger und Krieger, in Verbindung mit dem nationalen Kult, einfache Leute aus jedem sozialen Rang in Verbindung mit dem Familienkult, versammelt waren.” De Moor52 calls them “‘Healers’ or ‘Saviours’, viz. the deified spirits of dead kings and heroes.” Del Olmo Lete53 states, “... Rapauma, en principio ‘héroes’ legendarios de un grupo étnico, luego divinizados. Por eso se les puede llamar ‘dioses’ (cf. 1.20 II 9) y actuarán, sin embargo, more humano (cf. 1.20 II 3-4; 1.22 II 22-23).” Levine and de Tarragon54 opine that “the Rephaim are long departed kings (and heroes) who dwell in the netherworld, which is located deep beneath the mountains of that faraway eastern region where the Ugaritians originated.” Spronk55 confirms the divine character of the deified royal ancestors, the rp᾿um “healers,” and classes the epic hero Kirta and the Ugaritic god Ba῾lu among them. My opinion is that the rp᾿um did not enjoy full divine character compared to the Ugaritic deities56 and therefore the reference to them by the noun ᾿ilu does not imply full divinity.57 The rp᾿um should be classified among the heroes of the epic genre, who are also excluded from this study. Also, the epithets ᾿aṯtm / ᾿aṯt ᾿il / ᾿aṯt “the two women (of ᾿Ilu)” 50 Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1976), 46, 47, and esp. 51-52; following them are Ribichini and Xella (1979), 145-148, esp. 150-156 and the references there; Loretz (2003), 211-272, esp. 271. 51 Xella (1983), 286, n. 26. Following him see Ford (1992), 73-98, 87, esp. 98. 52 De Moor, ARTU, 98, n. 478, 206, n. 52, 266, n. 266, n. 267. 53 Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 406, 410-413, n. 23, 417; see idem CR2, 136-137. 54 Levine and de Tarragon (1984), 649-659, on pp. 649 and esp. p. 656. 55 Spronk (1986), 161-177, 189-196. 56 Contrast Kerbernik (2013), 189, who states, “Von der Sonnengöttin Šapaš, die ihre Bahn durch Unterwelt und Oberwelt zieht, heißt es im ‘Baal-Zyklus’ (CAT 1. 6 vi 45-49), ‘Du beaufsichtigst die rpim und die ‘Göttlichen’ (ilnym), deine Gesellschaft sind Götter (ilm) und Menschen (mtm). Auch anderswo wird ilnym ‘Göttliche’ etwa synonym zu rpu/im gebraucht; möglicherweise ist ilnym der allgemeinere und rpu der speziellere Terminus, die hier als Hendiadyoin, ‘alle Unterweltlichen’ im Gegensatz zu den ‘oberweltlichen’ Göttern und Menschen meinen.” 57 For the question of what constitutes an ᾿ilu, and the issue of “full divine character,” see pp. 4-5, 21, n. 105 below.

14

INTRODUCTION

(KTU3 1.23: 39, 42 [×2], 46, 48, 49, 64), and bt ᾿il “the daughters of ᾿Ilu” (KTU3 1.23: 45) are likewise excluded from this study,58 given that the wives referred to here are described with human characteristics.59 Another example is the collective mlkm, which appears twice60 in Ugaritic parallel texts: in the list of divine names and epithets KTU3 1.47:33 (= 1.118:32), and its correspondent written in syllabo-logographic cuneiform dma-lik-MEŠ (RS 20.024:32). This correspondence between the Ugaritic form and the form written in the syllabo-logographic cuneiform script confirms the Ugaritic mlkm as a group despite that the form of the syllabo-logographic dma-lik-MEŠ, which has been a subject of controversy. Huehnergard61 comments that “the curious writing of the form [dma-likMEŠ] here may be intended to represent /mālikūma/, i.e., the determinative meš for /-ūma/, since the entry corresponds to mlkm in the parallel alphabetic god-lists KTU 1.47:33, 1.118:32; thus, a G ptcpl. ‘counselors’ or ‘rulers.’” An exact graphic of ma-lik-MEŠ (EA 131:21) appears in the El-Amarna Correspondence, where it means “(counselors) of the king.” Unfortunately, the El-Amarna Correspondence is considered a special form;62 the expected vocalization would have been malakūma, the plural of mlk.63 In a written communication my colleague Takayoshi Oshima writes, “As for mlkm, is it an absolute noun derived from the so-called abstract plural? Note Elohim. It is plural but refers to a single deity, Yhwh. It is possible 58 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 22-24, 74-75. The dilemma of “wives,” and “daughters” was addressed by Scurlock (2011), 430-431. Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 62 incorrectly called bnt b῾l “the Daughters of Ba῾lu,” which would surely include Ṭallayu, ᾿Arṣayu, and Pidrayu, although their supposed epithet bnt b῾l does not appear at all in the Ugaritic corpus. 59 On the extensive discussions on the identity of these two women see Smith (2006), 89-92 and the bibliographic references there. See also Xella (1973), 93, n. 36; Wyatt, RTU, 324-25, n. 1; Tsumura (2007), 629, 639; Pardee (2009), 219-222, esp. 221; idem, CS I, 274; Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 29-30; Scurlock (2011), 416, n. 28, 430-431. 60 KTU3 1.47:33 (= 1.118:32) ym ᾿uṯḫt knr mlkm “Yammu, ᾿Uṯḫatu, kinnāru, mala/ ikūma.” But mlkm is missing in the third parallel version KTU3 1.148. See Pardee, TR, 303; contrast with del Olmo Lete (1987b), 61. Xella, TRU, 389 incorrectly reads mlkm, compare KTU3 1.100:41; 1.107:42 and 1.123:20 read mlk. On the other hand, mlk of KTU3 1.119:24 would simply mean “king”; for discussion and bibliographic references see, Healey (1985), 124-125, n. 25; Pardee (1988b), 138, n. 80; idem, TR, 666, 667, 679-680 and the corresponding footnote with bibliographic references. 61 Huehnergard, UVST, 147. For a detailed analysis and discussion, see Pardee, TR, 311-315, n. 123, 127; compare del Olmo Lete (2004), 586-587, n. 151; idem, CR2, 368, n. 110. 62 See Rainey (1966), 427, n. 5; Heider (1985), 136, n. 269; del Olmo Lete (1987b), 61, n. 103; Moran (1987), 349: “ma-lik.MEŠ (conseillers) du roi.” 63 For extensive references and a detailed discussion, see Pardee, TR, 312, n. 131 and n. 132; cf. Krebernik (2013), 203, n. 96.

INTRODUCTION

15

that Elohim64 initially meant ‘deity’ when it was taken as an abstract noun, but later used as (the) ‘Deity’, i.e., one and only ‘divine existence.’ If so, mlkm could mean ‘(the) King (of the netherworld).’”65 In any event, some scholars66 leave mlkm untranslated but take it to refer to a sacrifice or group(s) of deities. Most agree that the Ugaritic mlk comprises several distinct homographs for the common West Semitic mlk “king” or “counselor”67 > “the deified kings”: i.e., del Olmo Lete68 renders “reyes divinizados/divinized kings.” Pardee69 assumes “les ‘rois (divinisés)’ ougaritiques correspondaient à l’entité divine connue plus largement sous sa forme accadianisée mal(i)kū... il est même possible que la catégorie à Ougarit se soit limitée aux rois de cette ville, à savoir les rois dont les noms étaient inscrits au verso de la tablette RS 24.257.” Indeed, the determinative of the equivalent transcription of the syllabo-logographic 64 For an exhaustive study on Elohim, see in general Burnett (2001), esp. 2, n. 4, 24, 53, 63, 70, 72, 74-78, 81, 92, 105, 119, 133, 143, 151-152. 65 Contrast with Cazelles (1969b), 500, who assumed, “... enfin mlkm considéré comme un pluriel par la transcription accadienne, mais le m peut être le déterminatif comme à chacun des ba῾als de la liste.” De Moor (1970a), 226, listed mlkm under “names with an affixed morpheme -m,” explaining, “the plural designates the same deity as the singular, though in an intensified manner.” Herdner (1978), 8: “dieu Mlkm”; de Tarragon (1980), 159, who commented that, while the syllabo-logographic form indicates a plural, in the case of -m “Mais s’agit-il réellement d’un puriel? Le -m ugarititique peut être enclitique (ex. : b῾lm, ibid., lines 5-10).” For a detailed discussion on parallel collective entities, see my commentary on ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l and pḫr ᾿ilm, see pp. 90-95, 267-269, 300-301, 303, 314, 321. 66 See Astour (1966), 281: “molk-sacrifices.” See Nougayrol (1957), 83: “les Malik”; Gese et al. (1970), 170: “die Malik-Götter”; Caquot (1979), col. 1404: “les (dieux) Malik”; but Xella, TRU, 327: “i Malik.” 67 On the common Semitic Ugaritic term mlk “king/counselor,” see DLU, 275-278; DULAT, 550-556, esp. meaning 3; and for the strict meaning of “ruler,” see Krebernik (1987-1990), 305-306; Handy (1988), 57-59. Sanmartín (1991), 194-195, esp. 194, n. 133 relates mlkm simply to mal(i)k “regente, rey,” and not to mālik “consejero”; against this see Pardee, TPM, 88-89, n. 43; idem TR, 311, n. 124, 313, n. 133, and 134. The singular term mlk “king” occurs as a component in the epithets of Ugaritic gods of various status, ᾿il, b῾l, and ḫrḫb. For the component mlk as an epithet of individual deities see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 226-233. In addition, the singular mlk “king,” to which most probably mlkm would be related, is also attested (always in singular form) in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names. See PTU, 157-158; cf. Pardee, TPM, 88 and n. 41; Heider (1985), 136, n. 269; cf. Fowler (1988), 182, 183-184. In personal names from Ugarit written in syllabic cuneiform, both milku “king” and dmalik “Milku” are attested, and the same is presumably true for the alphabetic personal names as well. See the discussion by Gröndahl, PTU, 157; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 296, n. 14 with a grateful note to Prof. Pardee for calling my attention to the ambiguity of the component mlk in Ugaritic proper names. 68 See del Olmo Lete (1986d), 303, n. 82; idem (1987b), 60-62; idem, CR1, 61; idem CR2, 62; following him, Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 69-74; idem, TUAT II/3, 303, “‘Könige’ ... ‘Könige’.” 69 Pardee, TR, 314, n. 140 and 141.

16

INTRODUCTION

orthography shows that mlkm is a collective divine entity.70 Nevertheless, even when scholars agree that mlk/dma-lik-MEŠ indicates a plural form, its meaning and identification is debated. Some believe it refers to a “sacrifice”: Astour71 stated “molk-sacrifices”; and Cazelles72 commented “... un sacrifice môlek divinisé ... le sens de môlek, comme d’un sacrifice par le feu ... .” The latter suggestion has been ruled out by recent scholars, there being no consistent use in the Ugaritic corpus of the term mlk for sacrifice.73 Others think it is the Ammonite divinity milkôm: e.g., Gordon74 assumed mlkm refers to the “name of a god (‫)מלכם‬.” However, this is incorrect because the plural works against identification with the god Milkōm. In fact, it is unlikely that the theonym Milkōm represents the origin of a plural form.75 Other scholars identify it with the chthonic deity Milku: Nougayrol76 read “les Ma/âlik”; and Gese et al.77 commented that “die Malik-Götter, ... deren Namen mit dem Etymon mlk ‘König’ gebildet wird. ... Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich um Erscheinungsformen des Gottes Malik, der in einer starken Nähe zu Nergal steht und Unterweltscharakter hat” – or rather in plural, thus referring to the multiple Malik. Caquot and Szyncer78 believe that “certain gods called Malik or 70 Compare it to the entries of KTU3 1.47:33; KTU3 1.118:32 and their corresponding syllabo-logographic cuneiform version RS 20.024: 32. See e.g., RS 20.024:18 dḪUR.SAG. MEŠ u Amu-ú (≈ ġrm w῾m[q]t KTU3 1.118:18 and 1.148:6); line 25 DINGIR.MEŠ til-la-at d IM (≈ ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l KTU3 1.47:26, 1.118:25 and 1.148:8) and line 28 dpu-ḫur DINGIR.MEŠ (≈ pḫr ᾿ilm KTU3 1.47:29, 1.118:28, and 1.148:9). For a detailed commentary on the parallel collective entities see my commentary on ġrm w῾m[q]t;᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l and pḫr ᾿ilm on pp. 44-45, 90-95, 267-269, 300-301, 303, 314, 321. Weippert and Weippert (1982), 88-89, n. 48 assert that mlkm is simply a divine name in plural. See Lambert (1985), 533, n. 16 comments, “... the regular lack of mimation supports ma-li-ki as a plural, like the Ugaritic mlkm = d ma.likmeš (Ug. 7 3 32).” Spronk (1986), 187, n. 3; Malamat (1989), 102-103; del Olmo Lete (1990b), 70, n. 7 and n. 8, 72, n. 14. Bordreuil (1990), 14-16. Pardee (1990), 371, n. 7 states that Heider’s opinion “appears very questionable to me. It is rather to be taken as logographic representation of Akkadian malikū (plural!), with prefixed DINGIR to preclude any mistake as to their divine status”; idem, TR, 313, n. 137 insists that even if we accept the latter comparison with malikū “on se demande toujours pourquoi le scribe a écrit {ma-lik-MEŠ} au lieu de {ma-li-ku-MEŠ}.” See Roche-Hawley (2012), 167, 171 under Malikūma. 71 Astour (1966), 281. 72 Cazelles (1957), 485-486; idem, (1969b), 500. 73 Heider (1985), 117-118. 74 See Gordon, UT, 433-434, no. 1484; idem, UL, 108; see also Gray, LC2, 171, n 3; contra see Healey (1975), 235, n. 6. 75 For references see, Pardee (1990), 372, n. 15; idem, TR, 311-312, n. 125; see also Puech, DDD2, 575-576. Against the interpretation of mlkm as a singular see Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 73 with bibliographic references in n. 129; Schmidt (1994), 98. 76 Nougayrol (1957), 83; idem (1968), 60; following him, Xella, TRU, 327 renders “i Malik”; compare Weidner (1957), 170: “die Malik.” 77 Gese et al. (1970), 170. 78 Caquot and Szyncer (1980), 16; see the discussion in Ribichini and Xella (1979-1980), 149, who comment that “il termine accadico ad esso corrispondente nel c.d. pantheon di

INTRODUCTION

17

‘king’ were worshipped at Ugarit.” Weippert and Weippert79 assert that mlkm is simply a divine name in plural. Similarly, Heider80 suggests that the author of the syllabo-logographic cuneiform text clearly had in mind the plural form of a deity named Malik. Generally, scholars of the latter opinion relate the discussed deity to Nergal, whom they compare to the Anunnaki.81 Caquot82 thinks that “les (dieux) Malik sont probablement des princes des enfers.” Healey83 first believed that the Old Babylonian omen texts implied that the malkū are a species of demon, rather than deified kings. Later he84 hypothesized that mlkm and rp᾿um were linked, referring to the succession of rulers after and, at least in the case of mlkm, before death, adding that the mlkm “are powerful spirits, possibly connected with the ancestor cult. The syllabo-logographic text is a rough equation, the malikū/malkū had a similar role.” However, there is no attestation in the Ugaritic corpus of a plural form of a deity named Malik. Thus, because of the syllabo-logographic parallel mentioned above, and the lack of attestation of any type of mlk sacrifice, the Ugaritic mlkm can be neither Milkom nor deified mlk-offerings, but a group of various divinities or most probably semi-divinities.85 Given the semantics of mlkm, these entities would be “deified kings / the inhabitants of the underworld.”86 Furthermore, Ugarit chiarisce che si tratta degli dèi Malik (dMA.LIK.MEŠ), ...”; Xella, TRU, 327 reads “Malik.” 79 Weippert and Weippert (1982), 88-89. 80 Heider (1985), 117-118, 128-33, 135, n. 267. For Pardee’s criticism of Heider, see n. 70, p. 16. 81 Nougayrol (1968), 60; Ribichini and Xella (1979-1980), 149, n. 25; see below; del Olmo Lete (2001-2002), 23. 82 Caquot (1979), col. 1404; Caquot and Sznycer (1980), 16 affirmed they were “funeral deities.” For more, see Krebernik (2013), 204, n. 101. 83 Healey (1975), 235-238. 84 Healey (1978), 89-91; idem, (1984), 250; idem, (1985), 120, 124, n. 25. 85 Despite the combination of dma-lik with the logogram MEŠ indicating the plural form, the identity of this appellation is debated. The expected ending of the plural is (-ū) or (-ūma). Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 70 comment that “Es besteht nämlich auch die Möglichkeit, daß die westlichen Schreiber das ‘Akkadogramm’ DINGIR MA.LIK.MEŠ speziell für mlkm geschaffen haben. Die mlkm könnten daher – zumal sie in Listen erscheinen, die mit dem Kult zummenhängen, in dem der lebende König eine Rolle spielte (Sieche KTU 1.148:1-9) – mit dem königlichen Ahnenkult zusammenhängen, mlkm wäre dann eine Bezeichnung für die zu den rpum eingegangenen verstorbenen und vergötlichten Könige” (see below); Weippert and Weippert (1982), 88 “Ein eindeutiges Beispiel für Plural liegt ..., akk. in pseudologographischer Schreibung als dMA.LIK.MEŠ (Ug V i 18, mit Plural-Determinativ MEŠ) vor”; del Olmo Lete (1987b), 61: “un acadograma artificial”; Pardee (1990), 371, n. 7; Pardee, TR, 311, n. 123, 312, n. 128; Römer (2014), 181-183. For more, see the reference to Pope in the next note and n. 86, pp. 17-18 and n. 49, p. 12 above. 86 Pope (apud Cooper [1981], 446), stated, “Ug. mlkm represents neither Milcom nor deified mlk-offerings (...), but the gods of the underworld (...). Thus, rpu  : rpum  :: mlk  : mlkm.” Ribichini and Xella (1979), 149, n. 24, 25 established an analogy between “I Malik

18

INTRODUCTION

the mlkm as a group of Ugaritic semi-divinities are perhaps paralleled by the Akkadian divinities known as the Anunnaki, classified as underworld deities and presumably labeled malikū and malkū.87 The appellation mālikū appears in the Mari texts, and most likely refers to deceased rulers.88 Therefore, the corresponding forms from the Akkadian, and more specifically from the Mari texts, would explain the curious syllabo-logographic orthography of dma-lik-MEŠ. The Ugaritian scribe probably intended by the written form of mlkm/dma-lik-MEŠ to suggest a correspondence with the Akkadian malkū/malikū: for example, qīšāti ana malkī Anunnaki u ilī āšibūt erṣeti uqa᾿iš “I offered gifts to the princely Anunnaki and the spirits who dwell in the underworld” (SAAB I/1, p. 2: 21’ff.); cf. Anunnaku mal[kū] rabûtu “Anunnaki, the great gods” (Craig ABRT l 57:33); iḫdû DINGIR.MEŠ u malkū “(when you [Šamaš] appear) the (netherworld) gods and the m.-s rejoice” (parallel: the Igigi-gods rejoice in you) (Lambert BWL 126:7),89 cf. šaplāti m[a]lkū dKù-bu dAnunnaki tapaqqid ša dadmē kalīšina tušteššer “below, in the netherworld, you (Šamaš) assign (tasks to) the malku-demons, the K.-demon (and) the Anunnaki, above, on the earth, you lead all the people in the right path” (Lambert BWL 126:31);90 ammēni tubbali napištī ana malkī “why do you (witch) want to carry my soul to the m.-s?” (Maqlû VI 20).91 The last example illustrates that di Ugarit” the “Malikū della città di Mari” and the “gruppo degli Anunnaki del pantheon sumero-accadico”; see also Müller (1980), 13, 14 and the corresponding footnote. Dietrich and Loretz, (1981), 69-74, esp. 70, 73-74 wrote, “mlkm wäre dann eine Bezeichnung für die zu den rpum eingegangenen verstorbenen und vergöttlichten Könige”; and idem, TUAT II/3, 303 (‘Könige’ ... ‘Könige’), and n. 33/32a (‘Die verstorbenen Ahnen der Könige (Manen).’” See also Spronk (1986), 187. Del Olmo Lete (1986d), 303, n. 82; idem (1987b), 60-62, n. 108; idem, CR1, 61; idem CR2, 62 considers them “‘reyes divinizados/divinized kings,” and comments that “El rey muerto continúa llamándose mlk (cf. KTU 1.161:10-11, 25-26), pero en su conjunto constituye una categoría/advocación, mlkm, que no tiene correlato textual empírico. .... las denominaciones rpum y mlkm son equivalentes.” Pardee, TR, 313-314, n. 138 and the corresponding footnotes, states “le mot malikū signifiait à l’origine «princes, rois» qui étaient passés dans l’au-delà”; see also Krebernik (1987-1990), 305-306; idem (2013), 203, n. 95; see Smith (2014a), 158-159. Compare to b῾lm, pp. 45-46, Introduction §3.7, p. 303, n. 29. 87 In a written communication, my colleague Takayoshi Oshima states, “I think Anunnakū as the netherworld deities refer to the gods who were no longer worshipped but I have to prove it.” 88 See Müller (1980), 14. Malamat (1989), 103, n. 121 suggested that the singular term ‫ מלך‬/ melek in Isaiah 57:9 and Ezekiel 43:7 might refer to the Amorite malikum. Contrast with Heider (1985), 380, who emend molek. 89 Foster (2005), 627-635, esp. 628. 90 Cf. the Šamaš Hymn, see Foster (2005), 627-635, esp. 629, “In the lower regions/you take charge of the netherworld gods, / the demons, the (netherworld) Anunna-gods,/In the upper regions you administer all the inhabited world.” 91 CAD M/1, 168, 169; CAD K, 487; see also Healey (1975), 237. Abusch (2015), 114, 115 translates, “Why do you carry my life off to the (infernal) ‘princes’?.” Tallqvist, AG, 129, 255 defines the Anunnaki as “eine kollektive Bezeichnung, ursprünglich, wie es scheint,

INTRODUCTION

19

malikū / mal(i)kū is also used for “demon, infernal deities or spirits.”92 Some scholars posit a relationship between the malikū of Mari and the harmful malkū of other Akkadian sources. Talon93 comments that “le terme malku/maliku apparaît à plusieurs reprises dans des recueils hépatoscopiques, en compagnie de créatures infernales mieux connues, tel l’eṭemmu ‘esprit, fantôme.’” Dietrich and Loretz94 conclude, “In Ugarit gehören die mlkm ähnlich den malikū von Mari noch zu den guten, verehrten Totengeistern. Sie zählen deshalb in Ugarit zu den rpum, so daß mlkm und rpum nicht ohne weiteres ohne jeden Unterschied austauschbar sind.” Healey95 first defines mlkm as “a group of deities (or demons) probably connected with the underworld”; but later states that d Ma.lik-MEŠ // mlkm “may be the dead kings listed among other minor or semi-divine beings, though an alternative view would make them demons of some sort.”96 Pardee97 confirms that: “... l’identification directe entre les mlkm et les malkū mésopotamiens, néfastes, critiquée par Dietrich et Loretz n’est pas admissible ... les dma-lik-MEŠ seraient plutôt les malikū mariotes, bénéfiques, et d’origine ouest-sémitique” and concludes “nous ne voyons aucun inconvénient à voir dans les malkū néfastes une transformation babylonienne des malikū, à l’origine ‘amorites’ et bénéfiques : la tendance à voir dans les habitants de l’au-delà des êtres néfastes est trop répandue pour croire autrement jusqu’à preuve du contraire.” Based on the interpretation that mlkm refers to a demon, a comparison with the Qur᾿ānic ‫ مالك‬/ mālik (Q. 43:77) would be appropriate. Two decades ago Montgomery98 suggested that “perhaps in Mâlik, who appears in the Koran as the prince of hell (Sûra xliii:77), we have the trace of the für alle Götter des Himmels und der Erde ... später besonders für die Götter der Erde und der Unterwelt.” Regarding the expression ana malikī in the kišpum Mari ritual, see Malamat (1989), p. 102-103; Pardee (1990), 371, n. 7. 92 Durand (1985), 159, n. 55. 93 Talon (1978), 66-69, esp. 66, n. 45. 94 Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 69-74, esp. 74. 95 Healey (1978), 89-91, esp. 89. 96 Healey (1984), 250, n. 28. Heider (1985), 117-118, 128-130, commenting on Healey, saw a relationship between Malik and the mal(i)kū; on Heider’s criticism see, n. 70, p. 16, n. 80, p. 17. 97 See TR, 313, n. 138, 314, n. 140. For a discussion and criticism of the latter vocalization of mlkm, see Pardee, TR, 314, n. 140. Pardee concludes, “nous préférons donc pour mlkm la vocalisation /malakūma/, tout en reconnaissant que /malkūma/ est possible; /malikūma/ serait un mélange de formes amorite et ougaritique”; Pardee, ibid., 313, n. 138. Contrast del Olmo Lete (1987b), 61, n. 103, states, “mlkm es una advocación plural, los ‘reyes,’ que al estar en el panteón resultan los ‘dioses-reyes,’ los Milkuma/Mālikuma,” see also del Olmo Lete (1990b), 70, n. 7, 72, n. 14, 98 Montgomery (1908), 41, n. 63; see also Pope, apud Cooper (1981), 451; and Krebernik (2013), 204, n. 101.

20

INTRODUCTION

ancient cult of Melek.” Indeed, in the Qur᾿ānic passage Q. 43:77, ‫َاد ْوا‬ َ ‫َون‬ َ ‫ض َع َل ْي َنا َرب‬ ُ ‫ َيا َما ِل‬/ wa-nādaw yā māliku li-yaqḍi ῾alaynā rabbuka ‫ُّك‬ ِ ‫ك ِل َي ْق‬ “They will cry, ‘O Mālik,’ if only your LORD would finish us off,” Mālik functions as a divine name for the angel in charge of Hell.99 Based on this, some scholars100 propose a direct relationship between the Ugaritic mlkm and the rp᾿um. However, since the Ugaritic mlkm appears only in a divine list and in no other Ugaritic religious contexts, the latter assumption would be based only on the semantics of the term mlkm, and on extra-Ugaritic material, mostly from Mari. Besides, even when scholars agree on connecting mlkm and rp᾿um, the precise category of deified kings is debatable. Regarding the Mari malikū, Malamat101 suggests, “... if kings are intended – as we assume – malikū may perhaps refer to rulers of a more distant past than the šarrāni (sedentary, ‘civilized’ kings) invoked in the regular kispum ritual. Thus, malikū may refer to sheikhs still at the tribal-nomadic stage of society – living in a past so remote that their actual names could no longer be recalled.” Durand102 includes under the Akkadian malikū royal statues, which accords with the semantic usage of mlk “king” found in a number of divine epithets and not necessarily applied only to deities of exalted rank. A case in point is the epithet zbl mlk ῾llmy “the prince, the 99 Indeed, it is agreed that ‫ َما ِلك‬/ mālik in the latter Qur᾿ānic context refers to ‫ خازن الناز‬/ ḫāzinu n-nār, and in this sense is the one in charge of hell > angel. See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 894-895; Abdel Haleem (2016), 319, n. c. Krebernik (1987-1990), 306 questions the comparison: “Unsicher sind über das Etymologische hinausgehende Bezeihungen zwischen Malik und nordwestsemitischem Milk, alttestamentlich überliefertem Milkōm (Gott der Ammoniter) und in sich umstrittenem Moloch/Mäläk (Lit. bei Healey) sowie arab. Malik (M. Höfner, WBMyth. 453).” On the ‫ خازن الناز‬/ khāzinu al-nāri (who are almost always called angels), see Lange’s (2008) very thorough study (Ch. 4, “Hell’s Creatures and Their Punishments”). (I am thankful to N. Harris for calling my attention to the latter bibliographic reference). 100 Healey (1978), 89-91, esp. 91. Following him, see Heider (1985), 128-133; see also Levine and de Tarragon (1984), 653-59; Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 69-74, esp. 73, “Bei der Verehrung der mlkm in Ugarit scheint es sich um einen Teil der Verehrung verstorbener Könige zu handeln, um Ahnen, die vielleicht nicht direkt zur Gruppe der Ahnen der regierenden Dynastie gehören. Diese ihre Stellung unter den rpum erklärt auch, warum sie in Mari gleichfalls nach dem Totenopfer für die Könige erwähnt werden und in anderen Texten aus dem mesopotamischen Raum bereits zu den bösen dämonischen Kräften abgesunken sind.” Miller (1987), 63, suggests, “... the rpum, apparently the long-dead ancestors, and the mlkm, the recently dead rulers ...” (compare to Malamat). Pardee, TR, 314-315, n. 141 states, “... l’identification des malakūma aux rapa᾿ūma n’est qu’implicite en RS 34.126 [=KTU3 1.161] (des rapa᾿ūma sont appelés, ensuite deux rois sont nommés et appelés), et les données font défaut pour savoir dans quelle mesure les deux termes se recouvrent.” Compare the Ebla reference to dingir(-dingir) en / maliktum, which Archi (1993), 16, n. 35 states “have to be considered deified ancestors”; see Krebernik (2013), 201-212. 101 Malamat (1989), 102-103, esp. 102. 102 Durand (1985).

INTRODUCTION

21

eternal king,”103 which refers to the minor Ugaritic deity, Yḥpn, mentioned in conjunction with the rp᾿um. Pardee104 disputes this, arguing that “si Durand a raison d’inclure parmi les malikū des personnages royaux de rang inférieur au roi lui-même, on doit tenir compte de la possibilité que le mot ougaritique mlkm ait sensiblement évolué et n’ait désigné à l’époque que les rois défunts, à l’exclusion de personnages de moindre importance; il est même possible que la catégorie à Ougarit se soit limitée aux rois de cette seule ville, à savoir les rois dont les noms étaient inscrits au verso de la tablette RS 24.257.” Indeed, a list of deified kings is enclosed in the verso of RS 24.257 [= KTU3 1.113]. However, there is no way to prove that the specific Ugaritic deified kings included in that source are the only deified kings labeled as mlkm, or if the later Ugaritic appellation involves other royal personages of different status as well as demons.105 Consequently, the term mlkm has been excluded from the present study. 3.2 Appellations or Epithets that Might Refer to a Single Deity or a Group of Deities When appellations, designations and epithets occur in damaged and difficult contexts in the ritual/cultic genre and lack parallels and literary context, their identification can be very difficult. These appellations, designations, and epithets are included in Appendix Four. For example, the expression ᾿il bt “the god(s) of the house/palace (/temple?)” appears at least eight times106 exclusively in Ugaritic ritual texts (KTU3 1.39:13; 1.53:8; 1.81:7; 1.102:1; 1.115:3, 7, 9; 1.123:29).107 Scholars are divided regarding 103 See a detailed discussion of the epithet in Rahmouni, DEUAT, 169-173, 294-296; for mlk see the divine epithet component LXXXI, Rahmouni, ibid., 372 . 104 Pardee, TR, 314, n. 141. 105 Pardee, ibid., Compare to Miller (1987), 63, 66, n. 36 who states that in the Ugaritic list (KTU 1.113) “a deceased ancestor is referred to as ilu = ‘god.’ This does not necessarily mean a high god of the pantheon, but rather a divinized ancestor who has become a part of the rpum and through the funerary cult has some relation to those living.” Contrast with del Olmo Lete (1987b), 61; idem (1990b), 70, who includes also the Ugaritic texts KTU3 1.161 and KTU3 1.108. However, the divine name mlk in text KTU3 1.108 refers to the chthonic god Milku; and the reference to defied kings in KTU3 1.161 is difficult to prove with certainty. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 33-39, 46-48, 294-296; idem (2007); contrast Krebernik (2013), 208-212. For more, see my discussion on rp᾿um, pp. 11-13, Introduction §3.1. 106 Van der Toorn (1996), 171 counts six: KTU 1.39:13; cf. 1.102:1; 1.53:8; 1.81:7; 1.115:3; 1.123:29. 107 KTU3 1.115: 3 l bbt . ᾿il bt but in line 7 b qdš ᾿il bt. The parallel appearance of ᾿il bt here suggests that bbt corresponds to b qdš, given that there is no attestation of a Ugaritic deity with the name bbt. For a detailed discussion on bbt, see Pardee, TR, 645-646, n. 9 to n. 13 and the bibliographic references there. Contrast with del Olmo Lete (1986d), 281,

22

INTRODUCTION

its attribution. Some108 consider it a divine name or the epithet of a single Ugaritic god. Others109 regard it as a group of non-official gods, e.g., the rp᾿um. Even if we accept that ᾿il bt refers to a group of gods, it cannot be identified with the rp᾿um, given that the contexts of the passages in which it appears make no reference to that group. Based mainly on KTU3 1.39, ᾿il bt appears with such well-known Ugaritic divinities as ršp, b῾l ṣpn, b῾l, yrḫ, and pdry, and with lesser-known deities like ᾿ilt mgdl, ᾿ilt ᾿asrm, ᾿ušḫry, and ᾿iltm ḫnqtm, all of which, excluding the dual female deities ᾿iltm ḫnqtm, are probably single gods. Moreover, in KTU3 1.102:1 ᾿il bt appears in a list of single Ugaritic deities. Confirmation is provided by the etymologically and semantically equivalent Akkadian epithet il bīti “god of the house,” which refers to various single Akkadian divinities.110 n. 35; idem (1988b), 54-55, n. 25, 60; and the response to Pardee by del Olmo Lete, CR2, 390-391, n. 158; see also del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 103-104; DULAT, 213. If we accept Pardee’s TR, 149, 185-186 collation and restoration, then I should include here three more occurrences of ᾿il bt: RS 1.003: 32 (= KTU3 1.41:32); RS 1.005 (whereas KTU31.43:16 collates [l῾nth] bt); RS 18.056 (whereas KTU3 1.87:34 restors ᾿ilt bt). I agree with Pardee that the form ᾿ilt bt is not attested with certainty in the Ugaritic corpus. In fact, the only time ᾿ilt bt occurs, it seems to be in the damaged text of KTU3 1.81:8, l ᾿ilt bt[ ]. Epigraphically this restoration seems plausible (see Pardee, TR, 186, n. 164, 218, 219, 249-250 and the corresponding notes, esp. n. 193, 440, 443 for discussion and detailed bibliographic references on the subject). Nevertheless, this seems insufficient to confirm the existence of such a divine entity. Assuming that ᾿ilt bt does exist, its identification, whether as an individual deity or a group of divinities, is impossible with the present available information. 108 Virolleaud (1968), 588, “Ilbt / le dieu de la maison (du roi, sans doute)”; Jirku (1973), 97, “᾿Ilbt ... Zum Namen und seiner Deutung weiß ich nichts zu sagen”; Herdner (1978), 4, “le dieu de la maison”; Gray (1978), 100, “the god of the family”; Xella, TRU, 77,146, 218, 222: “il dio/divinità del tempio . . ?/la divinità della casa/tempio”; de Tarragon, TO II, 138, n. 22, “dieu du temple”; del Olmo Lete (1987b); 42; idem, RC, 147, “Dios del palacio” (but for his translation of ᾿il bt KTU3 1.123:29 see the note below); Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 310, “Ilbit ‘Gott des Hauses, der Dynastie’”; van der Toorn (1996), 171-172, n. 102, “the Akkadian DINGIR ša É suggests a singular”; Pardee, TR, 76, n. 301, 646, n. 12, “᾿Ilu Bêti.” 109 Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 85, “... Den il bt ‘Göttern des Tempels/Palastes’”; but later they will change their minds to a single Ugaritic god; see the previous note. Freilich (1986), 128, n. 34, “the palace-gods.” Del Olmo Lete, CR1, 344 translates ᾿il bt of KTU3 1.123:29, “the gods of the place”; later del Olmo Lete changes his mind (see below); Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxvii, n. 40. 110 CAD I/J, 101, b); Tallqvist, AG, 9; Xella, TRU, 222. Leibovici (1971), 104-105 assumes that the Babylonian il bīti is “‘les génies du temple,’ ... Lorsqu’un temple est attaqué par les ‘démons mauvais’ les génies du temple sont chassés.” Lackenbacher (1985), 156, 160, esp. 156, interprets Dingir ša é in an Akkadian contract found in Baniyas (Syria) in this way: “quelle que soit la lecture exacte de dingir ša é, il doit s’agir de l’il bt ou ‘dieu de la maison’ des rituels ougaritiques. Comme ces rituels sont exécutés par le roi et sa famille dans le palais, on interprète généralement il bt comme ‘le dieu du palais’ ... une divinité de la famille ou du clan.” See Pardee, TR, 76, n. 303. The Akkadian il bīti can be “the god of the house” as well. See Van der Toorn (1996), 77-78, n. 65, 66, 121 who points out that the

INTRODUCTION

23

Thus the Ugaritic ᾿il bt could be classified as a divine epithet referring to a single Ugaritic deity, which the Akkadian data imply the numina loci or the deified ancestors.111 However, the lack of broad contexts in the ritual genre, and the appearance of ᾿il bt exclusively in the ritual Ugaritic corpus, makes this conclusion plausible but uncertain.112 On the oher hand, ᾿il bt occurs in KTU3 1.123:28-29 šlm ᾿il bt “Hail, O ᾿il bt!”113 where its interpretation as an epithet of a group of gods seems preferable – though some terms in the closing section KTU3 1.123: 28b-33 are dubious divine appellations like drm ᾿ilm.114 However, the question here is whether or not ᾿il bt of the ritual text is the same divine entity as the one mentioned in KTU3 1.123. Furthermore, the occurrence of the presumed corresponding feminine divine epithet ᾿ilt bt is also doubtful, as partially reconstructed in KTU3 1.81:8 (᾿ilt.b[t]) and KTU3 1.41:32 ([᾿ilt.] bt) and entirely reconstructed in KTU3 1.87:34 ([᾿ilt.bt]) in a context paralleling KTU3 1.41:32.115 KTU3 1.43:16 restores [l῾nth].bt, but [l᾿ilt].bt has also been proposed.116 Pardee117 considers the collation of ᾿ilt bt in RS 15.130:14 (8) [=KTU3 1.81:8] possible, but does not accept its reconstruction in the contexts cited above.118 No sufficient textual evidence is available to determine if the Ugaritic expression ᾿il bt and its feminine form ᾿ilt bt refers to a single divinity or to a group of Ugaritic divinities. For these reasons Akkadian “expressions il(i) bītim and ištar bītim (‘god of the house’ and ‘goddess of the house’, respectively) do not refer to such family gods as Marduk, Ninšubur, Amurrum, and the like, but to numina loci or deified ancestors.” 111 Cf. Van der Toorn (1996), 77. Compare to KTU3 1.116:11, inṯt . ṯlnnṯtm; perhaps en(i)=n(a)=aš=ta šelli=ne=(v)e=n(a)=aš=ta, “for the gods of the house (= the royal dynasty),” with the locally-peculiar grammatical structure and perhaps graphically defective writing of the genitive with respect to “classical” Hurrian. See Tropper and Vita (2003), 679; Richter (2012), 516-517; and for this particular form see Giorgieri (2013), 172, en(i)=ne=da /en(i)=n(a)=aš=ta šelli=ne=ve=n(a)=aš=ta, “pour le dieu / les dieux de la maison.” Another example, from the same text KTU3 1.116: 12, inṯt atnṯtm; very probably en(i)=n(a)=aš=ta attan(i)=(ne?)=(v)e=n(a)=aš=ta, “for the gods of the father,” Tropper and Vita, ibid., 679, n. 27. See Richter (2012) for the alphabetic Hurrian material in general. 112 See the arguments presented by Pardee and others in favor of interpreting ᾿il bt as an individual deity: Pardee, TR, 76-77, n. 303, 522, 530-531, 646. 113 See Pardee, TR, 694; contrast del Olmo Lete, CR1, 344: “Hail, the gods of the palace!”; idem, CR2, 60 Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxvii, n. 40. 114 On drm ᾿ilm, see p. 36, n. 176 to n. 181, Introduction §3.4. 115 De Moor, ARTU, 163, “the Goddess of the House,” (referring to ῾Anatu); Xella, TRU, 62 and 121, “᾿ilt / la dea (?) del tempio”; del Olmo Lete, CR1, 110, “Ilatu/the goddess of the temple/palace” (referring to ᾿Aṯiratu). 116 See Xella, TRU, 86, 87: “la divinità (?) del tempio.” 117 TR, 440 and 443, “On se souviendra que ce théonyme n’est pas encore attesté avec certitude (voir RS 1.003:32).” Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxix, n. 51. 118 See Pardee, TR, 147, 149, 185-186, 215, 217, 218, 249-250, 472-473. See also Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxix, n. 52.

24

INTRODUCTION

neither ᾿il bt nor ᾿ilt bt are included in the present study, although the discovery of new texts may well prove them to be genuine divine epithets. A similar case is the semantically parallel epithets b῾lt btm (/bhtm/ bwtm) “the mistress(es) of the palace” and b῾lt btm rmm “mistress(es) of the lofty palace”: the first appears frequently but only in the ritual genre, while the second appears just twice. They each refer to distinct divine entity/ies,119 but the particular goddess or group of goddesses is in each case uncertain.120 Another example is the term ġlmtm, which appears once in the Ugaritic list of sacrifices, KTU3 1.119:8.121 Its designation as a hapax legomenon makes its interpretation and classification difficult; in fact, it could be singular, dual, or plural depending on the analysis of -m. Moreover, the identification of the goddesses under the term ġlmtm remains uncertain.122 Another example of a dubious divine group epithet is the compound ᾿il prz, which appears three times, once as ᾿il prz and twice in its Hurrian variants iwrn prznd and in prznd: 119 b῾lt btm (/bhtm/bwtm) “the mistress of the palace” is attested a total of sixteen times, primarily in ritual texts: KTU3 1.39:21 [= 1.41:26; 1.87:28-29]; 1.41:5 [= 1.87:5-6]; 1.48:4; 1.53:7; 1.91:14; 1.105: 8-9 [= 1.105:16]; 1.109:31; 1.112:4-5; 2.31:50 reads b῾lt btt. Furthermore, b῾lt btm rmm “mistress of the lofty palace” occurs technically reconstructed in KTU3 1.41: 37, b῾lt.bt[m. rmm .] and 1.87:40-41, [b῾lt.btm]rmm. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxvii, n. 40, n. 41, and n. 42. 120 For a detailed discussion of b῾lt btm (/bhtm/bwtm) see Pardee, TR, 85-86, 189-190 and bibliographic references. He argues that the epithets refer to an individual Ugaritic god; contrast with del Olmo Lete, CR2, 60, 197-198, n. 79, who translates “Lady(ies) of the Mansion(s).” 121 See p. 265, n. 20. 122 Herdner (1978), 32, “les ġlmtm ... sont deux servantes ou prêtresses”; de Tarragon, TO II, 207, n. 191, “les deux Ghalmat”; Xella, TRU, 25, 26, 29-30, “le (due ġlmt),” identifying it with “῾Anat e ῾Aṯtrt = le due ġlmt?”; Weippert and Weippert (1982), 91-92, “die Ġlmtm,” commenting, “Zu unterscheiden sind von diesen Götternamen im Plural und Dual solche, in denen das Morphem -m als ‘enklitisches Mēm’ an die Singularform eines Theonyms angefügt ist; leider sind diese Fälle nicht immer deutlich zu erkennen,” and defining it as “dies ist wiederum ein femininer Dual, der in nicht näher bestimmbarer Weise mit der in der Vorhergehenden Zeile als Empfägerin von Opfern genannten Gottheit Ġlm zusammenhängt”; de Moor, ARTU, 172, “the two Lasses”; del Olmo Lete (1989), 29; idem, RC, 200, “las (dos) Doncellas/Princesas,” explaining that ġlmt could refer to ῾Anatu/῾Aṯtartu and ᾿Aṯiratu; Miller (1988), 140, 142, 144, “for the Lasses in the temple,” commenting that “... The two ġlmtm are unidentified though they may be Anat and Aṯtart”; Pardee, TR, 666, 672; Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 57, “pour Ġalmatāma”; but Pardee, CS I, 284, n. 7, “ĠLMTM,” maintains that the “identification of the deities corresponding to the names ġlm, ‘the lad,’ and ġlmtm, ‘the two lasses,’ is unknown”; see also Pardee, TR, 82-83 on ġlmt RS 1.001:19 (= KTU3 1.39:19). On the component ġlm as an epithet of individual gods, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 375 under component CIII and the corresponding epithets; see also the commentary on the divine plural designation, ġlmm on pp. 259-266, 313, 320.

INTRODUCTION

1. KTU3 1.110:4 3 ᾿ild . tṯbd ------------4 kḏġd iwrn prznd 2. KTU3 1.111:1123 ᾿il . prz . lmd . 2 ṯlṯ ymm .

1

3. KTU3 1.111:5 4 ᾿ild . tṯbd . kmrbnd . ---------------5 kḏġd in prznd

25

for El, for Teššub, for Kušuḫ, the god(s) (of/the) prz god(s) (of/the) prz, during the span of three days124 for him, for Teššub, for Kumarbi for Kušuḫ,125 for god(s) (of/the) prz

Whether this epithet refers to a single deity or to a group of deities is uncertain. Laroche’s126 translation of the first occurrence in line 4: 123 Milik (1978), 140, was the first to publish this text, which he described as a royal ritual. Del Olmo Lete (1987a), 16; idem, RC, 20–22, 134, 137, and idem, CR1, 203-204, n. 116 adopted this interpretation, adding: “Se trata … de un ritual funerario-regio con motivo de la muerte y exequias del rey … Esto nos orienta para descubrir en hur. ᾿il prz el correlato de ug. il mlk como título descriptivo de la nueva situación adquirida por el rey difunto.” In my opinion, this argument is incorrect given that ᾿il prz is the exact equivalent of the Hurrian ᾿in prznd, which appears in the same text among a series of divine names. Moreover, iwrn prznd occurs in a list of religious sacrifices; cf. KTU3, p. 130-131. 124 There are two major translations posited for l md. The first is “alumnus / (scribe) apprentice”: Milik (1978), 140, “Ilprz, apprenti (scribe)”; Xella TRU, 311, “Il-prz, allievo (scriba) (??)”; de Tarragon, TO II, 194, n. 154, “il prz, apprenti”; Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975b), 166, “Es bleibt also zu untersuchen, ob der GN prz oder przl/n lautet”; Dietrich and Mayer (1995), 17, 19, “Der Gott des Entscheids hat zur Kenntnis gegeben.” The second translates l md as a concept of time or duration. For example, del Olmo Lete (1990a), 25, n. 31; idem, RC, 135, n. 95, and idem, CR1, 199, n. 95, “(As) Ilu Prz, during three days,” and commenting “I suggest reading Ugaritic l-md, ‘while, during’ from *mdd, ‘to measure,’ Arab. mudd, madd, madda, fi maddi, Heb. middāh, ba/emmidāh, Akkadian middatu, ina middati ‘measure’”; cf. also Pardee (1996a), 78. Pardee, TR, 622, 625, translates the term l md in the same way: “le(s) dieu(x) (de) PRZ. Pour l’espace de trois jours”; and idem, RCU, 92, 115, n. 143: “The god Prz or The gods of Prz. For the space of three days,” adding that the Arabic formula ِ‫ ُمدَّ ٌة ِم َن الزَّمان‬/ muddatun mina z-zamāni, “espace de temps,” shows that the notion of time could be associated with a term derived from this root. He concludes: “Si on n’admet pas cette explication de {lmd}, on songera à l’épithète lmd, mais attachée à la divinité ᾿il prz.” One must keep in mind that the first possible translation is more difficult to relate to the overall sense of the text since ᾿il prz is an epithet and not a divine name, and corresponds exactly to Hurrian in prz and iwrn prz. The second possible translation is certainly tempting since the comprehension of this difficult context is facilitated by comparing this etymology with the Arabic, where we find the same expression (see Rahmouni [2005], 102, n. 3). Pardee (as opposed to many others) was definitely on the right track with his understanding of lmd in 1.111:1–2 (see his most recent translation in RCU, p. 92), but his translation “for the space of three days,” though it may be more idiomatic English, would be better phrased as “during the span of three days.” 125 See Rahmouni (2005), 101, n. 1. 126 Laroche (1968), 507–8; Xella, TRU, 315, follows this line, translating, “a Kušuḫ, al signore il prz”; de Tarragon, TO II, 192, n. 153, “à Koushoukh, au Seigneur-prz”; Pardee

26

INTRODUCTION

Kušuḫa-da ewrini PRZ ni-da “à Kušuḫ, au seigneur le PRZ,” leads me to conclude, as Laroche himself does, that it is an epithet. However, he does not suggest any translation or explanation for this term, commenting only that: “ewrini PRZ -ni-da, en face de eni PRZ-ni-da (255.5), montre que PRZ-ni est une épithète divine: ‘dieu/seigneur le PRZ’. Noter 255.1 : hour. ou oug. El. prz.lmd.” The second possible translation was offered by Astour:127 “to the lord of Parzani.” A third possible translation of the term prz for the second context was proposed by Mayer and Dietrich “Der Gott des Entscheids hat zur Kenntnis gegeben.”128 Astour129 considered the term prz to be a toponym, which could be included with another toponym from line 9 in ardnd “to the god of Ardini.” Del Olmo Lete130 questioned the correspondence between ᾿il prz and the (1996a), 77; idem, TR, 616, “pour Kuḏuġ, pour le seigneur le PRZ”; idem, RCU, 90, “for Kuḏuġ, for the lord of Prz(N).” 127 Astour (1987), 53, n. 382. 128 Dietrich and Mayer (1995), 15, 17, 19. This translation is based on an erroneous connection between prz and the Akkadian puruss, “Entscheidung.” According to these authors, this term is found in a divine epithet referring to Sîn, bēl purussê “Herr des Entscheids.” Neither the overall context (difficult to determine in the ritual genre) nor the immediate context allows us to establish such an etymological comparison. Nor can I accept the argument that this epithet refers to the lunar deity in Hurrian. Gernot Wilhelm (personal communication) comments, “As far as I am able to check there is no attestation in the Hurrian material that links the moon-god Kužo/u to prz (= pVr(V)z(V).” But del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín accepted this etymology, see DLU, 357; DULAT, 684. 129 Astour (1987), 48, 53–54, writes, “Parzani is the Hurrian pronunciation of uruBar-zani-a in an early ninth-century fragmentary inscription, probably of Adad-nirari II. It recurs as uruBa-ar-zu-un-na in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III in a geographical context that leaves little doubt as to its identity with a town on the right bank of the Great Zab which is still called Barzan”; cf. Grayson (1972), 218. Pardee, TR, 624-25, accepts the idea that this term is a toponym but proposes another geographical referent: “On peut douter que la ville de prz soit à localiser en Mésopotamie (la thèse d’Astour); un lieu plus au nord-ouest conviendrait mieux au syncrétisme hourrite et ouest-sémitique que suppose notre analyse de ce texte ... .” For further details, see Astour (1987), 48. None of the different translations of this text has adopted Astour’s proposal but prefers Laroche, though did not elaborate on the term translated in line 9 as “au dieu l’ARD”: cf. Laroche (1968), 507; idem (1980), 54; Xella TRU, 315; de Tarragon, TO II, 194-195; except Pardee, TR, 616–17, note 5; idem, RCU, 90, who cites Astour. See also Parpola (1970), 22. Wilhelm notes that Ardini is the Urartian name of Mu a ir, based on Hurrian arde “city, town.” However, it is extremely unlikely that this place-name, known from the late ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E., appears in a Ugaritic ritual. 130 Del Olmo Lete (1990a), 29, n. 52; idem, RC, 63-64, 137, n. 116, 138–39; idem, CR1, 85, 203-204, n. 118 includes this name in the same series from the Hurrian pantheon at Ugarit: he lists Kḏġ and then in prz in KTU3 1.111:5, and Kḏġ and then irw prz in KTU3 1.110:4. In this case, del Olmo Lete is uncertain: “iwr prz Milku.” I do not accept the suggestion regarding the correspondence between ᾿il prz and mlk ῾lm (see below). Moreover, the second epithet component of rp᾿u mlk ῾lm “the hero, the eternal king,” refers to the god Mlk, and appears exclusively in the Ugaritic para-mythological text KTU3 1.108:1, 19-20,

INTRODUCTION

27

Ugaritic ᾿il/mlk ῾lm, and included prz in his list of the divine names in the Ugaritic-Hurrian pantheon. In context 1 iwrn prznd appears among a series of divine names: ᾿ild, tṯbd, kḏġd, kmrwnd, etc. All these names are composed of a single element that refers to known divinities, with the exception of iwrn prznd and its parallel in ardnd in line 9. In light of this, Laroche correctly viewed it as a divine epithet. The basic argument for the classification of iwrn prz as an epithet component is in the first part of the compound term iwrn/everni and its analogue, in. These two Hurrian words are common and their meaning presents no difficulties: iwrn is the semantic equivalent of the Ugaritic term b῾l, and in corresponds to the Ugaritic ᾿il. Both b῾l and ᾿il appear as components in Ugaritic divine epithets; but both could function as an epithet component in singular or in plural, which does not help to resolve the problem of the interpretation of the first component of ᾿il prz, the term ᾿il, given that both components are ambiguous. Opinions differ regarding prz. First, in the various contexts in which the term appears, it is not at all clear whether we are dealing with a Hurrian or an Ugaritic word. In KTU3 1.111:1 prz occurs in a completely Ugaritic phrase, but ᾿il prz is equivalent to the Hurrian in prznd. Therefore, is prz a Ugaritic term that is “Hurrianized” upon receiving nd, or vice versa?131 Or is it simply a toponym whose origin escapes us? Some have suggested that in ardnd in line 9 of text 1.110 refers to a place name, whether a city or simply a toponym, a plausible but unsupported suggestion.132 If we accept ᾿il prz = in prz as an epithet component, the question remains as to which god(s) the epithet refer(s). The Hurrian correspondence does not resolve the ambiguity of the Ugaritic ᾿il, which can be either singular or plural given that the literary genre (ritual text) in which the 21, 22. In addition, since there is no reason to see a correspondence between Hurr. irw and Ugaritic mlk, and less between prz and Ugaritic ῾lm (see del Olmo Lete, CR2, 387 in response to Pardee), del Olmo Lete’s suggestion has to be rejected. On the epithet rp᾿u mlk ῾lm “the hero, the eternal king,” see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 294-296 and bibliography; idem (2007). 131 Dietrich and Mayer (1995), 19, 37. I do not accept the idea of connecting prz with Akkadian purussû (see n. 128, p. 26 above). 132 Wilhelm notes (cf. Rahmouni [2005], 105, n. 11), “If it were a toponym, the form should be ardnwnd, ‘to (the god) of Ardini,’ and that it is unnecessary to introduce the remote and late cult place of Ḫaldi far to the East.” He observes further: “If we change the text, in *ardnwnd = eni arde=ne=ve=ne=da, ‘god of the city,’ would be much better. But this is not what the text says. Laroche, taking the text literally, suggests that it is an adjective, which would have to be vocalized ard(e)=o=nni=da; this, however, is not attested in syllabic script. ardnd in syllabic Hurrian would be the directive arde=ne=da (s. a-ar-ti-ni-ta ChS I/5 66 iv 12’ and dupl.), but this would not make much sense in the given context.” See Richter (2012), 515.

28

INTRODUCTION

term appears cannot be considered in an overall context where the gods act as divine figures identifiable by their respective roles. Therefore some scholars relate ᾿il prz to some single Ugaritic deity: Milik133 attributes the term prz to the god El; del Olmo Lete134 considers it to be a single Hurrian deity. However, the appearance of ᾿il prz in the first line of the first context above opens the possibility that it is the title under which the following deity in the text should be included. Moreover, if prz is a toponym, it would be appropriate to compare it to the epithet ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” (KTU3 1.47:1), which also appears in the opening line as a divine title in a list of thirty-four divine names, epithets, and appellations. However, the appearance of its Hurrian variant in prznd in line 5 raises the questions of the meaning of their correspondence and of their appearance at the heads of lists of other, mostly individual, deities.135 The dilemma of whether᾿il prz refers to a single deity or group of deities remains an issue to be resolved. Additional examples are the epithets ᾿ilt ᾿asrm “the goddess(es) of the captive(s)” (KTU3 1.39:11) and ᾿ilt mgdl “the goddess(es) of the watchtower” (KTU3 1.39:11; KTU3 1.112:25). Though Ugaritic scholars unanimously read these epithets as referring to a single female Ugaritic deity,136 their contexts and semantic values clearly indicate that they might refer to a group of deities.137 There is insufficient evidence to ascertain their exact identity. 3.3 Doubtful Dual/Group Divine Appellations The second rule established in this study is that a divine entity should contain more than two divinities. In the Ugaritic corpus – mainly in the ritual genre where the immediate context is crucial – some known Ugaritic texts remain faulty and do not give a clear picture even when (as in this instance) I deal with a term that functions as a contextually defined appellative. A blatant example offered here is the appellative gṯrm “the strong 133

Milik (1978), 140. See n. 130, pp. 26-27. 135 Compare Pardee, TR, 624-625, esp. 625. 136 Most scholars regard such epithets as referring to an individual deity; see Pardee, TR, 65-66 for discussion and bibliography. Contrast with del Olmo Lete, CR2, 60, who includes ᾿ilt mgdl and ᾿ilt ᾿asrm under “other denominations refer to more ‘restricted’ (but still undefined) groups, and even individuals.” 137 Our translation of the two parallel epithets follows the conventional definitions of mgdl and ᾿asrm. For a detailed philological commentary see Pardee, TR, 65-66, n. 251, 252255 and the copious bibliographic references there; Rahmouni, DEUAT, xxvii. 134

INTRODUCTION

29

(gods)/Gaṯarūma.”138 Pardee139 in his English translation allows for the term to designate two divine figures in one text, and at least three in another (see below). The appellative gṯrm appears in the following contexts: 1. KTU3 1.43:9 9 ῾lm . t῾rbn . gṯrm . 10 bt . mlk 2. RS 17 [ 18 [ 19 [

On the next day, the strong (gods)/Gaṯarūma will enter the royal palace

1.005 (= KTU3 1.43: 17-19) ]m . l gṯrm . [ ] . l ῾ntm . [ ]⌜- ⌝rm . dkrm . [

[×2]140 ]141 for the strong (gods)/Gaṯarūma, ] for ῾Anatu.142 ] the male the [str]ong (gods)/ [Ga]ṯarūma.143

138 No good translation of the term gṯrm has yet been proposed. See for example Xella, TRU, 89-90, “gṯrm”; de Tarragon, TO II, 162, n. 73, “les gṯrm”; del Olmo Lete, RC, 191, “los (dos) Gaṯārami”; CR2, 238 “the (two) Gaṯarūma(/-āmi)”; Pardee (1993), 303; idem RCU, 71, 109, n. 96; idem, TR, 218, “Gaṯarūma”; see RCU, 38, 101, n. 24, “Gaṯarāma,” as translation of gṯrm of context 4 above. 139 See RCU p. 101 n. 24. 140 The reading follows Pardee, TR, 214-215, 217. KTU3 reads (17) [w l ῾nt]m . l gṯrm . (18) [᾿ap . w np]š . l ῾ntm . (19) [š . ᾿alp . l g]ṯrm . dkrm . 141 KTU3, 82 read [w l ῾nt]m . l gṯrm. See also Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 41, 54. Contrast Pardee, TR, 250, nn. 195 and 196, who rejects this restoration, proposing instead ṯn šm by analogy with RS 24:256:19 [KTU3 1.112:19]. 142 KTU3, 82 read [᾿ap . w np]š . l ῾ntm . See the extensive discussion in Pardee, TR, 250-251 and the corresponding footnote. 143 The above restoration was first suggested by Xella (1978), 229, [ ]ṯrm.dkrm; idem, TRU, 90, “È forse da integrare: [ g]ṯrm”; following him, del Olmo Lete (1986e), 367, [ ]t(?) rm. dkrm; idem, RC, 192, [ ]xrm.dkrm; Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 41, 54, [š . alp . l g]ṯ*rm. Pardee, TR, 217, 251 comments, “la séquence gṯrm ... ῾ntm aux lignes 17-18 et la présence de ῾ntm à la ligne 20 laissent croire que la ligne 19 est aussi à restituer par {[g]⌜ṯ⌝rm} ... la forme générale de la trace visible se prête bien à cette restitution, sans être assez bien conservée pour permettre une certitude.” For more epigraphic commentary regarding the reading of line 19 in general, see Pardee, ibid., 217. Indeed, in most translations of this passage scholars remain doubtful regarding the collation of gṯrm, despite the relative agreement regarding the collation and the translation of dkrm: see Dhorme (1931), 42: “... mâles”; Gordon, UL, 114: “[ ]males”; Aistleitner, WUS, 77, no. 740: “männlich?” (Hb. zākār, Syr. dekrā, arab. ḏakar, akk. zikaru: männlich).” See also Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975c), 526; Blau (1979), 56: “Falls UT 5 [= 1.43:]19 dkrm wirklich ‘Männer’ bedeutet, so gehört auch diese Wurzel hierher, da Personennamen von dieser Wurzel mit dem 16. Buchstaben (= ḏ) geschrieben werden”; Xella, TRU, 87, 90: “[ ]?? maschi”; following him, de Tarragon, TO II, 163: “[ g]ṯrm (?), les mâles (?)”; Pardee, TR, 217, 218, 251; idem, RCU, 72: “[... pour les Ga]ṯarūma mâles / [... for] the male [Ga]ṯarāma.” In addition, de Moor, ARTU, 170, n. 19; and following him, Korpel (1990), 416, n. 374 translate “male firstlings”; contrast Pardee, TR, 251. However, del Olmo Lete (1986e), 367; idem, RC, 192 interprets dkrm to be a sacrifice and translates: “[a los dos Gaṯā]rami, dos machos”; see also del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 131, “dkrm un par de animales machos”; DULAT, 269, “dkrm a pair of male animals.” Following the same line of thought, see Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 42 translate line 19 “[ein Schaf, ein Ochse für die beiden ‘Star]ken,’ zwei männliche Jungtiere,” with no further explanation. Contrast Pardee, TR, 252, n. 206. Here, I interpret

30

INTRODUCTION

3. KTU3 1.109:26 l gṯrm . ġṣb šm᾿al 27d ᾿alpm to the strong (gods)/Gaṯarūma, the left ġṣb of two head of cattle

26

4. KTU3 1.112:18-20 [×3] b ᾿arb῾t 18῾šrt . yrdn . gṯrm 19

mṣdh . ṯn šm l gṯrm

20

w rgm . gṯrm yṯṯb .

On the fourteenth day, the strong (gods)/Gaṯarūma will descend to the MṢD; two rams for the strong (gods)/ Gaṯarūma, and the recitation of the strong (gods)/Gaṯarūma is to be repeated.

The term gṯrm appears six times in the Ugaritic corpus144 if it is agreed145 that in KTU3 1.43 gṯrm has a principal role as the center of the section (lines 9, 17-19) and is related to gṯr (lines 11, 14), which appears three times some lines below. My opinion is that the appearance of gṯrm along with gṯr does not guarantee that both terms are necessarily related. We are inclined to see gṯrm as independent divine beings, which form Gaṯarā/ ūmi/a and could be analyzed as a dual or as a plural.146 Some scholars147 reject its analysis as a collective form, interpreting gṯrm as dual because Gaṯrūma “the strong (deities),” to be a group of gods with no restriction on gender (see below), assuming that the collation of gṯrm dkrm is certain, and that dkrm specifies that the said deities are males. Therefore, the deities meant here should be Yariḫu, Gaṯaru, and probably Milku. Compare Pardee, TR, 251-252. However, because of the uncertainty of the collation of the constructed epithet gṯrm dkrm, it has been excluded from the present study. 144 KTU3 1.43:7-8, šb῾ p᾿amt l ᾿ilm . šb῾ . l kṯr “... seven times to the gods/seven times to Kôṯaru.” However, Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975c), 527 collated kṯr but interpreted it as gṯr and comment, “Z. 8: kṯr – Da im folgenden Text nur von der Gottheit gṯr (Z. 9.11.14.17) die Rede ist, dürfte hier in kṯr ein Hörfehler bzw. Schreibfehler für gṯr vorliegen ... Denn in CTA 33 dürften einerseits die ilm kbkbm dem Paar špš und jrḫ (Z. 13.[16.]18.20) entsprechen, ῾ṯtrt wird generell gṯr genannt.” Following them are de Tarragon (1980), 105-106; Xella, TRU, 89-90; and Aistleitner, WUS, 71, no. 711, with a question mark. Del Olmo Lete (1986e), 364; idem, RC, 190, n. 89, 191, adopted Dietrich’s et al. latter correction, adding that we have here gṯr for the collective eponym gṯrm. However, Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT, II/3, 327, n. 8a; idem (1992), 42, 52-53; and Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín, KTU3, 82 abandoned their earlier suggestion, and read kṯr. See also Pardee, TR, 237-238 and the corresponding footnote. Therefore, based on the recent data, the collation of gṯr instead of kṯr is here rejected. 145 See the references below pp. 31-34. 146 See Pardee, TR, 238-239, n. 134. 147 Herdner (1978), 20, “Puisque deux victimes sont offertes aux gṯrm, le mot est vraisemblablement au duel. Il s’agit, probablement, des divinités secondaires”; following her, see Weippert and Weippert (1982), 90; Spronk (1986), 182; del Olmo Lete (1986e), 364, 366, 369; idem, RC, 190, n. 89, 192, 193; Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 66-68, but on p. 54, n. 30 write, “Opfergaben für eine Gruppe von gṯrm sind auch noch in KTU 1.109:25-26; 1.112:18-20 vermerkt.”

INTRODUCTION

31

the divinity received two identical sacrifices. However, as Pardee148 argues, the duality of the offering is probably irrelevant to whether the beneficiary is dual or plural (see below). Nevertheless, interpreting gṯrm as only dual or plural remains difficult due to the dual verbal form yrdn in context 4 above with gṯrm as a subject, and the plural verbal form t῾rbn in context 1 above. Moreover, the apparent semantic sequence of ᾿ilm and gṯrm b ḫmn in KTU3 1.112: 8: t῾ln ᾿ilm “the gods ascend to the Ḫmn-sanctuary” / line 18 yrdn gṯrm mṣdh “the Gaṯrūma will descend to the Mṣd” is difficult to sustain as a parallel unless the ritual sequence from the third to the fourteenth day of the month is worked out.149 What is more, even if we consider a semantic parallelism between ᾿ilm (line 8) and gṯrm (line 18), the participant deities included in each appellation do not necessarily refer to the same group/dual ᾿ilm/gṯrm divinities. In addition, the reading and the interpretation of gṯrm dkrm “the male strong/Gaṯrūma,” that could have proven the certain reference to the divinities labeled as gṯrm unfortunately remains doubtful: on one hand, the occurrence of the verb yrdn (KTU3 1.112:18-20) with gṯrm as a subject attests to its being dual;150 on the other hand, the verb t῾rbn (KTU3 1.43:9) with gṯrm as a subject attests it as plural. Thus, Pardee151 suggests the term designates two divine figures in one text, at least three in another, but still recognizes that “the identification of the term gṯrm constitues one of the important problems of these texts.” Nevertheless, the discussion about number and identification of the divine gṯrm continues. Dietrich and Loretz152 suggest that gṯrm refers to “die Himmelsgötter Sonne und Mond.” Pardee153 first proposed that gṯrm in the Ugaritic ritual texts is a plural term designating the principal 148

For Pardee’s excellent detailed argument see TR, 238-239, n. 134. The ritual contexts (contexts 1-3) present no parallelism. The sequence of the deities here is irrelevant since the gṯrm appear each time in new paragraphs: see TR, 1091-1100, Appendix 2, “Les listes nominatives divines.” 150 See Tropper (1997), 672; see Pardee, RCU, 101 n. 24. Sivan, GUL, 148 assumes that yrdn [yaridūna] to be 3rd.m.pl., but provided no further comments. In comparison to other Semitic languages, e.g., Classical Arabic, Sivan sounds right. 151 Pardee RCU, 101 n. 24. 152 Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975c), 527 first state that gṯr(m) is an epithet of ῾ṯtrt among other gods and goddesses, in contrast to de Tarragon (1980), 105-106; del Olmo Lete (1986e), 364. Later Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 317, 318, 327, n. 9 a) considered it the “Epitheton für den Sonnen und Mondgott,” and idem (1980a), 175 define it as “‘Starke’ (Götter) sowohl špš, yrḫ als auch gṯr und ῾nt bezeichnet, daneben aber auch von einem Gott gṯr (Z. 11 und 14) und seiner Anat ... gesprochen ... .” See idem, (1992), 73ff., see n. 144, p. 30 above; later Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 317, 318. 153 See Pardee (1993), 301-317, esp. 312-317; idem TR, 240-241 and the corresponding footnote with bibliographic references. 149

32

INTRODUCTION

astral deities Šapšu and Yariḫu, as well as an ancient chthonic deity, gṯr, whose name served as the basis for the inclusive plural term. Later, as a result of my discussion above and according to KTU3 1.112, he154 includes under the title gṯrm Šapšu and Yariḫu (see above). De Moor155 related gṯr to gṯrm, and at first considered gṯr as Ba῾lu’s epithet, but later classified both gṯr and gṯrm among the Ugaritic divine names. Some scholars,156 however, believe that the gṯrm are related to the Rephaim, an eponym for the dead and deified kings. The latter identification is based mainly on an incorrect interpretation of the epithet [᾿il] gṯr wyqr 154

Pardee, RCU, 38, 101, n. 24. De Moor (1969), 176; idem (1970a), 192 but here with no further commentary. 156 Caquot (1979), col. 1386 and 1406, “ces personnages paraissent apparentés aux Rephaim (Gṯr est en effet associé à Yaqar, ancêtre de la lignée royale d’Ugarit, ...)”; de Tarragon (1980), 105-7, 116-17, 125-26, 176, esp. 125, associates gṯrm with the Rephaim, and defines it as an epithet meaning, “‘ ... des ancêtres dynastiques divinisés, à l’instar des Rephaïm’ ... ‘les Forts.’” Following him, see Smith (2002), 77, n. 43. However, in TO II, 162, n. 73 de Tarragon is less categorical and interprets gṯrm as “ces personnages sont liés au culte dynastique.” Xella (1979b), 836, under linea 11; idem (1981c), 331 equates gṯrm with ršpm; but later Xella, TRU, 47 changed his mind, stating that “gṯrm (lett. ‘i forti’) paiono un gruppo avente un loro eponimo gṯr ... costituisca un’altra designazione dei rpum.” Sapin (1983), 180 questions “Qui sont ces gṯrm? Un autre terme, semble-t-il, pour désigner les rpum dans l’une ou l’autre de leurs fonctions (peut-être la fonction guerrière, si l’on tient compte du sens obvie ‘les forts’). Comme les rpum, ils sont consultés ... Ce serait donc des entités divines médiatrices, de l’ordre des rpum (ancêtres dynastiques que le roi consulte et dont il cherche la bénédiction)”; see also Spronk (1986), 182, “The dual god gṯrm probably represents the two most important rp᾿um, viz. Gathar and Yaqar ... .” De Moor, ARTU, 170, n. 15; idem (1994), 244-245, n. 115, “Yaqaru and Gathru ... founders of the dynasty of Ugarit”; Korpel (1990), 286, n. 510, “Gathru = ancestral god”; van der Toorn (1991), col. 51, n. 33, “The Gathru-gods ... are infernal deities, it seems. The polyglot god-list identifies Gathru with Tishpak and Milku (= Malik = Molek), both known as chthonic deities”; del Olmo Lete, (1984), 202, 203, n. 30, “... se trata de una(s) divinidad(es) astral-infernal(es) con funciones oraculares, patronos del palacio y posiblemente divinización(es) de sus antepasados. Su aparición en el plenilunio del 2o mes autorizaría a identificarlos con la constelación Taurus, (mulGUD/GU4.AN.NA = alù), lo que explicaría su uso singular y dual/plural: Gaṯaru/ Gaṯarami, constituyendo así la proyección ‘astral’ de los muertos y su función curativo-fertilizadora (toro) que se ha reconocido en los rpum”; idem (1986e), 364, n. 8, 366, 369, resumes his previous opinion, defining gṯrm as “epónimo colectivo,” but translates “los (dos) Gṯarami” as a dual; idem (1986c), 163, “gṯrm refer to the divine ancestors of the dynasty”; idem (1987b), 62-63, “... la denominación plural/dual gṯrm aparece claramente referida a personajes ... como reyes difuntos/ancestrales divinizados...”; idem, RC, 88, 189, 190, n. 89, 191, 193 emphasizes his position; idem, (1993), 55, 61-63 “divinized kings known by their oracular intervention in the cult ... astral-infernal deity or deities with oracular functions, patron of the palace ...” and reasserts their identification with Taurus; idem, CR2, 62, 136-137, 231, defining them as “one of the titles of the deified (or immortalized) kings of Ugarit, who correspond to ᾿inš ᾿ilm”; following him, Dietrich and Loretz, (1992), 73, “... daß der Ausdruck gṯrm, ‘die beiden Gašaru’, als eine vereinfachte Formulierung für ‘Gašaru und Yaqaru’, die die großen Ahnen der Dynastie von Ugarit waren, anzusehen ist.” See also Pardee, TPM, 91-93, esp. 93, n. 62 who later changed his mind: see n. 153 and n. 154, p. 31, 32 above. 155

INTRODUCTION

33

(KTU3 1.108:2), which they relate to the Ugaritic kings Gathru and Yaqaru.157 In fact, there is no evidence that there had been a king called Gṯr.158 Therefore, the suggestion relating gṯrm to gṯr, and identifying them as deified kings, the Rapa᾿ūma, is wrong. I believe that the epithet [᾿il] gṯr wyqr (KTU3 1.108:2) should be translated as “the powerful and august [god],” referring to Milku. Any attempt to relate the latter epithet component gṯr to gṯrm here should thus be rejected.159 While the Rapa᾿ūma are well attested semi-divinities in the internal and extra-Ugaritic (Phoenician and Hebrew) sources, the gaṯarūma appears mainly in Ugaritic ritual corpus contexts as two deities or group of gods which, like any other Ugaritic divine entity, receives sacrifices. The establishment of a relationship between gṯr and gṯrm is difficult, despite the fact that gṯrm and gṯr might be derived from the same root and are thus semantically related. However, given that gṯrm appears explicitly in the ritual genre, it must be an appellation or an epithet for a divine entity. KTU3 1.43 contains a clear semantic parallelism between line 1, k t῾rb . ῾ṯtrt . ḫr . gb bt mlk “When ῾Aṯtartu-Ḫurri enters the ‘mound’ (-room) of the palace” and line 9, ῾lm . t῾rbn . gṯrm . bt mlk “On the next day, the Gaṯarūma will enter the royal palace,”160 which indicates that this group of gods consisted of important deities with the general appellation gṯrm. Consequently, gṯrm should include the goddess Šapšu, the god Yariḫu, and probably the lesser-known god Gaṯaru161 as well. In this case, the classification of the god Gṯr as an astral deity would be logical.162 The divine name Gṯr appears three times in the Ugaritic epistolary, KTU3 2.4:15, 17, 21, but with features relevant to Ugaritic cult and ritual. From the semantic parallelism of line 21 it is certain that gṯr here refers to an 157

See ARTU, 187, n. 2: “let [the god] Gathru-and-Yaqaru drink,” commenting “a double deity, probably deified ancestors of the Ugaritic dynasty,” see also p. 170, n. 15; Caquot, TO II, 114: “Il boit, [le dieu de] Gathar et de Yaqar”; Spronk (1986), 182: “the gods Gathar and Yaqar”; Margalit (1989a), 438: “[the god?] drinks spirits; And the divine Yaqaru”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/6, 822: “es trinke Gaschru-und-Yaqaru”; del Olmo Lete, CR1, 186: “Ilu has established (him), Gaṯaru Yaqaru.” DLU, 534: “se le ha establecido ND y NP”; DULAT, 976: “[DN] has established (him), gṯr PN” (DLU, 153: “ND, designación epónima del rey muerto y divinizado”; DULAT, 314). 158 See Pardee, TPM, 92-94. 159 For an extensive commentary on the epithet see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 33-36; contrast with Pardee, TPM, ch. II. 160 The translation of both contexts here is based on Pardee, RCU, 38, 71; see also Pardee, TR, 240, 242. 161 Contrast Pardee, TR, 240. 162 However, this assumption must be made with caution, given that this god corresponds to Tišpak/Ningirsu/Sakkud, strong earth divinities: see n. 165, p. 34 below. On the association of the Ugaritic divinity gṯr with mlk, see Pardee, TR, 241-242.

34

INTRODUCTION

individual Ugaritic god, line 20-23: w ytn . ᾿ilm . bdhm bd. ᾿iḫqm . gṯr w bd . ytrhd b῾l “May he/they deliver (the statues of) the gods into their hands, // Gṯr into the hands of ᾿Iḫqm, and B῾l into the hand of Ytrhd.” Gṯr here parallels the divine name of the Ugaritic deity, Ba῾lu. The individual deity gṯr is confirmed by KTU3 1.43:11 and 14, in which he receives a sacrifice along with other Ugaritic deities, including Šapšu, Yariḫu, and ῾Anatu.163 Moreover, the polyglot vocabulary from Ugarit associates Gṯr with d tišpak = mi-il-ku-un(ni) = ga-š[a-ru] (RS 20.123:IVa 15); and [... mi(?)il(?)-k]u-un = [ga(?)-]ša(?)-ru (?) (RS 20.123:IVb 11); and [...]mi-ilku-u[n(?)] = g[a]-ša-ru  ? (RS 20.123:IVa 13).164 In the Sumerian column of RS 20.123:IVb equivalent gods are listed, Ningirsu and Sakkud,165 which is additional evidence that gṯr was an independent deity,166 whose character the latter correspondence clearly indicates was chthonic and war-like. As was mentioned above, the divine collective epithet gṯrm might be related semantically to the epithet component gṯr, which is undoubtedly cognate with the component gṯr of another Ugaritic divine epithet: ῾nt gṯr “῾Anatu the powerful” (KTU3 1.108:6).167 The latter epithet parallels etymologically and semantically the widely-used Akkadian epithet gašru 163 Cunchillos, TO II, 273, n. 11 understands it as a DN, and translates it in the footnote as “Le Fort”; see Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 39-40, 65ff. for discussion and bibliographic references; Clemens (2001), 155-178, esp. 157-158, 164, and the corresponding bibliographic references; de Moor (1997), 75, n. 202 comments erroneously, “... it as likely that the identification of rp᾿u mlk ῾lm as Ba῾lu and the identification with Gathru do not exclude each other.” For criticism, see Pardee, TPM, 85, n. 24 and idem, TR, 240, n. 140 and the bibliographic references there; contrast with Rahmouni, DEUAT, 294-296. 164 Nougayrol (1968), 240-249, esp. 248-249; cf. Xella, TRU, 89; Weippert and Weippert (1982), 90-92; del Olmo Lete (1984), 203, n. 30; idem (1987b), 62; idem (1993), 63; Huehnergard, UVST, 117; Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 66-67; Pardee, TPM, 88, n. 41, 9192, n. 56; idem, (1993), 301-317, esp. 304; idem, TR, 238, n. 133; Tugendhaft (2016), 175. 165 See Nougayrol (1968), 248, n. 7. cf. Hallo and Moran (1979), 72, n. 23; Moran (1987), 252, n. 10; Pardee, TR, 238, n. 133, 239, n. 136 and the bibliographic references therein. 166 Some other extra-Ugaritic sources confirm that indeed gašru was an individual deity: for example, the Mari personal name, dga-aš-rum-ga-mil (ARM 22 : 13 ii:28); similarly in Emar see Arnaud, Emar 6/2 pl. 584 MSK 74264:5; 6/3 274:19’. Steinkeller (1987), 165, 166, n. 27; idem (1990), 58. Gašru came to be associated with Erra perhaps as an explanation for the existence of the god Gašru/gṯr, attested at Mari, Emar, and Ugarit, and who, at least at Ugarit, seems to have been an underworld deity. Contrast with Lambert (1990), 40-52, esp.48; see Pardee, TR, 241, n. 145. 167 For a detailed commentary on the epithet, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 260-262. The term gṯr as an epithet component also occurs in the para-mythological text KTU3 1.108:2 and 6 where it means “strong” (see below). It is likewise attested in KTU3 7:38:9, but due to the very damaged state of the text, it is not possible to determine there whether gṯr is a divine name or merely an epithet. See the commentary by Clemens (2001), 155. The last version of KTU3, 128 collates 1.108: 6, ῾nt gṯr without offering any correction.

INTRODUCTION

35

“powerful” (see below).168 In Akkadian as well as in Ugaritic there is no independent evidence for an abstract noun gṯr “power,” but in Akkadian, though not in Ugaritic, the latter root is used with an afformative or a preformative, whose semantic value derives from its radical GṮR “strong.”169 Based on all occurrences of the term gṯr mentioned above, I propose that gṯr is a homograph, which might share a semantic value but which differs in function, serving as an epithet, a simple appellation, or a divine name. This contradicts the theory of del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín,170 who in their dictionary give gṯr as a unique entry and read gṯrm as a dual/ plural derived from gṯr, which they define as “DN, eponym of the dead and deified king.” In conclusion, the internal Ugaritic data imply that gṯrm is a simple divine appellation or an epithet meaning “strong (deities)” and is applied to only two deities Šapšu, and Yariḫu; or to Šapšu, Yariḫu, and Gaṯaru, and more plausibly, ῾Anatu and Milku, given that these last two divinities are also labeled by the epithet gṯr “strong” (see above). The component gṯr-m corresponds etymologically and semantically to the widely-used Akkadian divine epithet171 gašrūtu “the strong/strength, supremacy,” precisely the epithet of Sin and Šamaš, dUTU u dIŠKUR DINGIR.MEŠ gašrūtu “Šamaš, and Adad, the powerful gods”;172 gašru šurbū nūr mātāti “(Šamaš) Powerful, exalted lord, the light of the lands.”173 The component gṯr-m “strong” semantically corresponds to the Biblical Hebrew description of other gods as ‫ אלהים אדירים‬of 1 Samuel 4:8, ‫אוי‬ ‫לנו מי יצילנו מיד האלהים האדירים האלה אלה הם האלהים המכים את־מצרים‬ ‫“ בכל־מכה במדבר‬Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods who struck Egypt with every kind of plague in the wilderness.”174 Arabic terms such as ‫ قدير‬/ qadīrun “Powerful,” 168

For many examples of gašru with reference to deities, see CAD G, 57 and AG, 77-78. The abstract nouns from this root in Akkadian are gašrūtu “strength, supremacy” (CAD G, 58), gišrūtu “supremacy, supreme strength” (CAD G, 108), and magšaru “strength, power, force” (CAD M/1, 48). The first two vocables would be expected to appear in Ugaritic as *gṯrt and the third as *mgṯr. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 261-262. 170 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DULAT, 314 and the bibliographic references there. 171 For more examples, see Hinke (1907), 150-151, col. iv, lines15-18; CAD G, 57; Pardee, TR, 242, n. 150, “Quoi qu’il en soit de la raison précise pour laquelle Šapšu et Yariḫu ont pu être groupés comme des gaṯarūma, l’usage du terme pour les divinités correspondantes du monde mésopotamien montre que ce même terme n’a rien d’invraisemblable à Ougarit”; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 33-36, 260-262. 172 AOAT 52; Paulus [2014], 495, NKU I 1 - University Museum, Philadelphia BER 4; Paulus (2014), 495 translates “Šamaš und Adad, die überlegennen, großen Götter.” 173 KAR 32, 17 f.; Scurlock (2005), AMD 3 [Ancient Magic 3], p. 27, 108-109, 111, 510, 513-514, no. 219, 17. 174 See NBE, 379-380, “¡Ay de nosotros! ¿Quién nos librará de la mano de esos dioses poderosos, los dioses que hirieron a Egipto con toda clase de calamidades y epidemias?” 169

36

INTRODUCTION

‫ عزيز‬/῾azīzun “Mighty” and ‫ قوي‬/ qawiyyun “strong,” all occur as epithets of ‫ﷲ‬/Allāh.175 3.4 Reconstructed or Textually Uncertain Appellations or Epithets for Groups of Gods Divine group appellations and epithets that are attested solely in uncertain restorations are not included in this study. A prime example is drm ᾿ilm in KTU3 1.123:32. Though KTU3 confirmed the reading,176 it should be contrasted with Pardee’s ⌜--⌝m ᾿i⌜-⌝[...], and translation “les générations?, les dieu[x ...],”177 which seems more cautious. Scholars disagree on the analysis, translation, and interpretation of drm ᾿ilm. Some consider the -m a dual mark: Xella178 translates “le (due?) generazioni divine!” Del Olmo Lete179 translates “Las dos familias de los dioses ... (la familia de ᾿Ilu y la de Ba῾lu)/the two families of the gods.” On the other hand de Moor180 translates “the Divine Races,” and confirms that “᾿ilm occupies a grammatically exceptional position, being used as a determinator.” The broad context of KTU3 1.123 does not support any of these interpretations. Given that the collation of drm ᾿ilm is highly dubious, I exclude it from the current study.181

See also Burnett (2001), 73-74. Compare, JPS, 579, “Woe to us! Who will save us from the power of this mighty God? He is the same God who struck the Egyptians with every kind of plague in the wilderness!” For the same translation see BJ, 404. 175 For these and semantically related Arabic divine epithets, see Gimaret (1988), 235251; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 36, n. 20. 176 KTU3, 141 follows Virolleaud (1968), 585-586, who earlier read [...]rm.il[...], but refrained from its translation or interpretation. 177 Pardee, TR, 693, 694, 705-706, n. 91 for epigraphical commentary. For del Olmo Lete’s criticism of the above translation see (2004), 622, under line 32. 178 Xella, TRU, 218. 179 Del Olmo Lete RC, 231, n. 40; idem (2004), 622 line 32; Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 48ff., 289, n. 41. 180 De Moor (1970a), 216, n. 17, 226-227; idem (1970b), 313. 181 Del Olmo Lete (1986d), 298; idem RC, 57, n. 85 reads dr ᾿ilm “la familias de ᾿Ilu,” which in his opinion corresponds to pḫr ᾿ilm. However, del Olmo Lete himself in the English version of his Spanish original silently suppresses his reference to dr ᾿ilm. Pardee, TR, 308, n. 103 criticizes him, writing, “Le ‘dr ᾿ilm’, auquel del Olmo Lete assimile le pḫr ᾿ilm (...) n’existe pas en ougaritique à ce que nous sachions (on ne trouve que ⌜dr⌝m ᾿il⌜m⌝, et cela dans un passage très mutilé [RS 24.271:32’ – KTU3 1.123:32 drm ᾿ilm]).” Later del Olmo Lete (2004), 551, n. 41 wrote, “My reference to dr ᾿ilm is a misprint for dr ᾿il, induced by pḫr ᾿ilm, as is clear to anyone consulting CR1, p. 50, to which n. 86 refers.” CR2, 396 continues his response to Pardee. Contrast Pardee, TR, 705-706. This endless discussion and the dubious collation of drm ᾿ilm prompted us to except it from the present study.

INTRODUCTION

37

An additional example is from the very damaged third line of KTU3 1.23:12: (1)᾿iqra . ᾿ilm . n῾[mm ...] // (2) w ysmm . // bn . šp[...] “I would call on the gra[cious] gods // [...] and beautiful, // sons of [...].” Scholars suspect bn . šp[...] to be an epithet paralleling ᾿ilm n῾mm and referring to a group of Ugaritic divinities. Some182 read bn šrm and translate “sons of prince.” Others183 read bn špm, and translate “sons of the dune[s ...].” Nielsen184 translates “Söhne des Šar” and sees Šr as a variant of the divine name ᾿Ilu. On the other hand, Herdner185 sees here the name of the Ugaritic goddess Šapšu. Pardee186 comments that “there is simply no way of knowing whether {bn š[-][...]} is to be restored as bn šrm (cf. šrm in line 22), as bn špm (cf. špm in line 4), or with an entirely different word in second position.” The term bn could very well be the first component of some epithet paralleling ᾿ilm n῾mm, but given the very damaged state of the passage, I refrain from considering it a probable epithet. In the same text lines 3-4 ytnm . qrt . l ῾ly[...], Ginsberg187 reads ytnm krt l῾ly(?)[nm?] and interprets ῾ly to refer to a group of Ugaritic gods, reading, “Honour be given unto the Exalted Ones.” That there is an epithet here referring to a group of Ugaritic divinities might be correct, but given the damaged state of the passage, this is mere conjecture.188 182 See, for example, Virolleaud (1933), 129, 132, 137; Barton (1934), 62, 65; Ginsberg (1935), 64; Driver, CML1, 121, n. 5; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 369, n. a. Foley (1987), 61-62 reconstructed šrm because of the parallelism n῾m // ysmm, which refers to the royal figures ᾿ilm n῾mm. Other scholars read šr but give a different translation and interpretation. For example Gray, LC2, 272-273, relates the Ugaritic šr to the Arabic ‫شرى‬, “to flash,” and suggests translating “sons of brightness,” referring to the Morning and Evening Star adding that “A reference to a comet would be appropriate, and the planet Jupiter is actually named ‫ المشترى‬in Arabic.” My opinion is that this is incorrect because comets do not ‘flash’ but shine with a sustained light! – as does the planet Jupiter, which does not even twinkle like a normal star. Contrast Smith (2006), 34, “the reading r cannot be sustained.” 183 Xella (1973), 35, 40-41, “stirpe rega[le ...].” De Moor, ARTU, 118, “the sons of the bare hills” without giving further explanations. Hettema (1989-90), 82, n. 19 reads wysmm. bn.šp[m ] “the beautiful, sons of the dune[s ...].” Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 440, (cf. špm, line 4) does not see an epithet here and translates “[que habitan] en el desierto de dunas!” Gibson, CML2, 123, reads bn.šp[...], but refrains from translation; same Lewis, UNP, 208; and Smith (2006), 31 – see his detailed commentary on p. 34. 184 Nielsen (1936), 91. 185 Herdner, CTA, 98, n. 2; following her, Dijkstra (1998), 270-271; Wyatt, RTU, 325, n. 2. 186 Pardee, CS I, 276, n. 6. In footnote 8 to line 4 of the text, Pardee adds, “Because the damaged state of the tablet means that our division of the text into poetic lines is uncertain, špm could be a term further describing the ‘gracious gods,’ ... .” 187 Ginsberg (1935), 64. Following him, see Lewis, UNP, 208, who translates, “Render glory to the gods most high, // In the desert, the windswept heights.” 188 For a detailed discussion, see Smith (2006), 35-36 and the bibliographic references there.

38

INTRODUCTION

Another example is from KTU3 1.13: 25-27, ml᾿ak[[k .]] (26) šmm . tmr . // zbl . mlk . (27) šmm . tl᾿ak . “By the celestial messengers will you strengthen // Prince, the celestial messengers, will you send!” ml᾿ak . šmm “celestial messengers,”189 occurs twice in parallelism. However, since the reading of line 26 is dubious, and thus the interpretation of the passage 26-27 controversial, I will exclude it from the present study. There is no agreement that there is an intervention by the divine messenger(s) in this difficult context, and even when there is a consensus regarding the intervention, the meaning of the bicola, which seems to be crucial to the interpretation of the text, remains dubious. Cazelles190 reads k d lbšt. b᾿ir. ml᾿ak // šmm. tmr. zbl. mlk “que tu as vêtu le jeune qu’on envoie, // les cieux béniront le prince Roi.” Gordon191 reads “For what she wears, the well of a messenger // The heavens defend the Princely One, the King // The heavens send [...] dew I defend // your sons, sta[r(s)...] ... .” Caquot192 concurs that if a messenger is involved here, it would be a single messenger, the goddess Šapšu, and not a group of messengers and so translates, “quand tu auras revêtu la lumière de la messagère // céleste, puisses-tu bénir le prince, le roi. // Que les cieux envoient la rosée,” commenting that “Les termes b᾿ir et ml᾿ak sont séparés par de Moor et del Olmo. Il convient, pensonsnous, de les relier si la ‘messagère des cieux’ est bien la déesse solaire Shapash.” On the other hand, even scholars who consider this a clear intervention by divine messengers differ regarding the interpretation and the translation of KTU3 1.13:23-27. De Moor193 collates the same reading as KTU3 and translates, “Let the angels from heaven strengthen the husband, // let the angels from heaven send (him) strength!” Compare Dietrich and Loretz,194 “Die Boten des Himmels mögen den Fürsten stärken, // die Boten des Himmels Kraft senden!” Del Olmo Lete195 reads ml᾿ak (26) šmm . tmr . // zbl . mlk šmm . tl᾿ak [.] “des messagers célestes partirent, // célestes princes royaux furent envoyés (pour dire),” commenting “... évidemment 189 Our translation follows Dietrich’s (2013), 55, 92-94 (see below). Pardee in a written communication writes, “According to my collation, the reading {mlảk}, probably followed by a word-divider at the end of the line (there is no erased {k} there), is certain in l. 25, and the reading of {mlk} is also certain in line 26.” 190 Cazelles (1956), 54-55. 191 Gordon, UL, 52, 53. 192 Caquot, TO II, 26, n. 32. 193 de Moor (1980), 306, 310; cf. Lloyd (1994), 280, n. 80-84. 194 Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 339-342, esp. 342; and later Dietrich (2013), 55, 91: “Durch Boten des Himmels wollest du stärken, // Fürst, Boten des Himmels wollest du senden!” 195 Del Olmo Lete (1981), 51, n. 11, and pp. 52, 58; see also idem, MLC, 493, “mensajeros celestes partieron, // celestes príncipes regios fueron enviados (a decir).”

INTRODUCTION

39

des messagers, peut-être du dieu Ilu, et qui pourraient bien être ceux mentionnés postérieurement (cf. lignes 25-27).” However, he196 adds “... en aucun cas on ne doit parler d’‘anges.’” Contrast with Wyatt197, who seems to hover between the two translations “may the celestial messengers bless the prince; // may the celestial messengers send you strength.” The correction mlk . šmm would be appropriate here.198 Indeed, the bicola here is one of the most difficult in the Ugaritic religious texts. Even assuming the parallel reading of ml᾿ak šmm in both hemistiches, the meaning and interpretation of the bicola as a whole is tricky. The polysemy of the terms used in the context adds more difficulties. For one thing, the term zbl means: (I) “prince”; and (II) “sickness, malady, illness/ sick man.”199 And the word ḥl signifies: (I) “strength,” and probably also (II) “sickness, malady, illness,” the latter meaning not attested in Ugaritic but in Hebrew.200 Therefore, the absence of attestation for the second meaning of ḥl in Ugaritic leaves the option of translating “prince” for zbl and “strength” for ḥl. Moreover, from the Ugaritic data, the attestation of zbl “sick man,” and zbln “sickness,” appears normally as a B word synonymously parallel to mrṣ “sickness,” and as a B word twice in parallel with mdw “illness,” all occurring in the Keret epic201 and implying that the latter semantic value does not apply to the context here. Consequently zbl here must be an epithet for the divine power. The only divine power in the Ugaritic religion responsible for creation and birth is ᾿Ilu – a conclusion that should be taken with caution given that the term zbl does indeed appear as an epithet, but always as a component rather than singly.202 Thus zbl seems to be an epithet for the sons of ᾿Ilu and not of ᾿Ilu himself. The broad context of KTU3 1.13:23-27 seems unique, which would justify the required usage in this particular instance of the epithet 196

Del Olmo Lete, ibid., 59. Wyatt, RTU, 172, n. 33. Contrast this with the recent translation of Heffelfinger (2011), 242: “Let the messenger of the heavens strengthen the sick, // Let the king of the heavens send strength.” But the second hemistich of the latter translation is wrong. 198 For arguments and epigraphic commentary, see Dietrich (2013), 93, 94. Because of the passage’s difficult and damaged state, some scholars refrain from any translation or interpretation of it; see Walls (1992), 141; Margalit (1995), 232. 199 See DLU, 548; DULAT, 998, 999. Dietrich and Sanmartín neglected to cite the key comparative study on the term zbl of Held (1968), 90-96. 200 See DLU, 175; DULAT, 359. 201 See Held (1968), 93 and the corresponding footnote. 202 See e.g., zbl b῾l “prince Ba῾lu,” zbl b῾l ᾿arṣ “the prince, lord of the earth,” zbl ym “prince Yammu,” zbl yrḫ “prince Yariḫu,” zbl mlk ῾llmy “the prince, the eternal king,” yrḫ zbl “Yariḫu the prince,” and ršp zbl “Rašap the prince.” (For these epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 159-173, 297; idem [2007]) 197

40

INTRODUCTION

zbl. Here the goddess ῾Anatu implores the divine power through the mediation of the ml᾿ak šmm “celestial messengers” to help and give her and her newborn strength through her act of creation and birth. 3.5 Common Nouns Incorrectly Classified as Epithets or Appellations of a Deity Group The typical construction of many of the Ugaritic epithets for deities is a grammatical genitive relation composed of the first component ᾿ilm or ᾿ilht followed by a common Ugaritic noun. However, the noun is not necessarily a component of an epithet. A classic example of terms incorrectly interpreted as epithet components occurs in the Ugaritic mythological text KTU2 1.4:VI:44-55, which is still described by some modern Ugaritic scholars as a chain of the epithets of groups of Ugaritic divinities (see below). KTU2 1.4:VI: 44-55, ṣḥ . ᾿aḫh . b bhth . // ᾿aryh b qrb hklh . // ṣḥ šb῾m . bn . ᾿aṯrt // špq ᾿ilm . krm . yn // špq . ᾿ilht . ḫprt [. yn] // špq . ᾿ilm . ᾿alpm . y[n] // špq . ᾿ilht . ᾿arḫt [ . yn] // špq . ᾿ilm . kḥṯm . yn // špq . ᾿ilht . ks᾿at [. yn] // špq . ᾿ilm . rḥbt yn // špq ᾿ilht . dkr203 “He invites his brothers into his house, his kin into his palace, He invites the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu: He provides the gods with rams (and) wine, he provides the goddesses with ewes (and) [wine]. He provides the gods with bulls (and) wine, he provides the goddesses with cows (and) [wine]. He provides the gods with chairs (and) wine, he provides the goddesses with seats (and) [wine]. He provides the gods with jars of wine, he provides the goddesses with barrels of [wine].”204 These lines describe a divine banquet in which a mixed group of gods are invited to attend. Because there is no parallel passage in the Ugaritic corpus describing a mythical banquet in detail, some scholars have read the epigraphic, grammatic, and syntactic 203 I am thankful to Pardee for his remark that “as is correctly indicated in CAT [= KTU2], no {t} is visible here.” Compare, KTU3 1.4:VI: 44-55, ṣḥ . ᾿aḫh . b bhth . // ᾿aryh b qrb hklh . // ṣḥ šb῾m . bn . ᾿aṯrt // špq ᾿ilm . krm . yn // špq . ᾿ilht . ḫprt [. yn] // špq . ᾿ilm . ᾿alpm . y[n] // špq . ᾿ilht . ᾿arḫt [ . yn] // špq . ᾿ilm . kḥṯm . yn // špq . ᾿ilht . ks᾿at // špq . ᾿ilm . rḥbt yn // špq ᾿ilht . dkrt. See Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 584, 588, 589. 204 Based on Pardee, CS I, 262, n. 178. See also Wright (2001), 104-105. Compare CML2, 63. Contrast MKT, 44; TO I, 213-214, n. k, l, m; Smith, UNP, 134-135; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 594-595. Contrary to Pardee, Driver and Gibson do not necessarily restore yn “wine,” in every hemistich. I do not see the necessity for considering the entire literature of the subject but limit myself to referring to the very detailed discussion of the epigraphic, syntactic, and grammatic collation of yn and the verb špq of Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 630636. However, their discussion must be compared to Pardee, ibid.; and KTU3, 22, both of which still accept the restoration of yn in lines 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 53; see also TUAT III/6, 1167. For the above context I find KTU2 more accurate than KTU3, 22.

INTRODUCTION

41

structure of lines 47-55, in which the direct object of the verb špq alternates with the plural masculine ᾿ilm “gods” and the plural feminine ᾿ilht “goddesses,” followed by nouns for furniture and animals, as epithets of minor Ugaritic deities, translating lines 47-54 as “the ram-gods; the ewegoddesses; the ox-gods; the cow-goddesses; the siege-gods; the thronegoddesses; the amphora-gods; the jar-goddesses,” and so on.205 This interpretation is incorrect, however. Furthermore, the parallel group of divinities embodied in ᾿aḫh “his brothers,” ᾿aryh “his siblings,” and šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” some lines earlier (KTU3 1.4:VI:46, ṣḥ . ᾿aḫh . b bhth . // ᾿aryh b qrb hklh . // ṣḥ šb῾m . bn . ᾿aṯrt “He invites his brothers to his house, // his kindred into his palace; // he summons the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu”) refers to the same group of deities. Consequently, the association of these gods with divine objects or animals is wrong.206 In fact, the deities whom Ba῾lu invites to the banquet would not only be major, but also minor Ugaritic deities; but it would be most puzzling if a description of minor deities is provided, while the important divinities summoned remain anonymous under the generic appellation of bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” Though such personification of minor Ugaritic deities is rare, epithets with animal terminology are attested, mainly with ᾿Ilu, who is generally described as ṯr “bull,” and the enemies of Ba῾lu, ᾿Aršu, ᾿Išītu, Ḏabibu, and ῾Tk.207 Furthermore, the alternation 205 Montgomery (1933), 120, 121; Ginsberg, ANET, 134; CML1, 100-101; KME, 50, n. 4; PLM, 99; ARTU, 60-61; Wyatt (1998), 48-49; RTU, 107, n. 149; MLC, 206-207. Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 60, 62 adopts the incorrect interpretation, stating, “... apparently a re-arrangement of ‘the seventy sons of ᾿Aṯiratu’ in terms of their taking part in the divine banquet: ᾿ilm krm / ᾿alpm / kḥṯm / rḥbt // ᾿ilt ḫprt / ᾿arḫt / ks᾿at / dkrt (KTU 1.4 VI 46-47). Most probably, all these unspecified or group denominations correspond to individuals contained in the previous lists.” However, he does not specify which list. 206 Contra Wyatt, RTU, 107, n. 149, who classified the gods as minor deities, and even compared these two problematic personifications to Isis ‘throne’ and Nephthys ‘mistress of the house,’ “who were respectively the deified Egyptian throne and palace.” 207 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 318-330, ṯr “the bull”; ṯr ᾿abh “the bull, his father”; ṯr ᾿aby(/-k/-h) ᾿il “the bull, my (/your/his/her) father, ᾿Ilu”; ṯr ᾿il ᾿aby(/-k/-h/-n) “the bull, ᾿Ilu, my (/your/his/her/our) father”; ṯr ᾿il d p᾿id “the bull, the god of mercy”; ṯr lṭpn “the bull, the sagacious one”; ṯr ῾llmn “the eternal bull (?),” all refer to the god ᾿Ilu. Also ᾿ab nšrm “father of raptors,” the epithet of the minor god hrgb; klbt ᾿ilm ᾿išt “the bitch of ᾿Ilu, ᾿Išītu (Fire)”; ῾gl ᾿il ῾tk “the calf of ᾿Ilu, ῾tk”; šlyṭ d šb῾t r᾿ašm “the dominant one who has seven heads”; and tnn ᾿ištm lh “the dragon of two flames”; see DEUAT, 199-200, 256-257, 300304, 309-310, 363, 368, 374, 375, 379; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 247. Compare Spencer (2015), 36-38, 45-48 for a Mesopotamian context. See also the controversial suggestion of Smith (2014a), 169, 469, n. 47, 202, n. 155, 204-206, 323, and the correspondent footnote on p. 208, 491, 495, that the Ugaritic god ῾Aṯtaru might be characterized as lb᾿u “a lion,” ῾Aṯtrt “a lion-lady,” and “a panther”; see idem (2014b), 70-74 and the discussion in the corresponding footnotes with rich bibliography. However, Smith himself comments that the latter association is open to discussion; contrast with Pardee, RCU, 126. On the term

42

INTRODUCTION

between animals, furniture, and food is appropriate in Ugaritic data for banquets, but not for the divine attributes of assorted deities.208 The process of the divinization of the mundane objects in Ugaritic religion is still unknown.209 Another example is KTU3 1.2:I:18 (= KTU3 1.2:I:34-35), tn . ᾿ilm . d tqh // d tqyn . hmlt . “Give up, O gods, the one whom you obey, // the one whom the multitudes (of the earth) fear.”210 Van Selms211 asserts that ḫnzr “boar” see n. 14, n. 15, pp. 262-264. For a brief overview of Mesopotamian deities depicted as human-animal or animal-animal hybrids, see Hundley (2013), 73 and the corresponding note, with an update and rich literature on the subject. 208 For more arguments to this effect, see Pardee, CS I, 262, n. 178; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 629-631. In Mesopotamia numerous human-made objects, such as beds, weapons, chariots etc. were deified; see Hundley (2013), 74-75, 76, 77, 79 and the corresponding footnotes. An additional issue that prevented us from including divine objects in the present study was the ambiguity of their hypothetical immortality. On the latter, see n. 44, p. 11-12. 209 Even in Mesopotamia, this process is considered ambiguous: see Hundley (2013), 74-75, 76, 77 for discussion and bibliography; Spencer (2015), 36-38, 45-48 and the references to Selz’s analysis and work. A good working hypothesis might be that these objects were deified by the simple fact of a deity using them. 210 Thus, most scholars read “multitudes,” but with reference to “human beings.” See Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “Surrender the god with a following, // Him whom the multitudes worship”; Driver, CML1, 79, n. 7, “Give up, gods, him whom you protect, on whom the multitudes wait, or ‘whom the multitudes (of men) revere, whom they revere.’” Gibson, CML2, 41, n. 3, “Give up, gods, him whom you protect, // him whom you protect, o multitude, or ‘him on whom the multitudes (sc. of mankind) do wait’”; Aistleitner, MKT, 49, “Liefert aus den Gott, den ihr fürchtet, // Vor dem sich die Lebewesen fürchten”; idem, WUS, 90, n. 845, “Lebewesen, Bevölkerung”; de Moor (1971), 124; idem, ARTU: 31, “Give up, o gods, him whom you protect, // him who you protect, o crowd!”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 170, “Entregad, dioses, a quien rendís pleitesía, // a quien rinden pleitesía las multitudes”; Pardee, CS I, 246, n. 38, “Give (up), O gods, the one whom you obey, // the one whom the hordes (of the earth) fear.” Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DUL, 167; DULAT, 342 translate the Ugaritic term hmlt “multitude,” with no reference to its probable allusion to Ugaritic divinities. Wyatt (1992a), 412-15, under §13; idem, RTU, 59, n. 105 suggests a completely different interpretation and translates, “Give up the god whom you obey, // the one whom you obey, Tempest!” – but this completely misses the point. For a detailed response, see Smith, UBC I, 290. See also the criticism of Wyatt by Watson (1996), 73-74, who etymologically relates the Ugaritic hmlt to Arabic hamala, “to shed tears”: but this also seems incorrect. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 94; see Kogan (2015), 292293, 340-341. 211 Van Selms (1970), 259, n. 18; following him, Smith UBC I, 265, 289-290; idem, UNP (1997), 99: “Give up, O Gods, the one you obey, // the one you obey, O Multitude”: but “Multitude” here refers to the gods. See also Smith (2001), 54. Pardee, CS I, 246, n. 38. Wyatt, RTU, 59, n. 105 suggests a completely different interpretation, for translation see the previous footnote. For a detailed response see Smith, UBC I, 290. The term hmlt is a common Ugaritic word meaning “crowd (of human beings),” often occurring as the first component of the expression hmlt ᾿arṣ “the terrestrial crowd,” which normally parallels nšm “human beings”: e.g., KTU3 1.1:III:15; 1.3:III:28, IV:16, 1.4:VII:52. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 167 and DULAT, 342 (see above).

INTRODUCTION

43

hmlt “multitude” is semantically parallel to pḫr m῾d, the plenary meeting of all gods; and therefore the context parallels ᾿ilm “gods” with hmlt “multitude.” Though this is an attractive hypothesis, it is incorrect; the parallelism between ᾿ilm and hmlt is antonymic, not synonymic. According to the internal Ugaritic lexicographic testimony, the term hmlt is a shortened form of hmlt ᾿arṣ and must refer to “the beings in the earth.” In fact, in the eleven contexts in which hmlt ᾿arṣ appears, it parallels nšm “human beings” six times212 and l᾿im “the people” twice.213 Therefore, the idea that the term hmlt refers to the plenary meeting of all gods must be rejected. The Ugaritic term kbkbm has been incorrectly interpreted as referring to a divine astral entity(/ies). For instance, kbkbm of KTU3 1.19:IV:22-25, generally translated simply as “stars,”214 has been incorrectly considered a group of “star-gods,” and the damaged mythological text KTU3 1.92, in which ῾Aṯtrt is the main divine character, line 27, 28 ẓl k kbkbm ... km kbkbt “the shade like the stars ... like female stars,” as referring to male and female star divinities.215 212 For nšm // hmlt ᾿arṣ see KTU3 1.3:III:28 (= KTU3 1.1:III:15 [reconstructed]; KTU3 1.3:IV:15-16 [partially reconstructed]; KTU3 1.4:VII:51-52; KTU3 1.6:II:18-19; KTU3 1.6:V:25 [partially reconstructed]. 213 For l᾿im // hmlt see KTU3 1.5:VI:24 (= KTU3 1.6:I:7). 214 See the translation and the interpretation of Spronk (1986), 160, followed by de Moor, ARTU, 262, n. 241 and n. 242; Wyatt, RTU, 309, n. 260; and Smith (2014a), 124: “the gods // the heavens // the stars”; contrast with Gibson, CML2, 120; Gordon, PLM, 28. The translation of Margalit (1989a), 139, 164, 445-446 of the term kbkbm of KTU3 1.19:IV:22-25 as a group of divine beings, “the star-gods,” is incorrect. See van der Toorn (1991), col. 49-51 and contrast with Korpel (1990), 563; see also Wyatt (1998), 44. For an accurate translation of KTU3 1.19:IV:22-25, see Ginsberg, ANET, 155; Aistleitner, MKT, 81; Jirku, KME, 135; Driver, CML1, 65; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 456; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 398; Parker, UNP, 76; Pardee, CS I, 354. The interpretation by Stieglitz (1981), 135-137; idem, (1990), 86-87, esp. n. 37 of the term kbkb in KTU3 1.4:IV:16-17 as a star deity also seems to be forced. See Pardee, CS I, 259, n. 150; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 510-511, n. 16, n. 512. 215 Virolleaud, PRU V, 3-5, esp. 5 commented, “Noter kbkbm ‘étoiles’ et kbkbt; kbkbt aussi en RS 1929, no 6, 17. Cf. yd῾t hlk kbkbm I Daniel 51-52, 56, 200.” De Moor (1986a), 228, 229 reads, “Her [rin]gs she wore, // glitter like the male stars, // [ ] like the female stars”; de Tarragon, TO II, 34-35: “[...] un vêtement de - - - // [...] elle a enlevé l’ombre, comme les étoiles // [...] - - - étoiles comme deux - -”; Dijkstra (1994), 117, 120 collates [wn]῾*mh.nšat ẓl kkbkbm // [k]b*d* km kbkbt kṯn “[And] her [beau]ty wore a sheen like the male stars, // [a sp]lendour(?) like the female stars of Kuthan”; Wyatt, RTU, 373: “Her [ ] wore the splendour of the stars, // magnificence like the stars,” commenting in n. 25 that “Ug. kbkbm ... kbkbt: lit. ‘male stars ... female stars.’ Stars frequently represent gods and goddesses. Is the expression a periphrasis for ‘divine splendour ... divine magnificence?’” Here the assumption is that the twinkling of the male stars and female stars (presumably gods and goddesses) is being compared to the glitter and the beauty of the goddess’s nš᾿at. Contrast the new collation of Pardee (2008), 9-38, esp. pp. 14, 17, 19,

44

INTRODUCTION

3.6 Divine Names of “Double Divinities,” Referring to Double Deities Rather than Appellations or Epithets for Groups of Deities Double divinities are excluded from this study. Following my rule under point II above, the deity group should contain more than two divinities. In grammatical terms the epithets, appellations, and designations included in this study basically show plural complementation. Thus, I consider the study of double deities a subject that deserves an independent treatment because of the high number of this category of deities: e.g., ᾿arṣ w šmm appears exclusively in the ritual genre in the parallel Ugaritic texts KTU3 1.47:12, KTU3 1.118:11, KTU3 1.148:5, 24 and their version in syllabo-logographic cuneiform RS 20.024:11, dIDIM ù IDIM or dKI ù AN (RS 92.2004; RS 26.142).216 Undoubtedly, the expression ᾿arṣ w šmm seems to function as a dual theonym “earth and heaven” with reference to the two parts of the cosmos, rather than an appellation of a deity group.217 It appears to be both preceded and followed by a list of major Ugaritic deities, and with another possible dual theonym ġrm w ῾mqt “mountains and rivers” (KTU3 1.47:19, KTU3 1.118:18, KTU3 1.148:6),218 although the latter, from the parallel in syllabo-logographic cuneiform dḪUR.SAG. MEŠ u Amu-ú (RS 20.024:18), would reflect the Ugaritic idea of the plurality [... ]⌜-⌝mh . nš᾿at ẓl k kbkbm // [... ]⌜-⌝b km kbkb tk⌜-⌝n (lines 24-25), who translates, “[... ] elle lève l’ombre, comme les étoiles // [... ] comme une étoile elle se met en place.” This collation and translation seems the most reliable – see pp. 27-28 for commentary – given that the plural form of kbkb always appears kbkbm and never kbkbt, which seems attested only in this dubious context. Smith (2014a), 189, 481, n. 44, 190 follows Pardee translating: “... she raises a gleam like the stars [...] // ... like a star she ... [...].” See also idem (2014b), 47, 48. 216 Pardee, TR, 799, n. 94; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 102-110, esp. 109; KTU3, 152. 217 Pardee, TR, 303-304, 306-307, 799 and the corresponding footnotes with a detailed discussion and bibliographic references; Roche-Hawley (2012), 149, n. 11, 151, 152ff. 218 Following KTU3, 85,137, 152 collation. Pardee, TR, 303-304, 306-307, 660, 780 and esp. 781-782, n. 12 reads ġrm w thmt; contrast with del Olmo Lete, CR2, 367 commentary on line 19. On the Akkadian treaties where a plausible semantic correspondence “gods of land/water,” “gods of heaven/earth” occur, see Uehlinger (2008), 53-54; Roche-Hawley (2012), 154, 167, 171, 174; Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 22, n. 86; idem (2011c), 95, 96, 97, 100 and bibliographic references; Hundley (2013), 77-79; Tugendhaft (2016), 178, 181, n. 53, “The alphabetic entry thmt in line 18 should be vocalized / tahāmātu / (with two long-‘a’ vowels), marking the word as plural. This is not ‘the deep’ in any fundamental cosmic sense but rather ‘the deep waters,’ that is, the freshwater springs that, like the mountains with which they are paired, surround Ugarit and are therefore the subject of honor in its local cult. The entry tahāmatu in the WGL reveals a scribe culling from local tradition, but reworking it to fit his understanding of the imported Mesopotamian composition. Both tahāmatu and Ašte Anive are scribal contrivances, but whereas one derives from a word preexisting in the target language, the other is a neologism mimicking the term in the source language”; Tsumura (2019), 385, 386, 389.

INTRODUCTION

45

of the deities referred to here, with both ᾿arṣ w šmm and ġrm w ῾mqt treated as a divine unity (see below).219 Indeed, Wyatt220 defines arṣ w šmm as “a merismic pair, containing kṯrt, yrḫ, ṣpn, kṯr, pdry, ῾ṯtr (7 chthonianastral deities including ᾿arṣ w šmm; 1+6),” and among the ġrm w῾mqt “a further merismic pair, containing ᾿aṯrt, ῾nt, špš, ᾿arṣy, ᾿ušḫry, ῾ṯtrt (7 goddesses including ġrm w῾mqt: 1 +6).” On the other hand, del Olmo Lete221 defines ᾿arṣ wšmm “Earth and Heaven” as “‘chthonic-astral’ or cosmic, in relation precisely with this polar pair which heads the group (kṯrt, yrḫ, ῾ṯtr // ṣpn, kṯr, pdry = 1 +6).” According to del Olmo Lete, the latter group would be followed again by seven deities headed by the dual name “Mountains and Oceans,” which “is combined with six goddesses (1+6), apparently arranged hierarchically and related to the two previous groups (᾿il / ᾿aṯrt, b῾l / ῾nt, yrḫ / špš (?), ṣpn / ᾿arṣy, kṯr / ᾿ušḫry, ῾ṯtr / ῾ṯtrt).” However, I conclude that both ᾿arṣ w šmm and ġrm w῾mqt evoke the theme of divinities of the two parts of the cosmos, as the name indicates. Therefore, I consider ᾿arṣ w šmm and ġrm w῾mqt as dual theonyms of one/double deity(/ies) rather than groups of divine entities, and therefore omit both pairs from the current study. The instances of ᾿arṣ w šmm and ġrm w῾mqt should be classified as cases that might include divine plurality, but which function as unities through a double theonym/ binôme.222 3.7 Divine Names of Multiple Manifestations of Single Deity Incorrectly Interpreted as Appellations or Epithets for Groups of Deities This category appears mostly in the ritual genre, where the lack of parallelism and a broad literary context makes their interpretation difficult: e.g., b῾lm and ršpm have been omitted because they are divine names which express the plurality of Ba῾lu and Rašpu rather than appellations or epithets for groups of Ugaritic divinities.223 219

Pardee, TR, 292, n. 5; compare to Hattian-Hittite Anatolia and Ebla in Archi (1993), 14; Pongratz-Leisten (2011c), 96. 220 Wyatt (1998), 54, 55; idem (2020), 92-94. 221 Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 58. 222 See DEUAT, xix-xx. Caquot and Dalix, RSOu XIV, 393, 397, 399 under line 9, consider šmm.w thm (KTU3 1.179:9) a divine binomial; and compare it with šmm w thm (KTU3 1.100:1). This comparison must be rejected, however: see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 123-124, n. 12 for discussion and bibliographical references; see also n. 19, p. 123 below. 223 Pardee, TR, 59-60 and the bibliographic references there. See also Smith (2002), 77-79 and the corresponding footnotes; Schwemer (2007), 121-168, esp. 158-159 and idem (2008), 1-44, esp. 8-15; Krebernik (2013), 198-201, 205, 208 for discussion and bibliographic references, esp. on the multiple ršp(m). Compare to the various Yahweh designations

46

INTRODUCTION

The multiple manifestations of Ba῾lu and Rašpu appearing in the Ugaritic ritual texts indicate that the true plurals would refer to these multiple manifestations, which has nothing to do with b῾lm in slots 2-7 of the first section of KTU3 1.148, where the -m is clearly enclitic paralleled by DINGIR.IM II-VII in the logo-syllabic list (RS 92.2004).224 3.8 Appellations or Epithets of Dual Deities Incorrectly Classified as Ugaritic Deity Groups When a divine group appellation or epithet is poorly attested, it is sometimes difficult to determine the number of divinities to which it refers. This is especially true in ritual texts, where the lack of literary context and parallelism makes the identification even more questionable. For example, consider the epithet ᾿iltm ḫnqtm “the strangler-goddesses,” which occurs in the following contexts: 1. KTU3 1.39:18 ῾nt . ḫbly . dbḥm . š[p]š pgr 18 [g]dlt . ᾿iltm . ḫnqtm . dqtm 19 [y]rḫ . kṯy . gdlt . w l ġlmt [.] š

For ῾Anatu Ḫablay two dabḥu-sacrifices; for Šapšu-Pagri a cow; for the strangler-goddesses two ewes; for Kassite Yariḫu a cow; and for Ġalmatu a ram

2. KTU3 1.102:13 10 ršp 11 ῾nt ḫbly

Rašpu, ῾Anatu Ḫablay

of the Kuntillet ῾Ajrud inscription and the 4th-century B.C.E. papyrus from Elephantine Island on the Nile; see e.g., McCarter (1997), 62, 72; Wyatt (1998), 28; compare Lambert (1975), 191-200, esp. 193 on the development of the Mesopotamian pantheon. For a detailed study on “the issue of the divine singularity and multiplicity as it relates to commonly shared divine names, or first names in the ancient Near East,” see Uehlinger (2008), 46-49 on the goddesses ištarātum; Pongratz-Leisten (2011c), 100; Hundley (2013), 88, n. 109-112, 89, 96; Spencer (2015), who addresses specifically the Ištar, Ba῾lu, Madonna, and Yahweh multiplicities. See Spencer, ibid., 3-4, 8, 13-14, 19-20, 24, 25-26, 93, 198, esp. 203, and his criticism of Porter, pp. 19-20. Van der Toorn thinks that the typically West-Semitic generic ᾿ilm might indicate a single entity, though the divine plural form is used. He comments (DDD2, 360), “A good illustration of the plural divinity is found in the El-Amarna letters, where the Pharaoh is repeatedly addressed by his Canaanite vassals as DINGIR.MEŠ-ia, literally my ‘gods,’ but plainly referring to one person only.” Burnett (2001), 7-24, esp. 16-24.The same was true for Mesopotamians addressing their personal god. See also de Pury (2008), 121-141, esp. 125-126; Sommer (2016), 258. 224 See Pardee, TR, 796, RCU, 14. It is agreed that the Ugaritic ršpm refers to the statues of Resheph carried in procession. For the precise context of KTU3 1.91:15, see Day (1994), 191-192; Burnett (2001), 88, 112-113; Lipiński (2009), 89; Münnich (2013), 131; cf. Xella, TRU, 338-345; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 254-264; Pardee, TR, 489-519; idem, RCU, 214-216; Sommer (2009), 189-190.

INTRODUCTION 12

špš pgr ᾿iltm . ḫnqtm 14 yrḫ . kṯy  13

47

Šapšu-Pagri The strangler-goddesses Kassite Yariḫu225

The divine epithet ᾿iltm ḫnqtm appears only twice in the Ugaritic Corpus. Scholars226 agree that the deities listed in KTU3 1.39 correspond to the divinities in the recto of KTU3 1.102:1-14. There is also scholarly agreement on the translation “the two strangling goddesses/the stranglergoddesses” or the like.227 Moreover, though the sequence of Ugaritic gods in the two contexts above is the same – ršp / ῾nt ḫbly / špš pgr /᾿iltm ḫnqtm / yrḫ kṯy – its attestations among mostly individual gods complicates its classification. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that it refers to a pair of goddesses.228 Moreover, scholars229 agree that the Ugaritic ḫnq “strangler” is etymologically related to the common Semitic root Ḫ/ḤNQ “to strangle” (Akkadian ḫanāqu, Hebrew ‫חנק‬, Arabic ‫خنق‬, Ethiopic ḫanaq). Nevertheless, scholars are at odds concerning their identification. Astour230 states that “it is impossible to specify as yet what kind of mythological beings are hidden under the latter designation. One may recall that the Greeks told of a female monster called Sphinx, ‘the strangler,’ and that the Greek iconographic conception of a winged female sphinx was, according to the consensus of art historians, borrowed from Syro-Phoenician imagery.” Kapelrud231 follows him, adding that one of 225

The translation of the two contexts here partially follows Pardee, RCU, 21, 68-69. Virolleaud (1968), 594; Herdner (1978), 4, n. 4 and n. 5; de Moor (1970b), 326, n. 132 who correctly adds that CTA 34:13-19 [= KTU3 1.39:13-19] “omits kṯr accidentally and adds ġlmt”; de Tarragon (1980), 171; Stamm (1979), 753; del Olmo Lete (1986b), 84; idem (1986d), 282-283, n. 43 and n. 44; Pardee, TR, 66. 227 Astour (1966), 284; Kapelrud (1969a), 31; de Moor (1970a), 228, n. 75; Jirku (1973), 97: “Die beiden ... Göttinnen”; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DUAL, 399: “the strangler-goddesses”; Herdner (1978), 5; Caquot, (1979), col. 1404; de Tarragon (1980), 171, 179, n. 26; later idem, TO II, 139, n. 26 renders “(aux) (deux) déesses ‘étouffeuses’”; Xella, (1979-1980), 147; idem, TRU, 78: “le due dee strangolatrici/les deux déesses étrangleuses”; Pardee, TR, 19, 80: “les deux déesses étrangleuses.” Other scholars prefer to leave ḫnqtm untranslated: see del Olmo Lete (1987b), 42: “las dos Diosas ḫnqt,” but later del Olmo Lete gives a translation (see above); Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 310, n. 18a: “Iltami ḫanniqtami,” with the comment “die beiden strangulierenden Göttinnen.” 228 See the bibliography quoted here. Pardee, TR, 80, n. 325 is correct that “... ce qui n’a pas été expliqué, c’est pourquoi ce nom-ci est au duel.” 229 See Herdner (1978), 5; following her, de Tarragon (1980), 171, 179, n. 26. See del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DUAL, 399 for etymology and bibliographic references. In Ugaritic we also find ḫnq and ḫnqn as personal name components. However, they might be mere homophones. On ḫnq as a personal name component see Gröhdahl, PTU, 276; DLU, 195; DULAT, 399 under ḫnq(n). 230 Astour (1966), 284. 231 Kapelrud (1969a), 31; see also de Moor (1970a), 228, n. 75; cf. Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975a), 143. 226

48

INTRODUCTION

the two goddesses might be the Ugaritic winged goddess ῾Anatu. On the other hand, Herdner232 identifies the goddesses with “les deux déesses étrangleuses/les démone(s) étrangleuse(s),” mentioned in the Arslan Tash Incantation, KAI 27:4, ḥnqt “the stranglers.” Xella233 makes a comparative analogy between the two goddesses and “personaggi demoniaci della mitologia sumero-accadica (Lamaštu, Pazuzu, ecc.), connessi con la mortalità neonatale ed infantile in genere.” Indeed, a female demon with the power to strangle children is known in Aramaic magic. However, the context where such goddesses appear in Ugaritic does not support the assumption. Therefore de Tarragon234 maintains that the Ugaritic epithet ᾿ilt ḫnqtm “reste étrange,” because the context where it occurs “n’a guère les caractéristiques d’une conjuration contre les mauvais génies.” He instead suggests a dubious etymological comparison to Arabic “gorge, défilé?” explaining, “Il s’agirait des divinités gardiennes des défilés de l’arrière-pays montagneux.” However, due to the dubious etymology of ḫnqtm, his suggestion must be rejected.235 I now consider the widely accepted236 comparison of the Ugaritic ᾿iltm ḫnqtm with the Arslan Inscription expression lḥnqt ᾿mr “strangler(s) of lamb(s)” (KAI 27:4), which refers to female demon goddesses and are to be compared to the Akkadian demons goddesses par 232 Herdner (1978), 5; Xella, TRU, 80; see the reference to the translations above. In the Arslan Inscription KAI 27:4, lḥnqt ᾿mr has been translated in two ways, the accepted one being “strangler(s) of lamb(s),” the other interpreting ᾿mr as a verbal form and reading, “Et à l’Étrangleuse, il dit”: see e.g., Dupont-Sommer (1939), 137. Nevertheless, in both interpretations ḥnq means “to strangle,” semantically and etymologically corresponding to the Ugaritic ḫnqt. Some scholars assert that the title ‫“ חניקותא‬strangler” occurs by itself frequently in Aramaic and Syriac texts and refers to a child-stealing hag, which suits the Akkadian demonic character Lilith / Lamaštu. The classical etymological and semantic comparison to the Arabic popular name of the child-stealing demon ‫ خانوق الحمل‬/ ḥānūqu l-ḥamli is plausible. See Gollancz (1912), codex B p. 68, esp. codex C p. 74. The first scholar to mention the comparison to Lilith, Montgomery (1913), 238, 240 stated that ‫( חנוקיתא‬No. 36 [CBS 2933,4]) designates an evil spirit, adding that ‫“ אמא חנוקתא‬Strangling Mother” (of babies) appears in Syriac charms and a similar epithet is found on a Greek amulet; he accepted the idea that the Lilith-witch is in charge of the same murderous functions. See also Albright (1939), 7, n. 9; Gaster (1942), 51-52; idem, (1947), 186-187, n. 7, esp. the reference to Montgomery (1913); Cross and Saley (1970), 47, n. 41; Dahood (1965a), 45; idem (1979), 432; du Mesnil du Buisson (1939), 422, 426; Isbell (1975), 60, Text 19:4; Caquot (1973), 45-51, esp. 47; Sperling (1982), 3, 5-6, n. 36 for discussion and bibliographic references. Contrast DNWSI, 389-390, which adheres to the classical translation of lḥnqt ᾿mr “oh strangler(s) of lamb(s)” (KAI 27:4f.). Qur᾿ānic Arabic uses ‫ ُم ْن َخنِقَ ٌة‬/ munḫaniqatun with the semantic value of “strangled animals” (Q. 5:3). See Badawi and Abd-Haleem (2008), 288. 233 Xella, TRU, 80; following him, see Dietrich and Loretz, Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 310, n. 18a. 234 De Tarragon, TO II, 139, n. 26; quoted by Watson (1993a), 55, n. 83. 235 See Pardee, TR, 80, n. 325. 236 See n. 232, p. 48 above.

INTRODUCTION

49

excellence Lamaštu and Lilith,237 the demons of night/darkness. If the latter comparison is correct, the application of the Ugaritic epithet ᾿iltm ḫnqtm to a demon female divinity would seem plausible. However, the latter assumption is doubtful given that such goddesses appear only in rituals with no demonic/magical content. An epithet, which might refer mainly to the divine pair Šaḥru wa-Šalimu rather than a group of deities, is ᾿agzr ym . bn ym “..., the sons of a (single) day.” It too is omitted here. The phrase occurs in the following contexts: 1. RS 2.002: 23 (= KTU3 1.23: 23) (23) ᾿iqr᾿an . ᾿ilm . n῾m⌜m⌝[. I would call on the gracious gods, ᾿agzr ym . bn .] ym  [..., the sons of238 a (single)] day 2. RS 2.002:58-59 (= KTU3 1.23:58-59) (58) tqtnṣn . w tldn . The two (women) squat and give birth, they give birth to the gracious [gods], t⌜ld⌝n [.] ⌜᾿il⌝m . n῾mm . ᾿agzr ym (59) bn . ym . ..., the sons of a (single) day, who suck the nipples of the breasts. ynqm . b ᾿ap ḏ⌜d⌝ [.]239 3. RS 2.002:61 (= KTU3 1.23:61) rgm . l ᾿il . ybl Word is brought to ᾿Ilu: (60) ᾿aṯty . ᾿il . ylt . “The two wives of ᾿Ilu have given birth.” mh . ylt [.] “What have they brought forth?” “The gracious gods, ... ᾿ilmy [.] n῾mm - - [-]- -240 (61) ᾿agzr ym . bn ym . ... The sons of a (single) day, ynqm . b ᾿ap . ḏd .   who suck the nipples of the breasts of (᾿Aṯiratu).

The phrase ᾿agzr ym bn ym systematically appears in parallel with ᾿ilm n῾mm, but there is no consensus among scholars regarding its interpretation and translation. Caquot calls it “énigmatique.”241 Some consider ᾿agzr a verb followed by its complement, the noun ym, and interpret the component bn ym as a nominal independent clause.242 Recent studies favor 237 On the identification of Lilith and Lamaštu, see Hutter, DDD2, 520-521; Riley, DDD2, 235-240, esp. 236. 238 I follow the reading of Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 27-31. The restoration here is widely accepted and parallels line 61, which uses the same expression, see ibid, p. 28. Contrast KTU3, 68, 70, n. 3, again reading ᾿agzrym instead of ᾿agzr ym. 239 KTU3 69 follows Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 30, who read lin. 58 simply, ynqm . b ᾿ap ḏ⌜d⌝ [.], and translate “qui s’allaitent à la pointe du sein (d’Aṯiratu).” The collation first given in KTU2, 69, n. 2, Cf. line 61, ynqm . b ᾿ap [.] ḏd [.] has been abandoned. 240 Contrast KTU3, 69, ᾿ilmy [.] n῾mm [[᾿agzry]]. 241 Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 372, n. v. 242 Virolleaud (1933), 133, 142 translates ᾿agzr ym “je fends / fendrai la mer,” and considers bn ym an epithet, translating it “le fils de la mer.” Other scholars differ in their grammatical analysis and consequently their translation: Barton (1934), 64, “the dividers of

50

INTRODUCTION

the analysis of ᾿agzr ym bn ym as one complete phrase and translate it accordingly.243 Whether ᾿agzr and ym are two words or one, scholars still differ as to their interpretation. Firstly, they disagree on whether ym in bn ym means “sea” or “day.”244 Second, the component ᾿agzr could be related to the root gzr “to cut,” a known root in the Semitic languages245 the sea”; Aistleitner, MKT, 59, “die Ebenblider Jm-s//die Kinder Jm-s”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 377, “qui fendent la mer, enfants de la mer.” 243 Jirku, KME, 81, “die ... geboren an einem Tage”; de Moor (1972), 20, “the gluttonous sons of one day”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 446, “los voraces ya de sólo un día”; Lewis, UNP, 209, “Paired devourers of the day that bore them”; Wyatt, RTU, 329, “both gluttonous from birth”; Smith (2006), 64, “[Ravenous pair a day old], day-old [boys]”; and Pardee, CS I, 279, n. 35, “who delimit the day, the sons of a (single) day”; Dietrich (2013), 99, “... von einem Tag.” However, Dietrich adds, “Weil diese Kinder des El in KTU 1.23 als unersättliche Neugeborene beschrieben werden, wird ihr Epitheton ᾿agzym üblicherweise mit ‘Fresser’ übersetzt.” For more, see below. 244 Those who read ym as “sea,” even if differing on agzrym or agzr ym, consider ᾿Aṯiratu as the only mother of the gods: Barton (1934), 64, “the dividers of the sea; the sons of the sea”; Largement (1949), 24, 38, 52-53 translates “les Insulaires, fils de la mer / nouveaux-nés ...,” and on p. 38 relates ᾿agzr to the Arabic ‫ جزيرة‬/ ǧazīra “island”; Gibson, CML2, 126, “‘cleavers’ of the sea, children of the sea”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 372, n. v, “qui fendent la mer, enfants de la mer”; Lipiński (1986), 210, n. 26, “progeny of the sea,” and “children of the sea,” relating ᾿agzr to the divine Hurrian epithet (d) a-ga-aš-ša-ri. Of those who interpret ym as “day,” some analyze ᾿agzr from gzr “to cut”; see, for example, Gray, LC2, 98 n. 7, “who delimit the day, two born in the one day.” Pardee, CS I, 279, n. 35, accepts Gray’s translation, “who delimit the day, sons of a (single) day”; and Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 28 translate “qui établissent les limites d’un jour par rapport à l’autre.” Dijkstra (1998), 270-271, “the cutter-twins, sons of one day,” is one of the few scholars who reads the epithet agzrym bn ym between ᾿ilm n῾mm and wysmm. bn . šp[š] at the beginning of the text. Others relate this term to the Hebrew ‫ גזר‬/ gâzar “voracious, gluttonous,” which parallels ‫ אכל‬/ ᾿âkal (Isaiah 9:19), “gluttons”: see Gaster (1946b), 71, “two little gluttons, two little boys”; Xella (1973), 36, 58-59, “voraci nati in un giorno”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 442, 510, “los voraces ya de sólo un día”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 350, 354, translate “die Fresser, die Neugeborenen von einem Tag”; de Moor, ARTU, 122, n. 28, n. 29, translates “the ravenous sons of one day” and comments that this translation is imposed by Isaiah 9:19; Lewis, UNP, 209, “paired devourers of the day that bore them”; Wyatt, RTU, 329, n. 25 and n. 26, “both gluttonous from birth”; Smith (2006), 24, “Day-old devourers, one-day-old boys” and for commentary and Biblical references pp. 64-65, 105-110, 113. Some scholars suggest a completely different interpretation. Nielsen (1936), 87-90, 91 reads ᾿agzr ym as ᾿agzrim, and as a third component of the epithet, ᾿ilm n῾mm, thus translating “... an die gnädigen (und) bösen Götter,” and bn ym “Söhne Joms,” commenting that “Söhne der Jom” is another name of the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu. Komoróczy (1971), 77, 79-80, esp. 79 translates this epithet “Ebenbilder Jams, die Söhne Jams,” explaining that “der Ausdruck ‘Söhne Jams’ ist nicht wortwörtlich zu verstehen, da der Zeuger dieser Götter El war,” and concluding that ym might refer to another monstrous newborn paired with Mot. This is as untenable as the idea that Yammu and Môtu could be ᾿ilm n῾mm. The component bn obviates any possibility that ym could be a divine name. 245 Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 154 under “[GZR ‘couper,’] : GZR nom commun ‘coupe, délimitation.’” DLU, 154; DULAT, 315 refers solely to the noun gzr “trozo, pieza/ piece.”

INTRODUCTION

51

though less common in Ugaritic.246 In addition, because ᾿agzr is a four radical root, it could be interpreted as a nominal(ized) form, “the divider(s),” standing in apposition to its complement ym bn ym “... one day and another.”247 Thus one of the plausible translations of the epithet under consideration is “the dividers / the ones who divide between one day and another,” specifying the gods Šaḥru wa-Šalimu as those who separate the night from the day,248 which is consistent with their character and with their proper divine name(s) Šaḥru wa-Šalimu, “Dusk and Dawn.”249 This also fits their description as gods among those labeled ᾿ilm n῾mm having špt l ᾿arṣ // špt l šmm “(one) lip to the earth, (the other) lip to the heavens” (lines 61-62) (see above).250 However, the latter translation does not solve the problems created by the interpretation of ᾿agzr as “ravenous, 246 The same root appears in line 63, gzr: see Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 31, 154, who translate as “coupe, délimitation,” on the basis of the basic meaning “couper.” For discussion and bibliographic references see, Smith (2006), 65, 114-115, and Pardee’s review (2007b) in https://www.sblcentral.org/. On the controversial feminine ᾿agzrt (KTU3 1.13:2930) see de Moor (1980), 306; del Olmo Lete (1981), 52, 60; Caquot, TO II, 26, n. 35; Tropper, UG, 681, under 75.75; and the detailed commentary of Dietrich (2013), 94, 97-100 with bibliographic references and its discussion. 247 Compare the form ᾿agzr to the best attested Ugaritic divine epithet ᾿al᾿iyn b῾l “Ba῾lu the mighty one.” 248 See the references to Gray, Pardee, and Bordreuil above. For a completely different thesis, see Smith (2006), 68-72, who opposes the identification of Šaḥru wa-Šalimu with ᾿ilm n῾mm and regards the gods bearing this epithet as possessors of destructive powers. 249 I follow the approach adopted in my previous study of the divine epithets, and refrain from translating proper names except in such cases where the etymology of the name is obvious and its analysis useful for understanding the character and role of the deity to which the epithet refers (see DEUAT, xix-xx). Such is the present case with Šaḥru wa-Šalimu. Compare Rahmouni (2012), 58, n. 21. Contra the association of the Šaḥru wa-Šalimu with the morning and evening star, see Pardee, CS I, 282, n. 59. However, the identification of the latter divinity with ῾ṯtr (Venus), suggested by Wyatt and strongly criticized by Pardee (for the exact reference to both see n. 51 and 52, p. 137 above), has to be taken into consideration, given that I accept that the Ugaritic deity parallels the Ancient South Arabian ῾ṯtr, who is often associated with S1ḥr. Unfortunately the connection between the Ugaritic god Šḥr and the Ancient South Arabian god S1ḥr remains mainly etymological. Indeed, ASA s¹ corresponds, at least initially, to the sibilant /š/, thus šəḇā᾿ < Sabaic s¹b᾿, though it merged with /s/ (= ASA s³) beginning around the 3rd-century CE, thus ms³nd > ms¹nd ‘inscription’ (see Stein [2003], 17ff.; idem [2013], 42, under point 2.1.3). The trouble is that we lack data about the role of S¹ḥr. However, ῾Aṯtaru, although a minor deity in Ugarit, was a very important god in South Arabia, who was worshipped throughout the entire region and was the pan-South Arabian deity par excellence. In fact, S¹ḥr and ῾ṯtr (῾ṯtr w-s¹ḥr) are mentioned together in a number of inscriptions (see CSAI online under S¹ḥr and ῾ṯtr). This, and the fact that Ugaritic abecedaries in the South Arabian letter-order have come to light, indicate that there was some link between Ugarit and the ancestors of the Ancient South Arabian speaking peoples who settled in South Arabia. (Courtesy to my colleague George Hatke). Contrast Wilson-Wright (2016), 31-32. For a good survey on the South Arabian religion, see Bron (2008), 449-481; Gajda (2009); Robin (2015), 15-259. 250 Pardee, CS I, 282, n. 59.

52

INTRODUCTION

glutton”251 and bn ym as “the sons of the single day,” given that in every context mentioned above the latter expression is followed by ynqm b ᾿ap ḏd “who suck the nipples of the breasts of (᾿Aṯiratu),” which no doubt refers to the two newborn boys Šaḥru wa-Šalimu, also referred to in line 53 as yldy “two boys,”252 and in line 58 as᾿ilm n῾mm, illustrating both the progress of the story and the logic behind the epithets.253 Unfortunately, extra-Ugaritic material does not provide an exact parallel epithet for any of the interpretations, but the mythological separation between day and night is widely attested in Mesopotamia as well as in other Semitic sources. In Mesopotamia, the astral gods are the ones with the duty of separating one day from another, and day from night. Šamaš in particular is in charge of making the day and the night longer, as his descriptions and epithets show: murrik mūšāti “he who extends the nights,” which parallels mukarrû / murrik ūmēme/ [mu-]ur-rîk ūmumu “[He who the days] shortens”;254 and šumma UD UD.DA-su NU GÁL . . . ištu šēri adi līlāti birbirrī ul ukallam “if (during) the day there is no daylight, (this means Šamaš) does not make any brightness visible from dawn till night”;255 251 See DLU, 14; DULAT, 29 and the bibliographic references there. Because the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.23 parallels KTU2 1.12, the description of the goddess giving birth to the likewise gluttonous/devouring newborn lines 9-11, (9) kbdn . ᾿il . ᾿abn (10) kbd k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln (11) ṯdn . km . mrm . tqrṣn ( Compare KTU3 1.12:I:9-11, (10) kbdn . ᾿il . ᾿abn 10) kbd k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln . (11) ṯdn . km . t[[m]]rm . tqrṣn. See KTU3, 35, n. 2, “Lg. ᾿iš , Tropper, UG, 60.255?.”) “our innards, O ᾿Ilu our father, // (Our) innards, they consume like fire, // Our insides they gnaw like ...” could be used as an internal textual argument for the translation “gluttonous/devouring ones,” given that the latter context also refers to the voracious appetite of newborn puppies. As for the translation of mrm “puppies,” as derived from Akkadian mūru, it must be emphasized that the Akkadian word for “puppy” is mīrānu (CAD, M/2, 105–106), while the relevant meaning of mūru are “foal (donkey or horse), calf” (CAD, M/2, 229–230). On this distinction, see especially Held (1970), 32-40. Needless to say, the meanings “foal (donkey or horse), calf ” also do not fit the context of destructive gnawing. Therefore, there is no plausible translation of Ugaritic mrm at the present time. On KTU3 1.12: 9-11, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 3-4, n. 3, n. 4, n. 5; KTU3, 35, n. 2 “Lg. ᾿išt, Tropper, UG, 60.225?” Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 613-617 on the EA 151:55-57: É LUGAL URUUgaritki ikul ᾿išātum, “fire has consumed the royal palace of Ugarit.” 252 See n. 243, p. 50 referring to this translation. 253 This answers Pardee’s question in CS I, 282, n. 59: “Was the second narrative understood as signifying a replacement of the ‘boys’ by ‘gracious gods’ or as a strong image for the process of maturation?” 254 BWL pl. 33, pp. 126ff.; Schollmeyer, AfO 16, 046, pl. 7-8; Gray, Shamash Religious Texts pl. 01-02; Schollmeyer, Shamash 16; Tallqvist, AG, 32 under ‫ ארך‬II. 255 ACh Adad 33:8; see CAD Ṣ, 151. The Mesopotamian god Ninurta fulfills the same role: [muša]ḫli iklēti munammir eṭûti “(Ninurta) who makes the darkness bright, who fills the dusk with light,” JRAS Ccnt. Supp. pl. 2:2 (SB rel.); CAD E, 413; and ám . u4 . zal . la . ke(KID) gi6. gar . ra . z u : ša urri ana mūši taškunu “you who turned dawn into night,” SBH 77 No. 44: l8f.; CAD Š/1 118. Museum no. VA.Th 555 according to CDLI: https:// cdli.ucla.edu/search.

INTRODUCTION

53

[m]ukarrū ūmē murriku (var. -ka) mūšāti “(Šamaš) who shortens the days and lengthens the nights (in winter time)” (Lambert BWL 136:180).256 We find the opposite sequence to Šaḥru wa-Šalimu in Genesis 1:3-5, “evening and morning,” where this function is attributed exclusively to Elohim. The same is true in the Qur᾿ān, where the separation between day and night is one of the highest functions of ‫ﷲ‬/Allāh: for example Q. 7:54. َ ‫ َأ ْط َر‬... ᾿aṭrāfa n-nahāri Moreover, in the Q. 20:130, the expression ‫اف الن ََّها ِر‬ “... the two ends of day (lit. the limits of the day),” could be used as a Semitic precedent for the suggested interpretation of ᾿agzr ym bn ym given َ ‫َو َسبِّح ب َِح ْم ِد َرب‬ above: ‫س َو َق ْب َل ُغ ُروب َِها َو ِم ْن َءانآ ِء ال َّْي ِل َف َسب ِّْح‬ ِ ‫وع الش َّْم‬ ِ ‫ِّك َق ْب َل ُط ُل‬ َ ‫اف الن ََّها ِر َل َعل‬ َ ‫ َو َأ ْط َر‬/ wa-sabbiḥ bi-ḥamdi rabbika qabla ṭulū῾i š-šamsi ‫َّك ت َْر َضى‬ wa-qabla ġurūbihā wa-min ᾿ānā᾿i l-layli fa-sabbiḥ wa-᾿aṭrāfa n-nahāri la῾allaka tarḍā “Celebrate the praise of your LORD, before the rising and setting of the sun, celebrate His praise during the night, and at the beginning and end of the day, so that you may find contentment,” and Q. 113:1, ُ ‫ ُق ْل َا ُع‬/ qul ᾿a῾ūḏu bi-rabbi l-falaqi “Say [Prophet], ‘I seek ِ‫وذ ب َِربِّ الفَ َلق‬ refuge with the LORD of daybreak.’” Finally, I assume that the collocation of the two epithets ᾿ilm n῾mm and ᾿agzr ym bn ym thus involves the paronomasia ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods,” referring to Šaḥru wa-Šalimu as well as to other Ugaritic male and female divinities grouped under the latter epithet, while its parallel ᾿agzr ym bn ym “... the son of (a single) day” refers to the divine pair Šaḥru wa-Šalimu. It has therefore been excluded from this study. Another example of a dual goddess epithet excluded from this study is ᾿aṯt ᾿il “the two women (of ᾿Ilu)” (KTU3 1.23: 46-49).257 3.9 Deity Group Epithets and Appellations of Foreign Divinities Deity group epithets and appellations can reveal the nature of diplomatic relations between Ugarit and Hatti and Egypt. In Ugaritic correspondence invocations are limited to the local gods of Ugarit,258 but invocations to foreign deities accompanying the invocations to Ugaritic deities appear in Ugaritic correspondence to foreign powers, such as ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt,” in KTU3 2.23:20-24: (15) w . ᾿an[k . xxxxxxx]b (16) ᾿arš 256 CAD A/2, 225. For a newer translation of the Šamaš Hymn, see Foster (2005), 634, “Who can shorten the days and lengthen the nights.” 257 For more on this epithet, see above n. 58 and n. 59, p. 14; and Rahmouni, DEUAT, 234-235, n. 3. 258 Cf. Wyatt (1998), 25.

54

INTRODUCTION

[ . ḥy . l šp]š (17) mlk . r[b . b῾l]y . p . l . (18) ḥy . np[š . ᾿a]rš (19) l . pn . b῾[l . ]ṣpn . b῾ly (20) w . ᾿urk . ym . b῾ly (21) l . pn . ᾿amn . w . l . pn (22) ᾿il . mṣrm . dt . tġrn (23) npš . špš [ . ]mlk . (24) rb . b῾ly . “I recognize [the X of the Sun], the great [kin]g, [my] master [...]. And I[, for my part ...], address requests[for the X ... of] the gre[at] king, my [master]; moreover, [I add]ress requests for [his] lif[e] of Ba῾[lu] Ṣapunu,259 my master, and (address requests) that may master’s days might be long before Amon and all the gods of Egypt, that they might protect the life of the Sun, the great king, my master”260 or the like.261 The expression ᾿il mṣrm appears once in the Ugaritic corpus in diplomatic correspondence to the špš mlk rb “Šapšu, the great king,” addressed by ῾bd(k) “(your) servant” as b῾l(y) “(my) master.”262 For the epistolary genre there are no strict parallels, though the deity sequence b῾l ṣpn, ᾿amn, ᾿il mṣrm is significant: ᾿il mṣrm parallels the Ugaritic ᾿ily ᾿ugrt. Neither are common in Ugaritic alphabetic epistles.263 Furthermore, the formula ᾿ily ᾿ugrt appears in the 259 The translation here follows the agreed interpretation of b῾l ṣpn “Ba῾al Ṣapon/ Saphon” as the Ugaritic god Ba῾lu. See Eissfeldt (1968), 53-57; Liverani (1962), 32, n. 21; Linder (1970), 43 n. 202 and n. 203 on p. 158-159; Xella (1987), 114; Dijkstra (1987), 41-42; idem (1999), 157-158; Cunchillos, TO II, 310, n. 7; idem (1989), 214, 229, 231 and n. 1156; de Moor (1996), 229-230; idem (1997), 234-235, n. 119; Dietrich (1998), 184; Pardee, CS III, 100. Since b῾l ṣpn is composed of two common nouns, its classification as a divine name rather than an epithet seems logical: e.g., ršp bbt “Rašap of (the city) Bibita” (KTU3 1.105:25; 1.171:3). See Rahmouni, DEUAT, xx, under point IV and p. xxiii-xxv. Contrast Ahl (1973), 421, who translates “(the gods of) Ba῾a[l]-Ṣapan.” On a recent treatment of b῾l ṣpn among other deities, see Roche-Hawley (2012), 170; Spencer (2015), esp. 203216 and the references there. 260 The translation follows Pardee, CS, III, 100. 261 Pardee, CS III, 100, “all the gods of Egypt.” Eissfeldt (1963), 382; idem (1968), 54, “vor den Göttern Ägyptens / before the gods of Egypt”; Ahl (1973), 422, “the gods of Egypt”; Xella (1987), 114, “davanti agli dèi d’Egitto”; Dijkstra (1987), 41; idem (1999), 158, “the gods of Egypt”; following him, see, Korpel (1990), 98, n. 55; Cunchillos (1984b), 235; idem, TO II, 310, n. 10, “les dieux d’Égypte”; Verreet (1988), 145, “... der Götter von Ägypten”; Dietrich (1998), 184, “... den Göttern Ägyptens.” 262 This is the standard interpretation of the epistolary text here. For the recipient, see lines 1-2, as well as lines 7-10, [14-15] (despite the damaged state), lines 16-17, 19-20, 23-24 and the traces of lines 30-33. For the correspondent, see lines 3, 6, and the traces of lines 26, 27, 35. For the general discussion of the tablet, see Clemens (2001), 201-205 and the bibliographic references there. 263 On KTU3 2.42:6-9 see Clemens (2001), 234-245; contrast Pardee (1987), 205, n. 24, 207; idem, CS III, 104-105, n. 126 for discussion. On 2.44:6-10 see Clemens (2001), 245247; see also KTU3 2.23:15-24 with references to blessing by Egyptian and Ugaritic gods (see above). See Clemens (2001), 202, n. 298, 203, 1075-1078 under “Local deities” and 1081-1083 under “Invocation of Blessing and Curse.” On the national and international character of deity-invocation in epistolary formulas and rituals in general, see for instance Eissfeldt (1968), 55; Xella (1987), 112; Mettinger (1995), 54, n. 87; and Clemens (2001), 202-204, n. 298, 1000-1001, 1041-1046, 1065-1067, 1073-1076, 1079-1082, 1112 for discussion and bibliographic references. On the lingua franca of the Near East during the second millennium B.C.E., see e.g., Dassow (2004), 641-674.

INTRODUCTION

55

salutation, while ᾿il mṣrm occurs in the main body of the letter, contrary to common usage. This inconsistency has been interpreted as the result of the way the addressee wishes to emphasize his loyalty to Pharaoh: he makes a special point of invoking Amun and ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt” as well as the Ugaritic deities.264 Therefore, the repetition of the opening formula in the body of the letter through the mention of deities offers a more elaborate letter to Pharaoh.265 A comparable phrase is found in KTU3 2.16:4-5, in which the local Ugaritic national gods ᾿ily ᾿ugrt are invoked in the correspondence of an Ugaritic citizen to his mother while in Hittite country. By contrast, the phrase ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt” is used in the correspondence of an Ugaritic vassal king addressing the Pharaoh of Egypt and showing expressions of loyalty and concern.266 Therefore, the passage here might be considered a formula of loyalty that was perhaps also used in the Ugaritic king’s daily prayer or, more plausibly, in “State prayers” by the king.267 Furthermore, by appealing to the gods of Egypt along with the local national gods, the correspondent expresses the belief that only divine power is able to prolong the days of 264 See e.g., Dijkstra (1987), 41-42; de Moor (1996), 229-230; Clemens (2001), 203, n. 302; Pardee, CS III, 100. 265 Clemens (2001), 203-204 rejects the above, adding, “Alternatively, one might regard this as a concluding statement, possibly recapitulating elements of the opening salutation and invocation of blessing in keeping with the elaborate rhetorical style of the document; however, this hypothesis entails the supposition that the accepted orientation of the tablet should be reversed, which is rendered unlikely by ‘the presence of about 5 cm of blank tablet below the text on the traditional verso.’” In any event, by analogy with the international Ugaritic letters KTU3 2.76 and 2.81, the first line of the letter KTU3 2.23, w . k . rgm . špš “and as said Šapšu,” seems to be a continuation and not an opening phrase; see Dijkstra (1987), 41, n. 20; Liverani (1979), col. 1328-1329. Unfortunately the very damaged state of the text, especially the passage that precedes and follows the above (see KTU3, 180), precludes any certain conclusion. 266 Compare Exodus 12:12: ‫ ובכל־אלהי מצרים‬... “... to all the gods of Egypt.” 267 Compare with Spronk (1986), 117, n. 1; Dijkstra (1987), 41-42; idem (1999), 157-158; following him, de Moor (1996), 229-230; idem (1997), 234-235; Clemens (2001), 200-205. For comparative material on correspondents addressing the king through the invocations and supplications of some deity for the king’s long life, see Paul (1972), 351-355 and Kraus (1966a), 494, 498-500, and vv. 17.19 speaking of his eternal name in Psalm 72:17, ‫ לפני־שמש ינין ינון שמו‬// ‫“ יהי שמו לעולם‬Sein Name bestehe ewig; // solange die Sonne (scheint), sprosse sein Name // May his name be eternal; while the sun lasts, may his name endure (see JPS, 1500, n. b, ‘Meaning of some Heb. phrases in these verses uncertain’)”; see also KAI 26A:IV:2, šm ᾿ztwd ykn l῾lm “may the name of A. last forever” (cf. KAI 26C:V:5f.), see DNWSI, 494, 514, 860, 1168. Compare with the numerous Assyro-Babylonian prayers, e.g., the prayers for Sargon II (721-705), which are stylistically much more sophisticated than our Ugaritic correspondence: see Seux (1976), 527-530. See also the Samsu-Ilūna inscriptions by Sollberger (1969), 29-43, esp. 40. On the attempt to use the divine references in KTU3 2.23 to determine its historical period and religious background, see the discussion in Clemens (2001), 204-205 and the detailed bibliography and discussion; and Smith (2014a), 111, 430431, n. 103, 104, 105.

56

INTRODUCTION

his lord and to protect him from danger. The invocation of both the Egyptian gods and the Ugaritic gods suggests that the Ugaritian believer perceives divine power as extending beyond the borders of the Ugaritic state. The Ugaritic correspondent, by asking Ba῾al Ṣaphon for long life for the Egyptian Pharaoh, assumes that, like any Ugaritic king, the latter has received a divine promise for long life and blessings for his land and people.268 Another example of a deity group of foreign gods excluded from the present study is ᾿il ᾿alṯy “the gods of Alashia” of KTU3 2.42:6-8, ᾿ankn . rgmt . l . b῾l ṣp[n] (7) l . špš . ῾lm . l . ῾ṯtrt (8) l . ῾nt . l . kl . ᾿il . ᾿alṯy [. šlm] (9) nmry . mlk . ῾lm “I do pronounce to Ba῾lu-Ṣapuni,269 to the Eternal Sun, to ῾Aṯtart, to ῾Anatu, to all the gods of Alashi[a] (prayers for) the splendor of (your) eternal kingship.”270 The expression ᾿il ᾿alṯy “the gods of Alashia” appears once in Ugaritic alphabetic epistolary texts and refers to a group of non-Ugaritic divinities, coming at the end of a list of major Ugaritic deities. The sender, who most probably was an official chief of Ma᾿ḫadu,271 first evokes the major gods of Ugarit because he is addressing the letter to his chief, the king of Ugarit, then he mentions the official gods of the realm to which the correspondence would have been sent. This combination of deities from different pantheons, and some important Ugaritic divinities, with foreign deities grouped under the expression kl ᾿il ᾿alṯy “all the gods of Alashia,” reflects a certain freedom of belief within the Ugaritic religious world with respect to its neighbors.272 The 268 Contrast with Cunchillos (1984b), 235, 237; Dietrich (1998), 184, n. 91; Clemens (2001), 200-205; and the bibliographic references n. 267, p. 55. 269 Smith (2014a), 186, n. 28, 479; idem (2014b), 42, n. 37 and the bibliographic references there; see also n. 259, p. 54. 270 The translation follows Pardee, CS III, 104 and the corresponding footnotes for discussion and bibliography; see idem (1987), 205-206. See Virolleaud, PRU V, 15: “tous les dieux d’Alšy (Chypre),” see below. For a detailed bibliography and discussion of KTU3 2.42: 4-9, see Clemens (2001), 234-245, who translates “the gods of Cyprus,” but comments that this “is not self-evident”; Walls (1996), 38-39, esp. 38; Dietrich and Mayer (1997), 85, 88; Schwemer (2008), 30, n. 79 “the gods of the land of Alašiya”; Smith (2014a), 186, n. 28, 479; idem (2014b), 24, n. 38: “all the gods of Alishi[ya].” 271 Virolleaud, editio princeps. Pardee restores rb {mi᾿[ḫd]}, “the Chief of Ma’[ḫadu],” which he identifies as “the principal port of Ugarit, modern Minet el-Beida port town of the kingdom of Ugarit.” See Pardee (1987); idem, CS III, 104 n. 125; Smith (2014b), 42-43, n. 38 and n. 39. On the other hand, Singer (1999), 678, n. 242, claims that “The anonymous sender of the letter is probably a ‘harbourmaster’ who serves as an arbiter between merchants from Alašia and Ugarit, seeking to obtain the approval of the king of Ugarit for the transaction. It is only natural that in blessing his lord he should invoke the gods of both countries.” 272 Liverani (1979), col. 1303 correctly states that the invocation in this epistolary genre is “de style égyptien.” Compare the expression ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt” of the Ugaritic

INTRODUCTION

57

term ᾿alṯy as such also appears in Ugaritic cultic and economic texts.273 However, in every case the term refers to the toponym ᾿alṯy plus the -y of nisba. At present, the consensus identifies ᾿alṯy with all or a part of Cyprus.274 The correspondence between Ugarit and Alašia testifies to good relations between Alašia and Ugarit; according to Alašia correpondence Nr. 24, the king of Ugarit addresses the king of Alašia, (1) a-na LUGAL(šar) KUR A-la-ši-ia (2) a-bi-ia qí-bi-ma (3) um-ma(taḥam) LUGAL(šar) KUR U-ga-ri-it (4) DUMU-ka-ma (mārīkāma) “For the king of Alašia, my father, speak: The message of the king of Ugarit, your son (RS 20.238).”275 The component ᾿alṯy/t/n appears as a personal name in Ugarit.276 This is a clear case of a foreign religious tradition within the Ugaritic official religion and testimony to a non-Semitic population in Ugarit. In addition, it helps “tracing the crisscrossing of lines of cultural exchange that stretched epistle KTU3 2.23:20-24. Contrast Pardee (1987), 207, n. 27 and his criticisms of Liverani on his commentary to line 8. 273 See, for example, KTU3 1.40:12, 20, 29, 37; KTU3 1.84:5, 15, 20; and KTU3 4.149:8; 4.155:3; 4.343:3; 4.390:1; 4.705:9. Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1973), 80-81; Sanmartín (1989), 341; Pardee, TR, 117, 118 and the corresponding footnotes; Smith (2014b), 42, n. 38. 274 A decade of debate regarding the location of ᾿alṯy has finally reached a consensus. On this, see Alt (1942), 208; Nougayrol (1955), 141-146, esp. 144 for references and its discussion; idem (1968), 79, n. 4, 335; Güterbock (1967), 78, 80, n. 10; Berger (1969), 217, 220; Astour (1970a), 2, 6; idem (1975), 259, 340; idem (1982), 395 and his discussion on the location of Alašiya as suggested by Strange (1980) in his book on Caphtor/Keftiu. See also the convincing article on the location of Alašiya by Holmes (1971), 426-429 and the corresponding literature on the subject, with bibliographic references; Artzy, Perlman and Asaro (1976), 171ff.; Courtois (1979), col. 1257; Georgiou (1979), 84, n. 1, 85, 92-99; Muhly (1980), 157, 158, 160; Artzi (1984), col. 208, 210; Wachsmann (1986), 37-40; Merrillees (1987), 27-29, 31-47, 55-57, 63-64, 68-70, 73-74, esp. 71-72 for a detailed discussion and the problematic of the identification of Alašia’s location; Walls (1996), 38-39, esp. 38; see also Pardee, TR, 117, 118, n. 106 and 107 for more bibliographic references. Regarding the mythological and literary heritage shared between the Aegean and the ancient Near East, see López-Ruiz (2010), 1-47. For especial attention to the case of contact between Ugarit and the Mycenaean world, see Rougemont and Vita (2010), 123-143; Cline (2014), 2-3, 28, 88, 99-100, 104-108 and the corresponding footnotes on pp. 190-191, 133134, 187, n. 37, 191, n 20; for a detailed bibliography and its review, see Smith (2014a), 186, 340-342, n. 31; see recently Amadasi Guzzo et al. (2018), 78-81. Contrast Virolleaud (1940b), 272, 273, who states, “que la ville d’Alašia se trouvait en Haute-Syrie, plus rapprochée qu’Ugarit du Pays hurrite, et, par conséquent, au nord du royaume de Niqmad.” See also de Langhe (1945), vol. II, 25-28, 85; following him, van Selms (1954), 20, n. 34. See also Jirku (1950), 40-42: “Alashiya-Írs ... points to northern Syria as the most probable location for this country, since we can by no means find a bridge to Cyprus!” 275 Nougayrol (1955), 144; idem (1968), 79-89, esp. 87-89; Berger (1969), 217, 220; Astour (1970b), 120, 122, 127; Pardee, TR, 118, n. 108. 276 Gröndahl, PTU, 98; Astour (1970b), 122, n. 5; Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1973), 80-81.

58

INTRODUCTION

over the ancient Near East, and identifying the microprocesses of change, while simultaneously acknowledging the longue durée of the endeavor made by the ancient scholars to harmonize diverse bodies of tradition.”277

277 See Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 9. The Hebrew Biblical sources, especially the most archaic, establish divine plurality through the stated punishment for its people who worship the deities of other nations, e.g., Exodus 15; 1 Kings 11:2ff.; 2 Kings 17:29-31. See Burnett (2001), 66, 81, 87. See my commentary, n. 26, p. 102; n. 33, p. 176; n. 20 and n. 21, p. 182; n. 26, p. 239-240, n. 12, p. 258.

THE APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS

I

᾿AKLM “THE EATERS” (1.12) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.12:I:25-27 ḫl . ld 26 ᾿aklm . tbrkk 27w ld . ῾qqm

Writhe, give birth to the eaters, kneel,1 and give birth to the devourers.

2. KTU3 1.12:I:37 [[n]]wn . ymġy . ᾿aklm 37 w ymẓa . ῾q[[m]]qm

And now, he comes upon the eaters, and encounters the devourers.

3. KTU3 1.12:II:35 36 ᾿aḫd . ᾿aklm . k[

The eaters seized [...]

36

]

There is a consensus on the translation “(The) Eaters / Devourers,” or the like.2 1 Scholars are divided about the translation of tbrkk, some reading “may they bless you” (see for example Virolleaud [1935], 250, 254; Parker, UNP, 189, 191 n. 5; Sanders [2001], 437) or relate tbrkk to brk “to kneel” (see Ginsberg [1936a], 143, n. 12; Gray [1951], 149, n. 33; idem, LC2, 75, 77, n. 12; Oldenburg [1969], 200, n. 5; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 341, n. j and the bibliographic references there; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 482; Wyatt [1996], 222, n. 11). The latter interpretation, however, would mean that the -k in tbrk-k is the 2nd person object suffix. Tropper, UG, 430, parses the form by its definition as “... bezeugte Form tbrkk sprechen, offenbar eine PKkv 2.f.sg. mit PrS 2.f.sg,” and translates it “Knie du nieder.” Likewise Tropper, ibid., 63, also suggests that tbrkk is an example of a dittography. See Pardee’s electronic review of Tropper, p. 218; see also Renfroe, AULS, 24, n. 41. The semantic parallelism and verse symmetry suggest the latter interpretation to be the correct one. Likewise, Tropper, UG, 893-894, correctly regards this as “Asyndese von Verbalphrasen mit geteiltem Objekt in der Position nach den Verben ... ḫl ld – ᾿aklm ‘Kreiße und gebäre die Fresser’ 1.12:I:25f. (// tbrkk – w ld ῾qqm 1.12:I:26f. [syndetische Konstruction]).” Moreover, a parallel idiomatic usage is attested in BH, 1 Sam. 4:19: ‫“ ותכרע ותלד‬she crouched down and gave birth.” The crouching posture is adopted by oriental women during childbirth (see referenced bibiliography above). See Arabic ‫ برك‬/ brk, Ibnu Kaṯīr (2011), 51, ‫ أي سقط‬:‫ قال السهيلي‬... ‫فبرك الفيل‬ ‫ وقد قيل إن منها ما يبرك كالبعير فا﷽ أعلم‬،‫ وليس من شأن الفيلة أن تبرك‬،‫ إلى الأرض‬/ fa-baraka al-fīlu ... qāla s-Suhayliyyu: ᾿ay saqaṭa ᾿ilā l-᾿arḍi, wa-laysa min ša᾿ni l-fiyalati ᾿an tabruka, wa-qad qīla ᾿anna minhā mā yabruku ka-l-ba῾īri fa-llāhu ᾿a῾lamu. “And the elephant kneeled down ... S-suhayliyyu says: you mean ‘fell to the ground,’ because elephants do not kneel. It has been said that some of them kneel like camels; however, only God knows.” 2 Virolleaud (1935), 250; idem (1949), 96, “les Dévorants”; Dussaud (1936), 12, “les Okelim / les Dévorants”; Montgomery (1936), 227, 230, “eaters”; Ginsberg (1936a), 139,

62

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

PARALLELS Contexts: 1, 2: ᾿aklm // ῾qqm DISCUSSION The epithet ᾿aklm “eaters” occurs three times in the Ugaritic corpus and refers to an anonymous group of gods.3 In KTU3 1.12, two female divinities, subsequently explicitly named Tlš, “the maidservant of Yariḫ,”4 and Dmgy, “the maidservant of ᾿Aṯirat,”5 address ᾿Ilu describing their labor pain. Although much of KTU3 1.12 remains obscure, it is clear that a major theme of the text is the painful pregnancy and labor of a number of divine protagonists labeled by the epithets ᾿aklm and ῾qqm. However, the appearance of the two epithets just twice in the Ugaritic corpus in the same very damaged and obscure text makes the identification of the character, role, number, and members of the group of deities labeled ᾿aklm and ῾qqm uncertain.6 As mentioned above, some scholars7 correctly relate the general content of KTU3 1.12 and KTU3 1.23. Although the genre of these texts is different, both relate to the birth of deities or supernatural beings; KTU3 1.23 deals with the birth of the gods Šaḥru wa-Šalimu, and KTU3 1.12 contains 143, 144, “the Devourers”; Gaster (1938b), 42, 45, 46, 47, “Devouring Beasts”; Gray (1951), 149; idem, LC2, 77; idem (1971), 61-62, “the Devourers”; Løkkegaard (1955), 11, “(the) Eaters”; Driver, CML1, 70, 71, “devouring beasts”; Aistleitner, MKT, 55, 56, “die Fresser”; Oldenburg (1969), 200, “Devourers”; Gordon, UL, 54; idem, PLM, 123, “the Eaters”; Kapelrud (1969b), 320, “The Devourers”; van Zijl (1972), 255, “the eaters”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 327, 340, 342, “les Voraces”; du Mesnil du Buisson (1978), 60, “les Dévorants (proprement ‘les mangeurs)’”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 482, “los ‘Voraces’”; de Moor, ARTU, 131, “Devourers”; Renfroe, AULS, 24, 25, “the Devourers”; Wyatt (1996), 222; Parker, UNP, 188, 189, “the Eaters”; Sanders (2001), 437, “the hungry ones.” 3 The context of 3. above is very damaged, but the reading ᾿aklm is certain, and could be used as an argument that columns I and II belong together as one text. Scholars disagree on the subject of the verb ᾿aḫd. However, the context suggests the god Ba῾lu is the one initiating the action here. For different interpretations see Driver, CML1, 73, “The devouring beasts did seize him”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 346, “il a capturé les Voraces”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 484, “agarraron los ‘Voraces’”; de Moor, ARTU, 132, “he caught the Devourers like [...]” (Ba῾al); Wyatt, RTU, 165, “the eaters seized [...]”; Parker, UNP, 190, “Grasping the Eaters.” 4 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 81-83. On the etymology of the divine name Tlš as possibly Hurrian, see Dalix (2006), 56. 5 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 78-80. 6 Virolleaud (1935), 254; idem (1949), 96 regards them as two deities. See the reference to Wyatt below, n. 17, p. 63 and the corresponding bibliographic references there. 7 See, for example, MLC, 476, 477 and n. 6; Wyatt (1996), 222-223.

᾿AKLM “THE EATERS”

63

the birth of the divine beings ᾿aklm and ῾qqm, described in the first colon of the tablet.8 An additional intertextual argument for the divinity of the deities called ᾿aklm and ῾qqm is that the god ᾿Ilu names them, in conformity with Ugaritic theological custom. ᾿Ilu names them: ᾿ilm yp῾r šmthm “let El pronounce their names” (KTU3 1.12:I:28-29),9 and w p῾r . šm . ym “and he [᾿Ilu] proclaimed the name Yammu” (KTU3 1.1:IV:15). Furthermore, given that ᾿Ilu is addressed as a father by the two pregnant goddesses in the first lines of KTU3 1.12, he must also be the father of the deities called ᾿aklm and ῾qqm.10 Nevertheless, the precise identity of the group called ᾿aklm is debatable. Dussaud11 considers ᾿aklm and ῾qqm “animaux mythiques.” Ginsberg12 defines them as “half-brothers of Ba῾lu.” Gaster13 assumes they are “demoniacal monsters.” Gray14 thinks they are “bovine monsters,” and “the halfbrothers of Ba῾al, the brood of El and Aṯirat” and Kapelrud15 believes them to be “the desert locusts.” De Moor16 judges them to be “dragonlike demons.” While Wyatt17 considers ᾿aklm and ῾qqm “twin destructive / monstrous brothers,” and identifies them as “goats.” 8

Both terms suggest divine epithets rather than divine names. See DLU, 86; DULAT, 177. Virolleaud (1935), 254, “... un qualificatif plutôt qu’un nom”; Renfroe, AULS, 25 labels ᾿aklm as a “cognomen.” 9 Some scholars read ᾿ilm as “gods,” not “᾿Ilu”; see Virolleaud (1935), 250. Despite the disagreement, the divine character of the deities named is certain. 10 See Virolleaud (1935), 254, 256ff.; idem (1949), 96. Based on the description of ᾿aklm and ῾qqm mainly as ṯr “the oxen,” Virolleaud suggests that their father must be the head of the pantheon ᾿Ilu and consequently Ba῾lu their half-brother. See Gray (1951), 146, 154; Gray, LC2, 75-80; Wyatt (1976), 417. De Moor, ARTU, 130, n. 19 comments, “It is noteworthy that Ilu does not have intercourse with the two goddesses. He seems to engender the monsters by his authoritative word alone.” Indeed, the epithets of ᾿Ilu depicted him as the father god par excellence of the Ugaritic pantheon. See Rahmouni (2007); idem DEUAT, 359, 360, 362 for the epithets under the components (I) ᾿ab “father,” (II) ᾿ad “father,” and (XII) ᾿um “mother.” By analogy, the Mesopotamian minor gods of similar character were often offspring of a greater god. See Jacobsen (1976), 13, “the death warrants, beloved sons of the storm god, // born of the queen of the netherworld, ... spawn spawned by the god of heaven, sons born by earth are they.” See also Riley, DDD2, 236. 11 Dussaud (1936), 11, 12. 12 Ginsberg (1936a), 139. 13 Gaster (1938b), 42; idem, IDB I: 817-824, esp. 822-823. 14 Gray (1951), 146, 154; idem, LC2, 75-76. 15 Kapelrud (1969b), 324f.; see du Mesnil du Buisson (1978), 61-62 for criticism. Virolleaud (1935), 254 suggested a comparison with “les sauterelles” by analogy with BH. 16 De Moor, ARTU, 130, n. 18. 17 Wyatt (1976), 415-418 and the corresponding bibliographic references there; idem (1996), 223; see also Watson (2008), 361-365, esp. 364; see n. 10, p. 257, n. 32, p. 304.

64

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Indeed, the semantic transparency of the epithet ᾿aklm “eaters,” emphasized by its parallel ῾qqm, would mean “to devour.”18 The physical description of the divine entities with these epithets corroborates their monstrous and destructive character, KTU3 1.12:I:30-33, (30) bhm . qrnm (31) km . ṯrm . w gbṯt (32) km .᾿ibrm (33) w bhm . [[b]]pn . b῾l “they have horns like oxen, bulk like bullocks, and face like Ba῾lu”.19 Moreover, KTU2 1.12 describes the desert as the natural habitat of gods who bear the epithets ᾿aklm “eaters” and ῾qqm devourers.” Ugaritic literary text KTU2 1.12:I:911, (9) kbdn . ᾿il . ᾿abn / (10) kbd k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln . / (11) ṯdn . km . mrm . tqrṣn. states “our innards, O ᾿Ilu our father, // (our) innards they consume like fire, // our insides they gnaw like ... .”20 In this passage, the two goddesses Dmgy and Tlš complain to ᾿Ilu of their pregnancy sufferings. Here both k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln and its parallel tqrṣn must refer to a destructive consuming and gnawing and not to the innocuous nibbling of puppies,21 which implies the destructive and monstrous character even as puppies of the deities who bear the epithets ᾿aklm “eaters” and ῾qqm “devourers.” Though the character of the deities studied here seems obvious and implicit in the semantic value of the epithets and from the broader context of KTU3 1.12, the precise number of deities included in the epithets is uncertain. Virolleaud22 regarded them as two deities. Because of their ominous and monstrous character, Wyatt23 considers them twins. The thematic parallel between KTU3 1.12 and KTU3 1.23 makes the birth of two deities, Šaḥru wa-Šalimu, certain: the morphological -m, which could equally be dual or plural, and the complaints of the goddesses bearing them, encourages modern interpreters to see two gods in ᾿aklm and ῾qqm. Unfortunately, the data which we possess do not confirm this, although the broader context suggests that more than two gods are involved. In the ancient Near Eastern world view more generally, desert spirits were viewed as murderous and destructive. For example, in Hebrew Bible 18

Virolleaud (1935), 254. Dussaud (1936), 12, n. 2 compares them to Enkidu; see also Van Zijl (1972), 255. A description that eliminates the association of such deities with “the desert locusts,” was suggested by Kapelrud (1969b), 320-325, and adopted by other scholars. Analogous Mesopotamian deities were also depicted as winged bulls with human face: for example, Pazuzu, the wind demon of Mesopotamia. See Riley, DDD2, 237; Black and Green (2008), 147-148. 20 See n. 251, p. 52. 21 For a detailed philological analysis of k ᾿iš t᾿ikln and tqrṣn, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 4, n. 5. 22 Virolleaud (1935), 254; idem (1949), 96. 23 Wyatt (1996), 223-224. 19

᾿AKLM “THE EATERS”

65

Isaiah 13 Babylon is said to revert to a desert waste.24 The Akkadian cognate akālu “to ravage, consume, destroy,” is applied to numerous Mesopotamian gods. It is even attested as a divine epithet “Eater,” e.g., ākil elliti(m) kamān tumri “(Dumuzi) the eater of pure sweetened cake baked in ashes” (PSBA 31 62:15; dupl. BAM 4, 339:35).25 However, the latter does not correspond exactly to the semantic field implied by the epithet studied here. The monstrous character of the divinities labeled by the epithets ᾿aklm “eaters” and ῾qqm “devourers” is consistent with an association with the desert. Therefore, their comparison to the Mesopotamian demon and evil spirits is appropriate: Akkadian ilāni lemnūtu “the evil gods” (Livingstone 2007:122, line 9).26 Their identification with the Biblical Hebrew ‫( עזאזל‬Leviticus 16:7-13, esp. 8, 10) and the Qur᾿ānic ǧinn and/ or šayṭān “the demons/Saitan, Satan” seems only marginally plausible.27

24 See, for example, Riley, DDD2, 235-240, esp. 237 and the bibliographic references there. The desert dirt and impurity as expressed in Hittite parlance is described by Wilhelm (1999), 198, 199; cf. Pongratz-Leisten (2009), 415, n. 46, n. 47, 416. 25 For the specific semantic “to ravage, consume, destroy (said of gods, fire, and other agents),” see Köcher (1971); CAD A/I, 253-254, meaning 5a; CAD K, 110; CAD T, 472; Tallqvist, AG, 8. 26 See Tallqvist, AG, 14, 117; Johnson (1961), 25-26 and the corresponding footnotes. Gaster (1938b), 42, 45 n. 20 wrote, “They shall be in the category of the divine, just as are the evil demons of Assyrian belief. These likewise haunt the desert and are called ilâni limmûti, ‘bad gods.’” See also Gray (1899), 1078; Hundley (2013), 93-95 and the corresponding footnotes. 27 Haldar (1950), 14, 18, 35; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 340, n. i; du Mesnil du Buisson (1978), 61-62; de Moor, ARTU, 78, n. 377, 130, n. 16; Wyatt (1996), 222-223; Janowski, DDD2, 128-131. Indeed, in ancient Arabia jinns were considered semi-divine, the nymphs and satyrs of the desert. For the Qur᾿ānic jinn, and šayṭān, see Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 175-176, 485-486, 505. For more on the jinn as supernatural beings in popular folk with a Biblical background, see Rahmouni (2015), 57-61.

II

᾿AMHT “THE MAIDSERVANTS” (1.4) KTU3 1.4:III:21-22 17 dm . ṯn . dbḥm . šn᾿a . b῾l . ṯlṯ 18 rkb . ῾rpt dbḥ 19 bṯt . w dbḥ {. w dbḥ} 20 dnt w dbḥ . tdmm 21᾿amht . k bh . bṯt . l tbṭ 22 w bh . tdmmt . ᾿amht

Now there are two (kinds of) feasts (that) Ba῾lu hates, Three (that) the rider of the clouds (hates). A feast of shame, A feast of low quality, A feast where the maidservants misbehave. There, the shame was certainly seen, And in it was the misbehavior of the maidservants (visible).

All scholars render the epithet as “handmaids,” or the like.1 PARALLELS There is no parallelism between the epithet ᾿amht in lines 20 and 22. However, the tdmm + ᾿amht of line 20 and the tdmmt + ᾿amht of line 22 binds the lines semantically. DISCUSSION The epithet ᾿amht “maidservants” occurs twice in the same context in the Ugaritic corpus and refers to a group of Ugaritic goddesses,2 unless the ᾿amht present at the feast which Ba῾lu is said to hate are to be understood as human servants. This, however, seems implausible, given that 1 Albright (1934), 119, “the maid-servants”; Driver, CML1, 95, n. 5; Gibson, CML2, 58; Ginsberg, ANET, 132; Gaster, Thespis, 179, n. g; Gordon, PLM, 92; de Moor, ARTU, 50, “handmaids”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 201, “les servantes”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 198, “(las) esclavas”; Dietrich and Loretz (1986c), 448, “die Mägde”; Pardee, CS I, 258, “the female servants / les servantes”; Smith, UNP, 124, “maidens”; Wyatt, RTU, 96, “handmaidens”; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 463, “servant-girls.” 2 Concerning the sg. ᾿amt, pl. ᾿amht, Sivan, GUL, 34-35 comments that the consonant h serves to expand short words, as in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician (Sivan forgot to mention Arabic). See also Tropper, UG, 163, 296; Smith, UBC I, 235, n. 29; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 463, n. 6.

᾿AMHT “THE MAIDSERVANTS”

67

the passage speaks about a divine banquet.3 Both references to ᾿amht may well refer to the same group of deities; in fact, the epithet appears with the same verb, dmm, in two different forms, tdmm ᾿amht and tdmmt ᾿amht.4 The interpretation of dmm determines the character and role of the group of goddesses called ᾿amht “maidservants.” Two interpretations prevail among scholars. The first interprets tdmm(t) as “misbehave”5 and its parallel bṯt as “shame,” and dnt as “to be low, mean, vile”6 and referring simply to the humiliation of the god Ba῾lu in the divine assembly. The second7 interpretation adds a sexual nuance to the behavior of the 3

Compare Pardee (2004), 73-74 and the corresponding footnotes. Scholars are divided regarding the grammatical analysis and consequently the translation and interpretation of tdmm as a verb and tdmmt as a noun: Gibson, CML2, 58, “ ... where handmaids debauch ... / ... the debauchery of handmaids”; Gray, Thespis, 179, n. g, “lowbred bawdry (lit. ‘lewdness of handmaids’)”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 201, “un banquet où les servantes se conduisent mal”; Verreet (1984), 318, idem (1988), 139, “ ... die Mägde sich schlecht benehmen / und darin die Mägde sich schlecht benehmen”; Pardee, CS I, 258, “the female servants misbehave / misbehavior of the female servants.” Others consider both tdmm and tdmmt as nouns: see e.g., Driver, CML1, 95, n. 5, “the lewdness of handmaids”; Ginsberg, ANET, 132 and de Moor, ARTU, 50, “handmaid’s lewdness”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 198, “el sacrificio de lascivia con esclavas. / Pues en él la desvergüenza está de veras patente, / y en él son tratadas lascivamente las esclavas”; Smith, UNP, 124, “the lewdness of maidens”; Gordon, PLM, 92, n. 70, “the abuse of handmaids”; Wyatt, RTU, 96, n. 112116, “a sacrifice of shame, // and a sacrifice of whoredom, // and a sacrifice of the debauching of handmaidens. // For in it the shame is patent, // and in it are handmaidens debauched.” See also Albright (1934), 119, n. 82, “ ... the maid-servants whisper”; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 463 translate “the whispering of servant-girls.” Smith and Pitard, ibid, 476, 477, esp. 479 suggest, “it may be that the poet simply uses a masculine and a feminine form in the parallel passages for aesthetic purposes. It may also be the case that we have a scribal error in line 20 and that a t is to be reconstructed at the end of the word.” Contrast Dietrich and Loretz (1986c), 448, who interpret tdmm as a verb and tdmmt as a noun and translate “und eine Opferfeier des Tadels der Mägde!” 5 Scholars relate the interpretation of the Ugaritic dmm to their parallel bṯt and dnt (see n. 6, p. 67 for discussion and bibliography below). See Driver, CML1, 95, n. 5; Gibson, CML2, 58, n. 6; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 201. Smith, UNP, 170, n. 111 compared the expression to ‫“ הוא היה אומר מרבה שפחות מרבה זמה‬He used to say, ‘... The more maidservants, the more lewdness’” (Mishna Pirke Avot 2:7); del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 123, 135; DULAT, 252, 276-277 under bṯt I and dnt (I) and the bibliographic references there. 6 There seems to be a consensus relating bṯt to its Biblical Hebrew cognate bōšet “shame” (see the bibliographic references cited over this study). The Ugaritic dnt was related to Arabic ‫ دون‬/ d(w)n (see the interpretation above). See Gordon, UT, 386, no. 684; Driver, CML1, 154; van Selms (1954), 80; de Moor (1969), 188, n. 152; idem (1971), 92-93; del Olmo Lete (1978), 45-46; Dijkstra (1975), 563, n. 4; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 201, n. g; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT III/6, 1156; Pardee, CS I, 258, n. 144. De Moor, ARTU, 50, n. 223 suggests relating the term dnt to Hebrew ‫ דין‬/ ‫מדון‬, and translates “strife, contention” (see the next note). 7 See Gaster, Thespis, 179; de Moor, ARTU, 50, n. 224; Wiggins (1993), 52; Wyatt, RTU, 96; Tropper, UG, 271, 582; Marsman (2003), 446-447; see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 4

68

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

maidservants during the feast. A third option was suggested by Albright,8 who related the term tdmm(t) to the Biblical Hebrew ‫ דממה‬/ děmāmâ “whisper, mutter.” Smith and Pitard9 render the Ugaritic tdmm ᾿amht as “the whispering of servant-girls,” thus excluding sexual activities, which, based on the larger context, seems evident.10 Nevertheless, none of the three interpretations excludes rude and disrespectful behavior that might involve sex. The three parallel terms bṯt, dnt, and tdmm(t) plus ᾿amht suggest that the female servants are held in low esteem because they have questionable morals. Every translation suggested above for the term tdmm(t) and its combination with ᾿amht emphasizes the low status and the lewdness of the “handmaids,” which might be a form of “blaming the victim.”11 This could perhaps have been characteristic not only of the Ugaritic religion, but most probably of Ugaritic society in general. Furthermore, the singular component ᾿amt of the Ugaritic epithets ᾿amt ᾿aṯrt “maidservant of ᾿Aṯiratu,” and ᾿amt yrḫ “the maidservant of Yariḫu” (KTU3 1.12:I:14-17) refers to Dmgy and Tlš in a context with sexual overtones. In fact, both slave women, who have lower status than their corresponding deities ᾿Aṯiratu and Yariḫu, desired to be impregnated. The Sumero-Akkadian Geme-Sîn “The-maidservant-of-Sîn” occurs in the same line as the name of the bovine protagonist in the Akkadian birth incantation of love and impregnation.12 The translation of the epithet(s) ᾿amt/᾿amht as “maidservant(s), serving-girl(s)” designates the low status of such divine entities in relation to a superior god, in this context Ba῾lu, who is struggling to consolidate his status as one of the most important supreme gods 476-479 for discussion and bibliographic references. For the corresponding translation of the context studied here, see n. 4, p. 67 above. Against the latter view, see the references in n. 10, p. 68 below; Dietrich and Loretz (1986c), 447. Gordon, PLM, 92, n. 70 sees the first and second interpretations as options. 8 Albright (1934), 119; cf. van Selms (1954), 79-80, “vituperation.” 9 Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 463, 477-478. 10 Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 478 compare the treatment of the maidservants here to Ludlul bēl nēmeqi I:89-90; compare Foster (2005), 397, “My slave cursed me openly in the assembly (of gentlefolk) / My slave girl defamed me before the rabble.” The interpretation of Smith and Pitard that the defamation of the maidservants in our passages is being whispered among the females seems forced. In the Akkadian parallel the slave girls are not mentioned exceptionally but among many others: “brother, friend, comrade, colleague, best friend, slave, slave girl, acquaintance and family.” 11 Marsman (2003), 124, 170, 437, 441, 446. The term ᾿amtu in Akkadian designates the low status of a slave concubine in Mesopotamian society, and implies that a slave woman had no authority over her own sexuality. Compare to the semantic of the Classical Arabic ‫ أمة‬/ ᾿amatun “maidservants/slave,” see p. 69. 12 On both epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 78-83; Marsman (2003), 438-439, 445, 454, 693, 694, 726-727.

᾿AMHT “THE MAIDSERVANTS”

69

of the Ugaritic pantheon. Moreover, the singular ᾿amt appears in parallel with ῾bd “servant, slave” and ῾nn “servant, attendant,” in the Ugaritic mythological context KTU3 1.4:IV:59-61.13 The corresponding Akkadian amtu “the maidservant” occurs as a divine epithet component;14 and the Hebrew cognate singular ‫ אמה‬refers to Hagar as “slave-wife (of Abraham)” (Genesis 21:12. Cf. Gen. 21:10,13).15 Moreover, the Classical Arabic ‫ الأ َ َمة‬/ ‫᾿ أما‬amā / al-᾿amatu “slave-servant,” corresponds etymologically and semantically to the Ugaritic ᾿amt, and, as in Ugaritic, such women are reputed to be promiscuous, e.g., ‫ماء فلا‬ ُ ‫أما ال ِإ‬ ‫ إِذا تَرامى َب ُنو ال ِإ ْموانِ بالعار‬// ‫ يدعونني ولدا‬/᾿ammā l-᾿imā᾿u fa-lā yad῾ūnanī waladan // ᾿iḏa tarāmā banū l-᾿imwāni bi l-῾āri “as for the slavewomen, they should not call me son // when slavewomen’s children are thrown with shame/dishonor/disgrace.”16

13 See Renfroe, AULS, 23-24; on KTU3 1.4:IV:59-61; see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 495, 524-525. The Ugaritic ᾿amt is not attested as “messenger,” which would have been parallel to the Ugaritic ῾nn; see pp. 254-255. However, the etymological and semantical Old Babylonian equivalent ᾿amātum is attested occasionally as “(female) messenger(s),” in the service of other women, see Meier (1988), 16, n. 8; idem (1991), 540-547. 14 To the best of my knowledge, the Akkadian ᾿amātu is never used as a divine epithet for a group of female Mesopotamian divinities. For some epithets composed from the singular amtu, see CAD A/II, 84, meaning 2’; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 80, 82-83. 15 For the semantic equivalence of the Biblical Hebrew ‫ אמה‬and ‫שפחה‬, together with a discussion of all the ancient Semitic cognates of the Biblical ‫( אמה‬Ugaritic ᾿amt and Akkadian amtu) and a full discussion of the relevant usages in these languages, see Cohen (1978-79), xxv-xxxiii; idem (2003), 239-257; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 80, n. 8. 16 Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 145ff.; and n. 13, p. 69 above for discussion and bibliographic references.

III

᾿ IL BLDN “THE GODS OF THE LAND” (1.91, 1.162) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1. 91:6 ᾿il᾿ib ᾿il bldn 

5 6

᾿Ilu᾿ibi; the gods of the land

2. KTU3 1.162:1 1 2

dbḥ ᾿il bldn nskt ql῾ 3 ᾿il᾿ib .

A sacrifice to the gods of the land: A shield of precious metals for ᾿Ilu᾿ibi1

There is no consensus on the translation of ᾿il bldn. Most scholars2 read it as “the Gods-of-the-Land / the country,” or the like. Others3 translate it as “the God of Injustice,” or similarly. PARALLELS There are no strict parallels to this in ritual texts. However, the sequence of this group of gods and the ᾿il᾿ib is significant. 1

The translation here follows Pardee’s literally (RCU, 85, 112, n. 119); see also TR, 895, n. 3. Contrast del Olmo Lete, CR1, 96; idem, CR2, 74 reads “the offering of the shield.” 2 Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 44, 46; Pardee, TR, 489, 491, 503; idem, RCU, 214216, “dieux du pays/the Gods-of-the-Land”; Tropper (2008), 24, “Got/Götter des Ortes(?).” However, Caquot (1979), col. 1405 translates “dieux de notre pays” but comments, “à moins qu’il ne s’agisse d’un lieu ou d’un moment appelé ldn.” Following him, Xella, TRU, 341, “il dio/gli dèi del nostro paese?”; del Olmo Lete (1987a), 15, n. 14, “‘dioses de nuestro país’, los dioses protectores y dinásticos.” See idem, CR2, 74, 76, 213, 216, “the gods of the country.” On the other hand, de Tarragon (1980), 168 reads the 1 context “ ... à El, au ldn,” and classifies ldn as a divine name (NPD), commenting, “ldn peut être un toponyme, mais il n’est guère attesté. Dans les textes économiques ... on trouve un ldn qui est plutôt un nom propre de personne.” De Tarragon, TO II, 175, n. 106 translates ᾿il bldn of the second context as “(au) dieu-bldn.” 3 De Moor (1970a), 198, no 11, comments “the element bldn migh have been borrowed from Akkad. bêl dīni.” Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 322, n. 6a, “(für) Il Bēl-dīni,” that is “‘Göttlicher Gerichtsherr,’ ein aus dem Babylonischen entlehntes Epitheton (vgl. AHw, 119).” The latter must be rejected.

᾿ IL BLDN “THE GODS OF THE LAND”

71

DISCUSSION The phrase ᾿il bldn appears twice4 in the Ugaritic corpus. In both contexts it obviously refers to a divine entity. However, whether the term refers to one or to a group of deities remains debatable.5 Its appearance in the first context among such well-known Ugaritic deities as ᾿il᾿ib and pdry adds further difficulties. In the second context, KTU3 1.162:1, ᾿il bldn heads a list of important Ugaritic deities, such as ᾿il᾿ib, ᾿il, b῾l, dgn, yrḫ, ym, each with its corresponding sacrifice, while ᾿il bldn receives no sacrifice but one non-bloody offering. The latter suggests that ᾿il bldn might simply be a title for the list of dieties with corresponding sacrifices. Indeed, the fact that ᾿il bldn has not received a specific sacrifice tends to confirm this. In contrast, the expression dbḥ ṣpn of KTU3 1.148:1 heads a list of some important Ugaritic deities, but receives a specified sacrifice.6 The correspondences between KTU3 1.148 and KTU3 1.162, and the analogy between dbḥ ᾿il bldn and dbḥ ṣpn, suggest that ᾿il bldn is also an appellation for a group of deities.7 Pardee8 points out that ᾿il bldn and ᾿il ṣpn indicate two different pantheons, though some of the gods mentioned under the two titles are the same. The component bldn could be parsed in one of the following ways: (1) as corresponding semantically and etymologically to the Classical Arabic buldān (‫ جمع التكسير‬/ a broken plural of ‫ بلد‬/ balad) meaning “land, country”; (2) as appealing to the Ugaritic and the common Semitic pattern baladān /qatalān/ and read as “land or country”;9 (3) as read -n as the first 4 Pardee, TR, 850, 851, 853 translates RS 78/4:3, “les dieux du pays,” and comments, “Ligne 3. Sans que l’on puisse en être certain, la restitution de ([il]⌜b⌝ld) se recommande par la place qu’occupe le théonyme, proche du début de la liste sacrificielle, ou peut-être tout au début s’il y avait rupture entre les lignes 2 et 3. La restitution comporte pourtant une différence par rapport à la formule ᾿il bldn attestée en RS 19.015:6 et en RS [Varia 20]:1, à savoir l’absence du suffixe -n.” Pardee refrains from integrating the restoration of ᾿il bldn in his collation, and so the latter context is ignored here. KTU3 1.173:3 reads [ ]xld. The Ugaritic bldn occurs twice in economic texts, KTU3 4.307:11 and 4.320:15. PRU II, 70, No. 43–17.444: A 3 and 86, No. 43–17.384:11. Watson (1995a), 220, n. 51 based on Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 44, 46 suggests that in these contexts bldn means “land, country.” The assumption of Gröndahl, PTU, 20, 116, 123, 380 that bldn is an anthroponym from b῾ldn [ba῾al adūni / a-du-ni-ba῾al (du)/ba῾al-danu] must be rejected. 5 See Pardee, TR, 502-503 for a detailed discussion and bibliographic references. 6 Contrast del Olmo Lete, CR2, 76, n. 47. 7 See my discussion of ᾿il ṣpn here pp. 83-86, 294, 302-303, 309-310, 320. Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 46-48; Pardee, TR, 503, n. 53. 8 See Pardee, TR, 503, n. 54 and 55 and the corresponding bibliography references and its discussion; contrast del Olmo Lete (1987a), 15, n. 14; idem, RC, 174, n. 13. 9 Sivan, GUL, 64; Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 46; Tropper, UG, 257, 823; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 76, n. 47.

72

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

person possessive plural bld-n and translated “our country”10 (although this grammatical usage is uncommon in the cultic and ritual genre11); or (4) read with -n as a nominal determinative and translated bld-n as “the country.”12 Aistleitner13 was the first to relate the Ugaritic bld to Arabic ‫ بلد‬/ balad “Stadt, Land?” a suggestion that is still accepted today.14 In fact, most scholars15 analyze bldn as an original adjectival form bld + -ān related etymologically and semantically to Arabic ‫ بلد‬/ balad “land, country,” and consider the nominal suffix -ānu a grammatical construction proper to Ugaritic nouns and divine names – e.g., špš / špšn; ᾿ily / ᾿ilyn; ῾bd/῾bdn; ᾿al᾿iy/᾿al᾿iyn.16 The Ugaritic term bld appears once in the Ugaritic corpus: KTU3 1.22:I:1819, in the passage yn bld ġll, a phrase alluding to some kind of wine. However, the definition of bld as “land or country” in this passage is uncertain, given that there is no attestation in the Ugaritic data of ġll as a toponym. Thus the translation of yn bld ġll as “the wine of the country/land/ district Ġll” is philologically possible, but indemonstrable.17 Despite this, the option of defining bld as “land, country” and relating it to the Arabic ‫ بلد‬/ balad seems correct. Because of the lack of data, Bordreuil and Pardee18 appeal to the above contexts and comment, “... en faveur de l’interprétation de bld- comme ‘le pays’ peut-on citer le fait que toutes les divinités de la liste sont bien ouest-sémitiques et qu’en tête se trouve ᾿Ilu᾿ibī, ‘le dieu du père.’” Following this line of thought, the deities that might be included under the title ᾿il bldn according to the KTU3 1.91 and 1.162 are ᾿Ilu᾿ibi, Ba῾lu, Dagānu, Yariḫu, ῾Anatu, Pidrayu, ῾Aṯtartu, and Rašpu. Nevertheless, based on the available Ugaritic textual 10

Caquot (1979), col. 1405; Xella, TRU, 341. Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 76, n. 47. 12 Contrast del Olmo Lete, CR2, 76, n. 47. Dietrich and Loretz (1990), 104 state, “-n ... erstens wird es nur an Nomina im Sg. angehängt, die Subjekt im Satz sind, und zweitens kann in Omensammlungen inhaltlich kein direkter Bezug auf die Mitmenschen des OmenSammlers und -Deuters im vorhinein intendiert sein.” 13 Aistleitner, WUS, 49, no. 519. For the common Semitic noun bld “pays plat, terre, sol.” See Cohen (1976), 66. Blachère, Chouémi, and Denizeau (1970), 791 state that the origin of the Arabic term ‫ بلد‬/ balad is unknown but point out that bld appears in Ugaritic. 14 See the bibliographic references included here. 15 For bibliographic references, see n. 4, p. 71 above. See also DLU,108; DULAT, 222, who defines bldn as n.m. meaning “país/land” with no question mark; see also Tropper (2008), 24, “Ortschaft, Stadt(?).” 16 Gordon, UT, 63; Tropper, UG, 823-825; Sivan, GUL, 73-74. 17 For the Ugaritic bld in general and its treatment in the phrase yn bld ġll (KTU3 1.22:I:1819), see Cohen (1976), 66; Renfroe, AULS, 90; Wyatt, RTU, 323, n. 51, 52 with detailed bibliographic references therein; Kogan (2015), 324, n. 954. 18 Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 42, 44, 46-48, n. 50. 11

᾿ IL BLDN “THE GODS OF THE LAND”

73

data, the expression ᾿il bldn means “the gods of the land” and in a larger sense semantically parallels the group of Ugaritic divinities mentioned in the syllabo-logographic texts of Ugarit, namely DINGIRmeš ša kuru-ga-riit / ilū ša mātUgarit “the gods of the country/land Ugarit” (RS 15.24:6-7), a phrase which in turn corresponds to the epithet ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” (KTU3 2.16:4-5).19 The Ugaritic bldn semantically parallels the geographic Akkadian term mātum, which occurs as a divine epithet component, analogous to the Ugarit ᾿il bldn; note e.g., ilī (for ilū) mātim ištarāt mātim “the gods and goddesses of the country” (ZA 43 306:5 [OB rel.), ilū ša mātim išaqqû “the gods of the country will become important” (YOS 10 11 ii 19 [OB ext.]). It seems that bldn is also attested in some Ugaritic texts as a component in personal names.20

19

On this epithet see pp. 112-114, 299, 310-311, 320. See also Nougayrol, PRU III, p. 18 (RS 15.24+50):5-7, ilānumeš ša kuramur-ri // ilānumeš ša kuru-ga-ri-it // ù ilānumeš ša-a šarri bēli-ka // a-na šul-ma-ni liṣṣururuka “the gods of Amurru, // the gods of the country/ land Ugarit, // and the gods of your lord the king, // may they protect you and see to your welfare!” Cf. del Olmo Lete (1987a), 15, n. 14; idem, RC, 174, n. 13; idem, CR2, 175ff., 216, n. 13; Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 46-48; Pardee, TR, 503, n. 53. 20 See e.g., DULAT, 222; McGeough and Smith (2011), 153, 163.

IV

᾿ IL DDMM “THE GODS (OF) DADMIMA” (1.148) 1. RS 24.643 (=KTU3 1.148:43)1 ᾿il] (43) [dd]⌜m⌝m š . ᾿il lb[-]⌜n⌝ š

For [the gods (of) Da]dmima a ram; for the gods of Lab[a]na a ram

Most scholars prefer to leave ᾿ilm ddmm untranslated.2 PARALLELS The sequence of the group of gods ᾿il ddmm and ᾿il lb[-]n is significant (see below). DISCUSSION The expression ᾿il ddmm appears once in the Ugaritic corpus in a damaged context and in association with the expression ᾿il lb[-]n, which makes its collation and interpretation more plausible. Most scholars3 read the term as ᾿ilm ddm, though Pardee,4 from the epigraphical data and the equivalent version written in syllabo-logographic cuneiform, suggests ddmm. In any case, the last version KTU3 returns to the classical collation of ᾿ilm ddm.5 The Ugaritic ᾿il ddmm would be equivalent to the syllabo-logographic cuneiform version DINGIR.MEŠ da-ad-me-ma (RS 26.142:16’ = RS 92.2004:34),6 which supports Pardee’s suggestion. 1 The reading follows Pardee, TR, 786, Bordreuil and Pardee MO II, 60. KTU3 1.148: 43 reads [᾿il .d]dm . š . ᾿il . lb[n]n š . 2 Xella, TRU, 94, “il ddm”; de Tarragon, TO II, 228, “[dieu de Da]dma”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, “die Götter von Da]dme”; Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 106, 110, “{the gods of} Dad]mima”; Pardee, TR, 788, “les dieux de Dadmima.” Later, however, Pardee, RCU, 49 translates “the Gods-of-[the-La]nd-of-Aleppo.” 3 Also already the first version of KTU1, 146, [il.d]d*m.š.il.lb[n]n• š.x[ ]; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, n. 43 a); Xella, TRU, 92; Astour (1987), 49, n. 340; de Tarragon, TO II, 228. 4 Pardee, TR, 784, 804, n. 130. 5 See KTU3, 153. 6 See Nougayrol (1968), 321; Xella, TRU, 100; Astour (1987), 49, n. 340; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, n. 43 a; Pardee, TR, 784; Roche-Hawley (2012), 162, 169; Arnaud, RSOu XIV, 324, 325.

᾿ IL DDMM “THE GODS OF DADMIMA”

75

Nevertheless, ddmm could still include single or collective deities, even if scholars7 generally agree that collective deities are meant here. Two other Ugaritic terms, ddm᾿iš and ddmy, could be etymologically related to ddm(m). Both forms appear exclusively in the ritual genre:8 ddm᾿iš appears mostly in the lists of gods and seems to refer to a Ugaritic single divinity;9 while ddmy is interpreted as gentilic, most probably related to the toponym ddmm, referring to a collective divinity.10 Scholars suggest two alternative locations for the toponym ddmy: the Ionian city Didyme,11 and the Mesopotamian/Transtigridian city Dadmuš.12 7 With the exception of de Tarragon, ibid.. For bibliographic references, see n. 2, p. 74 above. 8 ddm᾿iš: KTU3 1.47:28; 1.58:3 [partially reconstructed]; 1.109:18; 1.118:27; 1.130:29; 1.148:8; ddmy: 1.40:11, 28, 37; 1.84:4, 15 [reconstructed], 20 [reconstructed]. 9 Nougayrol (1968), 57-58, 248-249, n. 7; Laroche (1980), 70; Xella, TRU, 53, commentary to line 18; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 129-130 and DULAT, 266 and the bibliographic references there; Roche-Hawley (2012), 160, 170, 173. 10 Dhorme (1931), 38 under notes to line 29 and 30; Nougayrol (1968), 322; Xella, TRU, 265 commentary under lines 11-12; Weippert (1969), 48, n. 88; de Moor and Sanders (1991), 293, n. 77; van Soldt (1994), 373, n. 60; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín (see the previous note for the reference). Pardee, TR, 116, 805, n. 131 compares the gentilic form to mṣrm/mṣry. 11 Dhorme (1931), 38; idem, (1937), 111, “Ddm la ville de Didyme et dans son dieu l’Apollon de Didyme”; following him, Montgomery (1935), 91, “... Ddmy, was connected by Dhorme with the alleged Greek Didymaeas”; Hrozny (1932), 176-77, “ionien ... Didyme/le clan du Didyméen”; Gelb (1944), 20, “(Didymean?)”; de Langhe (1945), vol. II, 77, 78, “le nom de la ville de Didyme près de Milet”; Gray, LC2, 204, “the Didymites,” with no further commentary; but later idem, (1966), 188 renders simply “Ddmy.” 12 According to Virolleaud (1936d), 39-40, “Mais si ddmš se comprend difficilement, il n’est pas nécessaire d’aller chercher jusqu’en Ionie l’explication ou l’étymologie de ce nom, puisque les textes cunéiformes mentionnent un pays de Dadmuš, qui se trouvait dans la région du Haut-Tigre (Reallexikon der Assyriologie, II, 97b) et que, précisément, les noms qui suivent celui de Ddmy, dans 1929, no 2, désignent tous nettement, y compris Alšy, des pays du Nord, et d’ailleurs les conclusions qu’on a tirées de ce rapprochement de Ddmy = Ddmš = Didyméen, à savoir que ‘la colonie égéenne d’Ugarit aurait été composée spécialement par des Ioniens originaires de Didyme’... .” Cf. Schaeffer (1933), 118, n. 1 but here with no reference to ddmš but to the Ionian colonies among others; idem, Ug. I, 101-102 comments “... on trouve une énumération d’éthniques, parmi lesquels deux ont été considérés comme désignant des populations grecques. Pour l’un, écrit Ddmj ... on a proposé la traduction ‘clan du Didyméen’, c’est-à-dire gens originaires de Didyme près de Milet. ... Avec plusieurs autres groupes ethniques, ce clan des Ddmj et celui des Yman auraient été expulsés d’Ugarit. ... Jusqu’ici nous n’avons pas trouvé de trace parmi nos matériaux archéologiques du XIVe siècle de cette révolution qui aurait chassé d’Ugarit avec plusieurs autres tribus étrangères le clan des Ddmj et celui des Yman. Au contraire à l’époque où se placerait cet événement, l’influence mycénienne et chypriote, autant que nous pouvons en juger actuellement, semble s’être développée à Ugarit sans difficulté”; Dussaud (1941), 76, “Dadmush, sur le haut Tigre (ddmy, d’après Virolleaud).” George (1993), 40-41, 43, 144, no. 1032 in his up-to-date gazetteer of the ceremonial names of the temples of Sumer and Akkad, and of Babylonia and Assyria includes “é.šaga.ra, ‘House which Smites (?) the Wronged,’” temple of Ištar at Dadmuš (CTL 381; TL no. 3, 25’). On the deity ddmš, see Pardee, TR, 308, n. 100, 101, and 102 and the bibliographic references there.

76

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The latter identification poses difficulties, given that the Ugaritic form ddmš suggests a divine name rather than a toponym13 and its relationship to the term ddm(m) is doubtful.14 Consequently, based on the Akkadian data, most scholars15 reject the two locations suggested above and instead interpret ddm(m) as a toponym meaning simply “an inhabited world/country/ district.” Pardee16 states that “la position du terme dans ce texte, entre qṭy et ḫry, favorise une localisation dans la Syrie du Nord ou en Anatolie du Sud-Est.” Earlier Durand17 related the Ugaritic ddmm to the Amorite dadmun “le royaume, c.-à.-d. le pays d’Alep ... Cf. ‘L’Assemblée en Syrie, à l’époque pré-amorite.’” In my opinion, the combination of ddmm and lb[-]n favor the last suggestion of Durand, which, however, due to the lack of data, is far from certain.

13

See Krebernik (2013), 205, n. 106; cf. Pardee, TR, 292, 308. See the previous n. 11 and n 12, p. 75. Pardee, TR, 116, n. 94. 15 See the commentary by Schachermeyr (1935), 114; Nougayrol (1968), 322, “des dieux protecteurs des lieux habités”; Aistleitner (1954), 264; idem, MKT, 105, n. b; idem, WUS, 76, no. 734, “Unbekannt ist die Lage von ddm ... ein unbekanntes Volk”; Weippert (1969), 48, n. 88, “Unbekannt sind ddmy (wohl auch Gentilizium); Xella, TRU, 265, “Didima.” Van Soldt (1994), 373, n. 60 classifies Ddm with Qṭy and Qrzbl as unidentified toponyms and gentilics (cf. Belmonte [2001], 63 [courtesy J-P. Vita]); idem (2005), 17, 160, 172-173, 235, comments on Dumatu and does not include ddm(m) as a toponym. Sayce (1932), 46 suggested Didyma was “evidently the Assyrian dadmu, ... The word signifies ‘an inhabited district’ or ‘place’ (alâni, makhazu, and esrêtum in a syllabary), the plural being used in the Assyrian texts in the sense of ‘civilized mankind’”; (against Sayce see Weippert, ibid). Van Selms (1971), 237-38, “A derivation from Babylonian dadmū ‘settlements’ seems improbable and in any case is of no avail for an identification”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, n. 43 a), “Eine Lokalität.” 16 Pardee, TR, 116, n. 96 and the references there. 17 Durand (1989), 29-31 for early detailed discussion; idem (1990), 274-75, n. 11. See the reference in Pardee, TR, 804-805, n. 131 to n. 133. 14

V

᾿ IL ḪYR “THE GODS (OF THE MONTH) ḪIYYĀRU” (1.148) KTU3 1.148: 23 ᾿il ḫyr .  ᾿il᾿ib . š  24 ᾿arṣ w šmm . š 23

The gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru:  for ᾿Ilu᾿ibi a ram; for ᾿Arṣu-wa-Šamûma a ram

Most scholars agree to translate᾿il ḫyr as “The gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru,” or the like.1 PARALLELS For the ritual genre, there are no strict parallels. However, the sequence and the order of the deities under this title, i.e., ᾿il᾿ib, ᾿arṣ w šmm, ᾿il, kṯrt, dgn, b῾l ḫlb, b῾l ṣpn etc. is significant.2 DISCUSSION The expression ᾿il ḫyr appears once in the Ugaritic corpus in KTU3 1.148:23, which contains an independent section of Ugaritic ritual practice. An adequate interpretation of ᾿il ḫyr is the key for understanding not only the discussed divine appellation per se, but crucial to the interpretation of the ritual practice and pantheon(s) of the Ugaritic religion in general.3 1 Herdner (1978), 15, “dieux (du mois) de Ḫiyar”; Gray (1978), 100, “the god ḫyr (the god who presided over that month”; Xella, TRU, 92, 93, “Dèi (del mese) di ḫyr”; de Tarragon (1980), 22, “la divinité/le dieu ḫyr  ?” or “El (du mois) ḫyr”; later TO II, 227 changes his mind and translates “dieux (célébrés au mois) de ḫyr”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 307, “(Für) die Götter des (Monats) Ḫiyar”; del Olmo Lete (1988a), 13; idem, RC, 91; CR1132 and CR2, 105, “ (... los) dioses de(l mes) Ḫiyyaru”; Pardee, (1992), 169; idem, TR, 787 and RCU, 48, “les dieux (du mois de) Ḫiyyāru/The gods of the month Ḫiyyāru.” With the exception of Astour (1966), 281, “the kind, or benevolent, god.” 2 For the full list and its plausible cuneiform Mesopotian parallel, see Roche-Hawley (2012), 173-74 under “annexe 2 : Listes de la Série 1.” 3 See the detailed study of this text in Pardee (1992), 153-170; idem, TR, 778-806; idem, RCU, 44-49; contrast with del Olmo Lete, RC, 88-94; idem, CR1; idem, CR2, esp. 101-111; idem, (2004), 629-631, esp. 631 in his review of Pardee. For the Hurrian passage between lines 13 and 17, see Lam (2006), 399-413.

78

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The appellation ᾿il ḫyr is composed of two components in a construct chain typical of divine epithets. The first component ᾿il is a plural “the gods of ...,” followed by the noun ḫyr, the attested meaning of which as “the month of Ḫiyyāru” is agreed upon by scholars, though the construction ᾿il ḫyr in the above context is a hapax legomenon. Scholars have discussed whether the term refers to one or to a group of divinities.4 The expression ᾿il ḫyr appears heading a list of important Ugaritic deities like ᾿il᾿ib, kṯrt, dgn, b῾lm, lesser known ones such as ᾿arṣ w šmm, ġrm w thm, and unknown deities and groups of divinities, like ṯrṯy, šgr w᾿iṯm,᾿il ddmm, ᾿il lb[-]n, each with its corresponding sacrifice. The fact that ᾿il ḫyr receives no sacrifice has led some scholars to deny its divinity. For instance, de Moor5 suggests that ᾿il ḫyr is not a deity receiving an offering, but the month in which the following sacrifice took place, saying that “a rendering ‘the gods of Ḫiari’ is improbable.” Gray6 insisted that ᾿il ḫyr refers to one individual deity, but classified ḫyr as an appellative with reference to “unnamed god and the month.” Herdner7 was the first to classify ᾿il ḫyr as a deity-group title. De Tarragon8 first questioned the two options, but later saw᾿il ḫyr as a group of deities, an opinion accepted by recent scholars, such as Pardee and del Olmo Lete, who, mainly based on the interpretation of ᾿il ḫyr, give controversial interpretations on the moment of the ritual practice and on the Ugaritic pantheon(s).9 Whereas the first component ᾿il offers no difficulty in interpretation, the second component ḫyr is more debatable. Ḫyr appears eight times in the Ugaritic corpus, always in the formula b yrḫ ḫyr “in the month of Ḫiyyāru.”10 The sole exception is KTU3 1.105:3, b ġb ḫyr “in the cult place11 of Ḫiyyāru,” where ḫyr refers to a single deity. The latter phrase recalls its analogue b ġb ršp ṣb᾿i “in the cult place of Rašap of the army,”12 which also appears once in the fragmentary KTU3 1.91:15. Moreover, both yrḫ ḫyr and ᾿il ḫyr appear exclusively in the ritual genre,᾿il ḫyr in the 4 See n. 1, p. 77 above. Sole Astour (1966), 281 realates ḫyr to Arabic ḫayr and compares it to ᾿Ilu’s epithet lṭpn ᾿il dp᾿id. 5 De Moor (1970b), 308, 312, n. 44. 6 Gray (1978), 100. 7 Herdner (1978), 15. 8 TO II, 227. 9 TR, 806; contrast with CR2, 109-100. 10 KTU3 1.78:2; KTU3 1.105:15; KTU3 1.112:1; KTU3 3:16:3; KTU3 4.219:11; KTU3 4.220:3; KTU3 4.688:1. For the Semitic etymological and semantic cognate of the Ugaritic ḫyr, see Muss-Arnolt (1892), 72-94, esp. 78-79; Huehnergard, UVST, 128-129, DULAT, 416-417; see Vita (1998), 52, “ḫiyaru (fév./mar.)”. 11 On the term ġb, see DEUAT, 298-299, 298, n. 1. 12 On the epithet ršp ṣb᾿i “Rašap of the army,” see DEUAT, 298-299.

᾿ IL ḪYR “THE GODS OF THE MONTH ḪIYYĀRU”

79

first line of the verso13 of KTU3 1.148, which corresponds to text written in syllabo-logographic cuneiform RS 92.2004.14 The parallel text written in Mesopotamian syllabo-logographic does not include a correspondence to ᾿il ḫyr; all the parallel versions start with DINGIR-a-bi. In the same manner, the text KTU3 1.47 has an extra opening line, ᾿il ṣpn, which is missing in all other parallel Ugaritic alphabetic and syllabo-logographic versions. ᾿Il ṣpn heads a list of thirty-four entries and receives no sacrifice, which indicates that it is a title referring to a group of deities.15 The same could be said regarding ᾿il ḫyr of KTU3 1.148, which heads a list of single divine names as well as appellations of a group of deities, all receiving sacrifices, while ᾿il ḫyr receives none. Besides this, Pardee16 states that it is “unclear why the present text shows ᾿il ḫyr (line 23) rather than dbḥ ḫyr (‘the sacrificial rite of the month of Ḫiyyāru’) or even dbḥ ᾿il ḫyr (the sacrificial rite for the gods of the month of Ḫiyyāru’).” The latter comment recalls the phrase dbḥ ᾿il bldn “a sacrifice to the gods of the land,” which also occurs in an opening first line of the ritual text KTU3 1.162 and likewise refers to a group of divinities.17 The title ᾿il ḫyr “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru,” could be compared to its Akkadian etymological and semantic equivalent bēl [arḫi], where bēl appears as first component, whereas in Ugaritic it is ᾿il – e.g., ana latāk bibli u nāmurti inbi bēl [arḫi] “in order to check (the computations) for the new moon days and the neomenia of the ‘Fruit,’ the lord of the month.” (Bab. 4 112:65-66). The Akkadian inbi “fruit tree, fruit” is well attested as the epithet of the god Sin.18 Indeed, ᾿il ḫyr heads a list of divine names attested in two different textual sources: the Ugaritic alphabetic texts and the syllabo-logographic texts.19 Pardee in a written communication states, “The fact that the following list 13 The data here accord with the collation of KTU3, 151-153, esp. 152. On the state of the tablet and the discussion on the problem of its obverse-reverse orientation, see Pardee (1992), 169; idem, TR, 787 and RCU, 44-48. 14 See Pardee, TR, 796; and Roche-Hawley (2012), who includes RS 26.142; RS 92.2009+, and RS 94.2188. 15 See my discussion of ᾿il ṣpn here pp. 83-86, 294, 302-303, 309-310, 320. 16 See Pardee, RCU, 44. 17 See my discussion ᾿il bldn, pp. 70-73, 311, 320. See Bordreuil and Pardee (1993a), 46-48; Pardee, TR, 503, n. 53. Constrast KTU3 1.148:1, dbḥ . ṣpn [. ᾿alp w š . ᾿il᾿ilb . ᾿alp . w š] with Pardee, TR, 785, dbḥ . ṣpn [. ᾿il᾿ib . ᾿alp . w š]; and del Olmo Lete, CR2, 103, dbḥ. ṣpn [᾿il.ṣpn.᾿alp.wš?]. By analogy with ᾿il ḫyr and ᾿il bldn, my exclusion of dbḥ ṣpn from this study is based on the lack if the first divine component ᾿il. See my study of ᾿il ṣpn, pp. 8386, 294, 302-303, 309-310, 320. 18 See CAD N/I, 259; CAD I/J, 146; Oppenheim (1974), 200, 205-206. 19 See the references to Pardee, n. 14, p. 79 above; Roche-Hawley (2012), 149-178, esp. 121, 151, 153-154, 156-157, 159, 161, 169-174.

80

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

corresponds to several lists of divine names in logo-syllabic script leaves no doubt in my mind that the two words constitute a heading to the following list, not the appellation of a single divinity.” Thus, based on the Ugaritic Alphabetic text and its logo-syllabic correspondent version, the title ᾿il ḫyr heads a list of forty-three divine entities composed of single, pair, and groups of deities: ᾿il᾿ib, ᾿arṣ w šmm, ᾿il, kṯrt, dgn, b῾l ḫlb, b῾l ṣpn, ṯrṯy, yrḫ, ṣpn, kṯr, ῾ṯtr, [᾿a]⌜ṯ⌝rt, šgr w ᾿iṯm, [šp]š, ršp ᾿idrp, [----]⌜mṣ⌝r, [ddmš], [-(-)]mt, [᾿ušḫry], [gṯr?], [῾ṯ]⌜tr⌝t, [trṯ], mḏr, [᾿il q]⌜r⌝t,᾿il m⌜-⌝[...], [ġr]⌜m⌝w ⌜t⌝hm, [ym], [--]⌜m⌝mr, s⌜r⌝[---], [᾿il dd]⌜m⌝m, ᾿il lb[-]⌜n⌝, ⌜᾿u⌝[ṯḫt], [(knr)], [b῾lm], b῾lm, [b῾lm], [b῾lm],20 which testifies that the appellation ᾿il ḫyr heads the mentioned deities but in no instance pretending that all the divine entities are included under it. Nevertheless, despite the above argument, the absence of ᾿il ḫyr from the parallel logo-syllabic script forestalls any certain conclusion. Hopefully future textual discoveries will shed more light on this intriguing group of gods and its individual members. The Ugaritic term ḫyr “month-name Ḫiyyāru” also appears in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names.21

20 Here we have thirty-three entries: two divine names are missing in the alphabetic text, and the remaining two are completely damaged. The divine list here is based on Pardee, TR, 796-797; see the comparative data to the Ugaritic alphabetic texts KTU3 1.47, 1.118 and its parallel logo-syllabic version RS 92.2004. 21 See PTU 21, 30, 138; Sivan (1984), 229. Watson (1993b), 215, n. 26 comments, “The month-name also occurs in texts from Nuzi, Alalakh and Emar.” DULAT, 417. Ugaritic ḫyr(n) comprises another distinct homograph meaning “to chose,” which occurs as PN component too (compare Arabic cognate ‫ مختار‬and ‫)المختار‬. However, the latter has nothing to do with ḫyr discussed here.

VI

᾿ IL LB[-]N “THE GODS OF LAB[A]NA” (1.148) 1. RS 24.643 (=KTU3 1.148: 43)1 ᾿il] (43) [dd]⌜m⌝m š . ᾿il lb[-]⌜n⌝ š

For [the gods (of) Da]dmima a ram; for the gods of Lab[a]na a ram

Most scholars prefer to leave ᾿il lb[-]n untranslated.2 PARALLELS For the ritual genre, there are no strict parallels. However, the sequence of the groups of gods ᾿il ddmm and ᾿il lb[-]n is significant (see below). DISCUSSION ᾿Il lb[-]n appears once in the Ugaritic corpus. The translations mentioned above show a consensus that it is a group of gods.3 The sequence of ᾿il ddmm and ᾿il lb[-]n in the same unique Ugaritic context above is important for their interpretation. The Ugartic ᾿il lb[-]n is equivalent to the syllabo-logographic cuneiform version DINGIR.MEŠ la-ab-a-na (RS 26.142:17’ = RS 92.2004:35).4 Based on the syllabic spelling la-ab-a-na, Astour5 suggests restoring the third letter as {᾿a}, and reading the term ᾿il.lb[᾿a]n, rather than lb[n]n. 1 The reading follows Pardee, TR, 786, Bordreuil and Pardee MO II, 60. KTU3 1.148: 43 reads [᾿il .d]dm . š . ᾿il . lb[n]n š . 2 See Nougayrol (1968), 321, “dieux de Labana (?)”; Xella, TRU, 92, 94, 100, “... il lb[n]n / gli dèi del Libano”; de Tarragon, TO II, 228, “dieu de Laba[na]”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, “die Götter von Labnan”; Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 106, 110, “the gods of Labana/Lebanon?”; Pardee, TR, 788, “les dieux du Lab[--]na”; but later Pardee, RCU, 49, “the Gods-of-Lab[a]na.” 3 With the exception of de Tarragon, TO II, 228. 4 See Nougayrol (1968), 321, Nr. 170. – RS 26.142, ilānu(meš) da-ad-me-ma / ilānu(meš) la-ab-a-na, and its commentary on p. 322; Xella, TRU, 100; Astour (1987), 49, n. 340; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, n. 43 b, and refer to Nougayrol; Arnaud, RSOu XIV, 324; Pardee, TR, 784, 805; Roche-Hawley (2012), 162, 169, 174. 5 Astour (1987), 49, n. 340.

82

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Earlier Nougayrol6 commented on the same syllabic collation lab᾿ana, and proposed an assimilated form Labbana from Labnana, but always with a question mark. Pardee7 confirms the absence, “aucune trace du troisième signe n’étant conservée.” The general consensus that this is a toponym seems logical, even though the attested syllabic la-ab-a-na reflects a different vocalization from the known Ugaritic locations Labnu/ima and Labinuma.8 However, in the light of the parallelism with ddmm (and assuming, of course, that both terms are toponyms) the most likely location is in the Lebanon region.9 The Ugaritic root LB[-]N/LBN(N) is also attested as a component in Ugaritic personal names.10

6

Nougayrol (1968), 322, in his commentary to line 4. Pardee, TR, 784. 8 Nougayrol (1968), 322, “... le pays, ou la montagne, du Liban ... mais cf. aussi le nom de ville: Labnu/ima, Labinuma”; Astour (1987), 49, n. 340 regards it a toponym and locates it in “transtigridian places”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, n. 43 b, “Wohl Libanon vgl. RS 26.142, Z. 4 Lab᾿ana (J. Nougayrol, Ugaritica V. Nr. 170, S. 321 mit Kommentar S. 322).” De Tarragon, TO II, 228, n. 244 follows the same interpretation but with a question mark. 9 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 241-242; DULAT, 491 under lbnn “TN Líbano/ Lebanon”; Pardee, TR, 805. The term lbnn is attested in a couple of Ugaritic texts: in the Aqht legend KTU3 1.17:VI:21, in KTU3 1.22:I:20, 25, where it refers to the Lebanon mountains as a divine meeting place; and the syllabo-logographic, RS 20.33.19: i-na i-ir-ti ḫurašân li-ib-na-ni “au pied des monts du Liban” (Ug. V, 71, 75). See DULAT, 110, 241, 491, 763; see also Watson (1999), 778. For a substantial discussion on the term lbnn, see Smith (2014a), 149, 150, 151, 269, 310, 420, n. 10, 455, n. 87, 88, 452, n. 92. Indeed, lbnn as a toponym is also attested in Northwest Semitic inscriptions, for example KAI 81:1, ltnt blbnn “for Tinnit-on-the-Lebanon (i.e., whose dwelling is on the L.).” See DNWSI, 137. See the comments by Römer (2014), 69-70, n. 4 on a deity named Lbn mentioned in the Papyrus Louvre E. 32847, the latter deity appearing to dwell “... le ‘mont Laban’, dans une région appelé Oûan (‘contrée du genévrier de Phénicie, ou genévrier rouge’) qu’il faut localiser en Édom (seule région où l’on trouve cette plante en Palestine).” 10 Ugaritic lbn comprises several distinct homographs, including noun/adjective “white poplar/flat-featured,” and the toponym lbn(n), see Nougayrol (1968), 321, 322; Gröndahl, PTU, 27, 154; Watson (1993b), 216-217 and bibliographic references there; see Belmonte (2001), 173-174; van der Soldt (2005), 27-28 for the toponym lbnm, and all the references on p. 238 under Lubanu/Labnūma, la-ab/ib-ni-ma, la-ab-nu-ma and la-bi-nu-ma. 7

VII

᾿ IL ṢPN “THE GODS OF (MT.) ṢAPĀNU” (1.47) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.47:1 1 2 3

᾿il ṣpn ᾿il᾿ib ᾿il 

The gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu ᾿Ilu᾿ibi ᾿Ilu

Scholars are divided on whether to translate ᾿il ṣpn as “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu”;1 or as “El of Mt. Casius/Ṣapānu.”2 Some scholars3 consider both interpretations plausible. PARALLELS For the ritual genre, there are no strict parallels. However, the sequence of this group of gods and the major Ugaritic god – i.e., ᾿il᾿ib, ᾿il, dgn, b῾l ṣpn – is significant (see below).

1 Albright (1968), 122, “Gods of Mount Casius”; Weippert and Weippert (1982), 88-89, n. 44, “die ‘Götter des Ṣapānu’ (il Ṣpn, zu lesen *᾿ilū Ṣapāni), d.h. die des Götterberges Ǧebel el-Aqr῾, aufgezählt werden”; Healey (1985), 117, “gods of Ṣapānu”; Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 85; idem, TUAT II/3, 302, 1a, “‘die Götter des Ṣpn/Sapan’ (Der heilige Berg nördlich von Ugarit),” following them, Koch (1993), 186; Wyatt (1985), 381; idem, (1992a), 409, 410, “the gods of Sapan”; Bonnet (1987), 104-105, esp. 105, “les dieux du ṣapon”; Pardee (1988b), 137, n. 78; idem (1992), 158-60; idem, TR, 293, 294, “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu / les dieux du (mont) Ṣapānu”; Cho (2007), 12, “Gods of Saphon”; Sommer (2009), 21, 189, n. 86, “the gods of Ṣaphon.” 2 Astour (1966), 279, n. 28, “El of Mt. Casius”; de Moor (1970b), 307, “Ṣapānu”; Lipiński (1971a), 58f., 64, “God of Floating”; Clifford (1972), 63, believed that because il ṣpn appears at the head of a list of deities, it must be a deity; but Mullen (1980), 268, “(the) divine Ṣapān.” The mountain Ṣpn has been identified as Jabal al-᾿aqra῾ or Cassius / Kasios / Mount-Ḫazi. The Ugaritic Akkadian text PRU, III, 70, text 16.276:21–24 refers to bītum dba‘al ḫuršan [ḫa-zi] “a temple of Baal-of-Mount-Ḫazi.” See Schaeffer (1938), 324-325; Lipiński (1971a), 58-64; accepted by Xella, TRU, 95. Clifford (1972), 60 comments, “By the thirteenth century a small hill in the Nile Delta had come to be called Zaphon (Exod. 14:2, 9).” 3 Caquot (1979), col. 1403, “‘El (ou dieu) du Ṣapon’ ou ‘dieux du ṣapon’”; del Olmo Lete (1986d), 294; idem, (1988a), 12; idem RC, 54, “(Los) dioses/Ilu del Ṣapānu.”

84

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

DISCUSSION The title᾿il ṣpn appears in the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.47 in the first line preceding a list of thirty-four entries,4 and undoubtedly refers to a group of Ugaritic deities. This text has two Ugaritic parallels, the alphabetic texts KTU3 1.118 and KTU3 1.148, and a syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallel, RS 24.024 (Ug. VN 18). These four attestations have led some scholars5 to suggest that the parallel versions are based upon a canonical list of the deities in an official Ugaritic pantheon.6 However, KTU3 1.47 has an extra opening line, ᾿il ṣpn, which is missing in all the other versions. Some scholars7 have incorrectly regarded ᾿il ṣpn as an extra divine name added in KTU3 1.47. Others8 restore ᾿il ṣpn in a lacuna of the first line and read, dbḥ . ṣpn [᾿il . ṣpn . ᾿alp . w š . ᾿il᾿ib . ᾿alp . w š]. Although the list of the divine names in KTU3 1.148 corresponds perfectly to the list of divine names in the other three versions, the collation of dbḥ ṣpn followed by ᾿il ṣpn looks spurious, and has to be rejected.9 The list of the deities in KTU3 1.148 parallels one of the versions in which the opening formula ᾿il ṣpn corresponds perfectly to dbḥ ṣpn “a sacrifice at (Mt.) Ṣapānu.”10 Consequently, the group of deities referred to as ᾿il ṣpn enjoyed a special cultic ceremony.11 4 The recto and verso of the text were determined after the discovery of the syllabologographic version in 1956. For those who published the text earlier, see Nougayrol (1957), 82-85, esp. 82, and Herdner, CTA, Text 29, p. 110, n. 1. The nature of ᾿il ṣpn and the beings in the first line of the text was not relevant: ᾿il ṣpn was simply another deity like the others listed in the text. See Pardee, TR, 294, n. 15. On the cultural factor of the (un)translatability of some divine names in parallel attestations of religious texts, see Assmann (1996), 25-36 and the corresponding notes in pp. 306-310. Finally, Ṣapānu – Ḫazzi – Kasin is a common parallel for a divine mountain; see Koch (1993), 171-223, esp. 185-197. 5 See e.g., del Olmo Lete (1986d), 294, 295, 298; idem, RC, 54-55; Pardee (1988b), 137; idem (1992), 158 and the corresponding notes; idem, TR, 296, 315-319. 6 Our study shows that the use of an official pantheon is far from uniform. For more, see pp. 297, 298, 299-304. 7 See, for example, Bonnet (1987), 105, and other bibliographic references, n. 1, p. 83. 8 See e.g., Astour (1966), 279; de Moor (1970b), 309 under obv. 1; following them, Xella, TRU, 91, 96; Dietrich and Loretz (1981), 85. Later Dietrich and Loretz abandoned this restoration; see TUAT/ II, 3, 306 translating “(die Götter des) Sapan.” Del Olmo Lete (1986d), 294, 298; idem (1988a), 12; idem RC, 54. Astour and de Moor suggested this restoration before the Akkadian parallel mentioned above was known or published. 9 Indeed, the above restoration has never been accepted in every version of KTU. See also Healey (1985), 117; Pardee (1988b), 137, n 78; idem (1992), 158, n. 12 and n. 13; idem, TR, 295, n. 19. Compare to ᾿il ḫyr, pp. 77-80, 303. 10 Pardee, TR, 296; 780, 785, 786, 789. For other instances of the formulation – e.g., dbḥ ṣpn – see KTU3 1.91:3 and Pardee’s detailed commentary in TR, pp. 489, 491, 499500, n. 41. 11 See esp. Pardee, TR, 295.

᾿ IL ṢPN “THE GODS OF MT. ṢAPĀNU”

85

Scholars are divided regarding the deities included under the title ᾿il ṣpn. Some scholars12 think it refers to ᾿Ilu or Ba῾lu or/and ᾿Ilu᾿ibi and Dagānu, while others13 believe it refers to an independent anonymous deity who receives sacrifices or has been worshipped among other Ugaritic deities. A third group14 interprets it as a divine determinative for the mountain “Ṣapānu.” None of these interpretations seems correct. Apparently, ᾿il ṣpn appears only once in the whole Ugaritic corpus as a title for a group of Ugaritic deities and never for an independent deity. Therefore, some scholars15 believe it to be the title of the document and translate it as “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu.” This seems correct. The homographic formulation ᾿il ṣpn also appears in three mythological contexts, although with a completely different semantic value. In KTU3 1.3:III:29 (= KTU3 1.3:IV:19 and KTU3 1.101:2), it is preceded by btk ġry/h “in the midst of my/his mountain,” and parallels bġr (nḥlty), which implies a divine abode rather than a group of deities.16 The divinity list, as well as the explicit 12 Astour (1966), 279, n. 28 considered ᾿il ṣpn to be “El of Mt. Casius,” and that it “is another Ugaritic hypostasis of El”; Cazelles (1969a), 30, n. 26bis also suggested that ᾿il ṣpn must refer to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon. Contrast idem (1969b), 500. Lipiński (1971a), 58, 64 translated “God of Floating” and believed it referred to ᾿Ilu. Xella, TRU, 96 saw “il divino Safon,” “dèi del Safon,” and “ovvere più plausibilmente considerarlo un epiteto di Baal (il ‘dio del Safon’ per eccellenza): su Baal e la sua montagna, cf. KTU 1.3 III 29.” Wyatt (2020), 94, “il ṣpn (title of text) | Set 1: consisting of ilib, il and dgn; (3 gods, 1+ 2).” 13 See Nougayrol (1957), 84. Clifford (1972), 63; de Tarragon (1980), 156. 14 Herdner, CTA, 110, n. 1, “A identifier vraisemblablement avec ilḫuršan ḫa-zi, line 14.” For the same interpretation, see Cazelles (1969a), 30, n. 26; idem (1969b), 500 suggests an equivalence between ᾿il ṣpn and “... l’existence d’un el ṣpn est maintenant bien attestée par le no 170, line 22’ [=Ugaritica VN 170:22’].” Pardee, TR, 294, n. 16, 295, n. 18 correctly states that Cazelles’s affirmation “n’est pas fondée : la lecture est {[dḪUR.]SAG ḫa-zi}, qui ne reflète pas ᾿il ṣpn mais ṣpn ... .” De Moor (1970a), 204, 218; and idem (1970b), 307, 309, reads “Ṣapānu”; a decade later Mullen (1980), 268 translated “(the) divine Ṣapān,” and returned to the same comparison, erroneous when applied to the context above and contradicting the instructive note of Pope and Tigay (1971), 123. Krebernik (1993b), 505, under point 3.20; idem (2003-2004), 12 comments that the Sumerian Nin-ḫursaǧa is known as “Nin-ḫursaǧa ‘Herrin des Gebirges’ schimmert durch das Epitheton bēlet gaṣṣūtim šadu᾿ī ḫuršānī ‘Herrin der Furchterweckenden, der Berge und Höhen.’” On the latter goddess’s epithets, see AG, 407-408. 15 Albright (1968), 122; Caquot (1979), col. 1403; Weippert and Weippert (1982), 88-89, n. 44; Healey (1985), 117; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 302, 306; Wyatt (1985), 381; idem (1992a), 409; Bonnet (1987), 104-105; Pardee (1988b), 137; idem (1992), 158-160; Koch (1993), 186. 16 For the discussion of the attribution of ᾿il ṣpn to the Ugaritic god Ba῾lu in the context btk ġry ᾿il ṣpn // bqdš bġr nḥlty “In the midst of my mountain divine Ṣapon // In the shrine of my own mountain,” see Pope and Tigay (1971), 122-123 and the bibliographic references. See also Pope, EUT, 102-103; Clifford (1972), 61-66, esp. 61-63; Wyatt (1985), 381; idem (1992a), 409, n. 29; 423; Bonnet (1987), 102-104; Pardee, TPM, 134-135 and the corresponding notes and bibliographic references; Fauth (1990), 105-118, esp. 108-110, 116-118; UBC II, 234, 673; Spencer (2015), 211-213.

86

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

sacrificial list KTU3 1.148 include a divinity ṣpn with a logo-syllabic equivalent DINGIR.ḪUR.SAG.ḫa-zi.17 The component ṣpn has been extensively discussed in Ugaritic and Biblical scholarship.18 The most accepted semantic value of the Ugaritic term ṣpn is in association with the Ugaritic divine mountain Ṣapānu, which was a cultic place19 where some Ugaritic divinities – in the present instance, the ones known as “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” – gathered, which probably includes all the deities mentioned in the three versions.20 The title ᾿il ṣpn seems to include every deity and group of deities of the document, not only the most important ones (᾿il᾿ib, ᾿il, dgn, b῾l ṣpn, b῾lm [×6], ᾿arṣ w šmm, kṯrt, yrḫ, ṣpn, kṯr, pdry, ῾ṯtr, ġrm w῾mq, ᾿aṯrt, ῾nt, špš, ᾿arṣy, ᾿ušḫry, ῾ṯtrt, ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, ršp, ddmš, pḫr ᾿ilm, ym, ᾿uṯḫt, knr, mlkm, šlm).21 The Ugaritic divine mountain Ṣpn is comparable to the holy mountain of the Old Testament, e.g., Psalm 2:6, ‫“ ואני נסכתי מלכי על־ציון הר־קדשי‬But I have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain!” (cf. Amos 9:1; 1 Kings 13:1 [‫;]בית־אל‬ Exodus 24:1-11, esp. 1-2, 12). In Exodus it is a mountain, where the formalization of the Covenant occurs with a ceremonial meal.22

17 See Pardee, TR, 796, 800; RCU, 14, 15; Roche-Hawley (2012), 164, n. 217, 218, 172, 173. 18 On Ṣapānu, see Bonnet (1987), 105; Fauth (1990), 105-118; van der Toorn (1995), 2043; idem, DDD2, 361; Pardee, TR, 295-296 and the bibliography; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 58, n. 86; Schwemer (2008), 7, 9, 10-11; Smith (2012), 223-224; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 673; Heltzer, CS III, 201, n. 6. For the abundant literature regarding this term, its presumed Biblical counterpart ‫הר צפון‬, and its equivalence to Zion, see Spencer (2015), 207ff.. 19 See Pardee, TR, 296 and the corresponding notes and references. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 419-420 and DULAT, 788, meaning 2, but the context studied here has been incorrectly classified under meaning 1) the mountain dwelling of b῾l. On the impact of this concept in Biblical texts, see Niehr (1996), 63-64; idem, DDD2, 927-929 for the literature and an extensive bibliography concerning the word Zaphon. 20 Astour (1966), 279; Healey (1985), 117; Pardee (1988b), 137; idem, TR, 296. 21 We do not share the view of Healey (1985), 117 that “also uncertain is whether this title heads the whole list or only the first part of it, up to the line drawn after line 10.” For the still unresolved question of the placement of ᾿il ṣpn, see the detailed discussion in Pardee, TR, 315-319 and the bibliographic references therein. 22 For more on deified mountains, see Clifford (1972), 4, 32, 35, 39, 57-79, 131-160, 192; Collins (2011), 292, 313; and Smith (2015), 478-479, n. 42, 486; Sommer (2009), 3942; and n. 18, p. 86 above.

VIII

᾿ IL QRT “THE GODS OF THE CITY” (1.148) 1. RS 24.643:40 (= KTU3 1.148: 40)1 39

[ ] . mḏr . š[. . .] [ ]⌜-⌝t š .  ᾿il m⌜-⌝[...] 41 [ ]⌜-⌝

40

For Maḏ(ḏ)ra2 a ram, [for the gods of the ci]ty a ram,  for the gods ⌜-⌝[...] [ ]⌜-⌝3

1 The reading and translation follows Pardee, TR, 781, 784, n. 28, 787, “(pour) Maḏara (un) bélier, [(pour) les dieux de la vil]le (un) bélier, (pour) le(s) dieu(x) de M⌜-⌝ [... (un) ] (40) bélier].” See also Pardee RCU, 46, 49. KTU3 1.148, 40 reads (39) [ ]š . mšr š [ [ ]xt š ᾿il . mx[ ] 2 Xella, TRU, 92, 94, 100, [ ]mšr . š [ ] “......Mišaru, un montone[. . . . .” comments that it deals here with “piuttosto che il ‘canto,’ è da vedervi la ‘rettitudine’ (acc. kittu//mī/ ēšaru(m)” and relates it to ṣdq mšr (KTU 1.123:14); following him, see de Tarragon, TO II, 228, n. 243, “à mšr, un mouton”; contrast Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308, who translate “(für) Mischar ein Schaf,” and comment “In Anlehnung an babylonisches mīšaru könnte man an die vergöttlichte ‘Gerechtigkeit’ denken.” See also del Olmo Lete (1988a), 14; idem, RC, 91; CR1 133, “Mišāru un carnero / Mišāru 1 ram.” Later del Olmo, CR2, 106, 109 follows Pardee and adopted the reading of mḏr based on the syllabic text RS 26.142 and 92.2004. Pardee (1992), 157, 166; idem, TR, 787 and RCU, 48, “(pour) Maḏara (un) bélier/for Maḏ(ḏ)ara a ram.” The fact that after mḏr is followed the sacrifice of š “a ram” confirms its divine character as a single deity, in addition to its syllabic correspondence DINGIR. ma-za-ra (RS 92.2004:26 and the Hurrian text RS 9.483A:4-6 as ma-ša-ar-ra). Even so, the latter deity is unknown in the Ugaritic alphabetic corpus. See Pardee, TR, 796, 803, n. 27; Roche-Hawley (2012), 161. Pardee, ibid, 803, n. 127 suggests relating the divine name to the Hurrian maziri “to help,” (quoting Laroche, Ug. V, 456, maziri ‘aide’; Huehnergard, UVST, 53-54, 158-159. For the Akkadian rēṣu “to help” and tillatu “military assistance,” see n. 6, p. 92-93 below; for a related semantic interpretation, see Vita [2007], 181-182, on what he defines as a Hurrian loanword in Ugaritic, mḏrġl and mḏrn). In a written communication Gernot Wilhelm explains that “dma-za-ra, dma-ša-ra: single intervocalic /š/ in Hurrian is voiced ([ž]). In Late Bronze Age syllabic Hurrian texts it is represented by š-signs, in alphabetic texts by ḏ, and in Middle Bronze Age texts (from Mari) by z-signs. Hence, RS 92.2004:26 presumably follows an old tradition of writing. The Hurrian text RS h. 2 (PRU 3, 330) 4-6 contains three times the form ma-ša-ar-ra-, in i. 6 ma-ša-ar-ra-šu-u[š]. This is a Hurrian noun in the ergative pl.: mažar(i)=ra( avar=ra). Unfortunately we know nothing about mažari-deities. i-zi-ri and ma-zi-ri should be kept apart.” Following the Chicago Hittite Dictionary L-N 215 i-zi-ri and ma-zi-ri probably are the same word as the Hittite ma-zé-re-eš, ma-zi-ri-iš, about which the Dictionary concludes that “... the Hurrian mazeri, maziri ‘help’, and perhaps to be equated with Akkadian rīṣu ‘help’ and ‘(a part of the extra)’ (Laroche, Ugar. 5:456). Laroche, RA 64 (1970) 137; GLH 169.” 3 This translation is valid only if we take into consideration the syllabic version. Xella, TRU, 92, 94 “il dio/El[? . . .,” but he does not comment; de Tarragon, TO II, 228; Dietrich

88

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Scholars agree on the translation “the gods of the city / les dieux de la ville.”4 PARALLELS The ritual context above presents no parallelism. The sequence of deities is important, but due to the damaged state of the passage it is difficult to fix such sequence with certainty. DISCUSSION The appellation ᾿il qrt “the gods the city” occurs once in the whole Ugaritic corpus. Based on the syllabic parallel version, ᾿il qrt must refer to a group of deities. The first component ᾿il is the construct form of ᾿ilm showing a common construction with epithets and appellations for groups of gods. The second component qrt “the city, the town” is a Semitic term par excellence;5 however, its occurrence in combination with the ᾿il in the Ugaritic texts is limited to the context above. The syllabic correspondence to this line in RS 92.2004:27, DINGIR.MEŠ.URU.KI confirms its reading and reference to a group of Ugaritic deities despite the damaged state of the corresponding Ugaritic Aphabetic text.6 and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308 refrain from reading and translation; del Olmo Lete (1988a), 14; idem, RC, 91, “El/los dios/es del mṣd(?),” with no comment at all; the CR1 133, 137, “The god(s) of m[...”; and CR2, 106, 110, “The god----,” here del Olmo mentioned its syllabic correspondence DINGIR.NITA.MEŠ; Pardee, (1992), 157, 169-170; idem, TR, 781, 787, 804, “le(s) dieu(x) de M [....,” and includes the syllabic correspondence DINGIR.NITA. MEŠ ù DINGIR.MUNUS.MEŠ (RS 92.2004:28); therefore, Pardee translates “the Godsof-M[en-and-of-Women,” see idem RCU, 48, n. 43 on p. 103 comments that “The restoration of the Ugaritic is, however, uncertain (the partially preserved sign after {m} appears not to be {t}, and therefore the restoration {m⌜t⌝[m]}, ‘men,’ is not likely – at least on present evidence).” Due to the epigraphical and semantic difficulties of the very damaged line in the Ugaritic alphabetic text, I have decided to completely exclude it from my study here. 4 Xella, TRU, 92, 94 reads [ ]Xt š.᾿il. m[ ], and translates “. . . ?, un monotone – il dio/El[? . . .”; de Tarragon, TO II, 228 refrains from its reading and translation; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 308 does not translate the title, “[(für) ...]. ein Schaf”; del Olmo Lete (1988a), 14; idem, RC, 91; CR1 133 neither translates or comments on this line, but in CR2, 106, “[The gods of the to]wn.” Pardee, (1992), 169 refrains from translation; however later idem, TR, 787 and RCU, 49, “[(pour) les dieux de la vil]le/[for the gods of the ci]ty.” 5 See DULAT, 712, 713 see under qrt (I) and the toponym qrt (III) for attestation and bibliographic references. Check also the Qur᾿anic Arabic term ‫ قرية‬/ ‫ قرى‬/qurā/qaryah “town, city, village, township”. The word also occurs as the synonym for ‫أم القرى‬/Mecca (e.g. Q. 34:18; 42:7). See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 755. 6 See Pardee, TR, 796, 803, who comments that “La restitution de {[᾿il q]⌜r⌝t} se recommande, sans être certaine, la trace du signe devant {t} étant trop informe pour confirmer la

᾿ IL QRT “THE GODS OF THE CITY”

89

The component qrt “the city”7 occurring in only one Ugaritic context does not provide enough data to fix its meaning as simply “the city/town,” let alone specifically as the international coastal trade city of the kingdom of Ugarit, though the logographic URU.KI indicates unambiguously the meaning of qarītu as “town, city.” The ritual context might refer to a sacred city center where most of its temples are located. ᾿il qrt recalls the god group appellation᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit,” which also appears once in the epistolary genre.8 The occurence of ᾿il qrt and ᾿ily ᾿ugrt in two completely different contexts and genres militates against their association. The relation of divinities to their central city, the place especially sacred to them and of their symbols of sacred and secular power, was deeply rooted in ancient Near Eastern religion. In Mesopotamia the literature on the association of the divinities with their city-state is vast.9 Note the use of the Akkadian DINGIR URUKI and DINGIR.MEŠ ša āliša as epithets – e.g., ina kakkim ša DINGIR URUKI birram “establish (it) by means of the weapon-symbol of the city god!” (OECTE 3 40:30, cf. ina kakkim ša DINGIR ālim, [ibid., 24 OB let.]); DINGIR.MEŠ ša āliša lisallim “let her (the daughter of the king of Qatna) reconcile the gods of her city” (ARM 2, 51:19).10 The latter could be used to relate the three Ugaritic deity group epithets ᾿il bldn, ᾿il qrt, and ᾿ily ᾿ugrt. Finally, qrt, “city,” is used as a component in Ugaritic personal names.11

restitution de {r}.” Pardee, ibid., accurately indicates that DINGIR.MEŠ.URU.KI is missing in RS 20.024 and RS 26.142. See also Roche-Hawley (2012), 159, 169, 173, who adds its attestation in RS 94.2188. 7 See Pardee, TR, 1204 under “QRT nom commun ‘ville’”; Bordreuil and Pardee, RSOu IX, 362, 378-379; Astour (1969b), 404, n. 1; Sivan (1984), 261 under qarītu “town, city”; Huehnergard, UVST, 175. For the toponym qrt/ṭ qar(a)tu/a “amongst the villages of the transorontes district of Ugarit,” see Dijkstra (1987), 43; cf. Astour (1981), 9; van Soldt (1996), 684 under qaratu, and his comment on qarītu in n. 258; idem (2005), 39-40 under Qaratu, 104, 160, 182-183, for his discusssion of a possible identification of qaratu with qurṭu. Hess (1999), 522 quotes URU qa-ra-tu (PRU 6, 95,1 etc.) as equivalent to qarītu and not qaratu, which he labels as a place name. 8 On ᾿ily᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” see pp. 112-114, 299, 310-311, 320. 9 On the city in relation to gods see e.g., CAD A/I, 385-386 under âlu 2e; Postgate (1995), 395-411, esp. 396-397; Wiggermann (1995), 1857-1870. 10 See CAD I, 92. 11 PTU, 177; Bordreuil and Pardee, RSOu XIV, 361, n. 26.

IX

IL T῾ḎR B῾L “THE HELPER-GODS OF BA῾LU” (1.47; 1.84; 1.109; 1.118; 1.139; 1.148; 1.162) 1. KTU3 1.47:26 25

[῾]ṯtrt ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l  27 ršp Rašpu 26

῾Aṯtartu ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏiri Ba῾li (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu)

2. KTU3 1.84:8 8 [᾿u šn ypkn ] ġl . ᾿il . t῾ḏr b῾l

[whether your beauty be altered]: ... ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏiri Ba῾li (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu)

3. KTU3 1.84:47 46

[ [ 48 [ 47

] ᾿il t῾ḏ]r b῾l ]

[...] ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏi[ri Ba῾li] (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu) [...]

4. KTU3 1.109:21 21 dgn . š . ᾿il t῾ḏr . š  22 b῾l š . ῾nt š . ršp š 23 šlmm 

(for) Dagānu a ram; (for) ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏiri (the helper-gods) a ram; (for) Ba῾lu a ram; (for) ῾Anatu a ram; (for) Rašpu a ram; as a peace-offering.

5. KTU3 1.118:25 23 ᾿ušḫry  24 ῾ṯtrt 25 ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l  26 ršp

᾿Ušḫaraya ῾Aṯtartu ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏiri Ba῾li (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu) Rašpu

6. KTU3 1.139:6 5 [ ]w š 6 [ ᾿il t]῾ḏr b῾l š 7 [ ]

[...] a ram; [... Ilu Ta]῾ḏiri Ba῾li (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu) a ram [...]

7. KTU3 1.148:8 8 ᾿ušḫry . š .   ᾿il . t῾ḏr . b῾l . š ršp . š .   ddmš š 

(for) ᾿Ušḫaraya (a) ram, (for) ᾿Ilu Ta῾ḏiri Ba῾li (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu) (a) ram, (for) Rašpu a ram, (for) Dadmiš (a) ram.

IL T῾ḎR B῾L “THE HELPER-GODS OF BA῾LU”

91

8. KTU3 1.162: 12-13 11 12

l lym [š] l ᾿il t[῾ḏr] 13 b῾l š

For Yammu a ram, for Ta[῾ḏiri] (the helper-gods of Ba῾lu) a ram.

Most scholars translate the expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l as “the helper-gods of Baal,” or the like.1 PARALLELS The ritual context above presents no parallelism; however, that the deity group᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l appears among a sequence of important Ugaritic gods, such as b῾l, ῾nt, ῾ṯtrt, ym, dgn, and ršp, is significant (see below). DISCUSSION The nominal expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” appears eight times in the Ugaritic corpus: twice in a list of gods (contexts 1 and 5), twice in ritual (contexts 2 and 3), and three times in lists of sacrifices (contexts 4, 6, 7, and 8).2 To be precise, in context 4 a short ᾿il t῾ḏr is attested for the sacrifice of a š “a ram,” the same sacrifice offered to᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l in context 7. The latter might indicate that the same group of gods is meant by both the short ᾿il t῾ḏr and the full form ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l.3 In my opinion, viewing the systematic occurrence of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l plus a sacrifice in other contexts implies that context 4 is incorrectly written. The ᾿il t῾ḏr “the helping-gods” and ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” normally are mentioned with known Ugaritic and non-Ugaritic single 1

Astour (1966), 280, n. 38, “the helper-gods of Baal”; Herdner (1978), 17, “les dieux alliés de Ba῾al”; Albright (1968), 125, “Auxiliaries of Baal”; de Moor (1970b), 307, 309 suggests reading 1.148:8 as ᾿il t῾šr b῾l but translates “the Helper-gods of Ba῾lu” (in response, see Rainey [1974], 191); Gray (1978), 100, “the allies of Baal” (a collective singular); Mullen (1980), 213, n. 171, “helper-gods of Ba῾l”; de Tarragon (1980), 158, “les dieux alliés de Baal”; Herrmann (1982), 97, “die Helfergötter Baals”; Korpel (1990), 198, “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu”; Smith (2001), 67, “Baal’s divine helpers”; Pardee, TR, 448, 604, “les Dieux Auxiliaires de Ba῾lu”; Wyatt (2020), 94, “lit. ‘the gods who assist Baal.’” However, Dahood (1969), 19; idem (1977), 465 proposed a different grammatical analysis – the construct nominative noun ᾿il + finite verb t῾ḏr – and translated “the gods who help/aid Baal.” 2 Cunchillos et al. (2003), 2970 add two other Ugaritic contexts, KTU 1.148:33 and 1.176:12. According to KTU3, 152, 166 there is no consistency in such occurrences. Despite the contrast of genres between context 7 and contexts 1 and 5, scholars have affirmed a correspondence between the list of the divine names and designations of the three mentioned Ugaritic texts and the syllabo-logographic cuneiform text RS 20.24. See Herdner (1978), 19; Pardee, TR, 292. 3 Gray (1978), 100; de Tarragon (1980), 158, 178, n. 9; Herrmann (1982), 97, n. 25.

92

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

goddesses and gods, e.g., ῾Aṯtartu, Rašpu, Dagānu, Ba῾lu, ᾿Ušḫara/iyu, Dadmišu. The mention of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” among important Ugaritic deities indicates their important place and role in Ugaritic ritual and religion. The exclusion of gods mentioned strictly in ritual and cultic contexts is consistent with the idea that such groupings were meant to consolidate the power of the individual deities.4 The identification of the specific members of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l is difficult because the nominal form ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l refers to an anonymous group of Ugaritic gods. The first component of the chain ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, the term ᾿il, should be parsed as a generic term in a plural construct subordinate to the second component, the term t῾ḏr, which is related to the Ugaritic root ῾ḏr, meaning “to help.” Therefore, t +῾ḏr should be analyzed as a taqtal form, which gives t῾ḏr the meaning of “helper”: and consequently ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l should be translated “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu.” Thus, although t῾ḏr has been the subject of considerable philological controversy, its semantic value as “helper/helping,” seems well established. The correspondence of the Ugaritic radical ῾ḏr “to help,” and the Hebrew root ‫( עזר‬I) was first suggested by Ginsberg and convincingly confirmed by Miller and Rainey.5 Biblical Hebrew ‫( עזר‬I) seems to have a very strong association with battle; a similar semantic value of the Ugaritic t῾ḏr is supported by the correspondence between the Ugaritic texts KTU3 1.47:26; KTU3 1.118:25 and the syllabo-logographic cuneiform text RS 20.024, 25, where ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l parallels DINGIR.MEŠ til-laat dIM (ilānu til-la-at dadad) “relief troops / auxiliary gods of Adad.”6 Indeed, the Akkadian term tillatu (pl. tillātu) strictly means “auxiliaries, relief troops,” which has led some scholars7 to claim that the Ugaritic term 4

Herrmann (1982), 97, n. 26, “... das religiöse Erleben habe sich in gleicher Intensität auf Gruppierungen namentlich nicht im einzelnen genannter Götter gerichtet wie auf die nach ihren Namen bekannten Einzelgestalten.” 5 Ginsberg (1938b), 210-211, n. 5; Miller (1970a), 159-175; Rainey (1973b), 139-142; idem, (1975), 74-75. See also Baisas (1973), 41ff. and the corresponding notes and bibliographic references; Herrmann (1982), 97, n. 21; Korpel (1990), 198. On the Hebrew ‫( עזר‬II) “to be strong and mighty,” which corresponds to Ugaritic ġzr, see the systematic study of Miller, ibid.; and Rahmouni, DEUAT, 197, n. 7 for bibliographic references; see Smith (2014a), 128, 441, n. 246, n. 247, n, 248, n. 250 with a detailed discussion and Biblical Hebrew counterpart. 6 For example, the term tillātum is widely attested in the Mari letters. On tillātum (ṣābum) of ARM 10, 4:36-37, see Veenhof (1982), 128-129, esp. 129 who comments that “the word itself basically means ‘help, assistance’ and is used of god and men ... In a military context the meaning is rather concrete: a group of soldiers, hence normally in apposition to ṣābum: ṣābum tillatum (occasionally ṣāb tillatim, ARM 2, 68:3; 14, 69:4), but also tillatum alone ... .” See in general CAD T, 406-408 under tillatu A. 7 Astour (1966), 280, n. 38; Albright (1968), 122; de Moor (1970a), 190, 198, No. 25; Rainey (1973b), 139-142; cf. idem (1974), 191; idem, (1975), 105-106; Mullen (1980),

IL T῾ḎR B῾L “THE HELPER-GODS OF BA῾LU”

93

t῾ḏr must also have militaristic overtones. However, the compound ᾿ il t῾ḏr b῾l appears in ritual and cultic contexts, mainly among divine names and sacrifice lists, without a literary context, and therefore the attribution of a militaristic characteristic to the group of gods labeled ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l is based solely on the Akkadian parallel. There are no data8 that might help identify the individual members of the group of deities ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l. Nevertheless, some scholars have ventured to do so. Astour9 suggested that ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l are probably the same as the seven lads of Ba῾lu in KTU3 1.5:V:8-9,῾mk šb῾t (9) ġlmk . ṯmn . ḫnzrk “with you (your) seven lads // (your) eight boars” who descend with him into the netherworld, comparing the expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l to the epithet ġlmm. Other scholars10 have identified ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l with pḫr b῾l, affirming that both expressions refer to the “auxiliary forces of Ba῾l” as well as to Ba῾lu’s cloud entourage ῾nn. Korpel11 identifies the ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” with the Rapi᾿uma, spirits of dead heroes and kings. Recently, Wyatt12 has mentioned “᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l containing ršp, ddmš (a pair/ triad: 1 +2),” without providing further explanation. The assumption that the stated gods are the “god-helpers of Ba῾lu” must be correct, because the expression itself indicates through its third component the divine name Ba῾lu. Moreover, the identification of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l with the mythological characters šb῾t ġlm(k) . ṯmn . ḫnzr(k) “seven lads, eight boars,” certainly refers to subordinate minor deities related to the god Ba῾lu. The ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l would usually be followed by Ba῾lu’s daughters, Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, 212-213, n. 171, 258; Meier (1988), 126, n. 156 and n. 157; Korpel (1990), 499, n. 473; Pardee, TR, 293, 308 and the corresponding footnote; Roche-Hawley (2012), 155, 164, 169 adds that the Sumerian logogram KAR in DINGIR.MEŠ.KAR dIŠKUR (RS 20.024, RS 94.2579; [DINGIR.MEŠ]. til-la-at dIŠKUR, AO 29.393) corresponds to ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “peut noter ... ῾aḏāru ‘aider.’” 8 Pardee, TR, 293, 308 and the corresponding footnote. 9 Astour (1966), 280; cf. Mullen (1980), 213, n. 171. On the epithet ġlmm see pp. 259266, 313, 320. 10 De Tarragon (1980), 158, n. 8, “Il s’agit d’une dénomination collective de divinités subalternes dévouées au service de Baal”; Mullen (1980), 272-273, “... pḫr b῾l refers to the ‘auxiliary forces of Ba῾l,’ the ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, as well as to his cloud entourage (῾nn) and the other members of his coterie.” Meier (1988), 126, n. 157 stated, “This sounds very much like the retinue which is associated with the storm and warrior god who enters battle.” Smith (2001), 44, “... these figures might be identified with Baal’s meteorological retinue of 1.5 V 7-9.” Smith’s identification of the minor deity ṯmq and his epithets mhr b῾l “the warriors of Ba῾lu,” and mhr ῾nt “the warrior of ῾Anatu,” which appear exclusively in the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.22:9, is suitable to the semantic of the ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l but difficult to prove. See Smith (2001), 44-45. On the two epithets mhr b῾l “the warriors of Ba῾lu,” and mhr ῾nt “the warrior of ῾Anatu,” see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 219-222. Del Olmo Lete CR2, 368, n. 108 thinks ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l to be the equivalent of pḫr b῾l. 11 Korpel (1990), 198, 499, n. 473. 12 Wyatt (2020), 94.

94

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

hinting that those two female divinities might be among “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu.” However, because the expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l appears solely in the ritual cultic genre and never in the mythological corpus, the latter association is a mere conjecture. The expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu,” has been widely13 compared to its etymological and semantic equivalent Biblical Hebrew, ‫“ עזרי רהב‬Rahab’s helpers” (Job 9:13). Moreover, though the Akkadian tillātu does not appear as a component of divine epithets, it appears in personal names like Ilī-tillati “The Gods-Are-My-Support/help” (OBT Tell Rimah 268:2), and dUTU-tillatu “Šamaš-Is-My-Support” (YOS 13 12 r. 18).14 Although there is no exact Akkadian equivalent epithet for ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, the semantic equivalent “helper(s),” or “attendant(s),” is expressed in the Akkadian rēṣum “helper, supporter, ally,” which is said of individual Mesopotamian gods as well as groups of deities, always in relation to a petitioner of lesser status, mainly human beings. In addition, the Akkaddian term implies a reference to military aid: for instance, ša ina tukulti Aššur u Šamaš ilāni rēṣīšu DU.DU-kūma “(the king) who walks trusting in Aššur and Šamaš, the gods who help him” (RIMA 3, 102.6:21, 3R 7 i 9 [both Shalm. III]); and ana . . . ilāni rabûti . . . rēṣīšu bēlēšu “to the great gods, his helpers, his lords” (Unger Bel-harran-beli-ussur 8). Moreover, both the Akkadian rēṣum and rēṣūtu “help, support,” are used as components in personal names, e.g., Ekur-rēṣūtu “Ekur-Is-His-Help” (KAM 7, 85: r.14;) Aššur-rēsī “Aššur-Is-My-Helper” (Ichisar [1981], 112).15 The verb ῾zr “to help” has been attested in a Phoenician inscription from Cyprus, in the participle active verbal form w῾zrnm (3. pers. plur.) “their auxiliaries/ helpers” (KAI 288:4).16 A parallel is attested in Classical Arabic through the corresponding semantic and etymological root ‫ عون‬/ ῾wn “to help, to assist,” which is a well-attested Qur᾿ānic term occurring several times in various forms. Moreover, it appears twice as a description of God: ٌ‫ ُم ْس َت َعان‬/ musta῾ān, a passive participle meaning “one whose assistance is sought, one who ِ ‫ان َع َلى َما ت‬ َ ُ‫َصف‬ ُ ‫الم ْس َت َع‬ is beseeched,” as in Q. 12:18 ‫ون‬ ُ ‫ وﷲ‬/ wa-llāhu 13 Albright (1968), 125, n. 89; Rainey (1973b), 139-142; Mullen (1980), 213, n. 171; Herrmann (1982), 97, n. 27 and n. 28. Contrast Wakeman (1973), 58, n. 2, 61-62, who translated here “Rahab’s followers.” 14 CAD T, 408; Rainey (1973b), 139, 140 for discussion and bibliographic references. 15 CAD R, 268-269; 271; Rainey (1973b), 139, n. 7, 140 for more examples of the same usage on the human level and in inscriptions. 16 For the philological commentary of the inscription see Sznycer, CRAI 1991, 801-821, esp. 805, 811. Sznycer commented that ῾zr “help” appears as a theonym in PhoenicianPunic, see DNWSI, 836-837, under ῾zr1/῾dr “help > assisting troops/soldiers.”

IL T῾ḎR B῾L “THE HELPER-GODS OF BA῾LU”

95

l-musta῾ānu ῾alā mā taṣifūna “from God alone I seek help to bear what you are saying.”17 The Ugaritic term ῾ḏr also appears in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names.18

17 Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 655. The suggestion that the Ugaritic ῾ḎR is etymologically related to Classical Arabic ‫ عذر‬/ ῾ḎR “to excuse” (Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X, 74-79) and ‫ عزر‬/ ῾ ZR “to censure, rebute” (Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X,133) is incorrect, see Rainey (1973b), 139, n. 5; and DLU, 75; DULAT, 153. 18 PTU, 41, 113, 133, y῾ḏr-d “May Hadad help”; Rainey (1973b), 142, n. 42; Korpel (1990), 198, n. 759.

X

᾿ILHM “᾿ILĀHŪMA” (1.39; 1.41; 1.87) 1. KTU3 1.39: 3, 5, 9 [×4] (= KTU3 1.41: 12-18 [×4]; KTU3 1.87:13-20 [×4]) 2

mtntm w kbd . ᾿alp . š . l ᾿il

Two kidneys1 and the liver (of?) a bull and a ram for ᾿Ilu. 3 gdlt . ᾿ilhm .   A cow for the ᾿Ilāhūma; [[k]]ṯkmn . w šnm . dqt for Ṯukamuna wa-Šunama a ewe; 4 ršp . dqt . šrp .  for Rašpu a ewe as burnt-offering. And as a peace-offering: two ewes for [᾿I]lāhu; w šlmm . dqtm 5 [᾿i]lh . ᾿alp w š ᾿ilhm .  a bull and a ram for the ᾿Ilāhūma; gdlt . ᾿ilhm a cow for the ᾿Ilāhūma; 6 b῾l š .   for Ba῾lu a ram; ᾿aṯrt . š .  for ᾿Aṯiratu a ram; ṯkm w šnm . š for Ṯukamuna wa-Šunama a ram; 7 ῾nt . š .   for ῾Anatu a ram; r[[p]]šp . š .   for Rašpu a ram; for the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu a dr . ᾿il w pḫr b῾l 8 [[x]]gdlt . cow; šlm . [[š]]gdlt .   for Šalimu a cow; w b ᾿urm . lb 9 rmṣt ᾿ilhm . b῾lm . and in the flames the heart as a roast-offering for the ᾿Ilāhūma and for the Ba῾alūma.2 1 Following de Tarragon, TO II, 136; and Pardee, TR I, 18, 30-32, RCU, 68. Contrast Del Olmo Lete, RC2, 176, “two loins.” See DULAT, 600. 2 The translation and the interpretation of the passage here follows Pardee’s, TR, 59-60; idem, RCU, 63-65, 68. Pardee considers there to be here two independent divine names with their corresponding sacrifices (cf. Levine and de Tarragon [1993], 84, 103, render ilhm b῾lm as “gods and lords.” See also de Moor below). According to the Ugaritic data the latter interpretation seems to be the most suitable, given that both ᾿ilhm and b῾lm appear as independent divine entities in the Ugaritic corpus, and therefore no composite deity ᾿ilhm b῾lm existed. For more arguments see Pardee, TR, 59-60, esp. 60 and the corresponding footnotes. Other scholars interpret ᾿ilhm b῾lm (KTU3 1.39:9) in other ways, such as ᾿ilhm as a divine determinative followed by the divine name b῾l and thus meaning “(au divin) Ba῾al”; see de Tarragon, TO II, 136, n. 12, 137, who comments “... ilhm b῾l; ce dernier cas nous semble mal choisi : la répartition des offrandes permet de trancher en faveur de l’autonomie de ilhm.” Some scholars doubt whether the term is singular or plural; see Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975a), 142, esp. 143, who comment “wegen der fehlenden Vokalisation dürfte kaum zu entscheiden sein, ob hier b῾lm als Plural zu verstehen ist, der wiederum von dem Plural(?) ilhm her bedingt ist. Es ist gleichfalls möglich, daß ilhm hier ‘Gottheit’ bedeutet und zu übersetzen wäre: ‘Gottheit Baal’ oder ‘göttliche Baale.’” Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 310, n. 9a, write “(die) Ilahuma-Ba῾ale” and comment that “hier wird

᾿ ILHM “᾿ILĀHŪMA”

97

2. KTU3 1.41: 6 (= KTU3 1.87: 7) 5

w ṯn šm . l[ b῾lt . bhtm . ῾ṣrm . l ᾿inš] 6 ᾿ilm .  w š d[d . ᾿ilš . š . ᾿ilhm . 

and two rams for [Ba῾latu-Bahatīma; two birds for the ᾿Ināšu] ᾿Ilīma; a ram, a jar for ᾿Ilš; a ram for the ᾿Ilāhūma.

3. KTU3 1.87:30-33 (= KTU3 1.41: 28-303) gdlt] 28 ᾿il[hm .] dqt . š[pš . gdlt . rš] 29[p .]šrp [.] w šl[mm . kmm . dqtm] 30[᾿i]lh .  gdlt [. ᾿ilhm . gdlt . ᾿ilhm] 31 [d]qt . ṯkmn . w . š[nm .

a cow] for ᾿Ilā[hūma]; a ewe for Ša[pšu; a cow for Rašap] as a burnt-offering. And as a pe[ace]-offering[ : the same; two ewes] for [᾿I]lāhu; a cow for [the ᾿Ilāhūma; a cow for the ᾿Ilāhūma]; a [e]we for Ṯukamuna wa-Šunama.

The meaning of ᾿ilhm is controversial. Nevertheless various scholars suggest ᾿ilhm means “gods, deities,” or the like, similar to the above nontranslation.4 PARALLELS There are no strict parallels in the ritual texts; however, the sequence of important Ugaritic gods, such as ršp, b῾l, ᾿aṯrt, ṯkmn w šnm, ῾nt, is significant (see below). wohl auf die sieben Hypostasen Ba῾als angespielt, die in den kanonischen Götterlisten nacheinander aufgeführt werden.” Following the same line of thought, see de Moor (1972), 14, “the Ilāhūma Ba῾lūma”; idem, ARTU, 161 (same), commenting in n. 33, “Probably the same collective bodies of gods that are earlier described as ‘the family of Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu’”; but idem (1990), 241-242, n. 101 suggests that ᾿ilhm refers to “the family of Ilu” and b῾lm refers to the pḫr b῾l “the Assembly of Ba῾lu”; Xella, TRU, 61, “(per) ilh[m (= i divini [?]) b῾lm,” and p. 73, 77, “(per) ilhm b῾lm.” Del Olmo Lete (1987b), 41, 43, n. 14; idem, (1987c), 262, 263; idem, RC, 146, 148, n. 9, translates “los ‘divinales’ / ‘señores divinales/los soberanos divinizados’ ... ᾿ilhm, denominados esta vez ᾿ilhm b῾lm.” 3 At the end of line 30, KTU2 1.41, p. 78 and KTU3 1.41, p. 79 restore ᾿il instead of ᾿ilhm, but the restoration of ᾿ilhm in line 30 of KTU3 1.87:30-33 seems the correct one, see KTU3, p. 109. Contra KTU, see Pardee, TR, 144, 147, 149, 185, n. 162 who correctly comments “la séquence ᾿ilh ... ᾿ilhm ... ᾿il étant inconnue, tandis que ᾿ilh ... ᾿ilhm ... ᾿ilhm se trouve en RS 1.001:4-5 [= KTU3 1.39, see context 1 above] (séquence restituée dans ce texte, ligne 14, à l’instar de RS 1.001 [KTU3 1.39]), on restituera {᾿ilhm} à la fin de la ligne 30, aussi bien qu’au milieu de RS 18.056:33 [KTU3 1.87:33]. Il n’existe aucune raison épigraphique pour douter du bien-fondé de la restitution: le décompte de signes qui en résulte est tout à fait dans les normes des deux tablettes.” 4 See e.g., Xella, TRU, 61, “ilhm (= gli dèi ?) - il re]”; de Moor, ARTU, 159, “Ilahuma”; Pardee, TR, 18-19; idem, RCU, 63-65, 68, “᾿Ilāhūma.” On the other hand, see de Tarragon, TO II, 136, “dieux”; del Olmo Lete (1987b), 41; idem, RC, 146, “los ‘divinales.’”

98

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

DISCUSSION ᾿ilhm appears twenty times5 in the Ugaritic corpus and exclusively in rituals, which might indicate its late formation. However, since the feminine form ᾿ilht appears frequently in the mythological sources, it might be that ᾿ilhm was used in early Ugaritic material not yet known to us.6 I include the appellation ᾿ilhm here because it must have grouped specific Ugaritic divinities each time with their corresponding sacrifice, and is never used in Ugaritic as a mere generic term; it most probably refers to a specific group of anonymous minor deities considered personal guardian gods. This means that Ugaritians addressed their personal gods as an anonymous group, not intimately as individuals.7 Scholars are divided regarding the interpretation of ᾿ilhm. Some scholars8 think ᾿ilhm was an independent deity, while others9 associate it with ᾿ilh, ᾿il, ᾿ilm being a nomen proprium of a certain single god or an appellation for a group of Ugaritic deities. A third school of thought10 5 Cunchillos et al. (2003), 328 include KTU 1.107. I have decided not to include the context KTU3 1.107:11 due to the very damaged state of the passage. The last version of KTU3, 127 does not read ᾿ilhm in line rev. 44-45. See also Pardee, TPM, 111; idem, DDD2, 286; Pardee, TR, 38, n. 122. 6 Compare Pardee, TR, 37, n. 116. 7 Compare the Mesopotamian material, see Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 31, 32, n. 120; Rubio (2011), 108, n. 44 and the references there. 8 Bauer (1933), 85 notes “In unseren Texten kommt nun ᾿ilhm nur als Eigenname einer Gottheit vor.” However, Bauer reads gdlt ᾿ilhm (KTU3 1.39:3, 5), and interprets it to become “... Ausdruck der Steigerung dient, also etwa ‘Gotteskuh,’ im Sinne von ‘Prachtkuh’”. 9 Nielsen (1936), 19, “... ᾿ilhm – ebenfalls keinen Plural, ᾿elohim, sondern – ... – einen bestimmten Gott, der als nomen proprium den Namen ᾿lh, ᾿Elâh (hebr. ᾿Elôah) führt, mit Mimation geschrieben ᾿Elâhm. Demnach haben wir vier Varianten von diesem Wort: ᾿el, El mit Mimation ᾿ lm, Elm. ᾿ lh, Elâh mit Mimation ᾿lhm Elâhm.” Following the same line of argument are Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín, (1975e), 552-553, who present the history of the analysis of ᾿ilhm. See also de Tarragon (1980), 170, who initially comments “peutêtre le dieu El,” but who (TO II, 136, n. 12) concludes, “la nuance apportée par cette orthographe [᾿ilhm] reste à déterminer,” thus Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 84, 103, “gods” (see below). A number of scholars still think that ᾿ilhm refers to a group of Ugaritic gods but connected with the rp᾿um. See Xella, TRU, 64-65, “ilhm: costituisce una delle cruces di questo non facile testo, giacché in alcuni casi pare un nome comune, in altri un nome propio; può trattarsi di una forma di plurale (con mater lectionis  ?), ma il caso è comunque incerto ... .” For the same opinion see del Olmo Lete (1986b), 94; idem, (1987b), 42, 64-65; idem (1987c), 262, 263; idem, (1990c), 188; idem, RC, 117, 146, 148, “seres divinales (cf. hb. ᾿elōhim).” Finally, Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 309, n. 3a avoid translating ᾿ilhm, and comment “Gott (oder Gottheiten) im Kreise Els.” Later, Loretz (1992), 159-161 follows Xella. 10 With reference to ᾿ilh, de Moor (1969), 178, n. 87 writes, “Although it is possible to assume a t or m at the beginning of the following line, ᾿ilh may well be an independent deity, as in CTA 34:5; 35:14, 30.” Later, idem (1970a), 226 states, “In other cases it is demonstrable that a so-called plural of intensity or majesty is involved (᾿ilhm, b῾ lm, ymm, mtm,

᾿ ILHM “᾿ILĀHŪMA”

99

tentatively regards᾿ilhm as the plural of intensity/majesty. Some grammarians11 classify ᾿ilhm “deities” and ᾿ilht “goddesses” as the expanded forms of the plural, which seems to be correct, given the well-attested tendency in all Northwest Semitic languages to use the expanded form of the plural in biradical names.12 Thus,᾿ilhm would simply mean “gods/deities/divinities (but specific to the ritual genre according to the concordance of the Ugaritic words not attested in other prose genres).”13 Nevertheless, the possibility that ᾿ilhm is the plural of intensity/majesty (pluralis amplitudinis) of ᾿ilh has to be considered. In the texts mentioned above, ᾿ilh often immediately precedes ᾿ilhm, suggesting that various divine entities are meant when ᾿ilh and ᾿ilhm are used. However, unlike ᾿ilhm, ᾿ilh could be singular or plural, although some scholars14 are quite certain ᾿ilh refers nhrm and often ᾿ilm) so that the plural designates the same deity as the singular, though in an intensified manner”; idem (1971), 114. De Moor will change his opinion, see n. 16 and n. 17, p. 100 below. See also Korpel (1990), 274. 11 See Gordon, UT, 54-55 under point 8.8; no. 163 on p. 357; see under no. 163 ᾿il. Sivan, GUL, 34 who thinks that the base of these plurals may be ᾿ilāhu and not ᾿ilu. See also Tropper, UG, 163 on ᾿ilht “Göttinnen”; and ᾿ilhnm “Götter.” And see Huehnergard (1987), 182, n. 7; Pardee, DDD2, 286; de Pury (2008), 125-126; Cazelles (1979), 260 writes, “Il y a des pluriels internes comme en arabe ᾿ilhm (et ilm), dieux ...”; Lemaire (1982), 134, n. 12. The specific term ᾿ilhnm appears only once in the Ugaritic corpus (see KTU3 4.182:1) and clearly means “gods,” which might refer to a specific group of gods. However, since it appears only in that context, and never in the ritual genre, I have excluded it from this study. See Aistleitner, WUS, 20, no. 202; de Moor (1970a), 190, No. 30a; del Olmo Lete (1987b), 65; del Omlo Lete and Sanmartín (1998), 197; idem DLU, 27 and DULAT, 55; Ribichini and Xella (1985) 79, 81; Clemens (2001), 356, 357, n. 1060, 360-361, 364; Vita (2008), 47, 48; McGeough and Smith (2011), 130, 133, n. 158. 12 See the previous note for bibliographic references in addition to Pardee, TR, 37-39 and the corresponding footnotes. ᾿Ilhm is given as a plural of the biradical ᾿il and not necessarily of ᾿ilh. 13 Cunchillos et al. (2003), 327-328 wrongly include 1.107:11, see n. 5, p. 98 above. 14 See Sivan, GUL, 34, who considers the singular ᾿ilh [᾿ilāhu] the base of the feminine ᾿ilht [᾿ilahātu]. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DULAT, 55 classify ᾿ilh as a DN “‘the Divine One,’ referring to the deified dead (kings)”; see bibliographic references there. Contrast the detailed study of Pardee, TR, 37-38 on ᾿ilh in relationship to ᾿ilhm. Pope, EUT, 7-8 considers the Ugaritic data on ᾿ilh and ᾿ilhm insufficient and appeals to its comparison to Biblical Hebrew. So far, the attestation of ᾿lh as a divinity is certain from the Ugaritic material. In addition, the Amorite ᾿l᾿ is a common component in Amorite personal names in the Mari Texts, e.g., I-la-ar-ta-ḫa, I-la-ta-an, I-la-IŠDAR, etc., which Huffmon (1965), 165 renders as ila, *᾿ilāh “god,” and compares to Hebrew ᾿elōah, Aramaic ᾿elāh, Arabic᾿ilāh; cf. Ancient South Arabian ᾿lh; Gelb (1958), 154; idem, (1961), 146-153. Earlier, Dhorme (1951), 407 suggested the primitive form Eloah “... dans i-la de l’onomastique ouest-sémitique de l’époque hammourabienne,” and that ᾿êl “exprime la divinité en général, les Sémites occidentaux ont connu une sorte d’état emphatique représenté par l’araméen ᾿êlâh, correspondant à l’hébreu ᾿éloah et à l’arabe ᾿ilah d’où provient Allāh par l’adjonction de l’article.” The latter seems dubious, and as Huehnergard (1987), 182, n. 7 and 8 explains, “... It would be difficult, however, to maintain that the extension -āh underlies the Babylonian endings -û/ -ê, because the words with which -āh is associated in Arabic, Aramaic,

100

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

to a single divinity. An argument in support of the latter from Ugaritic internal data is the appearance of the singular ᾿ilh versus the plural ᾿ilhm (see context 1 above). Nevertheless, even when they agree that it is a plural, scholars are divided regarding the specific divine entities grouped under the appellation ᾿ilhm. In the earliest years of Ugaritic scholarship, some15 maintained that ᾿ilhm must be singular and refer to just one divinity, probably ᾿Ilu. However, recently, there seems a consensus that ᾿ilhm is plural. De Moor16 first stated that the plural of intensity designates the same deity as in the singular, and in this case as well it must be ᾿Ilu. Later,17 he would change his opinion and write that ᾿ilhm is “the same name as Hebrew ᾿elōhīm, a denomination of God. In Ugarit, however, it seems to be a denomination of neither Ilu nor of Ba῾lu. Rather, it is a collective name for the family of Ilu.” Still later18 he argued that ᾿ilhm “appears to be a denomination of the dr ᾿il ‘the Race of Ilu.’” For their part, Levine and de Tarragon19 define ᾿ilhm as “a term for the entire pantheon worshipped in the temple/a general reference to the pantheon of gods.” Although the majority of scholars20 and Hebrew are biradical stems, whereas the Babylonian examples are not.” In my opinion, Ugaritic ᾿lh would not be an exception. See Bauer (1933), 84; Waltke and O’Connor (1990), 118-119; Pardee, DDD2, 285-288; idem, TR, 37, n. 118 on Arm. ᾿ělāh, ᾿ělāhā, and Arabic allāh. See also Höfner in von Schuler (1965), 420-22; Wansbrough (1987), 105, 112, n. 5 and n. 6; Smith (2008), 11-15, for discussion and detailed bibliographic references, esp. p. 11, n. 33. Indeed, the term ᾿ lh “god,” is very common in Northwest Semitic religious inscriptions, e.g., KAI 214:29, ᾿ lh ᾿bh “the god of his father (= his paternal god).” For an analogous example but in plural see e.g., KAI 217:3, ᾿lhy byt ᾿by “the gods of my father’s house”; for more examples and bibliographic references, see DNWSI, 58-60, esp. 60. From Ugaritic internal data, the grammatical analysis of the term ᾿ilh, and the extra Ugaritic data, the Ugaritic ᾿ ilh, by analogy with its corresponding etymological and semantic data, must refer a single individual Ugaritic god. 15 See Bauer (1933), 84-85; Nielsen (1936), 19, “ilhm ... einen bestimmten Gott.” Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975e), 553 state, “... auch in den ugaritischen Texten il, ilh und ᾿ilhm nur eine Gottheit oder verschiedene Manifestationen derselben bezeichnen. Von den Opferfesten her gesehen dürfte es deshalb kaum berechtigt sein, im Sinne der Mythen El als einen müden deus otiosus hinzustellen.” De Tarragon (1980), 170 says that ᾿ilhm might refer to the Ugaritic god ᾿Ilu, and Korpel (1990), 274, n. 389 that, “Thus far no clear examples of a plural ᾿ilhm referring to Ilu have been found.” However, de Tarragon, TO II, 136, n. 12 concludes that the orthography of ᾿ilhm remains to be determined. For further details on the different opinions, see n. 8 and 9, p. 98 above. 16 De Moor (1970a), 226. For the exact quotation see n. 10, pp. 98-99 above. 17 De Moor, ARTU, 159. Van der Toorn, DDD2, 352, 353, 360, “The usual word for ‘god’ in the Hebrew Bible is ᾿ělōhîm a plural formation of ᾿ēlōh, the latter being an expanded form of the common Semitic noun ᾿il (➔ Eloah).” 18 De Moor (1990), 124-125, n. 115, 241. 19 Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 84, 103. 20 The pioneer of the above idea is Xella, TRU, 65, “Per parte nostra, non escludiamo una connessione di ilh e ilhm con i rpum.” For the same opinion see del Olmo Lete (1986b), 94; idem (1987b), 42, 64-65; idem (1987c), 262, 263; idem, (1990c), 188; idem, RC, 117,

᾿ ILHM “᾿ILĀHŪMA”

101

still think that ᾿ilhm refers to a group of Ugaritic entities connected to the rp᾿um, this opinion must be rejected as no Ugaritic textual data confirms it (see text and contexts above).21 Nevertheless, I take the view that ᾿ilhm refers to a group of Ugaritic deities, possibly major as well as minor. In the three texts, KTU3 1.39, 1.41, and 1.87, ᾿ilhm is systematically preceded and followed by ṯkmn wšnm. The sequence of ᾿il / ᾿ilhm and ṯkmn w šnm of KTU3 1.39:1-3 calls to mind the sequence of the Ugaritic texts KTU3 1.40 and 1.65, where ṯkmn w šnm is also systematically preceded by ᾿il bn ᾿il “᾿Ilu, the children of ᾿Ilu” / ᾿ab bn ᾿il “the father of the children of ᾿Ilu,” dr bn ᾿il “the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu,” and mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu,”22 all referring to a group of divinities related to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu.23 The fact that ᾿ilhm appears anticipated by another divine group appellation, ᾿inš ᾿ilm, corroborates its divine character.24 Moreover, the appearance of dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu,” confirms that ᾿ilhm must refer to fully divine entities specific to a group of divinities, which I render as “᾿Ilāhūma.” Indeed, the latter proves ᾿ilhm to be a group of Ugaritic deities, and, by analogy with ᾿il / ᾿ab bn ᾿il; dr bn ᾿il, and mpḫrt bn ᾿il, such deities could be related to ᾿Ilu. Also, the identification of each deity included under ᾿ilhm is difficult to determine. The interpretation of ᾿ilhm as referring to a group of Ugaritic divinities without mentioning any in particular calls to mind to its plausible etymological and semantic correspondence – but in any case functional or identical groups of gods – given that ᾿ilhm is an appellation and not a generic divine term, e.g., the Sumerian DINGIR.MEŠ, Akkadian ilāni, Deir ῾Alla ᾿lhn, Aramaic ᾿elāhayya. At Emar, DINGIR.MEŠ frequently occurs in rituals. Many cultic offerings are simply offered a-na DINGIR.MEŠ “to the gods,” without mentioning any by name, but relating to a specific group of deities.25 However, the 146, 148. Later he stated that the group of gods ᾿ilhm would be “... en concreto una denominación más (junto a ᾿inš ᾿ilm, rp᾿um, gṯrm, mlkm) de los ‘antepasados regios divinizados,’” this being consistent with the sense of “regio dinástico” that he gives to the texts where such divine denomination appears. He reasserted the same position in CR2, 62. See also Loretz (1992), 159-161, who adopted Xella’s opinion above, and Baumgarten (1981), 16, 182, 198, esp. 199 for the reinterpretation of the usage in Philo of the ‫ אלנם‬or ‫ אלהן‬originally applied to “human” allies of the “mortal” El. The latter has been criticized by Pardee, TPM, 110-111, n. 181, 251; idem, TR, 36, 110. 21 See Pardee, TPM, 110-111, n. 181, 251; idem, TR, 36, 110 and the bibliographic references there. 22 On ᾿il/᾿ab bn ᾿il, dr bn ᾿il, and mpḫrt bn ᾿il, see p. 168-176, Conclusion §1.1. 23 See Pardee, TR, 38 and the corresponding notes. 24 See pp. 153-161, 302, 309, 320. 25 See Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 103, 104. The syllabo-logographic DINGIR.MEŠ can be used as a divine determinative, but the Ugaritic ᾿ilhm cannot.

102

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Biblical expression ‫( אלה אלהיך‬Exodus 32:4; compare 1 Kings 12:28), which might well correspond to ᾿ilhm, is controversial and could be translated as “this is your god,” or “these are your gods,” in the latter case meaning a specific group of gods.26 The singular Ugaritic term ᾿ilh appears as a hypocoristic personal name in one Ugaritic PN.27

26 See JPS, 183, note b-b; Burnett (2001), 100-114; and Römer (2014), 145 who comments, “En effet en hébreu la forme ᾿ělōhêkā peut se traduire par ‘tes dieux’ ou ‘ton dieu’. Seule la forme verbale causative ‘faire monter’ se distingue très légèrement au singulier et au pluriel. Il est donc possible que les massorètes aient retouché un singulier originel pour en faire un pluriel et pour accuser les Israélites du Nord non seulement d’un culte iconique, voire idolâtre, mais aussi de la vénération de plusieurs dieux.” 27 The component ᾿ilh has been attested once in bn .᾿ilh (KTU3 3.7:4). See Gröndahl, PTU, 94-95, 118-119 on the component bn “‘Sohn ...’, ... wo bin die Stellung des Namenträgers zu einer Gottheit ausdrückt.”; Rowe (1993), 250-252; contrast Hoftijzer and van Soldt (1991), 206.

XI

᾿ILHT KṮRT “THE KÔṮARĀTU GODDESSES” (1.24) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.24:11 11

šm῾ ᾿ilht . kṯr[t . tḥ]mm

The Kôṯarātu goddesses have heard the message.1

2. KTU3 1.24:40-42 ᾿ašr ᾿ilh[t] kṯr[t bn] 41 t hll . snnt . bnt h42ll b῾l gml

40

I shall sing of the Kôṯarātu goddesses, the daughters of Hll, [the radiant ones], the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff.

There is a general consensus that the epithet should be translated as “the Kôṯarātu goddesses,” or the like.2 PARALLELS Context 2: ᾿ilht kṯrt // bnt hll snnt // bnt hll b῾l gml DISCUSSION The epithet ᾿ilht kṯrt occurs twice in KTU3 1.24. From the components of the epithet and from the parallelistic structure of the passage above, it is clear that ᾿ilht kṯrt refers to a group of female deities called the Kôṯarātu. The plurality of the goddesses is clearly indicated by the first component 1 Following KTU3, 70. Pardee (2010a), 17, 20, 25, 32, n. 56-60 reads, šm῾ ᾿ilht kṯr[ ] mm “Les divines Kôṯarātu écoutent.” The complete restoration of the epithet bnt hll snnt in parallelism has to be rejected. See e.g., Wyatt, RTU, 338. 2 The sole exception is Ginsberg (1939), 324, “the songstress-goddesses.” Virolleaud (1936b), 225, “les déesses Košarôt”; Gordon (1937), 33; Gordon, PLM, 67, “the Kosharot goddesses”; Goetze (1941), 360, “the goddesses, the Kāṯirāt”; Driver, CML1, 126, 127, “the goddesses, the Kathirat”; Jirku, KME, 79, “die Göttinnen, die Kuscharātu”; Aistleitner, MKT, 64, “die Kṯrt Göttinnen”; Gibson, CML2, 129, “the goddesses the Kotharat”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 396, “les divines Kotharôt”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 460, “las diosas Kôṯarātu”; de Moor, ARTU, 145, “the goddesses, the Kathiratu”; Marcus, UNP, 218, “the Katharat-goddesses”; Wyatt, RTU, 340, “the goddesses, the Kotharat.”

104

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

of the epithet, the term ᾿ilht “goddesses,” and from the component bnt, lit. “daughters,” in the parallel epithets bnt hll snnt “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones,” and bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff,” as well as from the expression ḥbl kṯrt “band of the Kôṯarātu” (KTU3 1.10 II: 30, 40).3 The first component ᾿ilht refers to a group of female deities. The Ugaritic ᾿ilht also appears in plural in another Ugaritic epithet for a group of goddesses, ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses,” where it is the second component of the epithet. Moreover, the term ᾿ilht appears systematically in parallelism with the plural masculine divine name ᾿ilm “gods/deities” (KTU3 1.4:VI:4455).4 Furthermore, in KTU3 1.25:2 ᾿ilht appears in conjunction with ᾿ilm, ᾿ilm w ᾿ilht “the gods and the goddesses,” confirming that the Ugaritic ᾿ilht refers to a group of female deities.5 These deities are seldom mentioned in the Ugaritic alphabetic corpus and they are among the least studied Ugaritic divinities.6 They normally appear only as a group acting in unison with no clear information regarding the individual deities. The one text where each goddess may be mentioned individually is the much-debated KTU3 1.24: 46-50. There is no consensus regarding the role of these goddesses. The two most widely accepted theories are that the Kôṯarātu are songstresses, bridesmaids, and professional wailers,7 or, as procreation goddesses, birth assistants and midwives.8 3

Cf. Pardee, DDD2, 491. See pp. 40-42. 5 Ugariticists agree that ᾿ilht [᾿ilahātu] is plural; see Sivan, GUL, 34, who suggests “the base for these plurals [also of ᾿ilāhūma] may be ᾿ilāhu and not ᾿ilu.” Tropper, UG, 163, 296, reads ᾿ilht /᾿ilahāt-/ as “Göttinnen,” sg. ᾿ilt. See also del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 27, 32 and DULAT, 55, 66-67. 6 The goddesses Kôṯarātu appear in the following Ugaritic contexts, KTU3 1.10:II: 30; 1.11:6; 1.17:II: 26-27, 29-30, 30, 33, 35, 37, 40; 1.24:5-6, [k]ṯrt, 11 (concerning this line see n. 1, p. 103 above), 15 (concerning this line see n. 5, pp. 185-186 below), 40, 50; 1.47, 13: [kṯr]t; 1.118, 12; 1.130, 20, kṯ[rt ...] (contrast Pardee, TR, 729, 730, 735); KTU3 1.148, 5, 25; 4.412:II:5. The major studies of these deities are Herrmann (1974), 104-108; idem (1968) in his study of KTU3 1.24; Margalit (1972a), 53-61; and Pardee, DDD2, 491-492. 7 Ginsberg (1938a), 13; Baumgartner (1941), 94; Engnell (1967), 134, n. 1; Held (1957), 101-102; Gaster, Thespis, 339-340; Gordon (1966), 26; idem, UT, 424-425; Loewenstamm (1980), 193-194, n. 3. 8 Nielsen (1938), 534-535; Dussaud (1941), 142-143; Spiegel (1945), 312-313, n. 5; van Selms (1954), 35, 85-87; idem (1979), 743-744; Albright (1964), 52; Astour (1966), 280, n. 32a; idem (1987), 56, n. 405; Herrmann (1968), 5-6, z.5f., 27, 34-36; idem (1974), 105; Gese et al. (1970), 82-84; Lichtenstein (1972), 104; Priebatsch (1976), 327-328; Caquot (1979), col. 1398-1399; Rendtorff and Stolz (1979), 711-712; Baumgarten (1981), 204; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 452; idem (1991), 74-75; Margalit (1983), 74-75; idem (1989a), 285-286; Healey (1985), 118, 120, 124, n. 20; Becking, DDD2, 858-859; Pardee, DDD2, 491; idem, TR, 305; Wyatt, RTU, 340, n. 26, 336; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 171. 4

᾿ ILHT KṮRT “THE KÔṮARĀTU GODDESSES”

105

Some scholars suggest that they perform multiple roles.9 The role of these goddesses as deities of conception is evident from their presence in Dan᾿ilu’s house immediately before the conception of his son in KTU3 1.17.10 They appear in an account of a sequence of events marked by the mention of consecutive days: hn ym w ṯn ... ṯlṯ rb῾ ym ... ḫmš ṯdṯ ym ... b šb῾ ymm ... “Behold a day and a second one ... a third and a fourth day ... a fifth and a sixth day ... on the seventh day ... .” (KTU3 1.17:II: 32-39). This repetition suggests a possible role of the Kôṯarātu in a fertility rite of some sort.11 After the Kôṯarātu leave Dan᾿ilu’s home (lines 39-40), the latter begins to count his wife’s months of pregnancy (lines 43-46), which would indicate the successful completion of the ritual. In KTU3 1.24 the goddesses also seem to function specifically as patronesses of conception and wedlock, appearing in lines 5-6 before the birth announcement in line 7 and in lines 40-42 in the context of a marriage ceremony and after the reference to the birth.12 KTU3 1.10 contains the account of the conception and birth of a boviform child to Ba῾lu. The immediate context is fragmentary, but column II lines 30 and 40 likely contain references to ḥbl kṯrt “the band of the Kôṯarātu” at a stage in the story leading to the conception.13 However, the only possible extant explicit reference to the Kôṯarātu as midwives is in KTU3 1.11:5-6: [ ]xq . hry . w yld [ ]xm . ḥbl . kṯrt “... conception and birth [...] the band of the Kôṯarātu.”14 Unfortunately the text is so fragmentary that the exact role of the Kôṯarātu can only be surmised.15 A reference to the Kôṯarātu as midwives could have 9 Virolleaud (1934), 239-240, n. 3; idem (1936b), 214; Herdner (1942-43), 284-285; Obermann (1946), 26; Gray, LC2, 246; Gröndahl, PTU, 152; Nougayrol (1968), 51; Margalit (1972a), 54-57; idem (1972b), 113-117; Smith (1985), 469; Marcus, UNP, 215; Koitabashi (1998), 386-387; Pasquali (2006), 61-62. 10 KTU3 1.17:II:27, 31 (= 33-34, 36, 38), 40. See Pardee, DDD2, 491. For more references, see n. 6, 104 above. 11 For the combination of myth and ritual in the Aqht text and KTU3 1.24, see Wright (2001), 19, 81-86; Korpel (2005), 141-142 and the references there; Pardee (2010a). 12 See, for example, Obermann (1946), 26; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 451-452; Marcus, UNP, 215. For more references, see n. 8 and n. 9, pp. 104-105 above. 13 Reading with KTU3, 34; Parker, UNP, 184 reads ḥ[ ] k[ ]t in line 30 and does not transcribe line 40 (cf. p. 186, n. 3). 14 See Parker, UNP, 187, who restores [nš?]q. 15 Other Ugaritic texts that seem to include the birth theme are KTU3 1.12, where Tlš and Dmgy give birth to ῾qqm and ᾿aklm, and KTU3 1.23, where anonymous goddesses give birth to the deities Šaḥru wa-Šalimu. In both cases the birth process is not described, and the Kôṯarātu are not mentioned. The only allusion to the act of childbirth is the complaint of Tlš and Dmgy to their father ᾿Ilu about the pain preceding the birth (KTU3 1.12:9-11). On ᾿aklm and ῾qqm, see pp. 61-65 and pp. 256-258, 304, 320.

106

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

been in the lost columns of KTU3 1.17:III-IV.16 The interpretation of the Kôṯarātu as divine midwives is based mainly on the unambiguous correspondence provided by god lists and ritual texts from Ugarit between the West Semitic Kôṯarātu and the Mesopotamian šassūrātu, a group of (seven) birth goddesses.17 A god list from Mari similarly mentions both (sets of) deities together: dšen-sú-ru-um ú dkà-wa6-šu-ra-tum “the birth goddess Š. (singular of šassūrātu) and the Kôṯarātu.”18 In addition, virtually all scholars accept the etymological relationship between the masculine divine name kṯr “Kôṯaru” and the feminine divine group name kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu.”19 Although I find no evidence for a direct relationship in Ugaritic mythology between the god Kôṯaru and the Kôṯarātu goddesses,20 the etymological relationship between the two divine names is apparent and helps explain how the latter group fulfills its role as goddesses of conception and as divine midwives.21 I have shown in my previous study of the Ugaritic 16 Pardee, CS I, 345, n. 20. If so, the structure of KTU3 1.17:II-IV may have been similar to the structure of the Hittite mythological birth topos that Hoffner (1968), 199 outlined: (1) the statement of conception (cf. KTU3 1.17:II:41-42, immediately after the departure of the Kôṯarātu), (2) the counting of the months of gestation cf. KTU3 1.17:II:43-46); (3) the statement of birth; (4) the activity of the nurse (here the Kôṯarātu); (5) the father’s first holding and fondling of the child; and (6) the bestowal of the name. For more on the birth topos, see Beckman (1983), 6-7. Concerning the counting of the months in the Aqht poem, see Dijkstra and de Moor (1975), 180; Loewenstamm (1980), 193-194, 204. For the theme of birth in the Aqht poem, see Husser (1996), 85-98, esp. 89-91. 17 See Krebernik (1993b), 502, 513, 515; Pardee, DDD2, 491; idem, TR, 292, 305, n. 68, 796, 799; idem, RCU, 11-19, 21; Tsumura (2007), 637-638. The Akkadian term is written either syllabically (dsa-sú-ra-tu4) or with an ideogram (dNIN.MAḪ). dNIN.MAḪ is also a constellation name for what became the Classical Parthenos/Virgo, but any connection is not obvious. 18 Pardee, TR, 304, n. 63, 305; Durand (1995), 167, 184-185; and the bibliography cited there. 19 Ginsberg (1938a), 13; Spiegel (1945), 312-313, n. 5; van Selms (1954), 85-86; Held (1957), 102; Gray, LC2, 246; idem (1978), 101; Albright (1968), 118-119, n. 67; Herrmann (1968), 35; Lichtenstein (1972), 104, n. 57, 105; Margalit (1983), 74; idem (1989a), 286; Smith (1985), 466; Pardee, DDD2, 492; idem, TR, 304. An exception is Pope (see below, n. 20, p. 106.) 20 Cf. Pope (apud Cooper [1981], 387-88), who noted that both divine names never appear together in Ugaritic literature. Pope’s rejection of an etymological relationship between the two names, however, does not seem justified. 21 I follow the position adopted in my study of the divine epithets, and refrain from attempting to determine the meaning of proper names except in such cases where the etymology of the name is apparent and its analysis may shed light on the character and role of the deity to which the epithet refers (see DEUAT, xix-xx). Such is the case in the present names. The relationship between kṯr and kṯrt may resemble that between gṯr and gṯrm rather than that between rp᾿u and rp᾿um. Whereas the god rp᾿u is associated with the rp᾿um (e.g., KTU3 1.108 ), there is no evidence proving a connection between the god gṯr and the gṯrm, in spite of the obvious etymological identity of the names. For the latter, see especially Pardee, TR, 239-240.

᾿ ILHT KṮRT “THE KÔṮARĀTU GODDESSES”

107

divine epithets that the alternate names of Kôṯaru, ḫss “the wise one” and hyn ‘the skillful’, together with the epithets hyn d ḥrš yd(m) “Hayyānu, the one of the dexterous hand(s)” and ḥrš “the dexterous one,” all reveal the deity’s true role and professional qualities.22 These data provide adequate precedents to justify the hypothesis that the masculine divine name kṯr and the feminine divine group name kṯrt are both etymologically related to Biblical Hebrew ‫“ ִכּ ְשׁרוֹן‬skillfulness,” Aramaic ‫“ כשׁר‬industrious,”23 and Akkadian kašāru “to accomplish successfully” (in spite of the apparent phonological difficulty),24 and were intended in both cases to be a semantically transparent indication of the divinely skillful performance of their respective professions.25 22

See DEUAT, 156-158, 178-179, 342-343; idem (2007). Sokoloff (1992), 271. Note the frequent use of the verb KŠR “to do well, succeed” in hendiadys with ABD “to work, to do” in Mandaic (Drower and Macuch [1963], 225). 24 The correspondence between Ugaritic ṯ and Aramaic š is irregular. Both Kutscher (quoted by Kellerman [1995], 367) and McKane (1976), 151, have explained the phonological discrepancy by positing a loanword in Aramaic from Akkadian or Canaanite. The frequent comparison of Ugaritic kṯrt with Biblical Hebrew ‫כּוֹשׁרוֹת‬ ָ ‫ ַבּ‬in Psalm 68:7 is incorrect, being based solely on common etymology. For this comparison, see for example, Albright (1968), 119; Pope (apud Cooper [1981], 387-388); de Moor (1997), 173. Lichtenstein (1972), 97-112 rightly rejects the comparison and proposes translating the Biblical term as “in prosperity, in good health, unscathed,” arguing that the Biblical context includes no reference to birth or conception that would suggest a relationship with the Ugaritic kṯrt. In the present study, I have adopted his alternate translation “deftly, with prowess” in accordance with the meaning of the root in Ugaritic and with some of the usages in BH. Note especially Lichtenstein’s many important semantic and contextual parallels (Lichtenstein [1972], 108112). Contrary to the usual understanding of the Biblical Hebrew term as a plural feminine noun (e.g., HALOT, 467), I also accept Lichtenstein’s suggestion that ‫כּוֹשׁרוֹת‬ ָ ‫ ַבּ‬is an abstract noun with the archaic suffix -ot (rather than, the regular abstract nominal suffix -ut), which is well attested in Psalm 68. (For four other similar forms in verses 10, 21, and 25, see Lichtenstein [1972], 108, n. 81; see further Cohen [1996b], 306-308.) 25 A relationship with the Arabic root ‫ كثر‬/ kṯr “to be abundant, numerous” must be rejected on semantic grounds, since neither Kôṯaru nor the Kôṯarātu are ever associated with such a quality. Some scholars (e.g., Pope apud Cooper [1981], 386; Smith, UBC I, 254-256) have suggested a relationship between Ugaritic kṯr /kôṯaru/ and the Qur᾿ānic ‫ كوثر‬kawṯar in َ ‫اك‬ َ ‫ إِنَّا َأ ْع َط ْي َن‬/᾿innā ᾿a῾ṭaynāka l-kawṯara َ ‫ِّك َوان َْح ْر إِنَّ َشا ِنئ‬ َ ‫َصلِّ ِل َرب‬ Q. 108:1-3, ‫َك ُه َو الأ َ ْب َت ُر‬ َ ‫الك ْو َث َر ف‬ fa-ṣalli li-rabbika wa-nḥar ᾿inna šāni᾿aka huwa l-᾿abtaru “We have truly bestowed upon you the kawṯar, so pray to your LORD and offer sacrifice to Him [alone]. Indeed, he who hates you is the one who is deprived (lit. cut off).” Muslim tradition is divided over the meaning of ‫ كوثر‬kawṯar in the Qur᾿ān. Some interpreters consider it to be the name of a river in paradise, ‫ وماؤه أشدّ بياض ًا من الثلج وأشدّ حلاوة‬،‫ ومجراه على الد ّر والياقوت‬،‫ نهر في الجنة حافتاه من الذهب‬:‫الكوثر‬ ‫ من العسل وتربته أطيب من ريح المسك‬/ al-kawṯaru: nahrun fī l-ǧannati ḥāfatāhu mina ḏ-ḏahabi wa-maǧrāhu ῾alā d-durri wa-l-yāqūti wa-mā᾿uhu ᾿ašaddu bayāḍan mina ṯ-ṯalǧi wa-᾿ašaddu ḥalāwatan mina l-῾asali wa-turbatuhu ᾿aṭyabu min rīḥi l-miski “Kawṯar: a river in Paradise whose banks are of gold, which flows on/over a bed of pearls and rubies, whose water surpasses snow in whiteness and surpasses honey in sweetness, and whose soil is more fragrant than the smell of musk.” Others understand it abstractly as ‫ الخير الكثير‬al-ḫayru 23

108

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The extant internal Ugaritic data do not provide an epithet or alternative appellation that would confirm this hypothesis with respect to the Kôṯarātu, but supporting evidence can be adduced from Mesopotamian literature. In particular, as noted above, the Ugaritians themselves identified the Kôṯarātu with the Akkadian šassūrātu “birth goddesses” who, significantly, are depicted as being under the tutelage of the skillful god Enki (= Ugaritic Kôṯaru).26 The Mesopotamian group of goddesses is referred to by the epithets eršu “wise” ( inši-akku > inši). Sanmartín22 saw in ᾿inš ᾿ilm “in den Kollektiven der Art pḫr ilm oder inš ilm behelfsmäßige ug. Wiedergaben bzw. Entsprechungen der sum.-akk. igigū und anunnakkū zu sehen (s. RIA 5, S. 37ff., 40ff.).” Others think that ᾿inš ᾿ilm refers to those humans who joined the divine realm. Thus, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín23 defined it as “‘gente divina, antepasados divinizados / divine people ... dioses tutelares del palacio y de la dinastía / tutelary or patron gods of the palace and dynasty / deified ancestors / dead / the divinized kings.” Regarding ᾿inš ᾿ilm Pardee24 wrote that it was “perhaps a collective term denoting some part or the entirety of the human race that has joined the realm of divinity (this interpretation is based on the analysis of the phrase as meaning ‘the humanity of the gods,’ with the genitive explained as the genitive of identification)” and stated that the expression means ‘the humankind/humanity of the gods’ perhaps ‘men (who have become) divine.’” Still others25 interpret ᾿inš as a verb. However, the contexts in which ᾿inš ᾿ilm appears are ambiguous 18 Xella (1979a), 474-476, esp. 475, n. 24; idem (1979-80), 152; idem, TRU, 41; idem (1981a), 122; idem (1981c), 331; following him, Weinfeld (1983a), 110-111. 19 Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 91, 92, esp. 94; Levine, de Tarragon, and Robertson, CS I, 300. See also de Tarragon, TO II, 131, 139, n. 28, “cette expression débattue désigne une entité divine, difficile à déterminer. Sans doute une divinité subalterne, serviteur des grands dieux, les ᾿ilm.” Levine (1981), 246-47 read ᾿inš either as a simple singular and translated “servitor, assistant of the gods,” or as a collective singular and translated “the company/ staff of the gods.” 20 Saracino (1982), 198-199, n. 44. 21 Lipiński (1983), 138-139; idem (1984), col. 438. 22 Sanmartín (1986), 104. 23 See del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 41; DULAT, 84. See also del Olmo Lete, (1984), 201, n. 20, 203 [inṣ ilm (sic!)]; idem (1986a), 59; idem (1986b), 84, 94; idem (1986c), 161, 162; idem (1986d), 281; idem (1987b), 66; idem (1990a), 23, n. 18; idem, RC, 147; idem (2004), 561, 626; idem, CR2, 45-46, 52-53, 68, 82, 90, 170, 192, 198, n. 80, 201-202, 267, 271, n. 100, 272, 289, 341, n. 8, 350, 390. 24 Pardee (1996b), 283-284; see also Pardee, TR, 88-89, 91, 144, 145, 150, 212-213, 266, 270, 273, 469-470, 479, 576, 588, 631, 744, 751, 753, 849, who sees it as a theonym and renders it “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma.” For more see, Pardee, RCU, 280. Compare Krebernik (2013), 199. 25 Aistleitner, WUS, 28, no. 319, ᾿anš II “‘freundlich s.,’ ‘freundlich hegen, besänftigen’ ... 1*. l ᾿inš ᾿ilm ... um die Götter zu besänftigen”; Gray (1966), 190, “to mollify the gods”; Margalit (1984), 175, n. 409, “... to please (lit., ‘befriend’) the gods” (see below).

158

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

as to whether the expression designates a group of humans who became divine entities, or simply a group of Ugaritic minor deities (see below). Since the first studies of Ugaritic lexicography, the term ᾿inš has received extensive treatment but with no definitive results.26 Xella27 incorrectly related the Ugaritic᾿inš to its homograph ᾿anš and translated “la malattia divina,” but there has been a general consensus to interpret the Ugaritic ᾿inš in light of the common Semitic root, ᾿nš “human being, humanity, humankind.” Some scholars28 relate the latter to the Classical Arabic ᾿ans / ᾿anīs “to be sociable/to be gentle,” but forget that the latter derived from the radical, ᾿NS, which basically means “humankind, human being, humanity.”29 The paradigm of the Ugaritic term ᾿inš / ᾿ināšu, with the {᾿i} as first radical, calls to mind as cognates the Aramaic ᾿enāš, Hebrew ‫ אנוש‬/ ᾿enōš, Syriac (᾿)nāš, and Arabic ‫ أنس‬/ ᾿ns – ‫ إنسان‬/ ᾿insān (pl. ‫ إنس‬/ ُ 30 ᾿ins, ‫أناس‬/᾿unās). But it is more suitable to relate it to the Akkadian nišu,

and the Biblical Aramaic ᾿anāšīm, which actually corresponds to the Ugaritic nšm.31 Both have an equal semantic value, “man,”32 or a collective reference to “humanity, humankind, human being.”33 If I adopt the latter, the

26 See, for example, de Tarragon (1980), 131ff. bibliographic references; and reviews such as Levine (1981), 246; Lipiński (1983), 137-139; and other bibliographic references. 27 Xella, TRU, 41, 82, 83; idem (1981c), 331; see also Dussaud (1931), 72-73, who affirms that such an expression is appropriate to the god Melqart-Reshef, and contrast Levine (1981), 247; see n. 19, p. 157, n. 33, pp. 158-159. 28 See n. 5, p. 155 above. Herdner (1978), 14, “ ... ᾿inš ᾿ilm, l’homme (héb. ‫ )אנוש‬ou l’ami, le familier (ar. ‫ ) آ ِنس‬des dieux”; Al-Yasin (1952), 41, no. 41, “to be a companion of / companionable”; Gray (1966), 190, n. 2, “to mollify the gods”; see the reference to de Moor translation n. 5, p. 155, n. 9, p. 156, n. 42, p. 161. Renfroe, AULS, 81-82 points out that “the root is used in Arabic to distinguish beasts which are domesticated or tame (thus ‘humanized’ insofar as they are accustomed to people) from wild, untamed animals. The semantic complex of ‘tame, gentle, domesticated’ is contiguous to that of ‘pleasant, hospitable, sociable.’” He forgets, however, that this meaning is a semantic development from its basic “human being, man”; see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 172-173. Margalit’s (1984), 175, n. 409 suggestion that the Ugaritic root ᾿nš is related to the Arabic expression insh-allah “represents either a most regrettable lapse or an inadequate understanding of Arabic,” as Renfroe (1986), 38, n. 24 says; see also AULS, 81-82. 29 Fronzaroli (1964), 243-244; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 170-173, esp. 172-173. 30 Fronzaroli, ibid.; Levine (1981), 247; contrast Sapin (1983), 180, n. 98; Pardee, TR, 88-89; and Pardee’s (2003/2004), 153-154 review of Tropper online; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 170-173, esp. 171. 31 See Dietrich and Loretz (1977), 50; Saracino (1982), 199, n. 44, “una connessione di inš all’accadio nišu.” 32 See also Urie (1948), 45, “Man of the gods,” who compared the expression to the Biblical Hebrew ‫( איש האלהים‬Deuteronomy 33:1 etc.), and to the Phoenician ᾿iš elm; Burnett (2001), 38, 58-59, “Man of the gods/of the divine.” 33 Levine (1981), 247 says, “If ᾿inš = ᾿inâšu is a simple singular, then inâš ilîma means ‘servitor, assistant of the gods’ ... If a singular collective, inâš ilîma = ‘the company, staff of the gods.’” See Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 91, 92, 94 and Levine, de Tarragon, and

᾿ INŠ ᾿ ILM “᾿INĀŠU ᾿ILĪMA”

159

semantic correspondence of ᾿inš ᾿ilm with the Nuzi formulation DINGIR. ERÍN.MEŠ suggested by Loretz34 seems correct, given that the Sumerian erin2 means “Götter der Sippe, Sippengötter,” which corresponds to Akkadian nišu. Moreover, this Akkadian term appears as a component in several Mesopotamian epithets in contexts that might involve a relationship to humankind, which would parallel the sense of the Ugaritic ᾿inš ᾿ilm “the humanity / the humankind of the gods” relating the divine to human beings: e.g., ištarāti nišīma “the goddesses of humankind” (AOAT 447, 66); iltam šamaš nišīša “the goddess, the very sun to her people” (ZA 102:1); bēlu muštēšir kiššat nišī gimir nabnīti “lord who guides all humankind, every living being” (BMS 1:53).35 Furthermore, the Ugaritic ᾿inš ᾿ilm might parallel the Phoenician ᾿š ᾿lm “a man / humankind of god (or: the gods)” (Lévy SG-Ph 18),36 as well as the Biblical Hebrew expression ‫איש‬ ‫“ )ה(אלהים‬man of God/the prophet” (Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 14:6; 1 Samuel 9:6-10; Psalm 90:1 etc.). The latter comparison favors the theory that ᾿inš ᾿ilm refers to human beings that might be deified, or might have been human beings who were occasionally associated with deity (see below).37 The second component of the term, ᾿ilm, is usually analyzed as a plural and serves as the nomen rectum in the construct chain ᾿inš ᾿ilm (lit. “᾿inš of the gods; the human being / humankind who are (becoming) the gods”). However, since ᾿inš ᾿ilm appears mainly in the ritual genre and specifically in the sacrifice list, the lack of literary context makes its translation and Robertson, CS I, 300. I agree with Pardee, TR, 89, n. 364, that “Enfin, le sens de ‘servitor, staff’ ... prend pour acquis un développement sémantique (‘état humain’➔‘état servile’) que le mot ᾿ināšu ne connaît pas.” In addition, the term ᾿inšt, which might be related at least etymologically to ᾿inš, proves no semantic equivalency between the two terms. See de Levine (1981), 247; de Tarragon (1980), 133; contrast Xella (1979a), 474f.; idem, TRU, 41. 34 Loretz (1992), 166, n. 257 and n. 258. For the Sumerian ERÍN, see PSD (electronic version); see BM 13880 – Dingir-ra erin2 eš3-/didli dumu Lu2-dB-ba6 “For the god: Various troops and shrines. The son (of) Lu2-dB-ba6” (see Molina [2003], 132 in MVN 22, 171). However, Lipiński’s (1983), 138-139 and idem (1984), col. 438 suggestion relating ᾿inš to the Sumerian ENSE2 is based on an incorrect etymological correspondence and has to be rejected due to the infernal character of the divine entity (see above p. 157); contrast Pardee, TR, 89, n. 364. 35 See Bácskay (2018); CDA, 255; CAD N/2, 284, 349. 36 DNWSI, 119-120 under ᾿š and the references there. See Lévy no. 18, p. 31 in Cooke (1903), 361 under 5, who commented that ‫ אש אלם‬is “‘a man of the gods (?).’ ...‫אש אלם‬ possibly ‫ אלם‬may have a sing. meaning ... but the expression man of the gods, i.e. divine servant, is unusual, and it may be more correct to render the nobleman”; Lipiński (1974), 54f. 37 Dhorme (1931), 36; Dussaud (1931), 72-73; Urie (1948), 45; Caquot and Sznycer (1980), 17; Smith (2008), 14, n. 40.

160

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

interpretation difficult. Therefore, ᾿ilm could also be analyzed as an apposition with ᾿ināšu, in which case the expression would be rendered “the ᾿ināšu who are gods / the human beings / humankind who belong to gods,” or as the divine name ᾿il + -m (enclitic), and so its translation would be “᾿ināšu of ᾿Ilu.”38 Consequently, various scholars39 classify ᾿inš ᾿ilm as a divine Ugaritic epithet. However, the fact that ᾿inš ᾿ilm receives a sacrifice and sometimes appears before the epithet of a deity who receives a sacrifice complicates the task of determining whether it should be treated as an epithet or a mere theonym. Given that ᾿inš ᾿ilm appears solely in the ritual genre, other instruments have to be applied to define the nature, character, role, and function of the deities included under it. The fact that it often appears in close association with the god Rašpu suggests, but does not prove, the identity of this deity and group of deities,40 who might have shared a common chthonic and infernal character as keepers of the underworld and gods who control epidemics. Moreover, the latter characterization of ᾿inš ᾿ilm is corroborated by its typical offering, ῾ṣrm “bird(s),” because in Ugaritic rituals ῾ṣrm is the sacrifice for ᾿inš ᾿ilm par excellence. In fact, with the exception of the mixed Hurrian Ugaritic texts, where the ᾿inš ᾿ilm is once offered ṯn šm “two rams” and gdlt “a cow,” in Ugaritic ritual texts᾿inš ᾿ilm always receives ῾ṣrm “bird/bird(s).” In Hittite, Hurrian, and even Old Testament texts, this offering is specific to lustration ceremonies directed against demonic-chthonic forces.41 This contradicts de 38

Levine (1981), 247; Saracino (1982), 198-199, n. 42-44; Pardee, TR, 89. DeGuglielmo (1955), 90, classifies both b῾lt bhtm and ᾿inš ᾿ilm as titles with divine status. Xella (1979-80), 152, 153; idem (1979a), 475; idem (1981a), 122; idem (1981c), 331; idem, TRU, 223 maintained that ᾿inš ᾿ilm is an epithet of the god Rašpu; see also de Tarragon, TO II, 131, n. 4, “... nous penchons pour l’autre solution, qui en fait une épithète divine ... .” 40 See, for example, Dussaud (1931), 72-73, who affirms that such an expression is appropriate to the god Melqart-Reshef; see Müller (1980), 7; Xella (1979-80), 152-153, esp. 152, inš ᾿ilm would be “... une manifestation de Rashap; en particulier, il se pourrait qu’il coincide avec Rashap-hgb”; and Xella (1979a), 475, “... ‘litanie’ 1.123, où on appelle explicitement Rashap ᾿inš ᾿ilm ...”; idem (1981a), 122; idem (1981c), 331,“Che ᾿inš ᾿ilm non sia una designazione di personale addetto al culto, ma forse un epiteto di Rashap”; idem, TRU, 41, 218-223 maintained that ᾿inš ᾿ilm is an epithet of the god Rašpu. Lipiński (1983), 139 identifies ᾿inš ᾿ilm with šmn; in fact, šmn in RIH 77/2B (see Bordreuil, Pardee and Roche-Hawley (2019), 200-203) took the place of ᾿inš ᾿ilm and receives the sacrifice ῾ṣrm. However, Lipiński concludes, “mais il faut attendre de nouvelles données pour savoir quelles divinités se cachent sous ces épithètes.” See also Caquot quoted by Levine and de Tarragon (1993), 94, n. 16. For a general reference to ritual employs of Birds in Ancient Syria-Palestine, see Minunno (2013). 41 See, for example, Leviticus 1:14; 12:6; 14:4ff., 49; 15:14; Numbers 6:10. On the Hittite-Hurrian, see Haas and Wilhelm (1974), 50ff.; Xella (1979a), 476; Weinfeld (1983a), 110-111; Pardee (1988c), 185; idem (1996b), 283-284. The suggestion of Dietrich 39

᾿ INŠ ᾿ ILM “᾿INĀŠU ᾿ILĪMA”

161

Moor’s42 description of ᾿inš ᾿ilm as an epithet meaning “gentle” and probably referring to the Ugaritic god Ba῾lu. At first glance, this seems to validate del Olmo Lete’s43 characterization of ᾿inš ᾿ilm as an epithet referring to “the divinized ancestors” – an opinion Pardee44 first rejected and later modified, positing that ᾿inš ᾿ilm might be an appellation for the dead but “either limited to royalty or inclusive of the entire population.” Indeed, this is supported by the lexicography of the term ᾿inš. Unfortunately, however, the only information about the character of ᾿inš ᾿ilm that seems certain is that they were chthonic infernal entities. If my interpretation of ᾿inš is correct, then ᾿inš ᾿ilm would have included divinized human beings or, more probably, deified ancestors. However, the religious sources where ᾿inš ᾿ilm appears provide no explicit or detailed information about the group. Some scholars,45 following the identification of ᾿inš ᾿ilm discussed above, suggest that the Ugaritic deified kings ydb᾿il, rš᾿il, and ῾mtr, who appear in KTU3 1.106: 3-5 just after ᾿inš ᾿ilm in line 2, were among the royal inhabitants of the underworld. Nevertheless, the fact that these royal names precede the term ᾿inš ᾿ilm does not guarantee their inclusion in it. Moreover, the occurrence of ydb᾿il, (ya)rš᾿il, and ῾mtr in a list of the divine names (KTU31.102:17-18, 20-21), among which ᾿inš ᾿ilm are not even mentioned, invalidates that theory.46 Therefore, all possible interpretations of ᾿inš ᾿ilm as a collective of divinized human beings, divinized ancestors, or unknown minor Ugaritic divinities remain on the table. Besides this, there is still no definitive evidence against the interpretation of ᾿inš ᾿ilm as a group of anonymous minor Ugaritic divinities.47 Finally, based on the philological arguments and additional Ugaritic comparative data, the interpretation of the expression ᾿inš ᾿ilm as “the humankind of the gods” seems most likely. and Loretz (1993), 104 that ᾿inš ᾿ilm is part of a complex Ugaritic-Canaanite background of post-exilic Jewish angelology/demonology is impossible to prove with the available Ugaritic data. 42 For the reference see above n. 5, p. 155, n. 9, p. 156; and especially de Moor, ARTU, 159, n. 12. 43 Del Olmo Lete (1984), 201, 203; idem (1986a), 59; idem (1986b), 84, 94; idem (1986c), 161, 162; idem (1986d), 281, 283; idem (1987b), 66; idem (1990a), 23, n. 16, 24; idem (1990c), 187; RC, 145, 147, 149; idem (2004), 561, 626; idem, CR2, 198, n. 80; Loretz (1992), 164-166; Dietrich and Loretz (1993), 104. 44 See Pardee, TR, 89; idem, RCU, 280; contrast with del Olmo Lete (1986d), 281, 283; idem (2004), 561; idem, CR2, 349-353, esp. 341, n. 8, 350, 390. 45 Del Olmo Lete (1986a), 59; RC, 153; see also de Moor (1990), 240-241, who then seems to change his mind (1997), 327-330. 46 See also Pardee, TR, 528, 529-530, 593, n. 14; Krebernik (2013), 200, n. 79. 47 Levine (1981), 247; Dietrich et Loretz (1977), 50; Xella (1979a), 475; Saracino (1982), 199, n. 44.

XVIII

BN ᾿AṮRT / ŠB῾M BN ᾿AṮRT “THE SEVENTY / (THE) CHILDREN OF ᾿AṮIRATU” (1.3; 1.6; 1.4; 1.117) 1. KTU3 1.3:V:4 (= 1.3:VI:4-5 [w tn / km]) l ytn . bt . l b῾l . k ᾿ilm [w ḥẓ]r . k bn . ᾿aṯrt 

4

If he does not give a house to Ba῾lu like the gods, [and a courtyard] as the children of ᾿Aṯiratu!

2. KTU3 1.3:V:39 (= 1.3:IV:48 [partially reconstructed]; 1.4:I:11 [reconstructed]; 1.4:IV:51; 1.117:5[?]) wn . ᾿in . bt [.] l b῾l . km . ᾿ilm ḥẓr . k b[n . ] ᾿aṯrt . mṯb . ᾿il 40 mẓll. b[nh . 38

39

Ba῾lu has no house as (do) the gods, (no) courtyard as (do) the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, (no) dwelling (as does) ᾿Ilu, (no) shelter (as do) his sons.

3. KTU3 1.4:V:1 ybn . bt . l b῾l 1 km ᾿ilm . w ḥẓr . k bn . ᾿aṯrt

Let a house be built for Ba῾lu like the gods, and a courtyard like the children of ᾿Aṯiratu!

4. KTU3 1.4:VI: 46 44 ṣḥ . ᾿aḫh . b bhth . ᾿aryh 45 b qrb hklh .  ṣḥ 46 šb῾m . bn . ᾿aṯrt

He invites his brothers to his house, his kindred into his palace; he summons the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu.

5. KTU3 1.6:V:1 y᾿iḫd . b῾l . bn . ᾿aṯrt   rbm . ymḫṣ . b ktp 

1 2

Ba῾al seized the children of ᾿Aṯiratu. the mighty (among them) he smites with the sword,1

1 For a detailed study of the term ktp and its parallel ṣmd, see O’Callaghan (1952), 3746. Dijkstra (1974), 64, n. 27 and n. 28; del Olmo Lete (1982), 68, n. 50; Bordreuil and Pardee (1993b), 68, n. 19, n. 20 and the bibliographic references there; Watson (1995b), 545-546; Vita (1996), 442, n. 24; Hoch (2014), 337-338, #500; Wyatt, RTU, 140, n. 102 and the bibliographic references; DLU, 230 meaning 3, and p. 418 under ṣmd meaning 4; DULAT, 469 under ktp meaning 3, and p. 785 under ṣmd meaning 4. See Watson (2017); and idem (2018), 382, n. 15, §3.6 explains, “The meaning is based on Harari kätäfa, ‘(to) hash, cut into pieces, chop’ and Tigre kättäfa, ‘(to) cut to pieces’ (EDH, 96a). This shows that, in fact, Ug. ktp is Semitic.” Indeed, see Classical Arabic ‫ وكذلك‬،‫ قطَّعه صغار ًا‬:‫كتَّف اللحم ت َْك ِتيف ًا‬ ‫ ويقال للسيف الصفيح َكتيف‬... ‫ وكتفه بالسيف كذلك‬،‫(“ الثوب‬He) intensively chops/minces: he cuts it into small pieces, the same would be said about cloth. It is said too: he cuts him with the sword. The sheet iron/tin/tinplate/sword is called katīf” (see Lisān l-῾arab, vol. XIII, 21-22).

BN ᾿AṮRT / ŠB῾M BN ᾿AṮRT “THE SEVENTY / THE CHILDREN OF ᾿AṮIRATU” 3

dkym . ymḫṣ . b ṣmd  ṣġrm . ymṣḫ . l ᾿arṣ 

4

163

the crushers (among them) he smites with the mace, the youngsters (among them) he tramples2 to the ground.

The majority of scholars translate this as “the children/sons of ᾿Aṯiratu,” or the like.3 PARALLELS Contexts 1, 2, 3: ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt Context 4: ᾿aḫh // ᾿aryh // šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt4 Context 5: bn ᾿aṯrt // rbm // dkym // ṣġrm DISCUSSION The epithet bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” occurs ten times (including two cases which are reconstructed and one which is doubtful)5 in the 2 Virolleaud (1931), 219, “fait toucher terre”; Gaster (1932), 873, “He brought to earth”; idem, Thespis, 224, “he fells them to the ground”; Ginsberg (1932-33), 117, “‫השליך‬ ‫ ;”לארץ‬Rosensohn Jacobs (1945), 103, “He drove him”; Aistleitner, WUS, 192, no. 1639, “Q. Stoßen, N. aneinander stoßen”; CML2, 151, “dragged, tugged”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 173, n. e, 265, n. c, “abattre à terre”; de Moor (1971), 110, 111, “pull to the ground”; del Olmo Lete (1982), 68, n. 51; and idem, MLC, 582, “arrastrar/derribar, abatir” (see the bibliographic references there); Pardee, CS I, 272, n. 268, “tramples.” Pardee notes, “The precise meaning of the verb is uncertain and a meaning associated with feet is based only on the simile ‘like runners’ in vi 21.” Scholars unanimously compare the Ugaritic mṣḫ to the Arabic ‫ مصخ‬/ maṣaḫa “to remove, pull away,” but this is incorrect (though adopted in del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 297; DULAT, 586) because the meaning of this root in Classical Arabic is strictly “to peel off the layers (of a particular sort of plant),” the derivative meaning of which is “to remove, pull away,” a semantic that is difficult to apply to the Ugaritic context above or to the others where this term is used (see KTU3 1.3:V:1 and 1.6:VI:20). (For more, see Renfroe, AULS, 130-132; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XIV, 83.) The translation above takes into consideration the combination of the noun ᾿arṣ and the verb mṣḫ (which appears in two of the contexts in combination with the word ᾿arṣ), and is based mostly on the parallelism with mḫṣ (Akkadian maḫāṣu, Hebrew ‫)מחץ‬, which seems to share the semantic field with the term mṣḫ. Therefore, this is a case of a possible metathesis; see Renfroe, AULS, 130-132, especially n. 22. On the comparative Semitics of the Ugaritic term mḫṣ, see the classic study of Held (1959), 169-176. 3 Ginsberg, ANET, 137, “Asherah’s children”; Eissfeldt (1951) 63-64, n. 1, “Söhne der Ascherat”; CML1, 91, “the sons of Athirat”; KME, 35, “die Söhne der Ascherat”; MKT, 29, 31, “die (übrigen) Kinder Aṯrt-s”; Kraus (1966b), 650, “die Söhne Atirats”; TO I, 176, “les fils d’Athirat”; PLM, 83, “the sons of Asherah”; CML2, 54, “the sons of ᾿aṯrt”; MLC, 191, “los hijos de Aṯiratu”; ARTU, 14, “the sons of Athiratu”; Smith, UNP, 118, “Athirat’s sons”; Pardee, CS I, 255, “the sons of ᾿Aṯiratu”; Wyatt, RTU, 87; idem (1998), 43; idem (2020), 101, “the sons of Athirat: or children.” 4 On the parallelism here see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 600. 5 This is in the very damaged KTU3 1.117, classified as a mythological text; for its proposed restoration see Herdner (1978), 64-67; following her, Pardee, TPM, 257-260. The restoration of bn ᾿aṯrt in KTU3 1.92:15-16 by Margalit (1989b), 71, 80 is incorrect. See KTU3, 112; see de Tarragon, TO II, 34; Dijkstra (1994), 115. Pardee (2008), 9-32, see esp. the epigraphic commentary on pp. 16, 26; Smith (2014a), 188.

164

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Ugaritic corpus, exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al. It refers to a group of gods with ᾿Aṯiratu as their mother, as is implied by the parallelism of all its occurrences. In earlier studies there was no agreement whether the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt in context 5 refers to a group of gods or just to a single god, though the latter scenario seems to have been totally abandoned by now.6 The appearance of the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” mostly in parallelism with ᾿ilm “gods,” indicates that such an epithet refers to a group of Ugaritic gods related to the Ugaritic goddess ᾿Aṯiratu. Moreover, from KTU3 1.4:IV:49-50,7 (47) [᾿an]y [.] l yṣḥ . ṯr ᾿il .᾿abh (48) [᾿i]l mlk . d yknnh . yṣh (49) ᾿aṯrt w bnh . ᾿ilt . w ṣbrt (50) ᾿aryh, “Sadly he verily cries out to the bull, ᾿Ilu, his father, // (To) ᾿Ilu, the king who brought him into being, // to the king who created him, He cries out to ᾿Aṯiratu and to her sons, // to the goddess and the host of her kin,” confirms the relationship.8 Indeed, the phrase᾿aṯrt w bnh “᾿Aṯiratu and her sons” 6 Virolleaud (1931), 219, “Baal, fils d’Ašerat”; Albright (1932), 203, “Ba῾al, son of Aṯirat”; Gaster (1932), 873, “Ba῾al, the son of Asherah,” but later Gaster changed his mind (see below); Ginsberg (1932-33), 117, “‫בעל בן אתרת‬,” who later also changed his mind; Dussaud (1934), 301-302, “Ba῾al, fils d’Ashérat”; Rosensohn Jacobs (1945), 103, “the son of ‘Athirat / The great one’” (an epithet of an unspecified single god); Gordon, UL, 47, and idem, PLM, 115, “Baal seizes the son of Asherah // the great one ...,” (here an epithet applied to the god Môt); the same Løkkegaard (1953), 223, “Ba῾l catches hold of ᾿Aṯīrat’s Son, // the Lord strikes with the sword the killed Yamm ...”; Jirku, KME, 73, “Baal den Sohn der Ascherat,” but Hvidberg (1962), 37, n. 6 on whether or not the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt was “᾿Aṯirat’s son(s) Mot’s helper(s).” Contrast with the widely accepted translation “the sons of ᾿Aṯiratu,” see Bauer (1934), col. 242, 243; Gaster (1946a), 23, n. 12; idem, Thespis, 224; Ginsberg, ANET, 141; Aistleitner, MKT, 21-22; Oldenburg (1969), 119-120; van Zijl (1972), 213; de Moor (1971), 226, and ARTU, 94; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 265; Gibson, CML2, 79; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 231; Smith, UNP, 160; Pardee, CS I, 271-272; Wyatt, RTU, 140, assumes that the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt includes the deities of the following verses described as rbm // dkym // ṣġrm. 7 See also KTU3 1.3:V:36-37 [as noted by KTU3, 16, 17, n. 25, ᾿arḫh is a scribal error for ᾿aryh]; KTU3 1.4:I:6-7 [completely restored]; KTU3 1.6:I:40-41; KTU3 1.117:3 (see the reconstruction by Herdner [1978], 65 and Pardee, TPM, 257); KTU3 1.4:II:25-26. In the latter text ᾿Aṯiratu speaks of the gods by the term bny “my sons,” and in neither instance does the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt occur. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 67, n. 2; UBC II, 309-310. 8 Most scholars agree that the Ugaritic expression ṣbrt᾿aryh “the band of her (᾿Aṯiratu) brood/the host of her kin” refers to the sons of ᾿Aṯiratu. While the etymology of ṣbrt (Hb. ‫“ צבר‬to gather”; Arb. ‫“ صبر‬collect together,” more technically as “cumulus frumenti”) is agreed upon (see DLU, 413; DULAT, 777, 778 and the bibliographic references below; UBC II, 309-310; Watson [2018], 381, §2.2b, “Sab. ẓbr, ‘social grouping, community’ [SD, 170] and Aram. ṣbwr l᾿mym, ‘community’ [DSA II, 722a]’’). Scholars differ on the etymology of the component ᾿ary, though its semantic seems well established due to its systematic parallelism with the terms bn “son(s),” and ᾿aḫ “brother(s).” Moreover, in the context above, the term ᾿aṯrt w bnh . // ᾿ilt . w ṣbrt . ᾿aryh presents a perfect parallelism and establishes that bnh and ṣbrt ᾿aryh are semantically synonymous (see e.g., Hvidberg-Hansen [1979], vol. I, 73, 74 and vol. II, 70, n. 6 calls such parallelism, “parallelismus membrorum”); besides, in most contexts referring to the god Ba῾lu and the goddess ῾Anat, the term

BN ᾿AṮRT / ŠB῾M BN ᾿AṮRT “THE SEVENTY / THE CHILDREN OF ᾿AṮIRATU”

165

precedes the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt of KTU3 1.3:V:36-37 (see above). The address to the Ugaritic god ᾿Ilu in the preceding passage confirms once again that ᾿Ilu and his consort ᾿Aṯiratu were ultimately the only Ugaritic deities responsible for the creation of the gods and, accordingly, theologically/ cosmologically ᾿Ilu is their “father,” and ᾿Aṯiratu is their “mother.”9 This is corroborated by context 4 above, in which Ba῾lu invites his brothers, his kindred, to his house and into his palace to join him in for the banquet.10 ᾿ary appears in parallelism with ᾿aḫ, e.g., KTU3 1.4:V:29, ytn (28) bt . lk . km . ᾿aḫk . w ḥẓr (29) km . ᾿aryk “Let a house be given to you like your brothers,’ // A court, like your kin’s.” (For more occurrences see KTU3 1.4:VI:44; KTU3 1.5:I:23 and 1.5:II:23 [might be restored, but KTU3, 25 forebear]; KTU3 1.12:II:41-55 with reference to ῾Anatu. However, in KTU3 1.17:I:19, 21 and KTU3 1.17:II:15 the reference is to Dan᾿il.) On the other hand, van Zijl (1972), 227, 228 observes that in the Ugaritic context KTU3 1.6:VI:10-16, the term ᾿aḫ(y) “my kinsman” occurs in parallelism with bnm ᾿umy “the kinship of my mother.” Therefore, if ᾿ary and bn ᾿um have equal semantic value, both could be identified with bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” Virolleaud, op.cit., p. 199 and n. 2 was the first to suggest that the Ugaritic word ᾿ary may possibly be a loan from Egyptian ᾿ryw, “persons belonging to, attached to something or someone.” Albright (1932), 197, n. 47, translated ᾿ary as “retainers,” though he noted the semantic significance of the parallelism between ᾿aḫ and ᾿ary. Driver, CML1, 135, n. 17 adopted the Egyptian etymology but compared it to Bab. arûtu “male relations or ghosts.” Ward (1961), 32, n. 10 stated that ᾿ary has no Semitic etymology and basically adopted the Egyptian iry, which he defined as “companion.” Aistleitner, WUS, 35, no. 391, “Anverwandter, Sippenmitglied,” suggested a new etymology from Arabic ᾿arā “an derselben Krippe stehen.” Gray (1971), 66, n. 43 confirmed that the sense of ᾿ary is obvious from the Ugaritic parallelism with ᾿aḫ “brother,” and considered the Egyptian etymology dubious, adopting Driver’s suggestion that it be compared to the Akkadian arûtu “male relations.” Based on the Ugaritic context KTU3 1.12:II:46-47, Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 348-349, n. q follow Gray and suggests ᾿aryh be translated as “ses parents,” relating it to the Arabic ᾿arâ “être à la même étable.” For a survey of all suggested etymologies, see del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 54; DULAT, 111-112. The comparative data drawn from Akkadian could be applied to the Akkadian ajjaru (āru) = eṭlum/zikru “junger Mann/young man” (see AHw, 25; CAD A/1, 230; see also the parallel of eṭlu and malku (= šarru), Vab, 4, see Schaudig [2001], 346, 349 [courtesyOshima Takayoushi]); Renfroe, AULS, 83), although, the Akkadian erâ (aria, irâ, iria) strictly means “side by side” (see CAD E, 254, which compares it to the Classical Arabic ‫ صحب‬/ ṣḥb “side by side; accompany > friend”). However, the suggested Arabic etymologies are all incorrect; in Classical Arabic no suitable semantic value of a root that could be applied to the Ugaritic was found. (See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 94-96; for further details, see Renfroe, AULS, 83 and the discussion there.) 9 See the epithets ᾿um ᾿ilm “the mother of the gods” and qnyt ᾿ilm “the creatress of the gods,” which refers to ᾿Aṯiratu; and ᾿ab/᾿abn “father / our father,” ᾿ab ᾿adm “father of mankind,” ᾿ab bn ᾿il “father of the children of ᾿Ilu,” ᾿um ᾿um “mother, mother,” and bny bnwt “the creator of creatures,” plus other epithets using the divine name ᾿ilu as a second epithet component, like bn ᾿il “the son of ᾿Ilu,” bn ᾿ilm mt “the son of ᾿Ilu, Môtu,” ṯr ᾿abh “the bull, his father,” etc. For these epithets and more examples, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 3-13,7275, 88-89, 90-93, 98-101, 275-277, 320-321; idem (2007). Smith (2014a), 104, 423, n. 35 and 36 comments that the Ugaritic Ilu has sons who help him in his drunken condition in KTU3 1.114, as was the case of Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:20-27. By contrast, the drunken Jerusalem of Isaiah 51:17-18 has no son. 10 See also ῾Anatu’s variant on the opening lines of Ba῾lu’s lament in KTU3 1.4:V:27-29.

166

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

This is further confirmed if the restoration is correct of the epithet bn qdš “the children of the holy one,”11 in KTU3 1.2:III:19-20, ank . ᾿in bt [. l]y [. km .] ᾿ilm . // w ḥẓr [. kbn] (20) [qd]š “As for me, I have no house [like] the Gods, // No court [like the sons of the Holy On]e” is correct, rather than the typical bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” (compare to context 2 above). The same status of ᾿Ilu is evident from other groups of epithets studied here, e.g., the epithet bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu,” which most likely includes the entire Ugaritic pantheon.12 Moreover, the Ugaritic phrase šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu” (KTU3 1.4:VI:46)13 confirms the association of most of the Ugaritic gods with the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu, their fecund mother. The number “seventy,” looks like a typological number that might represent the Ugaritic pantheon in its entirety, or rather refers to the same group of Ugaritic male and female divinities, all labeled as children of ᾿Aṯiratu. Technically, the group of seventy would not include Ba῾lu, because KTU3 1.4:II:21-26 describes Aṯirat’s fear when Ba῾lu and ῾Anatu approach her children, thus proving that Ba῾lu is not one of them. However, the invitation of Ba῾lu to his brothers and kindred, “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu” (KTU3 1.4:VI:46, see passage 38-59), to the inauguration of his palace implies a request for the recognition of his newly established rule.14 Furthermore, all the occurrences of the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” confirms the parental role and the role in divine creation 11 See Koppen and van der Toorn, DDD2, 416; KTU3, 8, 9, n. 32; plus my detailed commentary on the epithet on pp. 177-183, 299, 306, 307, 318, 321. 12 See pp. 168-176, 299-307, 313, 318, 320-321. 13 Smith, UNP, 134, 171, n. 135; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 628-629 suggest of šb῾m, “It would seem that technically in view of the absolute plural (and not construct) form of šb῾m in line 46, the nouns following the verb stand in apposition (‘the seventy, the children of Athirat’) rather than a long construct phrase (‘the seventy children of Athirat’). For the sake of convenience or concision in English, one might still render the phrase along the lines of the second translation (i.e., Smith, UNP, 134), but such a translation does not convey the sense that in this context, as ‘the seventy’ stands as a demarcated group.” The latter translation is adopted by most scholars, including Smith himself. See also Ginsberg, ANET, 134; Driver, CML1, 100, 101; Jirku, KME, 50; Aistleitner, MKT, 44; Gibson, CML2, 63, n. 3; Gordon, PLM, 99; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 214, n. k; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 206; de Moor, ARTU, 60, n. 270; Wyatt, RTU, 107; Pardee, CS I, 262; Sommer (2009), 164, 267, n. 80. Recently, Wyatt thinks šb῾m “A different, literary, enumeration of the Ugaritian pantheon offers an alternative to the number thirty-three as the complement of the gods. It is mentioned only once, in the Baal Cycle.” For his detailed arguments and theory, see Wyatt (2020), 98ff. 100-101, n. 32. 14 See Wyatt (1998), 43; idem (2007), 547-556, esp. 547ff.; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 73, n. 3. On the dilemma of Ba῾lu’s epithet bn dgn “the son of Dagānu,” see Rahmouni, ibid., 94-97; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 102, 628-629; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 36-37. According to Kapelrud (1952), 64ff., 77-78, based on his erroneous theory about ᾿Aṯiratu as Ba῾lu’s wife (followed by Greenfield [1985], 193, n. 1), the brood of ᾿Ilu and ᾿Aṯiratu does not include Yammu and Môtu; contrast Smith, UBC I, 92-93 n. 181.

BN ᾿AṮRT / ŠB῾M BN ᾿AṮRT “THE SEVENTY / THE CHILDREN OF ᾿AṮIRATU”

167

played by ᾿Ilu and his consort ᾿Aṯiratu. The only concrete information about the divinities included under the epithet studied here is the reference to the members of the group of the deities by the number, šb῾m “seventy,” which seems conventional.15 The same number was used to describe the pantheon of Emar. However, in both Ugarit and Emar the number “seventy” is a round number, not the exact number of the deities.16 The appellation of the Ugaritic gods as “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” recalls the Akkadian mār (sing. and pl.) + DN widely used as a component in many Mesopotamian divine epithets: mārē danim “the sons of Anu,” mārē denki/ea “the sons of Enki/Ea”; 7 ilāni rabūti mārē denmešarra “7 great gods, the sons of Enmešarra.” The feminine plural mārāt dAnu “the daughters of Anu” refers to a group of benevolent goddesses.17 bn “son” is also attested in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names.18

15 According to my analysis here, the number šb῾t . l šb῾m // ṯmnt l ṯmnym “the seventyseven // eighty-eight (Ba῾al’s brothers / siblings)” refers to Ba῾lu’s rivals in KTU3 1.12:II: 48-49 who must be under ᾿Ilu and ᾿Aṯiratu. On the number “seventy,” see the classic article of Fensham (1977), 113-115; Avishur (2007), 84-107, esp. 102-103, 195; Wright (2001), 37, n. 65; Smith, UNP, 134, 171 n. 135; idem, (2001), 55-56, 225 n. 7 and n. 8; the extensive commentary of Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 48, 628-629 and the extensive bibliography given there. The use of the number “seventy” simply as an arbitrary large number, which occasionally refers to members of the same family, is well attested in the Biblical Hebrew; see e.g., Judges 9:5; 2 Kings 10:1. In the latter the seventy sons of Jerubaal are mentioned. A parallel use of l šb῾m // l ṯmnym can be found in the Hittite myth “Elkunirša and Ašertu,” a story belonging to the corpus of northern Syrian myths, as testified by the parallel, “Baal said to Ašertu: ‘I have slain your seventy-seven [sons]. I have slain eighty-eight,’” (Fragment 1 A i 22-27’): see Beckman, CS I, 149.) The number “seven” and “seventy” in Classical Arabic in its Qur᾿ānic usage were considered potent. The number ‫سبعون‬/ sab῾ūn “seventy” occurs three times in the Qur᾿ān, but only once in the conventional sense of “innumerable”: see Q. 9:80, ‫ين َمرَّ ًة َف َل ْن َيغْ ِف َر ﷲ ُ َل ُه ْم‬ َ ‫ إِ ْن ت َْس َتغْ ِف ْر َل ُه ْم َس ْب ِع‬/ ᾿in tastaġfir lahum sab῾īna marratan fa-lan yaġfira llāhu lahum “even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, God will not forgive them [no matter how many times you may ask].” See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 417-418; see also Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VII, 112; Emile Puech adds the reference to Mt 18:21-22, “Alors Pierre s’avançant, lui dit: ‘Seigneur combien de fois devrai-je pardonner les offenses que me fera mon frère ? Jusqu’à sept fois ?’, Jésus lui répond: ‘Je ne te dis pas jusqu’à sept fois, mais jusqu’à soixante-dix-sept fois.’” On the significant theological enumeration of the number seven, see Wyatt (2020), 100ff. 16 Emar 373.37-38; Fleming (1992b), 57-59, esp. 59, 73-74, n. 18, 242, n. 152, 238-39, esp. 239 and the bibliographic references there; Smith, UBC I, 92, esp. n. 180; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 628-629, and the updated bibliography references there. 17 See AG, 119-124; CAD M/1, 313; Seux (1967), 159f.; DEUAT, 89, n. 7 18 Ugaritic bn comprises several distinct homographs, including the common component “son of ...,” which is used in theophoric names as well as in onomastics and patronymics. See the discussion by Gröndahl, PTU, 118-119; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DULAT, 224, 227 under 7.

XIX

BN ᾿IL(M) “THE CHILDREN OF ᾿ILU” (1.4; 1.10; 1.40; 1.65; 1.122) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.4:III:13-14 12

qm . ydd . wyqlṣn  yqm . w ywpṯn .  b tk 14 pḫr . bn . ᾿ilm 

13

They stood up and cast scorn upon me, they stood up and spat upon me, amid the ass[em]bly of the children of ᾿Ilu.

2. KTU3 1.10:I:3 ]ḥ . d l yd῾ . bn ᾿il ]pḫr . kkbm ]xdr . dt . šmm 

3

[ [ 5 [ 4

[…] the children of ᾿Ilu do not know1 […] the assembly of the stars, […] the circle of (those in) the heavens

3. KTU3 1.40:41-42 (= 7-8 [reconst.]; 16-17 [reconst.]; 24-25 [reconst.]; 33-34; 1.122:2-3 [reconst.])2 ytš᾿i . l᾿ab bn ᾿il 

(A sacrifice) shall be offered to the father of the children of ᾿Ilu, 42 ytš᾿i l d[r . bn . ᾿il .  it shall be offered to the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu, l]mpḫrt . bn ᾿il  to the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu, 43 l ṯkmn [ . w šnm .] hn ῾[r]/š to Ṯkmn [and Šnm]: Here is a donkey. (1.40:9, 17, 25: / a ram) 4. KTU3 1.65:1-3 ᾿il bn ᾿il dr . bn . ᾿il .  3 mpḫrt . bn ᾿il 4 ṯrmn w šnm 1 2

1

᾿Ilu, the children of ᾿Ilu, the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu, the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu, Ṯkmn3 and Šnm.

Because of the damaged state of these lines, the l before the verb yd῾ could also be analyzed as assertive and translated as “do indeed know,” depending on the larger context, which is lacking here. See Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 281, n. b, who translate “que n’ont pas connu ... ” and comment “il n’est pas sûr que la particule l soit négative, mais l’expression évoque V AB, C, 24-25”; de Moor, ARTU, 111; Parker, UNP, 182; Wyatt, RTU, 155, n. 1; Smith (2001), 61. 2 KTU3 1.40 is one of the few Ugaritic texts for which duplicates have been found (KTU3 1.84; 1.121; 1.122). See Pardee, RCU, 77-79 and idem, TR, 92-142, 686-690, 807810; contrast with del Olmo Lete, CR2, 116-120. None of these texts, however, is well preserved and the epithet under discussion is not otherwise known. The occurrences in KTU3 1.122:2-3 have been totally reconstructed. (See KTU3, ad loc; contrast with Pardee, TR, 689-690; see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 11, n. 1.) 3 KTU3, 93, n. 1 Lg. ṯkmn?

BN ᾿ IL(M) “THE CHILDREN OF ᾿ILU”

169

Most scholars read the epithet as “the sons/offspring/children of ᾿Ilu/ El,” or similarly;4 or as “the gods,” or the like.5 Other scholars see both translations as possible.6 PARALLELS Context 2: bn ᾿il // pḫr kkbm // dt šmm Context 3: ᾿ab bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il // ṯkmn w šnm. Context 4. ᾿il bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il / mpḫrt bn ᾿il // ṯkmn w šnm DISCUSSION The epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu” occurs at least twenty-three times in the Ugaritic corpus (twelve of these reconstructed).7 In most 4 Hrozny (1932), 171, “... des fils de Ēl”; Herrmann (1960), 247; idem, (1982), 98, 100, “... der Söhne Els”; van Selms (1971), 241, “... the sons of El”; MacDonald (1979), 522f, “the sons/offspring of the gods”; de Tarragon, TO II, 149, “des fils de El”; Gese et al. (1970), 101, “... die Söhne Els”; de Moor (1970a), 189, 207, 216; idem (1986c), 261; idem, ARTU, 49; idem (1997), 340-341, “the sons of Ilu”; de Moor and Sanders (1991), 285, “the sons of Ilu”; Cunchillos (1985b), 207, “... des fils de El”; Tropper, UG, 232-233, “... der El-Söhne”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 318-319, “... der Söhne Els”; Pardee TR, 98; Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 50-55, “... des fils de ᾿Ilu”; Pardee, RCU, 83, “... the-sonsof-᾿Ilu”; Wyatt (1994), 400, 407, “the sons of El.” Later Wyatt (1998), 42, 43 translated ᾿il bn ᾿il “the gods of the pantheon,” and suggested that the bn ᾿il in other expressions could be translated “the pantheon/members of the class ‘god’/divine beings, or collectively ‘pantheon.’” Smith, UNP, 124; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 462, “the sons of El”; DLU, 2, 109111, “los hijos de DN”; and DULAT, 3, 225ff., “the sons of DN.” 5 Gordon, UL, 109, “the father of the gods (=᾿Il)”; Eissfeldt (1951), 63, “... der Götter”; Pope, EUT, 88, “the Gods”; Moraldi (1956), 58, “... (padre) degli dèi”; Caquot (1962), 210 and idem (1979), col. 1410, “... des dieux”; Gray, LC2, 204, “the gods”; Xella, TRU, 260, “... dèi”; del Olmo Lete, RC, 103; idem, CR1, 149; idem, CR2, 118, 119, 120, “los dioses/ the gods.” 6 Gray (1966), 182, 184, 188-189, “the gods, (or ‘sons of El’)”; de Tarragon (1980), 170, “‘Père des dieux’: il s’agit de El”; Mullen (1980), 15, “the gods” (collectively ‘the sons of ᾿Ilu’”); Wyatt (1992b), 407, “the gods.” 7 KTU3 1.10:I:4 is also fragmentary but the parallelism between pḫr “assembly” and dr “circle, association” in the subsequent lines suggests that bn ᾿il refers to a group of gods. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 88-89, n. 3 for references and discussions, and commentary on the parallel epithets pḫr kkbm and dr dt šmm. According to KTU3, the text 1.40 as preserved today contains five occurrences of the epithet. Pardee (1991), 1189; idem, TR, 92-98. Moreover, Pardee, TR, 365-367 also reads bn ᾿il in RS 4.474:19 (= KTU3 1.65, p. 93, n. 3), which some scholars translate as “the sons of ᾿Ilu”; see e.g., de Moor (1970a), 205, 210, 224 and Smith (2001), 43, 220, n. 28, “the sons of ᾿Ilu(?),” the latter advised by Pardee and anticipating him. Nevertheless, Pardee, TR, 381, n. 110, preferred the interpretation of bn ᾿il as a description of the creative activity of ᾿Ilu, but left the alternative of “ou ‘les fils de ᾿Ilu,’” (see p. 366-367, n. 22); contrast del Olmo Lete, CR2, 372, line 19. However, KTU3, 93, n. 3 again reads [b ṣ]d [᾿i]l. The expression bn ᾿il occurs in two other contexts where it could be a divine epithet – though the fragmentary state of KTU3 1.62:7 does not allow one to say

170

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

occurrences bn ᾿il appears as the second component in the epithet ᾿ab bn ᾿il, which occurs systematically in parallelism with dr bn ᾿il and mpḫrt bn ᾿il. There is also a parallel in the text KTU3 1.65, where the epithet bn ᾿il has the divine name ᾿il as first component8 confirming that the god referred to here is ᾿Ilu, and that the following group of gods labeled bn ᾿il are related to him. Moreover, the epithet bn ᾿il appears after the terms dr and mpḫrt, which are specific terms for the divine assembly and council.9 with certainty that the term there is an epithet. Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 69 proposed reading KTU3 1.48:14 ᾿aḥt.l.mzy.bn[---?] as “one for the libation of [the gods?]” (earlier, del Olmo Lete, RC, 69 gave the same reading but refrained from translation). Indeed, such an interpretation has not been adopted by the recent version of KTU3, 85. Contrast Pardee, TR, 321, 324, 325, 331-332. Because of the damaged state of the line, I prefer not to restore ᾿ilm here. Furthermore, KTU2 and KTU3 read 1.3:V:9 qny[ . w]᾿adn.b[n ᾿i]lm, which implies the parallel *qny “the creator” and *adn bn ᾿ilm “the lord of the children of ᾿Ilu/gods,” both referring to ᾿Ilu; cf. de Moor, ARTU, 16, n. 84, “the Creator and Lord of the gods”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT III/6, 1147, “des Schöpfers und Herrn der Götter.” The same translation is adopted in the Ugaritic dictionary, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 370 and DULAT, 706, meaning 3, “procreador y señor padre de los dioses/procreator and divine lord of the gods.” Contrast Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 318, 323, tṣr / [t]b᾿u.ḏdm. // tṯny[.l]᾿adn[bn ᾿i]lm “She shouted angrily as [she en]tered the mountain, // She repeated it [to] the Lord of [the children of E]l.” However, Ginsberg, ANET, 137; CML1, 91; KME, 18; MKT, 30; TO I, 173-174; PLM, 82; CML2, 53; Smith, UNP, 116, 169, n. 87 all refrain from translating. By contrast, del Olmo Lete, MLC, 189, who translates “gimiendo(?) y llorando(?) [la diosa](?)”; Wyatt, RTU, 84, “the creator, [...]”; and Pardee, CS I, 254, “addresses the lord of the gods.” Although the epithets *qny and ᾿adn bn ᾿ilm are consistent with what is known of ᾿Ilu’s role in Ugaritic mythology in general and the latter context in particular, neither is yet attested in the Ugaritic corpus. I follow here the reading of Pardee, ibid., which seems logical and not redundant in combination with the epithet’s first component ᾿adn. Therefore, the epithet bn ᾿ilm in the context discussed has been excluded from the present study. On the Ugaritic epithet of the god ᾿Ilu, ᾿adn ᾿ilm (rbm) “the lord of the (/great) gods,” see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 29-32, esp. p. 30. 8 Compare to Wyatt (1998), 42-43, who sees ᾿il bn ᾿il and ᾿ab bn ᾿il as separate expressions and therefore discusses them under different entries. 9 It is not within my purposes to deal with the legal-political overtones of each of the terms of the Ugaritic council and divine assembly. For a detailed discussion on the subject, see Eissfeldt (1951), 63-64, 66; Rendtorff (1966), 287-288; Weippert (1968), 210 n. 91; MacDonald (1979), 515-526; Mullen (1980) and Pardee’s (1986a), 65-66 review of Mullen; Herrmann (1982), 100; Kloos (1986), 16-23; Wyatt (1998), 44; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 16-17. However, because the epithet bn ᾿il occurs as a second component after dr and mpḫrt, the latter words have significant social and political implications beyond their religious meaning (see Pardee, TR, 38-39, n. 122-123, 130, n. 160). There is a consensus among scholars regarding the translation of both terms, with the exception of those who incorrectly believe the assembly refers to the totality of the Ugaritic deities; see e.g. Dhorme (1931), 39, “‘demeure, maison’ ... ‘ensemble, totalité’; Hrozny (1932), 171, 173, “‘demeure’ ... ‘totalité’”; Eissfeldt (1951), 63, n. 1, “‘Haus’ im Sinne von ‘Familie’, ‘Gesamtheit’”; Moraldi (1956), 58, “‘assemblea’... ‘totalità’”; Schmidt (1966), 26, “Kreis ... Gesamheit”; Gordon, UL, 109-11, “‘assembly’... ‘totality.’” See also Pope, EUT, 88-89 despite the comment “his [El’s] family (dr) and the ‘totality’ (mpḫrt) of his [El’s] children (bn il).” Contrast

BN ᾿ IL(M) “THE CHILDREN OF ᾿ILU”

171

Most scholars10 who translate bn ᾿il as “the gods” believe that it refers to the entire pantheon. The construct plural noun bn “children of x” would presumably signify members of a group, each having the status of ᾿il “god.” On the other hand, scholars11 who translate bn ᾿il as “the children of ᾿Ilu” or the like, affirm that the term bn implies a familial relationship with ᾿Ilu, but does not necessarily exclude the interpretation of bn ᾿il as the entire pantheon. This is because ᾿Ilu is commonly thought to be responsible for the creation of all the gods and, as such, is their theological/cosmological father. A third group of scholars,12 however, Aistleitner, MKT, 106-7, “‘Wohnung’ ... ‘Versammlungsort’”; idem, WUS, 81-82, no.785, 255, no. 2215 “‘Haus, Dynastie’... ‘Versammlung, Gesamtheit’”; Cooke (1964), 27, “pḫr ᾿ilm, pḫr bn ᾿ilm, mpḫrt ᾿ilm, mpḫrt bn ᾿il, dr bn ᾿il = ‘the heavenly assembly or court of the gods’”; Gray, LC2, 204-5, n. 7, “‘the divine family’ ... ‘the divine assembly’”; idem (1966), 189, “‘the family’ ... ‘the assembly’”; Gese et al. (1970), 100, “die Versammlung” ... “Gesamtheit der Götter”; van Selms (1971), 241, “‘household / the (divine) family’ ... ‘plenary session’”; Grimm (1973), 342, “‘Wohnung’ ... ‘Versammlungsort’”; Xella, TRU, 258-260, 263, “‘famiglia’ ... ‘assemblea’”; Herrmann (1982), 98, “‘Familie ...’”; Cunchillos (1985b), 207, “‘famille’ ... ‘assemblée’”; de Moor (1986c), 261; idem, (1997), 340; de Moor and Sanders (1991), 285-87 “‘the Family’ ... ‘the Assembly’”; de Tarragon (1980), 170; idem, TO II, 146, “‘conseil’... ‘assemblée’”; Korpel (1990), 232, 269, “‘family, race’ / ‘assembly’”; del Olmo Lete, RC, 101-3, “‘familia’ ... ‘asamblea.’” Other scholars, mainly on the basis of etymology, translate dr as “circle”; see Herrmann (1960), 246, “‘Kreis’ ... ‘Versammlung,’” (later Herrmann changes his mind, see above); Caquot (1962), 210; idem (1979), col. 1410, “‘cercle’... ‘assemblée’”; Schmidt (1966), 26, “Kreis (bzw. Familie)”; Rendtorff (1966), 288, “‘Kreis’ ... ‘Versammlung.’” We translate dr as “circle,” alluding to the familial circle, while for mpḫrt I incline to a more conventional translation echoing the common Akkadian expression for assembly dpuḫur ilāni (see CAD P, 23-32; see PongratzLeisten [2015], 413, 415, n. 121). 10 Among the scholars mentioned in n. 5 and n. 6, p. 169, see Eissfeldt (1951), 63-65 (Söhne Els = Götter) and Moraldi (1956), 58, who translates “dèi,” with no further comment. Herrmann (1960), 247, first makes a distinction between bn ᾿il and the pantheon as a whole, but later, idem (1982),100, he changes his mind (see above). Pope, EUT, 89 translates ᾿il bn ᾿il “El, sons of El,” and comments, “El comprehends and subsumes the entire pantheon.” De Moor (1970a), 189, 207, first states that ᾿ab is an independent divinity, but later translates the epithet “the Father of the sons of ᾿Ilu/i / Ilu-gods” (see de Moor [1986c], 261; idem, [1997], 340; de Moor and Sanders [1991], 285-87). 11 See n. 4, p. 169 above. Cf. for example, Herrmann (1982), 100; Kloos (1986), 1617; de Tarragon, TO II, 146, n. 32; and my detailed commentary on the epithets ᾿ab bn ᾿il “father of the children of ᾿Ilu,” and bn ᾿il “the son of ᾿Ilu” in DEUAT, 11-13, 88-89 for discussion and references; idem (2007). Van Selms (1971), 241 explains the apparent tautology thus, “The existence of the phrase [᾿ab bn ᾿il ‘the father of the sons of ᾿Ilu] proves that bn ᾿il, though written with the word-divider in lines 25, was no longer felt as ‘the sons of El,’ but rather as ‘the pantheon.’” The alleged epithet of ᾿Ilu, *᾿ab ᾿ilm “father of the gods” (Gray [1966], 192) is not attested. 12 See Herrmann (1960), 246-247, who later changed his mind (see the previous note). Rendtorff (1966), 288, discussed Herrmann’s (1960) position and affirmed that the phrase dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾ l (KTU3 1.39:7 and 1.41:16 // 1.87:17-18), implies that at least two subdivisions within the pantheon existed, with a group around ᾿Ilu clearly distinguished from those siding with Ba῾lu. Cf. Xella, TRU, 258-60. 263; de Moor (1970a), 216; MacDonald

172

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

believe that the “children/sons of ᾿Ilu” is a more restricted group of deities; Cunchillos,13 for example, takes bn ᾿il to be the children of ᾿Ilu before Ba῾lu entered the Ugaritic pantheon. KTU3 1.65:1-4 lists the gods and groups of gods that occur in the present context, (1)᾿il bn᾿il (2) dr bn ᾿il (3) mpḫrt bn ᾿il (4) ṯkmn w šnm “᾿Ilu, bn ᾿il, the circle of the bn ᾿il, the assembly of bn ᾿il, Ṯkmn(!) and Šnm.” Most of the rest of the text refers to the various attributes and objects apparently belonging specifically to ᾿Ilu.14 This suggests that the component ᾿il in bn ᾿il should be considered the divine name ᾿Ilu. Likewise, in KTU3 1.123:1, which reads ᾿ab w ᾿ilm “father and (the rest of) the god[s],” ᾿ab “father” would appear to be an epithet for ᾿Ilu, and ᾿ilm “gods” undoubtedly includes the deities subsequently listed in lines 4ff. This list contains the name b῾l (line 4), which indicates that it is not comprised solely of a group of gods thought specifically to be the (biological) children of ᾿Ilu, since Ba῾lu was apparently the biological son of Dagānu.15 The epithet ᾿ab “father” in KTU3 1.123 would thus seem to refer to ᾿Ilu as “father” vis-à-vis various gods regardless of their specific genealogy (and most likely vis-à-vis the entire Ugaritic pantheon conceived as a familial circle around ᾿Ilu).16 (1979), 522-525; Mullen (1980) and the excellent response of Pardee (1986a), 65-66. Weippert (1968), 210 n. 91 did not speak of all the gods. Smith (2001), 41-43 claimed that the Ugaritic expressions for assembly suggest an organization of the pantheon consisting of various groups centered around specific divine figures. Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 38, n. 24, 59, 62, 92 n. 113 returned to the usual division of the Ugaritic pantheon into two sub-groups, one around ᾿Ilu (dr ᾿il “the family of ᾿Ilu”) and the other around Ba῾lu (pḫr b῾l “the assembly of Ba῾lu”). For more on the epithet dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l, see pp. 202-206, 300-301, 321. 13 Cunchillos (1976a), 111 (cf. pp. 47-112); idem, (1985b), 206-208. 14 For this text, see TR, 364-385 and the bibliography cited therein. 15 See my discussion of bn dgn “the son of Dagānu,” in DEUAT, 94-97 and the bibliographic references there. For the alternative possibility (less likely in my opinion) that Dagānu was considered to be both Ba῾lu’s stepfather and his half-brother, see Pardee, CS I, 263, n. 190. For the text KTU3 1.123, see TR, 691-706 and the bibliography cited therein. 16 Given that in Ugaritic mythology ᾿Ilu is always the only father and that all Ugaritic deities are related to him, the expressions pḫr bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il must refer to the divinities of the Ugaritic pantheon related to ᾿Ilu as a familial circle. As discussed in my previous study on the epithets of individual Ugaritic divinities, the god ᾿Ilu is the only Ugaritic divinity labeled by epithets designating him as the “Father,” par excellence; see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 359, under the epithet component ᾿ab and ᾿ad “father.” See p. 151, n. 35, p. 165, n. 9, pp. 216-219 of this study. See also Gese et al. (1970), 100-102; Wyatt (1998), 42, 43, under ᾿il bn ᾿il and under bn ᾿il; del Olmo Lete, CR2, 39, and esp. 49. This does not mean, however, that the element ᾿il used in other expressions for the assembly necessarily refers to the god ᾿Ilu, nor that the designation of the assembly is exclusive to him. For more, see my detailed commentary of the epithet dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l, See the references above pp. 171-172, n. 12 above.

BN ᾿ IL(M) “THE CHILDREN OF ᾿ILU”

173

In the mythological corpus, however, the reference to the “assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu”17 appears in the frozen expression pḫr bn ᾿ilm (see context 1 above).18 Some scholars interpret the third component of the term bn ᾿ilm as a different ritual and cultic expression of bn ᾿il (see context 2 and 3 above), though both expressions are anticipated by pḫr, meaning “assembly.” Furthermore, a reference to a group of gods is obvious through their presence in the assembly. Thus, the latter group of gods should be related to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, the god ᾿Ilu.19 Another plausible argument is that in KTU3 1.3:V:38-39, 1.4:IV:51 and 1.4:V:1, the divine name ᾿ilm “gods,” which seems to refer to the Ugaritic divinities related to and around ᾿Ilu, occurs in parallelism with another group of gods, bn aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” Since the sons of ᾿Ilu are the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the equivalence ᾿ilm = bn ᾿aṯrt = bn ᾿il is logical.20 Moreover, in KTU3 1.16:V:24, the god ᾿Ilu clearly addresses the gods ᾿ilm as bny “my sons.”21 It therefore seems most likely that in all of the contexts above bn ᾿il is to be translated “the children of ᾿Ilu.” This, however, does not exclude the possibility that the idiomatic periphrasis bn ᾿il is to be interpreted as “the divine beings” or simply “gods.” Usually this would refer to the totality of the gods specifically related to the head of the pantheon, ᾿Ilu, which is not the case in the contexts mentioned above. However, suffice it to say that the parallel expressions ᾿il/᾿ab bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il // 17 Most scholars translate the construct phrase bn ᾿ilm as such (see n. 4, p. 169). However, others understand bn ᾿ilm to be a different epithet and read it as “the sons of the gods / des fils des dieux”; see Gibson, CML2, 58, n. 3; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 200; Pardee, CS I, 258. 18 The reading of the epithet bn ᾿ilm here is widely accepted; see KTU3 1.4:III:13-14 on p. 20; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 473. However, due to the damaged state of the end of column II and the beginning of column III (for more, see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 469470; contrast Pardee, CS I, 258, n. 140), the interpretation of this passage is ambiguous. It is difficult to envision the scene, whether Ba῾lu is the subject (see Ginsberg, ANET, 132; de Moor, ARTU, 49), is being scorned and scoffed by a group of gods (Driver, MLC1, 95; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 197; Pardee, CS I, 258), or is simply being abused by another god (see Gibson, CML2, 58; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 200; Smith, UNP, 124; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 462). Wyatt, RTU, 95-96, n. 110 stated that the god meant here is Yammu. Indeed, Yammu is a good candidate given his conflict with Ba῾lu in the Cycle of Ba῾al (KTU3 1.1 and 1.2). However, the distance of events between this passage and the texts where Yammu is a real protagonist makes this assumption difficult to adopt (despite the arguments mentioned by Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 472). 19 On the difficulty of this passage and its various interpretations, see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 469-471 and the bibliographic references. 20 Cf. Eissfeldt (1951), 64; Hvidberg-Hansen (1979), vol. I, 71; Kloos (1986), 16-23; Korpel (1990), 235, n. 141. 21 Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 318; Pardee, CS I, 341; Greenstein, UNP, 38; Wyatt, RTU, 235; Parker, DDD2, 794.

174

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

ṯkmn w šnm refer to the same gods constituting a divine assembly in the ritual service and therefore all deities implied would be regarded as related to the father god ᾿Ilu, as the expression bn ᾿il makes clear, and so this epithet would apply to the totality of the Ugaritic pantheon.22 Consequently, the gods denoted by the same expression in the first context, the mythological text KTU3 1.4, would also be the children of ᾿Ilu, albeit a different group of children. Unfortunately, the composition of this assembly of the gods is unknown, owing to the lack of data. Moreover, the gods meant in KTU3 1.10 are the children of ᾿Ilu, but in this instance ᾿Ilu’s children with a specific astral character, as its parallels pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” and dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens” indicate.23 To the best of my knowledge, some of the Ugaritic divinities with astral character are Šapšu, ῾Aṯtaru, Yariḫu, and ῾Aṯtartu. Further, the epithet bn ᾿il is one of the few shared by human epic heroes; for example, it was said of the king Kirta in KTU3 1.16:I:10-11 (1.16:II:49) ᾿ap (10) krt . bnm . ᾿il . špḥ (11) lṭpn . w qdš “But Kirta is the son of ᾿Ilu, // the offspring of the sagacious and holy one”; and in KTU3 1.16:I:20-22, (20) ᾿ikm . yrgm . bn ᾿il (21) krt . špḥ . lṭpn (22) w qdš “Is not Kirta called the son of ᾿Ilu, // The offspring of the sagacious and holy one?”24 King Aqhat is addressed with the same epithet in KTU3 1.17:VI:29: ᾿ašsprk . ῾m . b῾l (29) šnt . ῾m . bn ᾿il . tspr . yrḫm “I will let you count years with Ba῾lu, // With the son of ᾿Ilu you will count months.” The Ugaritic epithet bn ᾿il is semantically parallel to the Akkadian mārū + DN “children of DN.” Compare, for example, 8 mārē dLisin “8 children of Lisin” (CT 24, 26:118)25 and 13 mārē dNin-MAR.KI-ke4 “13 children of Nin-MAR.KI” (CT 24, 48:17.)26 Likewise, the semantically 22

Based on the comments of Pardee, TR, 308-309 and the corresponding footnotes, I suggest contrasting the phrase here with the Ugaritic expressions pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” (see pp. 267-269, 300, 301, 321); and dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” (See the references above n. 12, p. 171-172, and n. 16, p. 172). 23 On pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars,” and dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens,” see pp. 207-209, 270-271, 300-302, 305, 316, 321. 24 For a detailed discussion on the epithet lṭpn w qdš “the sagacious and holy one,” which refers to ᾿Ilu, see DEUAT, 207-209, and bn ᾿il “the son of ᾿Ilu,” which refers to Ba῾lu in DEUAT, 88-89; contrast with Cunchillos (1985b), 206, 208-209; Wyatt (1992a), 407. See van der Toorn (1995), 2049 on the title bn ᾿il of the king Keret. The latter recalls that the legendary kings are considered “son(s) of ᾿Ilu” nursed by a goddess. Also, the epic human king Keret has been compared to the son of Yahweh of Psalms 2:7, 89:20-38, and 110:1. See del Olmo Lete, CR2, 274, 276. 25 See Litke (1998), 75-76 and cf. AG, 122. For Lisin, see Michalowski (1987-90), 32-33. 26 See Litke (1998), 125-126 and cf. AG, 122. For Nin-MAR.KI, see Sallaberger (2001), 463-468.

BN ᾿ IL(M) “THE CHILDREN OF ᾿ILU”

175

parallel Akkadian epithet abu ilāni “father of the gods,” attributed to various gods, in particular Anu, Aššur and Enlil, corroborates my interpretation of the present Ugaritic epithet.27 Furthermore, in the Phoenician incantation from Arslan KAI 27:8ff., one finds a cognate epithet bn ᾿lm in which the second component could be analyzed as a plural or a singular, krt ln ᾿lt ᾿lm ᾿šr krt ln wkl bn ᾿lm “he has made an eternal pact with us, Ashur, and all the sons of ᾿Ēl / the gods / divine beings have made (a pact) with us.” Similarly in KAI 27:11-12, we find the phrase wkl bn ᾿lm wrb dr kl qdšm “all the sons of ᾿Ēl/the gods/the divine beings and the numerous assembly of the holy ones,” which occurs in a formula used against demonic beings.28 Another Phoenician inscription from Karatepe, KAI 26A:III:19 reads, w᾿l qn ᾿rṣ wšmš ῾lm wkl dr bn ᾿lm “El the creator of the earth, the eternal sun and the whole assembly of the sons of ᾿Ēl/the gods/the divine beings.” This passage contains an exact parallel to the Ugaritic dr bn ᾿il, and refers to all gods associated with El.29 The latter supports the interpretation of ᾿il in our epithets as the divine name ᾿Ilu. As Cross30 pointed out, the -m enclitic survived at least as late as the 5th century B.C.E. In addition to this extra-Ugaritic data, the epithet bn ᾿il has a Biblical Hebrew counterpart ‫הבו ליהוה בני‬ ‫ הבו ליהוה כבוד ועז‬// ‫“ אלים‬Ascribe to the LORD, O divine beings, // ascribe to the LORD glory and strength” (Psalm 29:1, see also ‫בני אלים‬, Psalm 89:7), or ‫בני־האלהים‬, which literally means “sons / children of God,” “children of (the) gods” or “divine beings” (Genesis 6:1-4, esp. 2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; and originally Deuteronomy 32:8),31 and the Aramaic 27 See AG, 1-2. For Eblaite i-li-lu a-mu dingir-dingir-dingir “father of the gods,” referring to Enlil (i-li-lu), see Archi (2004), 322, n. 14 (courtesy J.-M. de Tarragon). For the Hittite equivalent as an epithet of Kumarpi, see ibid., 319. 28 Weippert (1968), 210, n. 91; Cross (1973), 45-46; Mullen (1980), 273-274; Herrmann (1982), 101; DNWSI, 505, 539, 996, 1045. 29 DNWSI, 171, 258, 259; Weippert (1968), 210, n. 91; Clifford (1972), 45-46 and the corresponding notes; Cross (1973), 45-46; Gese et al. (1970), 101, n. 58; Kloos (1986), 16-23; Mullen (1980), 272-274; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 16-17; Parker, DDD2, 794, 796. 30 Cross (1973), 46; van der Toorn, DDD2, 353. Smith (2014a), 45, commented, “... the language of ‘divine sons’ (bĕnê ᾿ēlīm) may not appear in Iron I Israel (depending on when one dates Ps. 29:1), but it does appear in Iron II Israel. It is likely to be an early motif for early Israel, since it is standard in both later Hebrew poetry and earlier Ugaritic literature ... .” 31 In two of the Biblical passages ‫“ בני־האלהים‬divine beings” occurs in parallelism with ‫“ בנות האדם‬female humans” (Genesis 6:1-2); the idiomatic use of this term militates toward its interpretation primarily as “the divine beings.” For an analogous parallel, see the original version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Regarding the latter, the LXX and Qumran literature support the earlier reading ‫ בני אלהים‬to the MT’s ‫בני־ישראל‬, which was changed to demythologize the earlier Biblical version. See Morgenstern (1939), 76-79; Wickham (1974), 135-139; Mullen (1980), 202-203 and the corresponding footnote; Pope (apud Cooper

176

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

‫“ בר־אלהין‬son of god / divine being” (Daniel 3:25).32 This expression shows that there was a fixed terminus of Canaanite religion, which evidently goes back to the same cognitive framework.33 The Qur᾿ānic Arabic expression ‫ بنو آدم‬/ banū ᾿ādam “the sons of Adam” would be equivalent to bn ᾿Aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” However, the two expressions have widely different theological background: e.g., Q. 5:27, ‫َوات ُْل‬ ِّ‫ َع َل ْيهِ ْم ن ََب َأ ا ْب َن ْي َء َاد َم بِا ْل َحق‬/ wa-tlu ῾alayhim naba᾿a bnay ᾿ādama bi l-ḥaqqi “and recite to them the story of the (two) sons of Adam in truth.”34 bn ᾿il is also attested in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names.35

[1981], 434-435, 439); Block (2000), 25-32 and the corresponding footnotes for an extensive discussion and detailed bibliographic references; Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín (1975e), 552; Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 139-149 for their extensive comparative study of Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9; McCarter (1997), 75; Parker, DDD2, 796, 798; van der Toorn, DDD2, 353; idem (1995), 2048; Day (1994), 183-184, n. 9 and 10, 187; Handy (1994), 152, n. 10; Smith (2001), 75; idem (2008), 139-143, 195-212, esp. p. 199-200, n. 33 and n. 34; idem (2014a), 40, n. 282, 378; Avishur (2007), 194-195; Cho (2007), 69-74, 112133; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 12, n. 5; Goldstein (2010), 5-21; Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 22, 25, 34; Collins (2011), 308-312; Römer (2014), 169-170 on the expression ‫ אלהים‬and ‫בני‬ ‫( עליון‬Psalm 82:6-7); Sommer (2016), 254, 261. See the thorough study of Genesis 6:1-4 by Doedens (2019), esp. 262ff. (courtesy J. F. Vargas Corvacho). 32 The LXX translates the expression in Daniel 3:25 as angelos kyriou, and this Biblical passage illustrates a shift from “divine being/god” to “angel of Yahweh” (see the larger context of Daniel 3:25-28). See Parker DDD2, 798, 799. See my commentary on ml᾿akm p. 233-243, 313-314, 320, 321. 33 The theological interpretation and polytheistic evidence of the above Biblical Hebrew expression and its possible Canaanite background has been long discussed among scholars. The most important literature on this is: Herrmann (1960), 242-245; idem (1982), 93-104, esp. 102 and the bibliographic references there; Driver, MLC1, 95, n. 4; Cooke (1964), 22-47, esp. 24-25; Rendtorff (1966), 287-288, 289-290; Schmidt (1966), 27; Cross (1973), 45-46, 70; Mullen (1980), 189-192, 197-203; Pope (apud Cooper [1981], 431-437, 438-439); Cunchillos (1976b) who has written a 307-page monograph on Psalm 29 (contra Cunchillos, see Kloos [1986], 16-23); Wyatt (1992a), 407, n. 20; Burnett (2001), 73, n. 202, 8; Parker, DDD2, 794-800; Avishur (2007), 43-45; Smith (2001), 75, 239-240, n. 68 and 69; Smith (2008); Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 16-17. The polytheistic nature of the Biblical Hebrew expression was recognized even before the parallel Ugaritic formulae were known; see for example Schwally (1898), 145, who commented, “ ... Diese Kinder besassen gar nicht die Ruach Jahve’s (‫ רוחי‬v. 3), sondern die Ruach der Elohim, von denen sie abstammten. ‫ האלהים‬ist gewiss polytheistisch aufzufassen, und ‫ בני‬ist vielleicht erst die Zuthat eines Überarbeiters.” Against this, see Fensham (1963), who has been harshly criticized by Kloss, ibid., 20, 21, 34 90, 95. On the theo-historical background, demythologization, or accentuation of the human element of the expression “son of God/son of man,” see Collins (2011), 293, 294, 298, 301, 306-307, 308-309 with reference to 4Q246, the so-called Aramaic Apocalypse or “Son of God” text. 34 Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 116. 35 PTU, 118-119; Cunchillos (1985b), 206, 209.

XX

BN QDŠ “THE CHILDREN OF THE HOLY ONE” (1.2; 1.17) 1. KTU3 1.2:I:21 ᾿ap . ᾿ilm . lḥ[m]1 yṯb . bn . qdš . l ṯr[ .

21

Meanwhile the Gods have sat down to ea[t], the children of the holy one to dine.2

2. KTU3 1.2:I:38 hw . ybl . ᾿argmnk . k ᾿ilm 38 [xxxx ]ybl . k bn . qdš . mnḥyk

1

He will indeed bring you tribute, like the gods he will bring [you a gift ],3 like4 the children of the holy one, [he will offer] you presents.

KTU3, 7 n. 11, Lg. l ḥ[m] or lḥ[mm]? See also Smith, UBC I, 262. In the new version of the Ugaritic texts, see KTU3, 6. However, my translation is based on the parallelism lḥm and ṯrm. See del Olmo Lete, MLC, 170; Pardee, CS I, 246; Wyatt, RTU, 60; Smith, UNP, 99, 166, n. 21; idem, BC I, 271, 295-296. The conventional wordpair lḥm and ṯrm as A- and B-words (e.g., KTU3 1.16:VI:11-12, 18, 20-21; 1.18:IV:19, 29-30 [(᾿i)lḥm // (᾿i/y)ṯrm], Margalit [1989b], 71, 73; Smith, UBC I, 295) makes the restoration of the -m here certain, and helps define the semantic value of the parallel Ugaritic terms, whose homograph appears in Ugaritic with different semantic meanings (see de Tarragon [1980], 67, who compares it to Hittite NINDAšaram(m)a(n), “pain” or “un gâteau”; compare Rainey [1973a], 52). Scholars (DLU, 506; DULAT, 931-932 and the bibliographic references there) generally relate the latter Ugaritic term etymologically to Akkadian šarāmu, “to cut up, off.” However, although in Ugaritic the semantic development from “to cut up/off, carve” > “to eat, feed oneself” occurs, the Akkadian etymological equivalent conserves solely the basic meaning of “to break open a seal, a case-enclosed tablet,” and “to cut to size etc.” with no reference to food (see CAD Š/2, 48-49). Besides this, an etymological and semantic parallel occurs in Classical Arabic, where the root ‫شرم‬ means basically “to cut” > “to eat,” e.g., ‫ أكل من نواحيها‬:‫ وشرم الثريدة يشرمها شرما‬/ wa-šarama ṯ-ṯarīdata yašrimuhā šarman: ᾿akala min nawāḥīhā “He cuts/eats ṯ-ṯarīdah: [mess of crumbled bread moistened with broth], yašrimuhā šarman: He ate from the edges, the sides.” (See Lane, vol. 4, 1543; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VIII, 69 for more; see Ibnu Kaṯīr [2011], 46, ‫)أبرهة الأشرم‬. Therefore, the agreed (see e.g. Gordon, UT, 506, no. 2746; de Moor [1971], 130; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, ibid., and DULAT, ibid.) correspondence between Ugaritic ṯrm and Classical Arabic ‫“ ثرم‬to have a central incisor broken” has to be rejected. 3 From the space available, and the parallelism, the restoration of ṯ῾yk “present, tribute,” seems correct; scholars agree that such a meaning is required here. See e.g., Ginsberg, ANET, 130; CML1, 80, n. 6; KME, 23; CML2, 42, n. 3; PLM, 71; TO I, 132; MLC, 172; Stuart (1976), 67, 71 n. 30; de Moor, ARTU, 33, n. 146; Pardee (1980), 272; idem, CS I, 246; Smith, UNP, 101; idem, UBC I, 260, 264, 268. For the same verb but in a different context, see Smith (2014a), 159 and the corresponding footnote. 4 KTU3, 6 maintains the collation of the particle -k; see also UT, 198, k!bn.qdš; Herdner, CTA, 8, (w/k/)bn. qdš. However, most scholars read w here instead of k, on the basis that 2

178

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

3. KTU3 1.2:III:19-20 ank . ᾿in bt [. l]y [. km .] ᾿ilm . As for me, I have no house [like] the Gods, no court [like the children of the holy o]ne. w ḥẓr [. kbn] 20 [qd]š 4. KTU3 1.17:I:22 (= 4, 8, 10-11, 13 [᾿uzr]) ᾿uzrm . ᾿ilm . ylḥm  ᾿uzrm . yšqy . bn qdš 

22

Who, girded,5 gives food to the Gods, girded, gives drink to the children of the holy one?

k᾿ilm at the beginning of a colon is rather awkward, and suggest the restoration of the wbn. See CML1, 80; CML2, 42; Stuart (1976), 67; and Pardee (1980), 272, n. 9 and n. 10 on Stuart; de Moor, ARTU, 33, n. 146; MLC, 172; Smith, UNP, 101; idem, UBC I, 260 and his commentary on p. 264 and the bibliographic references there. 5 There is no consensus regarding the translation and the interpretation of the key term ᾿uzr(m) in these verses. Some scholars consider it a noun denoting either food or drink. Ginsberg, ANET, 149, 150, “gives oblation”; Jirku, KME, 115-116, “uzr-(Opfer)”; Driver, CML1, 48, 49, n. 2, “the nectar(?)”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 419, n. c, “‘... un fortifiant,’ ou un ‘stimulant,’ destiné à rendre au héros sa capacité virile”; Gordon, UT, 354, no. 125, ᾿zr II, “food or drink offerings,” idem, PLM, 9, 10 translates simply “the offerings.” Dijkstra and de Moor (1975), 172-73 render “consecrated food/sacrifices,” but de Moor, ARTU, 225, n. 7, “consecrated oblations”; Gibson, CML2, 103, n. 1, comments “precise meaning of ᾿uzr unknown; it should not be too hastily connected with the disputed Punic sacrificial term ᾿zrm, which may be Berber in origin”; Wright (2001), 21, 23, n. 11, 27, n. 31, 28, 29, 36, 39, “a girded-offering”; Tropper’s, UG, 454, translation vaguely indicates some kind of food or drink, even if he leaves ᾿uzr itself untranslated. See especially Tropper’s commentary on the grammatical analysis of the verb lḥm in context of ᾿uzr; see also Pardee, CS I, 343, n. 2, in contrast to Tsevat (1986), 345-350, esp. 346-348. According to the latter interpretation Emile Puech in a written communication adds, “la référence à l’inscription d’Eshmunazor II qui est mort avant son temps, orphelin, fils d’une veuve, fils (de son père): il dit être bn msk ymm ᾿zrm (lignes 3 et 12-13). C’est son père Tabnit qui est ‘le libateur quotidien des ᾿zrm,’ et à la mort de son père, sa mère ’m‛štrt, a exercé comme prêtresse (khnt ῾štrt rbtn) ... Le ᾿zr est un sacrifice quotidien au temple où officie le roi-prêtre. On a toujours mal compris cette expression mais la construction est limpide, ce n’est fils d’un petit nombre de jours, car ymm est au pluriel et msk au sing. et ymm est yomam ‘quotidiennement, de jour.’” By contrast, in recent studies many scholars agree that ᾿uzr(m) is an adjective, G passive participle, or even a noun, and translate “girded, clothed.” See MKT, 67-68; idem, WUS, 10-11, no. 130a, “Trauerverhüllt // in Trauer gehüllt”; Dietrich and Loretz (1978), 66; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 368, “(el que) revestido ...”; Xella (1982a), 193, “si spogliò della sua tunica e salí a coricarsi, // si spogliò della sua veste e trascorse la notte”; Caquot (1987), 6-8, esp. 7 “ceint (de son vêtement) il donne à manger aux dieux, il donne à boire aux saints,” commenting that “uzr est un nom de la même racine que l’hébreu ᾿āzar ‘(se ceindre)’ et dénote une vêture rituelle de Danel. Il est peu probable que ce soit un nom de schème qatūl, uzr = ᾿uzūr < ᾿azūr ‘ceint’; on y verra plutôt un nom verbal à l’accusatif de manière : ‘en se ceignant’, c’est-à-dire, probablement, en enroulant sa tunique autour de la taille de façon à se dégager le torse et les bras”; Margalit (1989a), 143, “In loincloth”; Husser (1996), 88; Pardee, CS I, 343, n. 2 and Parker, UNP, 51, “Girded”; RTU, 251, n. 6, “enrobed”; DLU, 67, “vestido, revestido”; DULAT, 137-138, “clothed, enrobed.” The latter opinion seems more plausible and apparently a reference to a girded garment that Dān᾿īlu wears at the ritual moment is intended here. In the same scene, lines 4-5, and lines 13-25, the terms ṣt “cloak” and m᾿izrt “girded garment” also refer to some kind of garment worn during the ritual ceremony. See Renfroe, AULS, 128; Pardee, CS I, 343, n. 3; DULAT,

BN QDŠ “THE CHILDREN OF THE HOLY ONE”

179

Most scholars render the epithet either as “sons of the holy ones / holiness, deities,” or the like, though they differ on the attribution of qdš to ᾿Ilu or ᾿Aṯiratu (see below).6 However, a few scholars interpret qdš as a divine name and translate “the sons of Qdš/Qudshu.”7 519 and the bibliographic references there. In addition, the Akkadian cognate zīru basically means “a garment” (CAD Z, 137); Eblaite zi-rí, and zi-ir-tu “a ritual garment” in Emar VI 369:75 (see Bonechi [1989], 143 and n. 46, “... zi-rí SIKI ‘rotolo (in genere esprime una misura per la lana)’”; Dietrich [1989], 85, n. 87 and 88; Watson [1992], 241, n. 139). In Biblical Hebrew the common verb ‫ אזר‬means “gürten, umgürten, schürzen etc.”; see Gesenius, vol. I, 31; HALOT, 28, “to gird up one’s loins for battle; with acc. to embrace closely; nif. pt. girded”; Sanmartín (1977), 369-370. Finally, in Classical Arabic the root ᾿ZR / ‫ أزر‬is “to wear, to wrap, surround etc.,” but has a parallel semantic religious use in Ugaritic when a devotee makes himself ready for a religious act, ،‫ الإزار‬:‫ المئزر‬،‫شد المئزر‬ ‫ وقيل أراد تشميره للعبادة‬،‫ وكنى بشدة عن اعتزال النساء‬/ šaddu l-mi᾿zari, al-mi᾿zaru: al-᾿izāru, wa-kannā bi-šiddatin ῾an ᾿i῾tizāli n-nisā᾿i, wa-qīla ᾿arāda tašmīrahu li-l῾ibādati “šaddu l-mi᾿zari: l-mi᾿zaru: l-᾿izāru: He abstained from sexual intercourse: or he prepared himself for religious service” (see Lane, vol. 1, 52-53 and Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 97-98). In Arabic ᾿ ZR / ‫ أزر‬might signify “half naked, to cover the lower half of the body etc.,” depending on the context. The basic question here is whether the garment is only a loincloth, which would imply that he served the gods half-naked (as some have argued) and that he lay down naked, or a full garment held in place by a belt (see Wyatt, ibid.). On garments used for cultic acts in Ugarit, see Yon, RSOu VI, 273-314, on the long ceremonial robe with thick hem worn by the king, and illustrated several times, e.g., on the Baal au foudre stela (see p. 331, figure 11–a. Stèle no 5, RS 4.427); and on the terracotta stands (see e.g., p. 332, figure 12–e. Support cultuel en terre cuite : RS 78.41 + 81.3659). This probably represents a specific type of garment worn in cultic contexts; cf. also the robe of the enthroned and gilded bronze statuette (see Yon, ibid., 337, figure 17–a. Figurine de bronze et or du dieu El, RS 23.394. H. 13,8 cm.) and perhaps on the stela (see Yon, ibid., 336, figure 16 - a. Stèle no 10 RS 8.295). 6 Some of the following scholars attribute qdš to ᾿Aṯiratu, others to ᾿Ilu (see below): Virolleaud (1944-45), 9, “les Fils de la Sainteté”; Ginsberg, ANET, 130, 150, “the holy ones.” In CML1, 48, 49, n. 4 Driver translated regarding the epic contexts “the holy ones,” and commented, “or ‘of the son of the holy one,’ i.e., Baal son of El,” while he translated bn qdš of the mythological context simply “gods” (see p. 79 and 81); CML2, 38, n. 4, 41, 42, “‘The sons of the Holy one’ (lit. ‘sons of Holiness’)”; MKT, 49, 50, “die Söhne der (?) Heiligen” (see the next note); Schmidt (1966), 28, n. 31, 29, “Söhne des Heiligen.” Dahood (1966), 176, “the sons of Holiness (Asherah)”; Gordon, PLM, 9-10, 68, 71, “the deities”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 124, n. n, 132, 419, n. d, “les fils saints/des saints,” but in the epic contexts renders “des saints,” and comment “le nom complément bn qdš, littéralement ‘les fils de sainteté’”; MLC, 167, 170, 172, 367, 368, “los santos”; Parker, UNP, 51, “the deities”; Wright (2001), 21, 22, “the holy-ones”; Smith, UNP, 97, 99; idem, UBC I, 219, 266, 268; idem (2001), 93, 249, n. 56, “the holy ones”; Margalit (1989a), 143, “the holyones”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT III/6, 1241, “des Gütigen und des Heiligen”; Wyatt, RTU, 60, 62, 251-252, n. 8; idem (1998), 43; idem, DDD2, 100, “the sons of the Holy One, alternatively, ‘sons of holiness (abstract)’”; DLU, 363-364, “hijos del ‘santo(?)’ > santos”; idem, DULAT, 696, “sons of the ‘Holy One’(?) > holy ones, denoting gods”; Pardee, CS I, 246, “the sons of the Holy One”; but in the epic context 3 above Pardee, ibid, 343 translates “the Holy Ones.” 7 Albright (1946), 75-76, “the holiness (qudshu) of (Asherah, etc.) / the Holy One”; MKT, 67, “der Sohn der (?) Qdš”; and ARTU, 32, 33, 225, n. 8, “the sons of Qudshu.”

180

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

PARALLELS Contexts 1, 2, 3, 4: ᾿ilm // bn qdš DISCUSSION The epithet bn qdš “the children of the holy one” occurs eight times8 in Ugaritic literature and refers to a group of gods related to the head of the pantheon, the father of the Ugaritic gods and of mankind, ᾿Ilu. The epithet bn qdš “the children of the holy one” is composed of two components, bn and qdš. The first component is taken to imply the possession of or characterization by the attribute qdš when the latter is considered to be an abstract noun, and as an expression of filiation when qdš is classified as a divine name or epithet.9 In the latter case, the first component bn is considered a plural “sons” and serves as the nomen regens of the construct chain bn qdš (lit. the children of qdš). However, scholars are divided on the question of to whom the second element refers, proposing either ᾿Ilu or his consort ᾿Aṯiratu.10 Few accept both possibilities.11 The epithet bn qdš recalls the phrase lṭpn wqdš “the sagacious and holy one.” However, even in the latter case some scholars incorrectly associate 8 In addition to the very damaged context, KTU3 1.94:25 reads [ b]n qdš . kb[ ]. KTU3, pp. 113-114 classifies this damaged text as myth, but with a question mark. Because of the text’s condition, and because the letter b seems to be restored, I prefer to leave the text out of consideration. 9 See n. 6, n. 7, p. 179, and the next footnotes 10 and 11, p. 180. 10 For the interpretation of qdš as referring to ᾿Ilu not only when it deals with the epithet in question, but in general and especially regarding lṭpn wqdš, see Pope, EUT, 43-44; Gray (1964), 66; Cazelles (1976), 38; MLC, 617; van Selms (1982), 262-264; Wiggins (1991), 388-389; Smith, UBC I, 294-295 and the bibliographic references there; Pardee, CS I, 246; Wyatt, RTU, 54-55, n. 78, 60, 62, 251-252, n. 8; idem, DDD2, 100; DLU, 364; DULAT 696. For the interpretation of qdš as referring to ᾿Aṯiratu, see Virolleaud (1938), 86-87; idem (1941), 112-113; idem (1942), 137, n. 1; idem, (1944-45), 9; Albright (1946), 75-76 and 196, n. 17; idem (1968), 106; Gibson, CML2, 38, n. 4, 42; Dahood (1966), 176 tried to solve the problem by assuming that qdš stands for the abstraction “holiness” and therefore could be applied to the goddess Asherah; Redford (1973), 45-46; Kuhnigk (1974), 12, n. 43; Hvidberg-Hansen (1979), vol. I, 73-74; vol. II, 70, n. 6, 72, n. 19, 77-78, n. 41; Mullen (1980), 17-19; Clamer (1980), 159; Xella (1982b), 13-15; Betlyon (1985), 55; Maier (1986), 42-44, 54-55, n. 91, see also p. 193; Day (1986), 389; Hestrin (1987), 68; Michel (1987), 138, n, 42; de Moor, ARTU, 32, n. 140, 33, 225, n. 8. However, see Gaster (1946-47), 289, who criticized Ginsberg’s interpretation (see above), commented that qdš in the present context would simply mean “sacred being, deity,” and parallels bn ᾿il. 11 Herdner (1938), 121, n. 1; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 124, n. d commented, “bn qdš: qdš est soit le nom abstrait ‘sainteté,’ soit une autre manière de désigner la génitrice des dieux Athirat (cf. la déesse sémitique qdšw des stèles de la nécropole thébaine), soit une épithète d’El (appelé qdš en II K, I, 11).” Contrast with Wyatt, RTU, 54-55, n. 78 and the bibliographic references there; van Koppen and van der Toorn, DDD2, 415-418.

BN QDŠ “THE CHILDREN OF THE HOLY ONE”

181

the second component qdš of the epithet lṭpn wqdš “the sagacious and holy one,” with the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu, while the first component clearly refers to her consort ᾿Ilu.12 As mentioned in my earlier study on the latter epithet, the identification of qdš with the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu is inspired, in part, by reference to the unmistakably Semitic goddess Qdš in Egyptian texts of the Ramesside period in collocation with ῾Anatu and ῾Aṯtartu; by elimination, Qdš has been considered to be ᾿Aṯiratu, which is incorrect.13 Moreover, the component qdš is morphologically masculine, showing that the god referred to is a male divinity since it deals with qdš and not qdšt, and that, given the epithet’s preceding data, the god has to be the head of the pantheon ᾿Ilu.14 Furthermore, the parallelism ilm // bn qdš, suggests a (nominalized) adjective in a construct chain referring to ᾿Ilu. The epithet lṭpn wqdš “the sagacious and holy one,” which clearly refers to ᾿Ilu, indicates that qdš here must refer to the same god. The parallelism ᾿ilm // bn qdš “the gods // the children of the holy one,” can be juxtaposed with the parallelism ᾿ilm // bn ᾿il “the gods // the children of the god ᾿Ilu,” both referring to the same group of deities.15 Furthermore, in the Ugaritic religion the idea of holiness is applied in the same measure to the divine abode. Thus, Ba῾al Ṣapānu would be referred to as a holy mountain, the abode of Ba῾lu (e.g., KTU3 1.3:IV:19-20),16 while Ba῾lu’s voice is said to be a holy voice (KTU3 1.4:VII:29-32). In Aqhat’s legend (KTU3 1.17:I:26ff.), then, the expression b qdš refers to a sanctuary.17 Moreover, in Biblical Hebrew the expressions ‫ בני־אלים‬and ‫ קדושים‬are used as equivalent terms reflecting a well-developed mythological background, and specifically when interpreting ‫ קדושים‬simply as “holy/ 12

For an extensive study on this epithet, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 207-209. For Qdš see especially Stadelmann (1967), 110-123; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 208 for discussion and bibliographic references. 14 Rahmouni, ibid. 15 On the divine group epithet bn ᾿il(m) see here pp. 4, 165-166, esp. 168-176, 299-307, 313, 318, 320-321. 16 In Ugaritic the epithet n῾m “beautiful, handsome, attractive, etc.” is also used to describe the Ṣapānu (e.g., KTU3 1.3:III:30-31; 1.10:III:30-31). See UBC II, 64, 234, 235. See here pp. 129, 130. 17 See UBC II, 62, 216, 234. The same use is attested in the Hebrew Bible as well as in the Qur᾿ān. The Hebrew expression ‫ הר־קדשו‬in Psalm 48:2 refers to “His holy mountain”; and Psalm 46:5 reads ‫“ קדש משכני עליון‬the holy dwelling-palace of the Most High/the َ ‫ك إِن‬ َ ‫َاخ َل ْع ن َْع َل ْي‬ mountain of his holiness.” In Qur᾿ānic Arabic it appears in the passage ‫ِالوا ِد‬ ْ ‫ف‬ َ ‫َّك ب‬ ْ َ‫ق‬ ‫َّس ُطوى‬ ‫د‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ / fa-ḫla῾ na῾layka ᾿innaka bi-l-wādi l-muqaddasi ṭuwā “so take off both your ِ ُ shoes; you are in the sacred valley, Ṭuwā” (Q. 20:12). See also the famous expression ‫ت‬ ُ ‫َب ْي‬ ‫س‬ ِ ‫المقْ ِد‬ َ / baytu l-maqdisi which refers to the great Jerusalem mosque (‫المسجد الأ ْقصى وقبة‬ ‫ الصخرۃ‬/ l-masǧidu l-᾿aqṣā wa-qubbatu ṣ-ṣaḫrā). On the ancient Near Eastern background of the connection of temples and “holiness,” see the excellent contribution by PongratzLeisten (2009), esp. 417-427. 13

182

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

holiness.”18 The same combination is also used in Northwest Semitic inscriptions, e.g., wrb dr kl qdšm – “the community of all the holy ones/gods,” versus kl bn ᾿lm “all the gods” in KAI 27:11-12. In addition, the parallel usage of qdš(m) as an adjective in combination with ᾿il(m) is widely attested, e.g., KAI 14:9, 22, wysgrnm h᾿lnm hqdšm ᾿t mmlk ᾿dr “the holy gods will deliver them to a mighty prince”; and KAI 4:4-5, 7, ᾿l gbl qdšm “the holy gods of Byblos.”19 Both the Biblical Hebrew and the Phoenician terms occur most often in reference to the divine council, cf. ‫ קדושים‬/ qědōšîm, which serves as a common appellation for the members of Yahweh’s council.20 The Biblical Hebrew ‫“ קדוש‬holy” is widely attested as a divine epithet even in its plural form, as in ... ‫ כי אלהים קדשים הוא‬... “... for He is a Holy God ...” (Joshua 24:19), ‫“ קדוש־ישראל‬the Holy One of Israel” (e.g., Isaiah 5:24; Psalm 71:22), and ‫“ האל הקדוש‬the Holy God/ He is holy!” (Isaiah 5:16, 6:3; Leviticus 20:26; Psalm 99:3, 5, 9);21 and ‫ויודו‬ ‫ ידמה‬/ ‫ כי מי בשחק יערך ליהוה‬// :‫ אף־אמונתך בקהל קדשים‬/ ‫שמים פלאך יהוה‬ ‫ יהוה‬// :‫ ונורא על־כל־סביביו‬/ ‫ אל נערץ בסוד־קדשים רבה‬// :‫ליהוה בבני אלים‬ ‫ מי־כמוך חסין יה ואמונתך סביבותיך‬/ ‫“ אלהי צבאות‬Your wonders, O LORD, are praised by the heavens, // Your Faithfulness, too, in the assembly of holy beings. // For who in the skies can equal the LORD, / can compare with the LORD among the divine beings, // a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings, / held in awe by all around him? // O LORD, God 18 Cf. Psalm 89:6-9. See Cooke (1964), 26; Gaster (1946-47), 289; Herrmann (1960), 250-251, n. 45; Cross (1973), 46; Pope (apud Cooper [1981], 432-440); Mullen (1980), 189192; Korpel (1990), 272; Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 139ff. for discussion and bibliographic references; van der Toorn (1995), 2045; Burnett (2001), 26, 58; Smith (2001), 93-96, 249; Cho (2007), 65. 19 DNWSI, 63, 131-132, 778, 996 and the bibliographic references there. See also Gaster (1946-47), 289; Herrmann (1960), 250-251, n. 45; Clifford (1972), 46. See the previous note. 20 Cf. Zechariah 14:5, ‫“ ובא יהוה אלהי כל־קדשים עמך‬And the LORD my God, with all the holy beings, will come to you.” See JPS, 1403, (but I suggest reading ‫ קדשים עמו‬/ qeḏōšīm ῾immo with the LXX); Deuteronomy 33:2-3; Psalm 77:14; 93:5; Job 15:15 (Qerê); Daniel 11:36; Exodus 15:11. For commentary and more examples, see Mullen (1980), 189192; Pope (apud Cooper [1981],432-440); Burnett (2001), 87; van der Toorn, DDD2, 361; Smith (2002), 37. Collins (2011), 305-306, n. 82, n. 89 affirms, “... the slight change from Hebrew ‫ קדש‬to the plural ἁγίων ‘holy ones’ can easily be taken to associate the messiah with angelic beings.” 21 See also Deuteronomy 33:3; Isaiah 40:25, 57:15; Habakkuk 3:3; Job 6:10; Proverbs 9:10, 30:3 [in plural], see Michel (1987), 138; Korpel (1990), 272; van der Toorn (1996), 326; Burnett (2001), 82; Koppen and van der Toorn, DDD2, 417-418. On the dichotomy “holy-profane” and the different dimensions of holiness in Hittite, Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian material, see Pongratz-Leisten (2009), 409-427, p. 411 refers to the question of the absolute holiness of the Biblical God.

BN QDŠ “THE CHILDREN OF THE HOLY ONE”

183

of hosts, who is mighty like You, O LORD? / Your faithfulness surrounds You” (Psalm 89:6-9). The latter corresponds etymologically and semantically to the Arabic ‫ قدوس‬/ quddūs “All-Holy,” which also occurs as a divine epithet: Q. 62:1, ِ ‫﷽ َما ِفي الس ََّم‬ ِ ِ ‫ ُي َسب ُِّح‬/ yusabbiḥu ُ ‫ك‬ ِ ‫لم ِل‬ ‫يم‬ ِ ‫القد‬ ِ ‫وات َو َما ِفي َالأ ْر‬ َ ‫الع ِزي ِز‬ َ ‫ُّوس‬ ِ ‫الح ِك‬ َ ِ‫ض ا‬ li-llāhi mā fī s-samawāti wa-mā fī l-᾿arḍi l-maliki l-quddūsi l-῾azīzi l-ḥakīmi “Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies God, Sovereign, the Holy One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”22 Furthermore, qdš “holy” also occurs in texts from Ugarit as a component in personal names.23

22 23

See Gimaret (1988), 202-204. PTU, 175.

XXI

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES” (1.17; 1.24) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.17:II: 26-27a 26 ῾rb . b bth . kṯrt . bnt 26 hll . snnt .

The Kôṯarātu entered his house, The daughters of Hll, the radiant ones.

2. KTU3 1.17:II:29-31 (= 1.17:II:34-35, 36, 38) ᾿alp . yṭbḫ . l kṯ 30 rt yšlḥm . kṯrt . w y 31 ššq . bnt . hll . snnt

He slaughtered a bull for the Kôṯarātu, He fed the Kôṯarātu, He gave a drink to the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones.

3. KTU3 1.17:II:39-40 tb῾ . b bth 40 kṯrt . bnt . hll. snnt

The Kôṯarātu left his house, The daughters of Hll, the radiant ones.

4. KTU3 1.24:5-6 [xx]6ṯrt . l bnt . hll . [sn]nt

[Kô]ṯarātu!1 O daughters of Hll, [the radiant ones]!

5. KTU3 1.24:40-42 ᾿ašr ᾿ilh[t] kṯr[t] bn] 41 t hll . snnt . bnt h42ll b῾l gml 40

I shall sing of the Kôṯarātu goddesses, The daughters of Hll, [the radiant ones], The daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff.

In earlier studies, scholars translated “(the) songstresses/the daughters of joyful noise/the swallows,” or the like.2 However, in some recent studies, 1 Contrast Pardee (2010a), 17, 19-20. Most scholars suggest the restoration of the vocative l + kṯrt, in parallel with l + bnt hll snnt; see Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 159. For the vocative with personal names without the addition of prefix or suffix, see especially Singer (1948), 1-10. Marcus, UNP, 215 takes l as the preposition “to”; Tropper, UG, 313. 317, §54.212. 2 Ginsberg (1938a), 14-15; idem (1939), 323, “(the/O) songstresses-goddesses, // (the) daughters of joyful noise, (the/O) swallows”; Gaster, Thespis, 338-340, n. 6, “the artists // the daughters of melody, the swallows”; Brown (1965), 215, “daughters of joyful noise,

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES”

185

the epithet is translated “daughters of Hilāl/the New Moon, swallows”;3 or “the daughters of brightness/Hll’s/Ellil/the Bright Ones.”4 PARALLELS Contexts 1, 2, 3, 4: kṯrt // bnt hll snnt Context 5: ᾿ilht kṯrt // bnt hll snnt // bnt hll b῾l gml DISCUSSION The epithet bnt hll snnt occurs a total of eight times: six times in KTU3 1.17 and twice in KTU3 1.24.5 In KTU3 1.24: 41-42 the Kôṯarātu the swallows”; Loewenstamm (1965), 122-123, “the daughters of joyful sound, the swallows”; Gordon (1966), 99, “Daughters of shouting Swallows.” 3 Virolleaud (1936b), 213, “(les) Filles de Hélal, les Hirondelles”; Gordon (1937), 3133, “the daughter(s) of Hilâl, the swallow(s)”; Gaster (1938a), 38, “daughters of the New Moon, swallows”; Goetze (1941), 360, “daughters of Hilāl, swallows!” Dussaud (1941), 142, “Filles de Hélal, les Hirondelles”; Gibson, CML2, 106, “the swallow-like daughters of the crescent moon”; Jirku, KME, 77, “die/ihr Töchter des Helal, die/ihr Schwalben”; Gordon, PLM, 65, “Daughters of the New Moon, the swallows”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 392, “(ô/les) filles de Hilâl, (les) hirondelles!”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 372, 457, “(Oh/las) hijas del ‘Lucero’, las golondrinas”; de Moor, ARTU, 142, n. 12, “O swallows, daughters of Hilalu”; Koitabashi (1998), 386, 387, “Daughters of the New Moon, Swallows”; Watson, DDD2, 393, “daughters of Brightness, swallows (or perhaps ‘Shining Ones’)”; Wright (2001), 81-86, “the daughters of the Moon Crescent, the Swallows.” 4 Aistleitner, MKT, 63-64, “(die) Töchter Hll-s, die/ihr Bildnerinnen”; Driver, CML1, 51, “the shining daughters of the crescent moon”; Herrmann (1968), 7, “die/ihr Töchter des Hll, die/ihr Bildnerinnen”; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 159, 161, “leuchtende Töchter des Hilāl” and “die Töchter Hilāls, die hehren”; Wyatt, RTU, 264, “the daughters of Ellil, the Bright Ones”; Parker, UNP, 57, “the moon’s radiant daughters”; Marcus, UNP, 215, “the radiant daughters of the new moon”; Watson (2007), 325, “Daughters of Enlil, the Bright ones”; Pardee, CS I, 345, “the daughters of brightness, the pure ones”; but later idem, (2010a), 25, “filles de Hulēlu, les resplendissantes!” 5 Most scholars restore this epithet in KTU3 1.24:15 as well (so KTU2 and KTU). See Virolleaud (1936b), 215; Herrmann (1968), 10, 11; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 393; Gordon, PLM, 65; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 458; de Moor, ARTU, 143; Marcus, UNP, 216; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 159; Wyatt, RTU, 338. Pardee (2010a), 21-22: after his new collation of this text, Pardee comments, “Après les signes {hl}, on trouve la partie supérieure d’un petit clou vertical, situé proche du dernier clou du {l} et ensuite, plus bas, ce qui semble être la tête d’un clou horizontal : la lecture ici d’un {l} (KTU/CAT; ni l’éditeur, ni Herdner n’indique que des traces d’écritures seraient visibles ici) paraît difficile, car il faudrait admettre que ce {l} ait été collé au précédent, que le premier clou ait été plus petit que d’habitude et situé plus bas et que le deuxième ait disparu dans la cassure, celle-ci ayant pris la forme de la tête d’un clou horizontal.” In light of these remarks, and given the fact that the reading {hll} does not appear likely and is indicated as missing in KTU3, I prefer not to restore the epithet in this context. Concerning the first sign of line 15, which KTU3 transcribes as {῾}, Pardee, ibid., comments, “bien que le bord gauche du premier signe soit penché un peu à droite, les angles intérieurs du clou semblent être ceux d’un {t}...” rather

186

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

are also referred to as bnt hll b῾l gml, which many scholars take to be a variant of bnt hll snnt. From the parallelism of these passages it is clear that the epithet bnt hll snnt refers to a group of female deities called the Kôṯarātu.6 The plurality of the goddesses is clearly indicated by the element bnt, lit. “daughters,” in the epithet, as well as by the expression ḥbl kṯrt “band of the Kôṯarātu” (KTU3 1.10:II, 30, 40).7 Furthermore, the occurrence of the epithet bnt hll snnt in almost every Ugaritic literary text where Kôṯarātu are mentioned indicates that it is a stereotypical epithet and thus their role must remain unchanged as well. The epithet bnt hll snnt is composed of two components, bnt hll and snnt. The scholarly consensus is that bnt is the plural of bt “daughter” and serves as the nomen regens in the construct chain bnt hll (lit. “daughters of hll”). The meaning of hll, is disputed. The following interpretations have been proposed; it is possibly: (a) a divine name based on Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl “crescent moon” and/or Biblical Hebrew ‫ילל‬ ֵ ‫ה‬, ֵ and the 8 9 Emar deity Hll ; (b) Lucifer (Biblical Hebrew ‫( ;)הילל‬c) the divine name Enlil (Akkadian Enlil);10 (d) the (new/crescent) moon (Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl “crescent moon”);11 (e) a shouting, joyful noise (Akkadian alālu [Gt] “to sing a joyful song”; Biblical Hebrew ‫[ הלל‬pi.] “to praise; to give praise”);12 or (f) brightness (Biblical Hebrew ‫[ הלל‬hi.] “to shine; than {῾}. In line 11, KTU3 reads šm῾ ᾿ilht . kṯr[t. tḥ]mm. Pardee (2010a), 17, 20 confirms the KTU3 collation and reads šm῾ ᾿ilht . kṯr[ ]mm. Wyatt, RTU, 338 is the only scholar who suggests restoring this epithet here. 6 The epithet appears as a “B-word” to kṯrt “Kôṯarātu” in every context except the last, in which it parallels the similar ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses.” In most early studies, researchers thought that the Kôṯarātu were a human group, the female friends of the bride. See, for example, Ginsberg (1938a), 13; idem, (1939), 325; Gray, LC2, 246-247, n. 1. Today, scholarly consensus rejects this, especially because the term ᾿ilht, “goddesses” occurs once before the divine name kṯrt in KTU3 1.24:40 (see Smith [1985], 466). The kṯrt occur in the god lists KTU3 1.47:13; 1.118:12 and as recipients in the sacrifice list KTU3 1.148:5, 25 (for these texts see Pardee TR, 291-319, 659-60, 779-806, esp. 292, 305, 799). Nevertheless, they were most likely patterned after human midwives. See Jacobsen (1973), 289, 294295. 7 Cf. Pardee, DDD2, 491. 8 Virolleaud (1936b), 213; Gordon (1937), 31-33; Goetze (1941), 360; Dussaud (1941), 142; Jirku, KME, 77; Aistleitner, MKT, 63-64; Herrmann (1968), 7; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 392; de Moor, ARTU, 142; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 159; Pardee (2010a), 25; Wilson-Wright (2016), 161-162. 9 Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 372, 457. 10 Wyatt, RTU, 264; Watson (2007), 325. 11 Gaster (1938a), 38; Driver, CML1, 51; Gordon, PLM, 65; Gibson, CML2, 106; Parker, UNP, 57; Marcus, UNP, 215; Koitabashi (1998), 386-387. 12 Ginsberg (1938a), 14-15; idem (1939), 323; Gaster, Thespis, 338-340, n. 6; Brown (1965), 215; Loewenstamm (1965), 122-123; Gordon (1966), 99.

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES”

187

ّ “to shine, gleam, be radiant”).13 to cause to shine,” Arabic ‫ ته ّلل‬and ‫اهتل‬ Pardee first suggested that bnt implies the possession of or characterization by the attribute hll when the latter is considered to be an abstract noun and is an expression of filiation when hll is classified as a divine name.14 However, in his recent collation and study of the text KTU3 1.24, he states that “la seule identification de ce mot hll est comme théonyme.” Indeed, in my opinion, the term hll in the above context attests a divine name of a minor and still little-known divinity in the Ugaritic text. The deity Hll is labeled by its own internal epithet in the sole context of KTU3 1.24:41-42:15 the parallelism of bnt hll snnt // bnt hll b῾l gml attests against interpreting hll in the first hemistich as an abstract noun and in the parallel hemistich as a divine name. Therefore, in every context above the expression bnt hll appears to imply a familial relationship, namely, “the daughters of the (minor deity) Hll.” The interpretation of hll as an abstract noun meaning “brightness” was first proposed by Watson,16 who based his interpretation on the apparent etymological correspondence between the Biblical Hebrew ‫( הלל‬hi.) “to shine; to cause to shine”17 and Ugaritic hll. In my opinion, the divine name hll, god of the crescent moon, as a component of this epithet, is based on a comparison with Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl “crescent moon” (see the epithet b῾l gml below). Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl relates etymologically to Biblical Hebrew ‫“ הלל‬to shine,” which is not attested in a divine epithet.) The etymology of the divine name and its semantic value appear to be transparent here. However, unfortunately due to the lack of data, the relation between the etymology and the semantic remains to be proved. In spite of the transparent semantic value of the third component, the term snnt confirms the comment here (see below). The term snnt occurs in the Ugaritic corpus only as a component of the epithet under discussion. Most early scholars interpret this as “swallows,” 13 Watson, DDD2, 393; Pardee, CS I, 345. In a written communication, George Hatke adds that, “There were at least two Qatabānian kings who bore the name Šahr Hilāl: Šahr Hilāl Yuhan῾im (r. ca. 50-25 B.C.E) and Šahr Hilāl Yuhaqbiḍ (r. ca. 115-140 CE). Hllm is also attested as a tribal name in Sabaic, and occurs once (in the form hll) as a masculine Sabaic name. To the best of my knowledge, however, hll never occurs as a divine epithet.” Hll as well as hll᾿l occur as a patronymic in Minaic and in Sabaic (see CSAI under hll, and the bibliographical references there). 14 Pardee, CS I, 345, n. 21; idem, DDD2, 492; see Pardee apud DEUAT, 103, n. 3. 15 And so I correct my translation see Rahmouni (2012). 16 Watson, DDD2, 393 (see above, n. 13, p. 187.) Watson (2007), 325, however, interprets hll as the divine name Enlil. 17 HALOT, 248; DCH, vol. II, 562; BDB, 237.

188

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

based on Akkadian sinuntu “swallow” and its cognates.18 The most detailed argument in favor of such an interpretation has been laid out by Watson.19 According to Watson, the appellation “swallows” and the association of the Kôṯarātu with the moon god hll can be explained by paronomasia of the Sumerian sínmušen “swallow” and the name of the Mesopotamian moon god Sîn. The connection would be demonstrated by a Sumerian hymn that contains a word-play on the Sumerian DN ga-ša-an-ì-si-inki (= Ninisina “the Lady of Isin”) and sínmušen “swallow.” The element -sin in the name Gašanisin, however, has absolutely no relation to the name of the Mesopotamian moon god; it is simply a non-analyzable part of the toponym Isin. Nor does the deity in question have any relationship to the moon.20 Furthermore, according to PSD (electronic version), the Sumerian word for “swallow” is simmušen or še-enmušen/ še-namušen. The corresponding logogram is usually transcribed SIM(.MA)mušen, rather than SÍNmušen in Akkadian.21 Finally, in the numerous Akkadian texts where sinuntu occurs, no connection, to the best of my knowledge, is ever explicitly made between Sîn and swallows, nor does the word sinuntu “swallow” ever occur in a divine epithet.22 The background of the connection between sinuntu and the moon in Mesopotamian culture was that both are related to omenology; in Mesopotamia swallows seem to have served a purpose similar to Roman augury (though the details are not clear); and of course the moon’s phases, haloes, and even colors played a major role in Mesopotamian omens. The Sumerian constellation of the Swallow corresponded to part of the classical Pisces and therefore was in the path of the moon; thus the two had an astrological connection as well. The Sumerian city of Isin was sacred to the goddess of healing and childbirth, Gula/Bau/ Ninisina – who, however, started out as the consort of the war-god Pabilsag. Bau’s sacred star was Vega in the classical constellation of Lyra; Vega is the second brightest23 star in the northern celestial hemisphere and therefore Bau had some claim to “luminosity.” In line 4 of “The Gula Hymn 18

Virolleaud (1936b), 213; Gordon (1937), 32, 33; idem (1966), 99; idem, PLM, 65; Ginsberg (1938a), 14, 15; Goetze (1941), 360; Dussaud (1941), 142; Gaster, Thespis, 339, 340, n. 6; Jirku, KME, 77; Gibson, CML2, 106; Brown (1965), 215; Loewenstamm (1965), 122-123; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 392; de Moor, ARTU, 142; Watson (1977), 282; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 372; Koitabashi (1998), 386 (see above, n. 3, p. 185). 19 Watson (1977), 282. 20 For Ninisina/Gašanisin, see Edzard in RLA 9, 387-388. 21 See CAD S, 295, lexical section; Hübner and Reizammer (1985), 889; Borger (2004), 277. 22 See the ample documentation in CAD S, s.v. 23 Indeed, Sirius is viewable in the northern hemisphere, Vega is more accurately the 3rd brightest (after Arcturus). (Courtesy to Neil Mann).

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES”

189

of Bullutsa-rabi,” Gula says, “In heaven my star is great, my name in the underworld ... .”24 An interpretation by Aistleitner based on the Classical Arabic َّ‫ سن‬/ sanna “to form, to depict, to shape,” also seems unlikely.25 Lisān al-῾arab cites ‫ صو ََّر‬/ ṣawwara “to form, shape” as a synonym of َّ‫ سن‬/ sanna.26 However, the contexts in which this semantic value of the latter verb is reflected do not refer to the conception, birth, or development of embryos, as claimed by Aistleitner.27 The Qur᾿ānic verses where this term occurs do indeed mean “to shape, to form, to depict”28 referring to the role of the Creator, who shapes humankind, rather than to the role of the midwife. In addition, this meaning does not accord well with the interpretation of bnt hll as “the luminaries.” Watson has speculated that (a) Ugaritic snnt may echo Akkadian sūnu, “lap, sexual parts, etc. ...” since the kṯrt are goddesses of childbirth; or (b) Ugaritic snnt may derive from sūnu and denote those dealing with that “region of a woman’s anatomy, e.g. midwives.”29 Contra these proposals, which are based primarily on dubious etymology30 are: (1) sūnu “lap, crotch (also euphemism for sexual parts)”31 refers equally to male and female sexual parts, hence it is inappropriate as the basis for an epithet for a goddess dealing specifically with a region of a woman’s anatomy. Moreover, it is normally mentioned in contexts of sexual intercourse, not birth.32 (2) sūnu does not appear in divine epithets with reference to any of the Mesopotamian female (or male) divinities. (3) No use of anatomical terms in divine epithets is attested at Ugarit.33 Nevertheless, the Sumerian name for the brightest star in the north celestial hemisphere was mulšu-pa, 24

See Lambert (1967), 105-132. See del Olmo Lete (2001-2002), 23. See Aistleitner, MKT, 109; followed by Herrmann (1968), 7; idem (1974), 105, n. 8. 26 Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VII, 279. See also Lane, Lexicon, 1435-40, esp. 1438; Tāǧ al-῾arūs, vol. XVIII, 296-308, esp. 299-301. 27 Aistleitner, MKT, 109, “snnt, vgl. arab. sanna: formen, bilden, dürfte sich auf die kunstvolle Bildung des Embryos beziehen, daher auch die Benennung kṯrt.” 28 See Q. 3:6; Q. 7:11; Q. 82:7-8. 29 Watson (2007), 325, n. 74. 30 Watson quotes Kogan and Militarev (2002), 317-318, who discuss possible etymologies of Akkadian sūnu. The latter scholars, however, find no connection with Ugaritic snnt. 31 CAD S, 386-388. 32 The derivation of šassūru “birth goddess” from šassūru “womb” (CAD Š/2, 145146) does not provide a semantic precedent for the alleged derivation of snnt from sūnu, since šassūru “womb” refers specifically to the part of the woman’s anatomy involved in birth while the goddess Aruru or Mama is known as “mother womb” and “creator of destiny and humankind”; Stone (1987), 46. See also Krebernik (1993b), 506, 507 under point 3.35. 33 See the list of divine epithets in DEUAT, vii-x. 25

190

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

which literally means “Star of the Hand-staff.” The Neo-Assyrian astronomical text MUL.APIN explicitly associates it with Enlil. It can probably be thought of as the celestial representation of Enlil’s royal scepter. This star looks exceptionally brilliant because there are no other comparably bright stars anywhere near it.34 The most likely interpretation of snnt proposed to date is based on Arabic ‫ سنا‬/ sanā “shining, gleaming, brightness and radiance (of fire and lightning).”35 This interpretation was first suggested by Obermann.36 The َّ َّ‫َأ َلم تَر َأن‬ Arabic term appears in Q. 24:43 in the following context: ‫۝‬ َ ْ ُ َ ُ َ ُ ُ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ َ َ ُ ‫ُي ْز ِجي َس َحا ًبا ثمَّ ُيؤَ ل‬ ‫الو ْدق َي ْخ ُر ُج م ْن خلاله َو ُي َنزِّل م َن‬ ً ‫ِّف َب ْي َن ُه ثمَّ َي ْج َعل ُه ُرك‬ َ ‫اما ف َت َرى‬ َ ِ ‫يها ِم ْن َب َر ٍد َف ُي‬ ‫اد َس َنا َب ْر ِق ِه‬ ُ ‫يب ِب ِه َم ْن َي َش ُاء َو َي ْص ِر ُف ُه َعن مَّن َي َش ُاء يك‬ َ ‫الس ََّما ِء ِمن ِج َبالٍ ِف‬ ُ ‫ص‬ َ ْ ‫ب بالأ ْبصا ِر‬ ُ ‫ َيذ َه‬./᾿a-lam tara anna llāha yuzǧī saḥāban ṯumma yu᾿allifu baynahu ṯumma yaǧ῾aluhu rukāman fa-tarā l-wadqa yaḫruǧu min ḫilālihi wa-yunazzilu mina s-samā᾿i min ǧibālin fīhā min baradin fa-yuṣību bihi man yašā᾿u wa-yaṣrifuhu ῾an man yašā᾿u yakādu sanā barqihi yaḏhabu bi-l-᾿abṣāri “Have you not seen that Allāh causes the clouds to move onward, then joins them together, then piles them up in masses, from which you can see raindrops coming forth. He brings mountainous masses (of clouds) charged with hail from the skies, striking with it whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, (while) the brightness of His lightning nearly deprives them of their sight.”37 34

Hunger and Pingree (1989). Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VII, 283-284 defines ‫ سنا‬/ sanā as ‫والبر ِق‬ ‫ضوء النا ِر‬ / ُ ْ ḍaw᾿u n-nāri wa-l-barqi “the light of fire and lightning” and defines the cognate verb in the َ َ / expression ‫ َسنا البرق‬/ sanā l-barqu as ‫ضاء‬ َ ‫ أ‬/ ᾿aḍā᾿a “(the lightning) illuminated” or ‫سطع‬ saṭa῾a “(the lightning) shone, gleamed.” The common Qur᾿ānic term with the same semantic value is ‫ نور‬/ nūr “light, brightness”; see Wesley (2009), 38-39. 36 Obermann (1946), 26-7. Cf. Driver, CML1, 51; Parker, UNP, 57; Marcus, UNP, 215; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 159; Watson (2007), 325; Wyatt, RTU, 264 (see above, n. 4, p. 185). Van Selms (1954), 86, n. 24 compared the Rabbinic Hebrew root ‫ סנן‬in BeMidbar Rabba, 4:20. See also Gray, LC2, 246, n. 2; Gallagher (1994), 138; Wyatt, RTU, 337, n. 7; Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 171-172. The text demonstrates the dual meaning “pure, refined” (‫)מסונן‬, referring to gold, and “glistening, gleaming” (‫)סנון‬, referring to gold-embroidered garments, but the Hebrew word appears etymologically distinct from Arabic ‫ سنا‬/ sanā “brightness.” The Hebrew etymology seems less likely because the basic meaning appears to be “to filter, refine”; cf. Jastrow (1950), 1007-1008. For the Aramaic cognate, see Sokoloff (1992), 384 and idem (2009), 1024. 37 The reading ‫ناء‬ ُ ‫ َس‬sanā᾿u also exists, but the Arabic root is nevertheless snw. See Tāǧ al-῾arūs, vol. XIX, 542 and Lane, Lexicon, 1448. The Qur᾿ān shares the Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical tradition of God’s luminosity; see Wesley (2009), 23-39, esp. 38-39. In Sabaic one finds a theophoric name that translates as ‘῾Aṯtar shines.’ It occurs in such forms as lḥy῾ṯtr, lḥy῾ṯt, and lḥy῾t. In the last two names, the name of the god is abbreviated. Although the verb 35

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES”

191

In the same way, the Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash was responsible for illuminating all things, as read in the Šamaš hymn Lambert BWL 136:180: (1) muš-na-m[ir . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] šá-ma-mi (2) mu-šaḫ-li e[k-li-ti . . . . . . . .] ⌜e⌝-liš u šap-liš (3) dšamaš muš-na-m[ir . . . . . . . . . . . ] šá-ma-mi (4) mu-šaḫ-li ek-l[i-ti . . . . . . . . e-l]iš u ǎp-liš (5) [saḫ]-pu ki-ma šu-uš[k]al-l[i . . . . šá-]ru-ru-ka (6) [šá] ḫur-šá-a-ni bi-ru-ti e-ṭ[u-ti-š]u-nu tuš-par-di “(1) Illuminator [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] the heavens, (2) Who lightens the darkness [. . . . . . . .] in upper and lower regions; (3) Šamaš, illuminator [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] the heavens, (4) Who lightens the darkness [. . . . . . . .] in upper and lower regions; (5) Your beams like a net cover [. . . . . .] (6) You brighten the gloom of the vast mountains.” (Lambert BWL 126:1-5).38 The ‫سنا‬/sanā “brightness” of Allāh’s lightning may be compared with the Akkadian birbirrū “luminosity,” which is associated with birqī “lightnings” as attributes of the goddess Ištar, ḫa-aṭ-ṭi šar-ru-ti kussû (GIŠ.GU.ZA) a-gu-ú ša-ar-ku-ši ... i-di-iš-ši eṭ-lu-ta-am na-ar-bi-a-am da-na-na-am bi-ir-qí bi-ir-bi-ir-ri ú-ṣi-ib šu-a-ti uš-ta-ás-ḫi-ir-ši “Scepter of kingship, throne, (and) crown were granted to her ... he gave her manliness, power, might, in addition he surrounded her with luminous lightning [lit. lightnings and luminosity]” (VAS 10 214: iv 1-6).39 Moreover, the blinding effect of the ‫“ سنا‬brightness” of Allāh’s lightning is equivalent to that of Marduk’s birbirrū in KAR 101 ii 4: be-lu4 šá bir-bir-ru-šu la in-nam-ma-rù “the lord whose brilliance/luminosity cannot be looked at.”40 The interpretation of the term snnt as “shining lḥy is not otherwise attested in Sabaic, it is found in Gə῾əz laḥaya ‘to shine.’ A related feminine name in Minaic, lḥy᾿b ‘the father shines,’ is also known–‘father’ being an epithet by which gods were referred to anonymously in personal names. Nevertheless, the later etymology and semantic of hll is not the only possibility for explaining the element lḥy- in composite personal names, cf. e.g., Hayajneh (1998), 226. 38 See Lambert, BWL, 121-138, esp. 126-129: lines 9-12, 17-20, 34-38, 48 and p.136, lines 174-179. Compare Foster (2005), 627-635, esp. 627-628, 629, “Illuminator of all, the whole of heaven, / Who makes light the d[arkness for humankind] above and below, / Shamash, illuminator of all, the whole of heaven, / Who makes light the dark[ness for humankind a]bove and below, / Your radiance [spre]ads out like a net [over the world], / Your brighten the g[loo]m of the distant mountains.” (courtesy Takayoushi Oshima). See also Foster, ibid., 629, 634. 39 See Groneberg (1997): 77 and 89, notes 21-23; compare Streck (2010), 563, who comments on lines 1-2 and 7. For the use of the cognate verb barāru with reference to birqu “lightning,” see CAD B, 106-107, 245, 258-259. 40 For birbirrū “luminosity, light, sheen,” see Caplice (1967) 288, 291; AG, 72; CAD B, 245-246 (cf. VAS 10 214 iv, 1-6 and KAR 101 ii 4, quoted below). See esp. Maul (1997), 127ff., 135, with copies on p. 530 and 532.

192

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

ones, radiant, brilliant” in Akkadian texts also provides such semantic precedents as šarūru “radiance, brilliance, sunlight”;41 melammu “radiance, supernatural awe inspiring sheen (inherent in things divine and royal)”;42 namru “bright, shiny, brilliant, luminous, radiant”;43 šalummatu “awesome radiance,”44 all well attested as components of epithets of deities and demons and in royal titles. In particular, the divine midwives and birth goddesses Ištar and Ninmaḫ are qualified by such epithets and descriptions as Ištar kakkabī namirtu “brilliant Ištar of the stars,”45 namirti bēlet dadmī “(Ištar) brilliant queen of all settlements,”46 and Ninmaḫ bānât ilāni šalummata [uḫallipka] “Ninmaḫ the creatress of the gods [wrapped you (Adad)] in awe-inspiring radiance” (CMAwR 8.43:25’).47 Eblaitic nabḫu “the radiant” likewise occurs as an epithet for deities of various nature.48 Furthermore, a number of (etymologically unrelated) nouns from the semantic field of “brightness” are attested in Biblical Hebrew as divine 41 CAD Š/2, 142-43, meanings c, d, e; AG, 231-232. For many other examples, see Cohen (1999), 73. 42 CAD M/2, 9-11. This term is widely used in the divine epithets of Sîn, Ištar, Marduk, and other deities and demons. For example, Sîn bēl melammê “Sîn the radiant lord” (KAR 69, 22; see Biggs Šaziga 76). It is also used to refer to a quality of gods in general and in royal epithets. See the discussions by Oppenheim (1943) and Cassin (1968); van der Toorn, DDD2, 363; Wesley (2009), 23-24, n. 26, 27, 28; Hundley (2013), 80, n. 63, 64, 65. 43 This term describes stars, celestial bodies, and other radiant phenomena, and is widely used as an epithet of divinities of light or fire, including the moon god Sîn; see CAD N/1, 242-243, meanings 2 and 3; AG, 140 and Cassin (1968). The term also appears in proper names with reference to Sîn, such as Nimer-Sîn-Tuttul “Sîn of Tuttul is bright,” Niwer-Sîn “Sîn is bright” (cf. Streck [2000], 173-174). 44 CAD Š/1, 283-284. 45 Ninmaḫ / Nintur is known as the creatress of people. Unger, Bel-harran-beli-ussur 7 (CAD N/1, 242). For more examples, see AG, 336 and CAD N/1, 242-243, 3’. 46 RA 22 58 i 5 (CAD N/1, 242); AG, 336 and CAD N/1, 242-243, 3’. For many other epithets of this kind, see AG, 336 under “Ištar als Licht- und astrale Erscheinung/Licht und Leuchte.” The divinity and demon Asalluhi, who sometimes acts as a midwife, is described as ša šarūrūšu unammaru mātāti ... ša birbirrūšu ubbatu dūr abni “(I am Asalluhi) whose radiance spreads light over all the lands, whose luminosity penetrates a stone wall” (BAM 8 11:68-69; Geller [2015], 355-356, “Marduk’s Address to the Demons”) see CAD B, 245. 47 CMAwR 2 8.43:25’ (Abusch and Schwemer [2016], 320 “When Adad Constantly Thunders”) CAD Š/1, 283. For more examples, see CAD Š/1, 283-284. Other deities whose epithets frequently contain references to light or brilliance include Sîn, Šamaš, Ninurta, and Enlil. Thus in Sumerian astronomy, MulNin-maḫ was a constellation, predecessor of the Classical Virgo. For references to Nin-maḫ “oberste Herring,” see Krebernik (1993b), 505. On an Akkadian period cylinder seal – BM 89115 – MulNin-maḫ is shown as a winged Ishtar rising over the mountains above Shamash, who is visible rising between two mountain peaks. She holds above Shamash’s head a date-cluster rather than the traditional ear of wheat – but in the Mesopotamian heavens a celestial date-cluster was just above (north) of Ninmaḫ/Virgo in the stars of the Classical Coma Berenices. 48 See Pomponio and Xella (1997), 471. For other parallel epithets with an equivalent semantic value, see Krebernik (1992), 73, 82.

BNT HLL SNNT “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, THE RADIANT ONES”

193

attributes: for example, ‫“ זרח‬to shine” (Isaiah 60:1-3); ‫“ נגה‬radiance” (Ezekiel 1:28; 10:4); ‫“ הוד‬splendor” (Psalm 96:6; 1 Chronicles 16:27); ‫“ הדר‬splendor, splendid” (Isaiah 2:10; 35:2).49 This interpretation of the epithet bnt hll snnt as “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” attributes to these goddesses a dazzling divine aura, which is appropriate if they are represented in the heavens by the Pleiades star cluster, which to the unaided eye appears embedded in a haze.50 Similar epithets and descriptions are attested for Mesopotamian deities, including Ištar and the goddess Ninmaḫ, but they do not appear to relate specifically to a role in conception and/or birth. Hopefully, future textual and iconographic discoveries51 will shed additional light on this intriguing group of goddesses and on each of its individual members.

49 Biblical Hebrew ‫ הדר‬is etymologically and semantically related to Aramaic ‫הדר‬, which is found with reference to kings in the proverbs of Ahiqar (26:108): ‫שפיר מלך למחזה‬ [‫“ כשמש ויקיר הדרה לדרכי ארקא בניח]א‬A king is as splendid to see as Šamaš; and his majesty is glorious to them that tread the earth in peace.” The collocation with ‫“ כשמש‬like Šamaš” indicates that the Aramaic term here means “radiance, shining.” For this context, see Cohen (1999), 73, 76, n. 36; Lindenberger (1983), 94. For more epithets containing ‫הדר‬, see Cohen (1999), 73, 76, n. 37 (citing Weinfeld). The God of Israel bears the epithet ‫כבוד‬ “Glory,” with reference to luminous divine body. For more on the subject, see Wesley (2009), 25-26. 50 See Wesley (2009), 23-28 on the dimension of this “awe-inspiring luminosity” in ancient Semitic tradition and early Islam and the question of anthropomorphism. On the glazing, shining, and brilliant material and appearance of the divine temples in Mesopotamian sources, see Pongratz-Leisten (2009), 425-427. One of the Greek goddesses of childbirth was Artemis, with whom were associated the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades. This suggests that the Kôṯarātu might have been the forerunners of the Pleiades. In addition, the Sumerian caption MUL.MUL. “the stars” (ACT 161), which Akkadian equivalent zappu means “the star cluster Pleiades (conceived as the ‘bristly hump’ of the constellation Taurus the Bull),” refers to a group of seven stars which have been identified as the star cluster Pleiades. See Conti (1990), 191; Beaulieu (1999), 91-99, esp. 91-92, n. 4; CAD Z, 49-50, meaning 3. 51 To the best of my knowledge, no iconographical representations of these Ugaritic female deities are extant. Lipiński (1965b), 67 speculates that the Kôṯarātu have the shape of a cow, like the seven Egyptian Hathors. Pasquali (2005), 60-1, 63-4; idem (2006), 61, mentions seven votive statues of the equivalent Eblaitic female divinities dgu-ša-ra-tum. For the representation of birth goddesses in Egypt and Mesopotamia in general, see Frankfort (1944), 198-200.

XXII BNT HLL B῾L GML “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL, POSSESSOR OF THE GAMLU-STAFF” (1.24) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.24:41-42 ᾿ašr ᾿ilh[t] kṯr[t] bn] 41 t hll . snnt . bnt h42ll b῾l gml 40

I shall sing of the Kôṯarā[tu] goddess[es], The daughters of Hll, the radiant [ones], The daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff.

There is a general consensus that the epithet in question should be rendered “the daughters of Hll/the new moon, lord of the sickle,” or the like.1 PARALLELS Context 1: ᾿ilht kṯrt // bnt hll snnt // bnt hll b῾l gml

DISCUSSION The epithet bnt hll b῾l gml occurs once in KTU3 1.24. Many scholars take bnt hll b῾l gml to be a variant of bnt hll snnt. From the parallelism of these passages it is clear that the epithet bnt hll snnt refers to a group of female deities called the Kôṯarātu.2 1 Virolleaud (1936b), 225, “les filles de Hélal, le maître parfait (?)”; Gordon (1937), 33, “daughter(s) of Hilâl, the benefactor”; Goetze (1941), 360, “The daughters of Hilāl, the lord of the scimitar”; Ginsberg (1938a), 14; idem (1939), 324, “daughters of Hll (‘joyful noise’), lord of Gml”; Driver, CML1, 126, “the daughters of the crescent moon, lord of the sickle”; Jirku, KME, 79, “die Töchter des Helal, des Herrn des Krummschwertes (?)”; Aistleitner, MKT, 64, “die Töchter Hll-s, des Herren der Sichel”; Gibson, CML2, 129, “the daughters of the crescent-moon, lord of the sicle (n. 6: Presumably the emblem of the new moon)”; Gordon, PLM, 67, “Daughters of the New Moon, Lord of the Sickle”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 396, “filles de Hilâl, le seigneur à la faucille”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 460, “las hijas del Lucero, señor del Cuarto Creciente”; de Moor, ARTU, 145, “the daughters of Hilalu, the swallows”; Marcus, UNP, 218, “The radiant daughters of the new moon. The lord of the sickle”; Wyatt, RTU, 340, n. 27, “daughters of Ellil, lord of Gamlu.” 2 See pp. 185-186.

BNT HLL B῾L GML “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL”

195

As stated above, bnt hll appear to indicate a familial relationship, namely, “the daughters of the Hll.” The Ugaritic data offers a considerable number of precedents for a divine epithet expressing filiation.3 This same structure is also used in Akkadian epithets. Note especially mārāti dEa “the daughters of Ea” (SAACT V 5:58), which refers to a group of seven minor goddesses.4 However, in my study on the Ugaritic epithets I found that, in all cases where a Ugaritic divine epithet expresses a filial relationship of the sort bn X or bt X, without further qualification of the deity X, the connection is always with a well-known major deity, such as ᾿ Ilu, ᾿Aṯiratu, Ba῾lu, Dagānu, ῾Anatu, or Yariḫu.5 The names of minor deities are normally qualified with an identifying epithet, even when they form part of an epithet qualifying another deity.6 In the case of bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff,” the minor deity Hll is qualified by his own internal epithet, b῾l gml “possessor of the gamlu-staff,”7 consistent with the general pattern. The function of the title is to allow the reader to better identify the less familiar god. There is as yet no scholarly consensus regarding the identity of the god Hll. The identification as the god of the crescent moon is based on a comparison with Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl “crescent moon.”8 As such, he is sometimes equated with the Biblical ‫ילל בן שׁחר‬ ֵ ‫( ֵה‬Isaiah 14:12).9 Aistleitner 3 Other Ugaritic epithets indicating filial relationships include: ᾿ab bn ᾿il “father of the children of ᾿Ilu” (DEUAT, 11-13); bn ᾿il “the son of ᾿Ilu” (DEUAT, 88-89); bn ᾿ilm mt “the son of ᾿Ilu, Môtu” (DEUAT, 90-93); bn dgn “the son of Dagānu” (DEUAT, 94-97); and bt ᾿il ḏbb “the daughter of ᾿Ilu, Ḏbb (Flame)” (DEUAT, 118-119); p. 222, n. 48, p. 285, n. 9, 305-309, under §1.3. 4 JNES 14, 17. See CAD M/1, 304, meaning 4, where other examples referring to this group of goddesses are mentioned; see Wyatt (2020), 95-96, n. 14. 5 In DEUAT, 102, the expression bnt hll snnt was not taken into consideration because it is not an epithet of an independent deity, but of a group of goddesses. 6 For example, hyn d ḥrš yd(m) “Hayyānu, the one of the dexterous hand(s)” (DEUAT, 156-158). The epithets in the following examples refer generally to other minor deities, ᾿ilš ngr bt b῾l “᾿Ilšu, the herald of the house of Ba῾lu” (DEUAT, 64-66); ᾿amt ᾿aṯrt “maidservant of ᾿Aṯiratu,” referring to the minor goddess Dmgy (DEUAT, 78-80); and bt ᾿il ḏbb “the daughter of ᾿Ilu, Ḏbb (Flame),” which refers to Ḏbb (DEUAT, 118-119); and ḫtnm b῾l “sonin-law of Ba῾lu” (DEUAT, 184-85). For more examples, see DEUAT, 380-384; idem (2007). 7 On this epithet, see DEUAT, 102-105. 8 See the discussion of this etymology by Renfroe, AULS, 116. For more references, see pp. 186-187, p. 198, n. 27 below. See Dietrich and Loretz (2000), 171; Pardee, DDD2, 491492; idem (2010a), 31, n. 49. On the moon god in general and his connection with female fertility, see for example Green (1992), esp. 25-29; and Theuer (2000). 9 Gordon (1937), 31, n. 8a; Loretz (1976), 133-136; Spronk (1986), 220-224; de Moor, ARTU, 145, n. 33; Korpel (1990), 576, n. 363; Watson, DDD2, 393; Theuer, (2000), 158, 492-496. Van der Sluijs (2009), 269-281 interprets both the Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew names as referring to a comet. For a review of the various views on the Biblical personage, see Day (2000), 166-179; and in this study p. 139, n. 57.

196

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

considers hll to be a by-name of Yariḫu.10 Craigie and de Mesnil du Buisson identify him with the Ugaritic deity ῾Aṯtaru.11 Gallagher proposes an identification of Hll (and Biblical Hebrew ‫ילל בן שׁחר‬ ֵ ‫)ה‬ ֵ with the SumeroAkkadian god Enlil/Ellil.12 Pardee sees a possible relationship of Hll with the deity Hulēlu at Emar.13 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín identify Hll as an “astral deity” without further elaboration.14 Van der Sluijs took Hll to be a comet.15 It seems likely that Hll was originally an independent lunar deity that was at some stage identified with the moon god Yariḫu.16 Such assumption explains the association of Hll with the gamlu-staff, which in Mesopotamia appears as the symbol of the deity Sîn-Amurru, himself a composite deity.17 It also explains his relationship to the Kôṯarātu, since the Akkadian šassūrātu “birth goddesses”18 such as Ištar are typically associated 10

Aistleitner, MKT, 63, n. b; quoted by Herrmann (1968), 6, Z. 6. Craigie (1973), 223-225; du Mesnil du Buisson (1973), 103. The connection of these two gods with the morning star, based on the interpretation of the Ugaritic epithet ῾ṯtr ῾rẓ “mighty (?) ῾Aṯtaru” as if it denotes a luminous character and provides the background to ‫( רחשׁ ןב לֵליֵה‬Isaiah 14:12) is dubious (see my commentary on this epithet in DEUAT, 263265). Furthermore, there is no text in the Ugaritic corpus that connects ῾ṯtr and hll. For more arguments rejecting this identification, see Spronk (1986), 220-224. On the comparison of the Ancient South Arabian national god, ῾ṯtr, and its association with the Ancient South Arabian deity S1ḥr, with whom it forms the divine pair ῾ṯtr w-S1ḥr, see p. 51, n. 249, p. 140, n. 64. 12 Gallagher (1994), esp. 135-138; followed by Wyatt, RTU, 337, n. 6; and Watson (2007), 325, n. 74. According to Gallagher (1994), 137, “the association of the kṯrt with both hll and ᾿ēl [in KTU3 1.24] may indicate that hll and ᾿ēl were regarded as identical in KTU3 1.24, just as Illil and ᾿ēl were regarded as identical in the god list [Ug. V, p. 246, iii 35].” It is very difficult to support Gallagher’s suggestions textually. For an attempt to harmonize the conflicting data of the god lists and the sacrificial texts, which appear to relate the Kôṯarātu to either Yariḫu or ᾿Ilu, see below pp. 197-198 and footnotes. 13 Pardee, DDD2, 492; idem, CS I, 345, n. 21; citing Arnaud (1991), 38 who derived Hu-li-li and Hu-le-e-li from *hll “(être) brillant.” 14 DLU, 165; DULAT, 339 and the bibliographic references there. 15 Van Der Sluijs (2009). Much of Van der Sluijs’ argument is based on his reading of b῾l gml as “lord of the sickle.” Against the translation of gml as “sickle,” see my comments in DEUAT, 102-105. 16 Cf. Aistleitner, MKT, 63, n. b; Herrmann (1968), 6. Examples of such synchronisms are plentiful in Mesopotamia. Compare, for example, the identification of Ištar with goddesses like Išḫara and Inanna (see Abusch, DDD2, 452-456; RLA 5, 74-89; see also Wilson-Wright [2016], 118-121 on dIš8-tár, and dINANNA logograms at Emar). Note also the identification of Sîn with the Sumerian moon god Nanna. At Ugarit, the same general process is evident with respect to ῾ṯtrt and ῾nt (see Pardee, TPM, 49-50). 17 See DEUAT, 104-105, n. 16. 18 For Ištar as šassūru “Mutterleib” (see AG, 331); 4R 61 iii 23 (NA oracles, coll.): sabsūtāka rabītu “I (Ištar) am your great midwife” (see CAD Š/1, 16). For more epithets of Ištar as the mother goddess and the divine midwife, see AG, 333, esp. 334 under “Muttergöttin, Gebärerin, Geburtshelferin”; see also Krebernik (1993a), 417; idem (1993), 506, 507 under point 3.35, 510-511 under “Geburtshelferin”; and in general idem (2013). 11

BNT HLL B῾L GML “THE DAUGHTERS OF HLL”

197

with Sîn.19 This is corroborated by the Ugaritic god list KTU3 1.118:12 (// the sacrificial list KTU3 1.148:5) and its equivalent written in syllabologographic cuneiform RS 20.024:11-12. In the Ugaritic texts, kṯrt directly precedes yrḫ and in the Akkadian text dsa-sú-ra-tu4 directly precedes d EN.ZU (Sîn).20 However, in a different section of the sacrificial list KTU3 1.148 (line 25) kṯrt follows ᾿il (without collocation with yrḫ), which corresponds to DINGIRlum (Ilum) dNIN.MAḪ (šassurātu) in the god list RS 92.2004:3-4.21 Pardee22 adduces Philo of Byblos’ report of the seven daughters of Elos = Kronos and concludes that the kṯrt were the daughters of ᾿Ilu (although he does not identify Hll with ᾿Ilu). Pardee23 would later abandon this opinion and state that “la nature du rapport entre ᾿Ilu et les Kôṯarātu dans la liste sacrificielle RS 24.643 verso (l. 25), avec plusieurs exemplaires d’une liste nominative divine correspondante en écriture syllabique, ne sera pas généalogique, selon la conception que l’on rencontre dans l’Histoire phénicienne rapportée par Philon de Byblos, où il est raconté que ᾿Ilu engendra sept filles avant la naissance de Baal.” Indeed, the Phoenician pantheon as described by Philo of Byblos does not always correspond exactly to the pantheon as described in the Ugaritic texts. Thus, for example, Baetylos has no Ugaritic equivalent. Nevertheless, the apparent correspondence between RS 92.2004:3-4 // KTU3 1.148:25 and the Phoenician data is remarkable. Although I cannot offer a definitive explanation of the data, one may suggest the possibility that the Ugaritic data reflect two conflicting traditions, one making the Kôṯarātu the daughters of ᾿Ilu (as in the tradition related by Philo of Byblos) and the other making them the daughters of Hll (and therefore associated with Yariḫu). Both traditions would be reflected in KTU3 1.148:5 and 25, cf. the epithets 19

Cf. dŠÀšá-sa-rumTÙR = bēlet-ilī dIštar “the lady of the gods/the mother goddess, Ištar” (CT 25 30 r. i 12f.); dŠÀ.TÙR (An=Anum II: 102, Litke [1998], 78). See, for example, the following epithets: bukrat dSîn “the child of Sîn”; mārat dSin “the daughter of Sîn”; mārtu rabītu ša dSîn “the great daughter of Sîn”; qaritta mārat dSîn “the heroine, the daughter of Sîn”; for all these epithets, see Tallqvist, AG, 332; on the discussion and the issue of the many goddesses and/or the single goddess descriptions of Ištar, and the Mesopotamian mother-goddesses Bēlet-ilī “Götterherrin,” see Krebernik (1993b), 502, 503, 506, 507, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513; Westenholz (2013), “Chapt. II. PLETHORA OF FEMALE DEITIES,” esp. pp. 36, 62, 71, n. 282, 285, 74, 79, 80, n. 332 refers to ilum and ištarum “gods and goddesses”; 81-82, 95 refers to “Ištar-Daughter-of-Sîn”; 91-134; Spencer (2015), 16, n. 19, 30, n. 68, 159, n. 38, 160, n. 43, 168, 268, n. 74; and Pongratz-Leisten (2015). 20 For kṯrt in these texts, see Pardee, TR, 292-293, 304-305, 659-660; idem, RCU, 12-16. 21 See Pardee, TR, 781, 795-799 and idem, RCU, 17-18; Roche-Hawley (2012), 160, 171, 175. 22 Pardee, TR, 799 and n. 92; Cf. Pardee, DDD2, 492. 23 Pardee (2010a), 31, n. 50.

198

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

bn ᾿il “the son of El” and bn dgn “the son of Dagānu,” both referring to Ba῾lu.24 In Mesopotamia, Ištar was likewise variously referred to as mārat Sîn “the daughter of Sîn,” mārat Enlil “the daughter of Enlil,” and mārat Anim “the daughter of Anu.”25 Alternatively, the epithet bnt hll “the daughters of Hll” may merely indicate that Hll was responsible for the Kôṯarātu, without implying a biological relationship.26 Hll and Yariḫu are both mentioned in KTU3 1.24, but only Yariḫu plays an active role in the text. The reference to Hll is limited to its occurrence in the epithet under discussion. As a lunar deity, the name is etymologically related to Arabic ‫هلال‬/hilāl “crescent moon.”27

24 See Rahmouni (2012), 63, n. 71, 65, n. 92. See the discussion of these epithets in DEUAT, 88-89 and 94-97, respectively. 25 See CAD M/1, 303 and Tallqvist, AG, 124, 125, 126; Spencer (2015), 16, n. 19, 30, n. 68, 159, n. 38, 160, n. 43, 168, 268, n. 74. See also the references to the discussion on the issue of the many and/or one-goddess descriptions of Ištar; see Westenholz (2013); PongratzLeisten (2015) above n. 18, 196. 26 For numerous examples in Akkadian of the term māru / mārtu with this semantic value, see AG, 119, 124; CAD M/1, 313. 27 The association between birth rituals and astral deities is well known in Mesopotamia. For references, see Lambert (1969), 32-34; Teixidor (1979), 42-46; Beckman (1983); Collon (1992), 22-28; Bernett and Keel (1998), 34-40; Schmidt, DDD2, 585-593; Stol, DDD2, 782783; idem, (2000). The description of ‫ هلال‬/ hilāl “crescent moon” as ‫ ُم َهلَّل ُمقَ وَّس‬/ muhallal muqawwas “curved” recalls the Ugaritic gml (see below). Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XV, 84.

XXIII

DKYM “THE CRUSHERS” (1.6) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.6:V:2 y᾿iḫd . b῾l . bn . ᾿aṯrt rbm . ymḫṣ . b ktp 4 dkym . ymḫṣ . b ṣmd 4 ṣġrm . ymṣḫ . l ᾿arṣ 1 2

Ba῾al seized the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the mighty (among them) he smites with the sword,1 the crushers (among them) he smites with the mace, the youngsters (among them) he tramples2 to the ground.

There is no scholarly consensus as to whether dkym is one word or the two words dk + ym.3 Even those who agree that it is one word disagree on whether it should be translated as “the nobles,”4 “the small,”5 “the tyrants/the oppressors,” or something similar.6 1

See n. 1, p. 162. See n. 2, p. 163. 3 Taking the term to be the two words, in analyzing dk + ym Hvidberg (1962), 38, n. 2 reads, “... that killed Yamm”; Aistleitner, MKT, 21-22, n. n and WUS, 77, no 739, “Er zerschmetterte Im (den Meeresgott)/er zermalmte J.”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 265, n. c, “le fracas de la mer”; Dijkstra (1974), 65, “the crushers or breakers of Yammu.” See also van Zijl (1972), 217. Del Olmo Lete MLC, 231; and idem (1982), 69, analyzes the term dkym as d (pronoun-particle) + k (comparative particle) + DN ym, and translates “a los que (eran) como Yammu / those (who are) like Yammu”; following him, de Moor, ARTU, 94, n. 454, 455, “those who are like Yammu,” see also p. 11, n. 58. 4 Albright (1932), 203, n. 95, “the nobles”; Gaster (1932), 873, 891, n. 96; later Gaster, Thespis, 224, “resplendent though they be”; Rosensohn Jacobs (1945), 103, n. 115, “the brilliant (?) one” (refers to a single god, see n. 6, p. 164 above); Driver, CML1, 154, “splendid or noble”; Ginsberg (1932-33), 117 first, “‫ ;”)?( נסיכים‬later Ginsberg, ANET, 141, “Dokyamm”; du Mesnil du Buisson (1978), 68, n. 73, “brûlants”; Wyatt, RTU, 140, n. 103 “the brilliant ones,” and see the references there; following him, see Cho (2007), 98, n. 106. 5 See, for example, Bauer (1934), col. 242-243, “die Kleinen”; de Moor (1971), 227, “small.” Later, de Moor would change his mind about this (see below). 6 See, for example, Gordon, UL, 47 and idem, PLM, 115, “the tyrant,” (refers to Mt); Oldenburg (1969), 119-120, “the oppressors?” (with a question mark and no further comments); Gibson, CML2, 79, n. 2, “the ‘pounders’ of the sea, (a name linking the sons of Athirat with their mother, whose full title is rbt ᾿aṯrt ym ‘the lady who treads upon the sea’”); Dahood (1972), 336; idem (1974), 341, “the Pounder” but relating it to Ba῾lu, see also Rin and Rin (1996), 228; Aartun (1974), 52; idem (1978), 21-22, “... den Kräftigen”; Dijkstra (1974), 59-65, “the crushers or breakers of Yammu”; Smith, UNP, 160, “the attackers”; 2

200

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

PARALLELS Context 1: bn ᾿aṯrt // rbm // dkym // ṣġrm DISCUSSION The epithet dkym appears once in the Ugaritic Cycle of Ba῾al and refers to a certain group of gods labeled as bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” mentioned in the first hemistich of the context above. The epithet dkym appears in parallelism with the epithet rbm and its semantic antonym ṣġrm. Nevertheless, scholars are divided regarding the collation, analysis, and interpretation of dkym. Thus, there are those who agree that it is one word, but nevertheless disagree regarding its interpretation and translation, while others7 analyze dkym either as a participial derived from dky, or as a syntagm, which most early scholars compared to Classical Arabic ‫ ذكي‬/ ḏakiyyun, “brilliant, splendid, or noble.” A few scholars8 interpret the Ugaritic dq as “small,” which they relate to Heb. ‫“ דק‬thin, fine,” Akkadian daqqu “very small” (also PN), Arabic ‫ دقيق‬/ daqīq. However, most researchers9 relate dkym to the common Semitic root dwk, dkk, dky “to crush, to pulverize,” recalling the equivalent etymological varieties of the common Semitic root, Hebrew ‫ דכה‬/ dâkâh, Armaic ‫ דכא‬/ ‫ דקק‬/dkk/, and Arabic َّ‫ دك‬/ dakka, and accordingly translate “the crushers, the oppressors” – a comparison also adopted by scholars who consider dkym as two words, dk + ym, the Ugaritic dk “to crush, to pulverize,” followed Pardee, CS I, 272, n. 267, “crushers (as they are).” On the other hand, Gray, LC2, 72, n. 9, considers dkym as well as its parallel rbm and ṣġrm to be verbal nouns and translates, “He (Ba῾al) pounds them.” For related but slightly variant translations, see Watson (1978), 401, “gambollers”; and Margalit (1980), 175, 178-179, “the Low-lifes,” (refers to the maritime offspring of Asherah conceived as serpents). 7 See the reference to the translations in n. 4, p. 199 above. 8 See the reference to the translations in n. 5, p. 199 above. In a Ugaritic context this root most probably appears in KTU3 1.4:I:41-42, (41) ṣ῾ . ᾿il . dqt . k ᾿amr (42) sknt . k ḥwt . yman “a bowl for ᾿Ilu, hammered thin as (they do in) ᾿Amurru, // formed as (they do in) the land of YM᾿AN”; (following Pardee, CS I, 256, n. 131; contrast UBC II, 298, n. 10. For variant translations, see CML1, 93, n. 10; CML2, 56; ANET, 132; PLM, 90; TO I, 197, 256, n. i; CML, 194; UNP, 121; RTU, 92, n. 95). Scholars agree in interpreting dqt as “thin, thinness.” The term dqt parallels and contrasts with gdlt in the ritual genre; see KTU3 1.106: 20, 31 and KTU3 1.112:26, 27 (see Pardee, TR, 591, 634; del Olmo Lete [2007b], 169-173, for his response to Tropper [2001], 545-565). For the Hebrew verb ‫ דקק‬/ dqq “be shattered, fall to pieces,” and its derivative meanings, see BDB, 1089. However, in the Talmud-palestinese daqqiqa appears in the expression ‫ בעירא דקיקא‬meaning “small beast (or animal)”; Sokoloff (1992), 154, 109, 176, 546, esp. 154 translates the expression as “small cattle.” 9 See the reference to the translations in n. 6, p. 199-200 above.

DKYM “THE CRUSHERS”

201

by the god name Yammu. The first etymological comparisons seem gratuitous and do not fit the context. The second suggestion seems right only if we consider the meaning “small, thin” to derive from the common Semitic root dwk, dkk, dky “to crush, to pulverize.”10 According to the parallelism of the passage above, there seems to be a gradual semantic nuance on the description of the bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu”: first as rbm, then as dkym, and finally as ṣġrm. Therefore, the option of reading this group of deities as “the crushers,” seems the most plausible. The different epithets might apply to different groups of the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, and not just to the same group. Biblical Hebrew also provides an argument for the adoption of “crushers”; the Biblical description of water uses ‫ רבים‬in parallelism with ‫דכים‬, e.g., the expression ‫“ מים רבים‬immense waters/grandes eaux” versus ‫מים‬ (Psalm 29:3). Note particularly ‫ את־מי הנהר העצומים והרבים‬...“... the great and immense waters of the river” (Isaiah 8:7) and the parallelism with ‫ מקלות מים‬/ ‫ ישאו נהרות דכים‬/ ‫ נשאו נהרות קולם‬/ ‫נשאו נהרות יהוה‬ ‫ אדיר במרום יהוה‬/ ‫ אדירים משברי־ים‬/ ‫“ רבים‬The ocean sounds, O LORD, / the oceans sounds its thunder, / the oceans sounds its pounding. / Above the thunder of mighty waters, / more majestic than the breakers of the sea / is the LORD, majestic on high” (Psalm 93:3-4).11 Therefore, the parallel terms rbm // dkym // ṣġrm would be epithets for the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the sea goddess par excellence.12

10 For the syllabic attestation of dqq, see Huehnergard, UVST, 119 under “DQQ / daqqu/? adj. ‘small(?)’. lex.: (Sum.) [SIG] = (Akk.) [ṣeḫru] = (Hur.) ⌜ga?⌝-al-gi = (Ugar.) d[a]-aq!?-qú Ug. 5 137 ii 13’ (polyglot vocab.).” See also Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 398, n. 10. 11 See Cassuto (1942), 212, n. 4; Kraus (1966b), 649-650; Johnson (1961), 22-25; Dahood (1972), 336; idem, (1974), 339, 341; Dijkstra (1974), 60-62; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 265, n. c.; Smith, UNP, 174, n. 188. Contrast with Lipiński (1965a), 98ff.; Donner, (1967), 346-350; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 239, n. 4, 5 for the latter and other Biblical passages; Sommer (2016), 256, 261. Margalit (1980), 180, n. 1 suggests abandoning the comparison to Psalm 93:3, incorrectly suggesting that the Biblical word, which he states is hapax, may well be a textual corruption of b!kym. 12 See the epithets dgy ᾿aṯrt “the fisherman of ᾿Aṯiratu”; dgy rbt ᾿aṯrt ym “the fisherman of the lady ᾿Aṯiratu of the sea”; rbt ᾿aṯrt ym “the lady ᾿Aṯiratu of the sea.” See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 150-153, 278-285; idem (2008), 161-173; Pardee, CS I, 253, n. 98, 272, n. 267.

XXIV

DR ᾿IL / DR ᾿IL W PḪR B῾L “THE CIRCLE OF ᾿ILU / THE CIRCLE OF ᾿ILU AND THE ASSEMBLY OF BA῾LU” (1.15; 1.39; 1.41; 1.87; 1.162) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.15:III:19 tbrk . ᾿ilm . t᾿ity t᾿ity . ᾿ilm . l ᾿ahlhm 19 dr . ᾿il . l mšknthm 17 18

The gods bless (and) they go, the gods go away to their tents, the circle of ᾿Ilu to their dwellings.

2. RS 1.001:7 (=KTU3 1.39:7; KTU3 1.41:16; KTU3 1.87:17-181) (7) ῾nt . š . ršp . š . dr . ᾿il w p[ḫ]r b῾l (8) gdlt šlm . gdlt

for ῾Anatu a ram; for Rašpu a ram;   for the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu a cow; for Šalimu a cow

3. KTU3 1.162: 16-17 16

l dr ᾿il 17 w pḫr b῾l 18 gdlt

for the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu a cow

There is a consensus that dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l should be translated as “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾(a)lu,” or something similar.2 1 I follow Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 48; Pardee, TR, 16, 17, n. 9. KTU3 reads (6) ῾nt . š . r[[p]]šp . š . dr . ᾿il w pḫr b῾l (7) [[x]]gdlt . šlm [š]gdlt. Regarding the restoration of p[ḫr] in 1.87:17-18, see already Gaster (1937), 149; Pope, EUT, 90; and Pardee, TR, 17, n. 9. Contrast Herdner, CTA, 118, n. 5 and the references there. For translations and interpretations based on the latter collation, see Herdner (1956), 108, 110; contrast Healey (1977), 45, n. 20, who reads pgr and comments, “Since ‘pgr’ on comparative evidence might mean corpse, some allusion to Šapaš’s underworld role may be implied, but no firm conclusion is possible.” However, here I adopt Pardee’ s reading and include the context. 2 Pope, EUT, 90, “the family of El and the aggregation of Baal”; Herrmann (1960), 246; idem (1982), 94, 98, “Kreis/die Familie (der Söhne) Els ... Versammlung Baals”; de Moor (1970a), 216, “the Race of Ilu and the Assembly of Ba῾lu”; Mullen (1980), 273, “the council of ᾿Ēl and the assemblage of Ba῾l”; de Tarragon, TO II, 136, n. 13, “(au) Conseil de El et (à) l’Assemblée de Ba῾al,” commenting, “pḫr b῾l: litt. ‘famille de Baal’”; del Olmo Lete, CR1, 97; idem (2004), 586; CR2, 368, “the family of Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu”; Smith,

DR ᾿IL / DR ᾿IL W PḪR B῾L “THE CIRCLE OF ᾿ILU”

203

PARALLELS Context 1: ᾿ilm // ᾿ilm // dr ᾿il Contexts 2, 3: The ritual presents no parallelism. DISCUSSION The expression dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l appears four times in Ugaritic ritual texts and dr ᾿il once in an epic text. In fact, dr ᾿il + pḫr b῾l are two different expressions systematically joined by the conjunction w. The first components, dr and pḫr are followed by the second components, the divine names ᾿il and b῾l in the genitive. Both divine names function as nomen rectum, suggesting the identity of dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l. Moreover, the apparently different groups of divine entities under dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l receive a joint offering, which implies dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l is active as a divine unity but involving two different divine groups, each with multiple deities. References to single deities systematically precede and follow them, e.g., ῾Anatu, Rašpu etc. Therefore, because dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l appears in the ritual genre as a frozen expression, I have chosen to treat it as a single constructed epithet. As mentioned above, the expression dr ᾿il occurs independently once in a Ugaritic epic text (see context 1. above), where it parallels ᾿ilm, “gods.”3 Its semantic value and religious implications remain the same whether it is used independently or in conjunction with pḫr b῾l. In the recent KTU3, a slightly different but related expression, drm ᾿ilm, appears at the end of the liturgical prayer 1.123:32.4 Furthermore, dr ᾿il is somehow related to the expression dr bn ᾿il.5 However, the second compound pḫr b῾l seems UBC I, 287, “the circle of El and the assembly of Baal”; Pardee, TR, 18, “le Cercle de ᾿Ilu et l’Asse[mb]lée de Ba῾lu.” Wyatt (1998), 45 deals with dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l separately and reads the first expression as “the family of El” and the second as “the assembly of Baal”; following him, see Cho (2007), 15, “Group of Baal.” 3 The latter parallelism was considered an argument by some scholars for including all Ugaritic deities under this designation. See Pope, EUT, 90; Clifford (1972), 44; Miller (1973), 14; Smith, UBC I, 286-287; Wyatt (1996), 44. See Wyatt (2005), 105, on the parallelism between the tent-shrine in the Hebrew Bible and its Ugaritic background mškn “dwelling.” 4 On drm ᾿ilm, see Introduction on p. 36, Introduction §3.4. 5 Pope, EUT, 90. Similarly, Miller (1973), 14 saw dr (bn) ᾿il as “another designation for the pantheon at Ugarit, and one that indicates close relationship with El.” By contrast, Cunchillos (1985b), 208, n. 9, states, with no further explanation, that the mere existence of the expression dr ᾿il proves it different from dr bn ᾿il. See also Korpel (1990), 232-233, n. 120. Pardee, TR, 52, 308-309 (and corresponding footnotes) affirms, “... dr ᾿il désigne un panthéon plus large que celui que composent les fils des premières générations.” Presumably, Pardee is here referring to dr bn ᾿il, which he translates as “le cercle/la génération des fils de ᾿Ilu.”

204

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

to have no echo in the Ugaritic corpus, appearing only in the contexts mentioned above.6 The latter corroborates the conclusion that dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l involves separate divine groups but should be considered a unity because it receives one single sacrifice. There is a scholarly consensus7 that the semantic value of the first component of the first expression, dr, means “circle, assembly,” and that the component pḫr (Akkadian puḫru) of the second expression is “gathering, assembly.”8 Both components appear in other divine epithets and appellations, dr in dr bn ᾿il and drm ᾿il,9 and pḫr in pḫr᾿ilm, pḫr bn ᾿il, pḫr m῾d, and pḫr kkbm.10 There is no consensus, however, regarding the identity of the deity groups dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l. The majority of scholars11 assume that these are 6 Wyatt (1998), 45 quoted also KTU3 1.176:17?; but in the recent version of KTU3, 165-166, pḫr b῾l does not occur at all. 7 For the etymology and meaning of the Ugaritic term dr, see Gaster (1950), 13, “Family circle,” which I suppose might be inherent to the organization of the Ugaritic pantheon, but would be far from the only organizational principle of the pantheon. See Neuberg (1950), 215-217; Ackroyd (1968), 3, 8; Clifford (1972), 44-45; MacDonald (1979), 522; Mullen (1980), 118, n. 16 and 17 and the bibliographic references there; Xella, TRU, 263 “‘famiglia’ o ‘generazione’ ed ‘assemblea’”; de Tarragon, TO II, 136; Korpel (1990), 232, “family, race”; see n. 7 and n. 9, pp. 169-171 above and epithet bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu,” pp. 168-176, 299-307, 313, 318, 320-321. 8 See Mullen (1980), 117-118, n. 15; Korpel (1990), 269; Smith (2001), 41ff.. The term pḫr also appears in the Ugaritic construction meaning assembly in pḫr bn ᾿ilm “the ass[em]bly of the children of El”; mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu,” see n. 9, p. 170. Huehnergard (1991), 693, expanded the comparative Semitics of the Ugaritic pḫr and its classical Akkadian etymological and semantic correspondent paḫāru “sich versammeln” to include many other Semitic languages. In Ancient South Arabian the term fḫr occurs in a Qatabānic inscription as a divine name, RES 3856:4, b-᾿mr w-mqdm ῾ṯtr S²rqn w-῾m ḏ-Dwnm w-Ns¹wr Fḫr ... “according to the order and the rule of ῾Aṯtar Shāriqān, of ῾Amm dhu-Dwnm, and Niswar and of ᾿Īl Fḫr ... .” See Avanzini (2004), 5250526, cf. http:// dasi.cnr.it/; see Robin (2012), 50. However, it is not certain that it is used with the specialized meaning “to gather/divine assembly.” See Sabäisches Wörterbuch of Friedrich Schiller University Jena, online: sabaweb.uni-jena.de s.v. fḫr. On the rule against finding a translation of divine and proper names, see n. 249, p. 51. 9 See p. 36, introduction §3.4. 10 See p. 267-275, 299-302, 305, 316, 320, 321. 11 Herrmann (1960), 247 affirmed that in “... pḫr b῾l l, 7 hat man einen anderen Kreis von Göttern, dessen Oberhaupt der Gott Baal ist”; Oldenburg (1969), 54-5, n. 6, adds, “... the individual gods of the pantheon appear to have been worshipped in either the temple of El or in the temple of Ba῾al ... .” De Moor (1970a), 216 sees here two groups of gods, and adds that pḫr b῾l may also have been called ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “‘the Helper-gods of Ba῾lu’ ... it is likely that the pḫr b῾l was looked upon as a party within the mpḫrt bn ᾿il / pḫr bn ᾿ilm / pḫr ᾿ilm.” Following him, see MacDonald (1979), 522. Miller (1973), 16, 18, n. 28 on p. 185, n. 35 on p. 187 adds regarding pḫr b῾l that, “One is tempted to see this [= pḫr b῾l] as a later development representing a separate assembly under Ba῾al’s rule and centering on Ṣaphon, Ba῾al’s abode, although such a supposition is quite conjectural and made with reservations.” See also L’Heureux (1979), 13, n. 28. Pardee, TR, 51-52, 55, considers dr ᾿il most

DR ᾿IL / DR ᾿IL W PḪR B῾L “THE CIRCLE OF ᾿ILU”

205

two separate aggregations of minor deities, one associated with ᾿Ilu and the other with Ba῾lu, though here combined as joint recipients of a single offering. A second group of scholars12 argues that the expression dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l does not mean that there was a council led by ᾿Ilu and another led by Ba῾lu, but that dr ᾿il refers specifically to the council of the gods, the sons of ᾿Ilu (e.g., the pḫr ᾿ilm), while pḫr b῾l refers to the military entourage and auxiliary forces of Ba῾lu, known as ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, as well as ῾nn, the other member of his coterie. Wyatt13 calls dr ᾿il “the family of El,” and pḫr b῾l “the assembly of Baal,” a group that “may comprise the seven Baals of KTU 1.47.5-11 = 1.118.4-10 = RS 20.24.4-10.” Meanwhile, other scholars14 regard the expression dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l as proof that the Ugaritic divine assembly as a whole belongs to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu, because, though the compound bn ᾿il(m) may not actually indicate that fact, the appellation dr ᾿il, “family of El,” seems to do so, especially in combination with pḫr b῾l and ᾿ab bn ᾿il. The phrase dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l seems to refer to a larger pantheon than dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l separately. In the ritual texts, KTU3 1.39:7 (= KTU3 1.41:16; KTU3 1.87:17-18) dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l occurs in a series of known Ugaritic divinities, Ba῾lu, ᾿Aṯiratu, Ṯukamuna wa-Šunama, ῾Anatu, and Rašpu, who likely to be the “arrière-petits-fils de ᾿Ilu” designating a larger Ugaritic pantheon, while pḫr b῾l “l’assemblée de Ba῾al,” indicates a group of which we know neither the origin nor the components (see below). 12 Mullen (1980), 273, who also suggests, “pḫr b῾l refers to the totality of the manifestations of Ba῾l (cf. CTA 29.6-11 and CTA 31), though we would expect pḫr b῾lm to be written,” and continues, “We do not feel that pḫr b῾l refers to a hypostatization of the totality of the manifestations of Ba῾l. Rather, the pḫr b῾l refers to his military entourage [᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l ‘the Helper-gods of Ba῾lu’]” Contrast with Pardee’s (1986a), 65, n. 2 review of Mullen. Del Olmo Lete CR1, 97, 100-101; idem (2004), 550-551, n, 40 and n. 41, 586, n. 149; and idem, CR2, 38, 59, 92, “The advocation dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l signifies the cultic unification of the entire divine world, combining pḫr ᾿ilm of the canonical pantheon (...) with ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l. This combination is in accordance with the cultic tradition (cf. 1.39:7; 1.41:16 / 1.87:17-18) and has a special significance, since dr ᾿ilm and pḫr b῾l [sic! Del Olmo (2004), 551, n. 41, had already corrected it in a response to Pardee, see Introduction n. 181, p. 36.] appear in the Cycle of Ba῾al as two separate and contrasting groups of gods, retaining their own significance in the canonical pantheon. In cultic praxis the mythological rivalry is forgotten and all the gods are invoked together” (see CR1, 97,101). He continues in response to Pardee, “I considered the two groups (dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l) to be separate in the ‘pantheon,’ even if they are not expressly named, taking ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l as the equivalent of pḫr b῾l” (see [2004], 586, n. 149). This is a mere assumption; the expression pḫr b῾l as such never occurs in the Cycle of Ba῾al or in any other mythological source. See Pardee, TR, 52, n. 189 for discussion and references. On the other hand, del Olmo Lete goes further, considering dr ᾿il and pḫr b῾l two separate groups in the pantheon, and takes ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l and pḫr b῾l as equivalent, arguing that pḫr b῾l and ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l appearing separately in the same sacrificial sequence (KTU3 1.162:12-13 ᾿il t[῾ḏr] b῾l partially reconstructed) is no argument against their equivalence. 13 Wyatt (1998), 45. 14 Miller (1973), 16. See Korpel (1990), 233, 270 but with nuances.

206

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

receive the same š “ram.” In the latter contexts dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l is followed by the lesser known Šalimu, both receiving gdlt “a cow.” However, in KTU3 1.162:16-17 dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l occurs in a series of important Ugaritic divinities (᾿il᾿ib, ᾿hl [᾿il sic!], b῾l, dgn, yrḫ, ym, ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, ῾nt ḫbly, ᾿amšrt), who receive š “a ram,” while dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l itself is followed by ṣpn, each receives gdlt “a cow.” I conclude that dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l refers to a larger divine group than when dr ᾿il is used independently. The consistent contexts of dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l in the ritual texts suggest that the expression includes the deities mentioned in the latter texts (᾿il, ᾿ilhm, ṯkmn w šnm, ršp, ᾿ilh,᾿ilhm, b῾l, ᾿aṯrt, b῾lm, ṣpn, ᾿ilt, ᾿ilt mgdl, ᾿ilt ᾿asrm, špš pgr, ṯrmn(m), ᾿ušḫry, ym, yrḫ, kṯr, pdry, ῾nt, ῾nt ḫbly, ᾿iltm ḫnqtm, ġlmt, b῾lt bhtm/btm, ᾿inš ᾿ilm, ᾿ilš, nkl, b῾l ṣpn, b῾l ᾿ugrt, ᾿il᾿ib, ῾ṯtrt); however, the fact that dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l appears among the divinities, dual deities, or group of divinities listed or mentioned here confirms that conclusion. Therefore, the naming of each god integrated under the commented title here is mere conjecture. Nevertheless, the second components of the two expressions, the divine names ᾿Ilu and Ba῾lu, imply that the deities in question are related to ᾿Ilu and Ba῾lu, respectively. Even so, the idea that ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l (see the references to del Olmo Lete et al. above) are the same deities as the pḫr b῾l should be taken with caution. In fact, the expression ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l (KTU3 1.162:12-13) appears to be a completely independent divine group entity, with its own special sacrifice, and among other important divinities not necessarily under Ba῾lu and normally preceding the phrase dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l (KTU3 1.162:16-17). The latter seems unlikely, however, given that the god list of KTU3 1.162 includes only once each single god or group of gods. On the other hand, the compound dr ᾿il “the circle of ᾿Ilu,” recalls the analogous expression dr bn ᾿il “the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu” (see above). The component bn ᾿il would thus probably refer to a group of major and minor deities related to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu,15 while dr ᾿il might refer to a larger divine group. Thus, dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l unites gods related to Ba῾lu and other divine entities (minor or major divinities) related to ᾿Ilu, though the two divine groups would be under the ultimate authority of ᾿Ilu.16 In any case, it is difficult to specify the individual deities belonging to each group. 15

See Pope above. Caquot (1969), 70-71; de Moor (1970a), 216; compare Miller (1987), 54-55; Smith UBC I, 285-287; idem (2001), 41, 44, 217 n. 11 based on del Olmo Lete, CR1, 101, 343-345; see n. 12, p. 205 above. Contrast Pardee, TR, 55, 129 (and the detailed bibliographic references and discussion), who assumes, “l’expression dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l englobe plusieurs divinités dont nous sommes incapables de dire le rang et les noms (peut-être un quatrième rang, les ‘arrière-petits-fils’ de ᾿Ilu, et un cinquième, les divinités recrutées ou engendrées par Ba῾lu).” 16

XXV

DR DT ŠMM “THE CIRCLE OF (THOSE IN) THE HEAVENS” (1.10) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.10:I:5 3 4 5

]ḥ . d l yd῾ . bn ᾿il ]pḫr . kkbm ]xdr . dt . šmm 

[ [ [

[...] the sons of ᾿Ilu do not know1 [...]the assembly of the stars, [...]x the circle of (those in) the heavens

There is a scholarly consensus that dr dt šmm should be interpreted as “the generation(s) of heaven/the circle of those in the heavens,” or the like.2 PARALLELS Context 1: bn ᾿il // pḫr kkbm // dr dt šmm DISCUSSION The epithet dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens,” appears only once in the Ugaritic corpus, in a very damaged column of text KTU3 1.10. However, the parallelism of dr dt šmm, and bn ᾿il, and pḫr kkbm implies that this epithet must have been used in other Ugaritic religious texts. The parallelism of bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu” with pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” suggests that dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the 1

See n. 1 on p. 168. See Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 281, n. c, “la cour céleste”; Herrmann (1982), 96, “die Familie des Himmels”; de Moor, ARTU, 111, n. 6, “the race of heaven”; Korpel (1990), 233, n. 124, 563, “(the) race of heaven”; Parker, UNP, 182, “the circle of those in the heavens”; Wyatt, RTU, 155; idem (1998), 44, “the generation(s) of heaven”; Smith (2001), 61; idem (2006), 101, “the circle of those of heaven”; Cho (2007), 14, n. 26, “Circle of heaven”; with the exception of Virolleaud (1936a), 150, 151, who reads d rdt šmm and translates “chute de la pluie,” explaining that šmm “cieux,” here means “‘pluie’ (= redet haṭ-ṭal ‘chute de la rosée’”). 2

208

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

heavens” must refer to a group of gods. According to its parallel epithet, bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” this group of gods must be related to the head of the pantheon, ᾿Ilu. However, not every son of ᾿Ilu is necessarily a stargod, only those with an astral role and/or epithet like ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star-gods / göttliche Sterne / Sterngötter.”3 The first component of the epithet, dr, is a common Ugaritic noun meaning “circle, generation / association, community.”4 This term as well as mpḫrt often anticipates the epithet bn ᾿il “the children of the god ᾿Ilu,” e.g., dr bn ᾿il “the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu,” and mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu.”5 However, I do not consider either dr or mpḫrt, which are terms for the divine assembly and council, to be true epithet components.6 The morphological construction of the epithet discussed here is known from other Ugaritic deity epithets, such as hyn d ḥrš yd(m) “Hayyānu, the one of the dexterous hand(s)” and lṭpn (/lẓpn) ᾿il d(/ḏ) p᾿id “the sagacious one, the god of mercy.”7 As with the latter epithet, the determinative pronoun dt here introduces a nominalized clause. The Ugaritic epithet dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens” implies that the circle referred to here are the stars as a divine entity. Identifiying the members of the circle is difficult, given that the epithet appears only once in a very damaged, and therefore ambiguous, context. However, the epithet does prove once more that the veneration of the stars and of the starry heavens was as common in the Ugaritic religion as in other Semitic religions. As was noted nearly a century ago by Wellhausen,8 “Die Verehrung des himmlischen Lichtes lag den Semiten so nahe, dass sie auch für die monotheistischen Hebräer immer eine grosse Versuchung blieb, ...” Scholars9 thus agree that there is a correspondence between the 3 The idea that kkbm/kbkbm in general were regarded as gods (see de Moor, ARTU, 111, and n. 2, p. 207) is incorrect. See Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 50-51 and the bibliographic references there; and Smith (2001), 61. For more bibliographic references and discussion under the epithet ᾿ilm kbkbm, pp. 120-125, 316-317, 320, 321, pḫr kkkbm, pp. 270-271, 300302, 305, 316, 321. 4 See DLU, 136-137; DULAT, 279-280 and the bibliographic references there. This semantic value occurs in other Semitic languages, and is attested in the Karatepe inscription, KAI, 26:III:19, kl dr bn ᾿lm “the whole assembly of the gods / the children of the god,” and dr kl qdšn “the community of all the gods”; compare to kl bn ᾿lm “all the gods,” (KAI 27:12). See DNWSI, 259, 996, 1045, and the bibliographic references; Burnett (2001), 26-27. 5 See pp. 168-176. 6 See my discussion under the epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” above pp. 170-171, n. 9. 7 Rahmouni, DEUAT, 156-158, 203-206. 8 Wellhausen (1927), 209-210. 9 And Isaiah 14:12-13, see Zatelli (1991), 86-99, esp. 90-91, 93; Lelli, DDD2, 811; Smith (2001), 61 and for more bibliographic references and discussion see n. 25, pp. 124-125.

DR DT ŠMM “THE CIRCLE OF THOSE IN THE HEAVENS”

209

Ugaritic epithet studied here and the Biblical context of Psalm 89:6-9, / ‫ כי מי בשחק יערך ליהוה‬// :‫ אף־אמונתך בקהל קדשים‬/ ‫ויודו שמים פלאך יהוה‬ // :‫ ונורא על־כל־סביביו‬/ ‫ אל נערץ בסוד־קדשים רבה‬// :‫ידמה ליהוה בבני אלים‬ ‫ מי־כמוך חסין יה ואמונתך סביבותיך‬/ ‫“ יהוה אלהי צבאות‬Your wonders, O LORD, are praised by the heavens, // Your Faithfulness, too, in the assembly of holy beings. // For who in the skies can equal the LORD, / can compare with the LORD among the divine beings, // a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings, / held in awe by all around him? // O LORD, God of hosts, who is mighty like You, O LORD? / Your faithfulness surrounds You”; and Job 15:15, ‫ ושמים לא־זכו‬/ ‫הן בקדשו בקדשיו לא יאמין‬ ‫“ בעיניו‬He puts no trust in His holy ones; // The heavens are not guiltless in His sight.” The Biblical epithet ‫“ צבא השמים‬the heaven host/the heavenly host,” which in fact refers to stars and occurs nineteen times in the Bible and once in Ben Sira, testifies to the persistence, or at least the vestiges, of astral worship in Israel.10 The same is true of the Qur᾿ān, Q. 41:37.11

10 11

See pp. 124-125, n. 25. See p. 125.

XXVI

KBKBM KNM “THE FIXED STARS” (1.23) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.23:54 š᾿u . ῾db . l špš . rbt . w l kbkbm . knm

54

Raise an offering1 for Šapšu the lady, and for the fixed stars!

There is near scholarly consensus that kbkbm knm is “the fixed stars,” etc.2 PARALLELS Context 1: špš rbt // kbkbm knm

1 This translation follows the recent suggestion of Dietrich and Loretz (2002), 92, n. 96, that the word ῾db in this context and a few lines below (line 64) is not a verb but a noun (“eine Gabe”). I disagree, however, with the reading by Dietrich and Loretz of the term knm (see the detailed commentary below), which they consider a noun parallel to ῾db and translate as “eine Betreuung/ein Geschenk.” For a different semantic interpretation of the term, see del Olmo Lete (2007), 314, in his review of Smith. See also the detailed discussion in Dijkstra (1998), 272, n. 34 and the bibliographic references there. For a detailed study of the root ῾ḏb/῾db in Ugaritic in general, see the detailed study of Dietrich and Loretz (2002), 77-108; see also Smith (2006), 99-100, for discussion and references. 2 Largement (1949), 50; Thespis, 431; CML1, 123, n. 5; CML2, 126, n. 5; MLC, 438, 445; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 355; Hettema (1989-90), 84; Lewis, UNP, 212; Pardee, CS I, 281, 282; Smith (2006), 99-100; DULAT, 448, under kn (I); Cooley (2011), 282, “the fixed stars.” However, other scholars translate the second component of the epithet knm as “lasting works” (paralleling a putative rbt “great works,” see de Moor, ARTU, 126; Aistleitner, MKT, 61 proposes “ein ‘Festgesetztes’ [Opfer].”) Wyatt (1996), 227, n. 29, 242, n. 61; RTU, 333, n. 50 and n. 51, translates “the stars who have been begotten”; contra this, see Smith (2006), 101. Dietrich and Loretz (2002), in their study of the root ῾ḏb/῾db, suggest translating knm/t as “eine Betreuung/ein Geschenk,” a semantic parallel with the noun ῾db, but this has to be rejected; the vocative l plus the epithet of two components determine that the vocative in the parallel verse should be followed by another epithet composed of two components. In the early works on KTU3 1.23, most scholars refrained from translating the component knm; see, for example, Virolleaud (1933), 135; Ginsberg (1935), 58-59; and Nielsen (1936), 87-90, esp. 88, who translates “der Herrin Špš (der Sonne) und den beiden Sternen ... .”

KBKBM KNM “THE FIXED STARS”

211

DISCUSSION The epithet kbkbm knm “the fixed stars” occurs once in the Ugaritic corpus, referring to a group of astral deities, and parallels references to the female astral deity, špš rbt “Šapšu the lady.” Through the parallelism it is clear that kbkbm knm is an epithet. The identification of the group of gods who bear this epithet is difficult to determine; however, the first component, kbkbm, and its parallelism with the goddess Šapšu, makes its astral character evident. Even so, some scholars believe that the epithet refers to the gods in general.3 An internal cross-reading of the Ugaritic texts helps to understand, but does not completely resolve, the problem of the meaning of the epithet. According to the text above, the kbkbm knm and the goddess Šapšu are to be offered a gift immediately after the birth of the gods, “the boys” Šaḥru wa-Šalimu. Indeed, in ancient Near Eastern astral omenology, such phenomena as conjunctions of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the fixed stars often prompt prayers and sacrifices,4 thoug this does not really help clarify our text. In addition, the lacuna in line 24 makes the task more difficult. Thus, Pardee5 is correct that “it is uncertain precisely what Šapšu’s role is here, though one would expect it somehow to be in relation with the fact that the dawn and dusk are directly related to the rising and setting of the celestial orb.” Another Ugaritic text uses the appellation ᾿ilm kbkbm (KTU3 1.43:2-3), confirming that kbkbm is indeed the component of the divine name of a group of gods. In text KTU3 1.10:I:4, despite its damaged state, the occurrence of pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars,” which parallels bn ᾿il “the sons of ᾿Ilu,” and dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) heavens,” indicates that this expression must refer to a group of divinities; although pḫr kkbm 3 Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 363; Wyatt, RTU, 333, n. 50; del Olmo Lete (2007), 314; Smith (2006), 101-102 4 Hunger and Pingree (1989), 33, 76-78, 81, 113, 150; von Soden, AHw, 809. 5 Pardee, CS I, 279, n. 37. In one of the first detailed studies on the text and context above, Nielsen (1936), 87-90, explaining the role of the goddess Šapšu in it, states, “Wichtig ist, daß Sonne und Sterne hier auf die Bühne treten. Die solare Natur der Muttergöttin und die astrale Natur ihrer Kinder tritt dadurch hervor. Šapaš, ‘Sonne’ kann hier nur die Muttergöttin, ‘die Frau (᾿iššat) El’s,’ die Mutter der Kinder sein, weshalb sie auch wie ᾿Aširat den Titel Rabat führt ... .” From the latter Nielsen concluded that kbkbm knm were a pair of stars, “Opfer bring man der Herrin Špš (der Sonne) und den beiden Sternen ... .” However, neither that suggestion nor the idea of Šapšu as a mother goddess based on her epithet rbt are sustainable. My study of the Ugaritic epithet rbt shows it to be one of the divine components borne by the Ugaritic goddess Šapšu, but in no Ugaritic text does she function as a “mother,” a designation and role reserved to the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu. Nor it is correct that kbkbm knm are a pair of stars, given other Ugaritic textual data.

212

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

itself is a mere appellation, its parallel bn ᾿il and dr dt šmm are true epithets.6 In addition, the Ugaritic term kbkbm has specific religious implications associated with practices related to celestial dimension, even if the details of these have yet to be discovered because, unfortunately, astronomical and astrological references are very scarce in Ugaritic texts.7 Some scholars8 relate the second component of the epithet, knm, to the Hebrew KWN “to beget.” Others9 think that knm “fixed, established,” might echo the famous Biblical expression from Psalm 8:4, ‫ירח וכוכבים‬ ‫“ אשר כוננתה‬The moon and stars that You set in place.” However, in my opinion the Ugaritic expression should be semantically compared to the Midrashic expression ‫ שבתי‬- Saturn, “rest planet, or fixed stars/planet” (see Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 4 and 10:4).10 Evidence from Akkadian supports the interpretation of kbkbm knm as “the fixed stars.” According to the Enūma Eliš, VII, 130, Marduk fixes the (east-west) course in the heavens, ša kakkabānimeš šamāmi alkassunu likīnma “let him fix the paths of the stars of heaven,”11 the verb likīn being etymologically equivalent to the Ugaritic knm. Horowitz,12 in his work on Mesopotamian cosmic geography, explains that “With the exception of the five planets, all ‘stars’ maintain fixed east-west courses in the heavens, and each star maintains a fixed position vis-à-vis the other stars. Thus the entire pattern of stars in the sky seems to rotate from east to west over the course of each night, and individual stars are found in an almost identical position in the sky at annual intervals.” However, the last of Horowitz’s remarks must be qualified, given that individual stars are always in the same position with respect to each other; and they are in exactly the same position with respect to the horizon once every day (though not at the same time of day).

6 On these epithets, appellations and designations, see pp. 120-125, 168-176, 207-209, 270-271, 300-302, 305, 307, 313, 316-318, 320, 321. 7 See n. 11, p. 122 See also RTU, 297, n. 209. 8 See, for example, Wyatt (1996), 227, n. 29, 242, n. 61. 9 See n. 2, p. 210 above. 10 Stieglitz (1981), 135-137, esp. 136; Leicht (2011), 26, n. 53. 11 Lambert (2013), 130, 131. 12 Horowitz (1998), 153; contrast CAD K, 160, under meaning 2 b; Smith (2006), 101. See also Rahmouni, DEUAT, 307, n. 1.

XXVII

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES” (1.3; 1.4) CONTEXTS 3

1. KTU 1.3:I:26-27 y[[m]]tmr . b῾l 23 bnth . y῾n . pdry 24 bt . ᾿ar . ᾿apn . ṭly 25 b[t . ]rb .  pdr . id῾ 26 [x x x]ḥt .

Ba῾lu sees his daughters, he eyes Pidrayu, the one associated with light,1 as well as Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers, ... 2

1 Note that the translation of Ugaritic bt here as “the one(s) associated with ...” in all the above expressions and throughout the present study is a correction of my previous translation of bt / bnt as “dispersers of ... ” in all these contexts in DEUAT. For the three relevant Ugaritic epithets, see DEUAT, 365 (XXXIII: 2, 3, 4). 2 Most translations and interpretations are based on the KTU2, pdr . yd῾ (26) [yd]῾t . im . klt [kny]t. With the exception of del Olmo Lete, MLC, 180, who translates this damaged line “y (su) círculo reconoció [que no eran ...],” there is a consensus among scholars that the term Pdr here is a divine name, the subject of the verb yd῾, and should be translated “Pidar(u) knows [...] / you certainly know [...] / he recognizes [...] / [...],” see de Moor (1971), 81, 82, 188; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 78, 156, n. w; Pardee, CS I, 250; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 69; Wiggins (2003), 85-86, n. 9. However, De Moor, ARTU, 4, n. 19, assumes, “It is also possible to assume haplography: pdr. yd῾ [yd῾]t ‘Pidrayu, you certainly know,’” following him Wyatt, RTU, 72, n. 14, asks, “Is the y missing through haplography, or is pdr another (m.) deity?.” The problem is that the god Pdr is attested only in the ritual texts and there is no agreement among scholars regarding his identification (see Ribichini and Xella [1984], 267-272; Dijkstra [1994], 121; Pardee, TR, 181, n. 147, 339, 346, 588, 590, 594, 729, 731, 737, n. 39-42, 11197-98 under “Pdr théonyme ‘Pidar.’” For the use of this name as a component in Ugaritic onomastics, see Ug. V, 11; Caquot, ibid.; PTU, 171-172. Pardee, TR, 339, n. 13, refers to this term as a theophoric component.) Some scholars consider him a minor deity and the male counterpart to Pidrayu, see for example Ribichini and Xella (1984), 267-272; de Moor, ARTU, 4, n. 19; and Pardee, CS I, 250, n. 69, who correctly comments, “... the relationship between the two divinities [Pdr and Pdry] is unknown.” Others see Pdr as a by-name or title of Ba῾lu, see Gibson, CML2, 47, n. 1; Caquot, ibid.; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 609. Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 120, state, “... it would be interesting that Baal bears a title related to the name of one of his women.” Smith (2014a), 190, 482, n. 58, says, “The figure pdr seems to be attested in 1.3 I 22, possibly as an attendant of Baal or a title for Baal himself. The precise role of the figure is unclear.” However in all my research on divine Ugaritic epithets, I have found no instance in which a god of Ba῾lu’s status is related through epithet to a lesser deity (see Rahmouni, DEUAT, vii-x). Moreover, there is no contextual evidence that the term pdr would be an epithet of Ba῾lu, one of the most important gods in the Ugaritic pantheon. For these reasons, I do not consider it an epithet and excluded it from my study in DEUAT. Due to the damaged state of this line, any translation or conclusions based upon it must be taken as highly doubtful. Accordingly, the recent version of KTU3, 11 adopted the collation above, which seems less problematic.

214

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

im . klt 27 [kny]t

Indeed, the [hono]red brides3

2. KTU3 1.3:IV:52-53 (= 1.3:V:44)4 [ ] . 47 bt [.] l[b῾l . km . ᾿ilm w ḥẓr ] 48 k bn . ᾿a[ṯrt . mṯb . ᾿il . mẓll] 49 bnh . mṯ[b . rbt .᾿aṯrt . ym] 50 mṯb . pdr[y . bt . ᾿ar mẓll] 51 ṭly . bt . rb[ mṯb . ᾿arṣy] 52 bt . y῾bdr [. mṯb klt] 53 knyt . 3. KTU3 1.4:IV:54 (= 1.4:I:15) wn . ᾿in . bt . l b῾l 51 km . ᾿ilm . w ḥẓr . k bn . ᾿aṯrt 52 mṯb . ᾿il mẓll . bnh . 53 mṯb [.] rbt . ᾿aṯrt . ym . 54 mṯb . klt [.] knyt  55 mṯb . pdry . bt . ᾿ar   56

mẓll . ṭly . bt rb

57

mṯb . ᾿arṣ . bt . y῾bdr

[Ba῾lu has no] house [as (do) the gods, (No) courtyard] as (do) the sons of ᾿A[ṯiratu, (No) dwelling (as does) ᾿Ilu, (No) shelter] (as do)] his sons, (No) dwe[lling [(as does) the lady ᾿Aṯiratu of the sea], (No) dwelling (as does) Pdr[y, the one associated with light, (No) dwelling] (as does) Ṭallayu, [the one associated] with show[ers, (No) dwelling (as does) ᾿Arṣayu], the one associated with (/ daughter of) y῾bdr, [(No) dwelling (as do)] the honored [brides]

Ba῾lu has no house as (do) the gods, (No) courtyard] as (do) the sons] of ᾿Aṯiratu, (No) dwelling (as does) ᾿Ilu, (No) shelter (as do) his sons, (No) dwelling (as does) the lady ᾿Aṯiratu of the sea, [(No) dwelling (as do) the honored] brides, (No) dwelling (as does) Pidrayu, the one associated with light, (No) shelter (as does) Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers, (No) dwelling (as does) ᾿Arṣayu, the one associated with (/ daughter of) y῾bdr.

Most scholars read the epithet as “the honored / glorious brides,” or the like.5 3 The reconstruction of this epithet in this context is questionable. In the textual data published by Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 92, 93, 94, 97, and by analogy with contexts below, klt knyt systematically appears after (though once before) the three goddesses, who are always in tandem. Moreover, in KTU3 1.4:VI:10-11 and 1.5:V:10, where the absence of the goddess ᾿Arṣay seems to be required by the mythological context, the epithet klt knyt does not occur at all, see Walls (1992), 117-118. For a seasonal interpretation of the context, see de Moor (1971), 81, 83-84 and idem, ARTU, 4, n. 18. Scholars are divided on this matter, Ginsberg, ANET, 136, and Pardee, CS I, 250, do not reconstruct the epithet at all; Wiggins (2003), 85-86, n. 9, sees only the first component of the epithet, translating “Pidar surely [kn]ew if the brides ...”. However, KTU3, 11, n. 4; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 180; Wyatt, RTU, 72; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 94, 97, all restore klt knyt and translate “las novias gloriosas/ the noble/perfect Brides.” 4 See KTU3, 16, 17, n. 26 and n. 27. 5 Ginsberg, ANET, 133, “the perfect brides”; Driver, CML1, 91, “the tender brides”; Jirku, KME, 35, “die vollkommenen Bräute(?)”; Aistleitner, MKT, 30, 37; WUS, 150,

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

215

PARALLELS Context 1: bnth // pdry bt ᾿ar // ṭly b[t] rb // ... // klt [kny]t. Context 2: ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt // ᾿il // bnh // [rbt ᾿aṯrt ym] // pdr[y bt ᾿ar] // ṭly bt r[b] // [᾿arṣy] bt y῾bdr // [klt] knyt.6 Context 3: ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt // ᾿il // bnh // rbt ᾿aṯrt ym // klt knyt // pdry bt ᾿ar // ṭly bt rb // ᾿arṣy bt y῾bdr. In context 3, the epithet klt knyt, which normally follows the chain of epithets referring to each goddess individually, here precedes them. This change is significant (see below).7 DISCUSSION The epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” occurs three times in KTU3 1.3 and twice in KTU3 1.4 and refers to the goddesses Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu, daughters of Ba῾lu and daughters-in-law of ᾿Ilu.8 The occurrence of the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” in the Ugaritic Cycle of Ba῾al in almost every context in which the same goddesses are mentioned indicates that it is a stereotypical epithet and suggests that their role remains unchanged. Furthermore, the parallelism of the passages above make it clear that the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” refers to a group of female deities named in the following verses as Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu, each followed by her own epithet. The plurality of the goddesses is clearly indicated both by the element bnt(h), lit. “(his) daughters,” which no. 1321, “... der tadellosen Bräute”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 173, n. c, “les noble(s) fiancée(s)”; Gordon, PLM, 82, “the renowned brides”; CML2, 52, “the noble brides”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 180, 188; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 216; idem, DULAT, 441, “las novias gloriosas / the glorious brides”; de Moor (1971), 81, 83; idem, ARTU, 18, “the respectable brides”; Smith, UNP, 106, 167, n. 41; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 69, “the Noble Brides”; Pardee, CS I, 253, n. 99, “the honored brides”; Wyatt, RTU, 84; idem (2020), 111-112, “the perfect brides.” 6 For this multi-membered parallelism in contexts 2 and 3, see Korpel and de Moor (1988), 27-28. 7 For a detailed commentary on the parallelism, esp. regarding KTU3 1.4:IV:50b-53, see Tropper (2003), 649-652. 8 We might add to these occurrences the very damaged para-mythological text KTU3 1.117:6f., in which a passage parallel to contexts 2 and 3 is reconstructed by Pardee, TPM, 257 (following Herdner). Concerning the occurrence of the name of Pidrayu in this text line, 10 (verso), Pardee on p. 259 states, “Pidrayu ... ne joue pas un rôle pareil à celui-ci dans les récits parallèles des grands mythes et on pourrait voir dans cette nouveauté ou bien une facette du mythe de Ba῾lu perdue dans les autres textes, ou bien une intercession de la part de Pidrayu en faveur d’une autre divinité.” See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 120, 122, n. 6, for more references.

216

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

includes Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, and (presumably) ᾿Arṣayu, and by the grammatical form of the epithet itself. The above passages do not explain why the god Ba῾lu has no house while his daughters Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu do.9 The key to this seems to be in the correct interpretation of the epithet under discussion, which refers to these goddesses as a group. It is composed of two components, the feminine plural noun klt plus the feminine plural adjective knyt. Scholars are divided as to whether or not the first component should be translated “bride,”10 with its different nuances – such as a young woman available for marriage, or a nubile girl, or daughters for whose virginity the father is responsible (cf. Greek nymphai), or simply “daughterin-law.”11 Thus the exact relationship between the goddesses and Ba῾lu is uncertain. Are Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu the biological daughters of Ba῾lu?12 Or are they his wives/concubines/associates? 13 Or both?14 The question of whether or not these goddesses are Ba῾lu’s daughters is controversial. On the one hand, this hypothesis indirectly relates these goddesses to the goddess ῾Anatu, since the latter is considered to be Ba῾lu’s associate par excellence. However, in Ugaritic literary sources these goddesses “are never connected with Anat, and like Anat herself they seem to personify certain dominating features in Ba῾lu himself. Nothing in the texts indicates that they were daughters of Anat, neither is there anything preventing it.”15 Moreover, ῾Anatu does not appear in any Ugaritic sources 9 This is contrary to the assumption of some scholars (see Smith [2001] 56; idem, UBC I, 225-234; Wiggins [2003], 89; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 281-282, 310-312, with detailed bibliographic references), who interpret Ba῾lu’s lament to ᾿Ilu, because neither he nor his daughters own a house/palace. My translation of this context follows the interpretation of Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 176-177, and Pardee, CS I, 253, 255, according to whom the particle of negation ᾿in, which occurs only in the first stich of the context, and the preposition km / k, which occurs only in the first two stiches, function throughout KTU3 1.3:V:41 (= 1.3:IV:50). See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 120, n. 1. For this phenomenon in Ugaritic, see Tropper (2003), 649-652. 10 Aistleitner, MKT, 37; idem, WUS, 150, n. 1321, “Braut, mannbare Tochter”; Gordon, UT, 420, no. 1241; Ginsberg, ANET, 133; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 173, n. c; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 188; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 216 and DULAT, 441 under klt (I); Pardee, CS I, 253, n. 99; Wyatt, RTU, 84; Wiggins (2003), 89; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 69. 11 See, for example, del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 216 and DULAT, 441, under klt (I) with a question mark. 12 Van Selms (1954), 124, n. 85; Gray, LC2, 45-46; Astour (1969a), 9ff.; Oldenburg (1969), 76-77, n. 7; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 77; Marsman (2003), 270. 13 See Ginsberg, ANET, 136, n. 2; Astour (1969a), 9-10; Cassuto (1971), 113; HvidbergHansen (1979), vol. II, 132, n. 249; Walls (1992), 117-118; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 115121 and the bibliographic references therein. 14 Albright (1968), 126. 15 Kapelrud (1969a), 42, 112.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

217

as the formal spouse of Ba῾lu, and this, as some scholars have assumed, leaves the position open for other candidates, such as Pidrayu, Ṭallayu and ᾿Arṣayu, who are in fact called b῾l ...᾿aṯt “women/wives of Ba῾lu” in KTU3 1.3:IV:40.16 However, the meaning of the latter passage is doubtful in that no Ugaritic goddess is explicitly identified as the wife of Ba῾lu anywhere else in the Ugaritic religious corpus, even in those texts concerning his lover, the goddess ῾Anatu.17 Even when Ba῾lu obtains a palace and is proclaimed king, his marital status remains obscure, as is evident from context KTU3 1.2:III:15-22.18 Besides, in KTU3 1.3:I:23 two of the goddesses are designated in a collective way as bnth, “his [Ba῾al’s] daughters.” This makes it possible that the goddesses were the biological daughters of Ba῾lu, even though the goddess ᾿Arṣayu seems to be missing from the latter context but present in every other context above, where the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” refers to the goddesses in a collective way. This implies that the interpretation of the epithet klt knyt as “the perfect/honored brides (of Ba῾lu)”19 is incorrect. Such an interpretation is not necessitated by the context and, according to context 1, Pidrayu and Ṭallayu (and thus presumably ᾿Arṣayu also) are explicitly said to be Ba῾lu’s daughters.20 This clear textual evidence leads us to accept Pardee’s21 statement that “Ba῾lu’s daughters have married sons of ᾿Ilu by ᾿Aṯiratu and have become part of the sons’ households. This hypothesis is supported by the placement of the reference to the ‘honored brides’ at the head of the list of daughters in CTA 4 i 15-19; iv 54-57, rather than at the end as here ... .” An additional argument could be drawn from KTU3 1.24:2527,22 where the god Yariḫu is called ḫtnm b῾l, “son-in-law of Ba῾lu.” This epithet apparently derives from Ḫrḫb’s proposal that Yariḫu wed Pidrayu, the daughter of Ba῾lu (line 26-27).23 Even KTU3 1.23:23-24, 42-49, in which the two females identify the god ᾿Ilu as father, mother, and husband, 16 Walls (1992), 110-120; Smith (2006), 91; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 49, 119, 302303. Compare pp. 13-14, n. 59. 17 See Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 303. 18 See Walls (1992), 116-117; Smith, UBC I, 257-258 and the references therein. See also Pardee, CS I, 248; Wiggins (2003), 90, n. 14. 19 Astour (1969a), 9ff.; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 77-80; de Moor (1971), 81-82; Hvidberg-Hansen (1979), vol. II:132, n. 249; Walls (1992), 116-118; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 91, 97, 103, and the references there. 20 Rahmouni, DEUAT, 123, n. 9. 21 Pardee, CS I, 252-253, n. 94-99, esp. n. 99. See also KTU3 1.3:I:26-27 and KTU3 1.3:IV:52-53 (= 1.3:V:44). 22 Astour (1969a), 10-11; Walls (1992), 121; Wiggins (1998), 765, n. 19, 770; idem, (2003), 86. 23 See my detailed discussion on this epithet in DEUAT, 184-185, and the bibliographic references there. See also Pardee (2010a), 33, a commentary on lines 25-26.

218

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

seems to be a test of “whether the women are mature enough to discern the sexual function of the roasting birds or whether they will simply see in ᾿Ilu a father figure providing them with food.”24 However, I should be clear that even if my interpretation of the use of the term bt as an epithet component in each of the goddess-epithets above contains a completely different meaning, the reference to the biological association/function/relationship with Ba῾lu remains a possibility, given that the component bt is followed by a noun which refers to Ba῾lu’s character and domain. I have interpreted the term bt in this way in my earlier studies of these epithets.25 A similar usage of bt “daughter” is found in the Ugaritic epithet bt ῾n ᾿abn bt šmm w᾿arṣ “the one associated with (lit. daughter of) spring(s), the one associated with (lit. daughter of) stone(s), the one associated with (lit. daughter of) the heavens and the earth” (KTU3 1.100:1).26 Such a usage of ‫ ַבּת‬/ ‫ ֶבּן‬is also well attested in Biblical Hebrew, and Classical Arabic ‫ بنت‬/ ‫ابن‬.27 Another point supporting the idea that these goddesses are Ba῾lu’s daughters is the fact that the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” is applied to them only when they are within the households of Ilu’s sons (see above). It is possible that Ba῾lu’s complaint relates to his daughters being in the position of women dependent upon some male other than their father, whereas Ba῾lu does not even have his own house.28 Thus, the translation of klt as “daughters-in-law (of ᾿Ilu)” is quite possible. However, the translation of this term as “bride” is retained mainly because the epithet under discussion is not followed by a divine name (in this particular instance it is followed by the divine name of ᾿Ilu), and also because 24 Pardee, CS I, 281, n. 53, n. 55, n. 56; contrast Smith (2006), 94. For a different approach to the epithet ᾿ad ᾿ad “father! father!” ᾿um ᾿um “mother, mother” see DEUAT, 22-24, 7475; contrast Pardee, CS I, 280, n. 47. Concerning mt mt “husband! husband!” see DEUAT, 234-235. 25 Rahmouni (2012), 62, n. 59. For bt ᾿ar “the one associated with light” (DEUAT 120125), cf. the related epithets bt rb “the one associated with showers” and bt y῾bdr “the one associated with / daughter of y῾bdr” (DEUAT, 126-131). 26 See DEUAT, 123-124, n. 12. 27 Such a usage of ‫ ַבּת‬/ ‫ ֶבּן‬is also well attested in Biblical Hebrew. Note especially ‫ן־)בּנֵ י( ַחיִ ל‬ ְ ‫בּ‬, ֶ “‘the one(s) associated with (military) might’ [= ‫בּור ים‬ ִ ִ‫ ְבּנֵ י ַעוְ ָלה ;]ג‬/ ‫‘ ֶבּן‬the one(s) associated with wickedness’ [= ‫‘ ְ]ר ָשׁ ִעים ְבּנֵ י ֶמ ִרי‬the ones associated with rebellion’ [= ‫מוֹר ִדים‬ ְ ],” see BDB, 121 (meaning 8) and 123 (meaning 5). Such a usage ‫ بنت‬/ ‫ ابن‬in Classical Arabic is also well attested, for which see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. II, 159-160; Lane, Lexicon, 262. َ ‫لاه َة‬ Note for example [‫وء الشمس ]وهو الض ُِّح‬ َ ‫وأ‬ َ ِ‫ ابن إ‬/ bnu ᾿ilāhata wa-᾿alāhata ḍaw᾿u ُ ‫لاه َة َض‬ š-šamsi wa-huwa ḍ-ḍiḥu, “The burning sunshine (?) and ᾿a/i/ulāhata the light of the sun [= the sun/sunshine],” See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. II, 159-160; Lane, Lexicon, 262. For the three related relevant Ugaritic epithets, see DEUAT, 120-125, esp. 123-124, n. 12, 126-131, 365). 28 Walls (1992), 117-118.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

219

the three goddesses are nubile, young, and of marriageable age, as is attested in the text KTU3 1.24:25-27 in the case of Pidrayu, sister of Ṭallayu (and presumably also of ᾿Arṣayu), daughter of Ba῾lu, and the potential bride of Yariḫu.29 An Akkadian cognate to the term klt also appears in the legal text RS 16.141:9. In this text a lady named ᾿Inu᾿umi is designated as kallātu, and transferred by the king among other possessions to a certain Bin-Yamḫu as ana kallūtīšu “marriageable girl,” which involves “comme fiancée” or “comme bru.”30 Concerning this unique technical legal usage, Boyer31 states, “L’expression ‘ana kallûti’ qui signifie littéralement ‘en qualité de fiancée’ nous est déjà connue notamment par les textes de Nuzi et d’Assyrie. Celui qui reçoit la femme en cette qualité ne la prend pas pour être son épouse, mais pour la donner en mariage à un homme de sa maison, fils ou serviteur. Ce sont les parents de la femme qui ont normalement qualité pour la donner ana kallûti.” Other occurrences of klt are in the economic texts KTU3 4.80:13 and KTU3 4.786:5, and the inscription KTU3 6.24:2, all of which seem to confirm the suggestion above.32 For example, in KTU3 4.80:13 klt is listed among household items, and the presence of the term ḫtnh “(his) son-in-law” in line 17 makes the interpretation of “daughter-in-law” a plausible option.33 In addition, the familial relationship between the goddesses and ᾿Ilu is implied by the larger context of the Cycle of Ba῾al and from the data on epithets of ᾿Ilu.34 The goddesses have a house because they are part of ᾿Ilu’s sons’ household and are therefore “the daughters-in-law (of ᾿Ilu).”35 However, because the name of ᾿Ilu 29 Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 259; Wyatt, RTU, 338-339; Marcus, UNP, 217; Rahmouni (2012), 55-73. 30 For a discussion of this text, see PRU III, 60; Boyer in PRU III, 300; Cardascia (1970), 120; Lackenbacher (2002), 233, n. 794; Marsman (2003), 661, 690; Justel (2008), 70 writes that in Ugaritic legal language, “El término ugarítico klt equivaldría al acadio kallātu, es decir, de acuerdo con lo que se conoce del fenómeno de la adopción matrimonial, podría tratarse de mujeres en edad de casar, no de las novias o nueras que tuviera una persona en concreto.” (courtesy J-P. Vita.) 31 Boyer in PRU III, 300, n. 3. 32 Van Soldt (1989a), 379 and (1989b), 389-391, esp. 391; Dijkstra (1990), 97-101; Caquot and Masson (1977), 11, 12, 13, esp. 13, hesitate to interpret klt of the economic text above as “correspondant ougaritique de l’hébreu kallâh ‘fiancée’ (klt paraît être un titre féminin en V AB 4, 5) ou l’accadien kullatu ‘totalité.’” 33 See McGeough and Smith (2011), 67, n. 50. 34 See DEUAT, 335-337, 381. 35 One plausible interpretation, among others, of the reference of Ba῾lu to his daughters Pidrayu and Ṭallayu in the damaged passage KTU3 1.4:VI:7-11 could be that Ba῾lu is troubled about the alliance of his daughters’ husbands with Yammu (see Pardee, CS I, 261, n. 173). Compare Wiggins (2003), 90-91. See Tsevat (1978b), 151-161; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 121, n. 3.

220

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

is not mentioned as a second component in the epithet under consideration, we are free to choose the meaning “women of marriageable age, maidens or brides,” given that the goddesses are young and available for marriage.36 Additional arguments can be made on the basis of such cognate languages as Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew. First, the etymologically and semantically related Biblical Hebrew ‫ ַכּ ָלּה‬means basically “daughter-inlaw (in ref. to the husband’s father), bride (usually a. just before marriage // ‫ח ָתן‬, ָ but also b. just after marriage = young wife).”37 These semantic values are frequent in the Old Testament, and only the context can help one choose from the options. In the case of “daughter-in-law,” the individual referred to is normally mentioned – as in the case of the impressive female character Ruth, who is frequently designated as Naomi’s ‫כּ ָלּה‬, ַ and the correct interpretation of this word is key for a proper interpretation of this Biblical story, see Ruth 1:6-8, 22; 2:20, 22; 4:15. In addition, this meaning is common when the word ‫ ַכּ ָלּה‬is followed by a pronominal suffix which alludes automatically to the “father/mother-in-law,” as in Genesis 11:31; 38:11, 16, 24. In Leviticus 18:15 the meaning might even be inferred from what follows: ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת ִבּנְ ָך‬... ‫כּ ָלּ ְתָך‬. ַ Regarding the second option, “bride,” the parallelism, or even just the occurrence, of this term with the word ‫“ ָח ָתן‬bridegroom” makes the second semantic value the only option, see for example, Jeremiah 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11; Isaiah 61:10 and 62:5. This interpretation could be applied to our Ugaritic word klt. Furthermore, the Biblical Hebrew ‫ בתולה‬parallels ‫ ַכּ ָלּה‬in Jeremiah 2:32: ‫ ַכּ ָלּה קשׁריה‬// ‫תוּלה עדיה‬ ָ ‫“ התשׁכח ְבּ‬Can a maiden forget her jewels, a bride her adornments?” This semantic equation is suggested by us below regarding the epithet under discussion. Finally, in Song of Songs 4:8-12, 5:1, the term ‫ ַכּ ָלּה‬is frequently used in the word pair ‫אחות‬: ‫“ ֲאח ִֹתי ַכ ָלּה‬My own (lit. ‘sister’), my bride.”38 It is significant that in this specific context the term ‫ אחות‬is chosen rather than ‫בת‬.39 Moreover, the Ugaritic epithet component klt corresponds etymologically and semantically to Akkadian kallatu (kallutu) “daughter-in-law, wife of a son living in his father’s household, bride, sister-in-law,” which is used in Akkadian divine epithets. This Akkadian term occasionally 36

326.

For more, see above. Contra Wiggins (2003), 87 based on Schloen (2001), 325-

37 See BDB, 1172 and Gesenius, vol. III, 547-548, esp. 548, “Braut (oft nb. od. ‖ ‫)ח ָתן‬, ָ 2. Schwiegertochter, 3. Jungverheiratete.” 38 JPS, 1732, n. f. 39 Contra the assumption by Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 118.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

221

occurs in epithets of the form kallat X “daughter-in-law of X.” In most cases the second component is a divine name. For example, the goddess Aja is referred to as the daughter-in-law of Sin, wife of Šamaš, Aja kallatum rabītum narammat Šamaš “Aja the great daughter-in-law, the beloved of Šamaš” (RIMB 2 RIM.B.6.22.1.5); and mūšab Šamaš bēlu rabû u Aja kallatim narāmtišu “dwelling place of Šamaš, the great lord, and of his beloved, the daughter-in-law Aja” (RIMB 2 RIM.B.6.22.1.5).40 Similarly, Zarpanītu is described as dZarpanītu bēltu rabītu ḫīrat dEnbilulu kallat d Nudi[mmud] “Zarpanītu, the great lady, the wife of Enbilulu (Marduk), the daughter-in-law of Nudimmud (Ea).”41 This implies that the second component of the epithet in question should have been a divine name, as I mentioned above, but the term knyt is clearly an adjective. In this instance the allusion to ᾿Il is inferred from the context where the epithet appears, as in Akkadian examples in which the divine epithet kallat X “daughter-in-law of X” refers not to the father-in-law of the goddess, but to her place of residence, that is, the temple or city of her father-in-law. Here again the familial relationship is understood from the context. For example, the goddess Tašmētu, the consort of Marduk’s son Nabû, is referred to as kallāt É.SAG.IL.LA2 “the daughter-in-law (of Marduk) associated with the temple Esagila.”42 In both literary and legal Akkadian contexts43 this term “denotes a young woman who was acquired by the master of a household as a wife for his son living in this household. Only the Sumerian (é2-gi4-a) refers to her virginity.44 When several persons refer to their kallatu, the reference is to their sister-in-law.”45 This term is also known in Ebla and has the same semantic value, ᾿à-gi-a, gallatum, var. galtum “daughter-in-law; bride / sposa; nuora.” Fronzaroli comments, “Il tema kall-at- è continuato in tutta l’area semitica settenrionale e, con varianti fonetiche, in quella meridionale.”46 40 AHw, 426; CAD K, 80-81, under b) in legal contexts; CAD M/1, 120; CAD Ṣ, 226; CAD P, 171, 372, 537; CAD T, 14, 353-354. For a detailed survery of the Akkadian epithet’s component kallâtu (é2-gi4-a) “Schwiegertochter, Braut,” see Tallqvist, AG, 110-111. 41 SAA III 2: r. 22; CAD K, 82. For more, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 191, n. 26 (ABRT I, 31r. 22). 42 Streck Abs. 286 r. 14. For more, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 191, n. 28. 43 For a detailed discussion on the legal usage of this term in Akkadian in general, see the excellent contribution of Westbrook (1988), 13, 17-18, who adds that the definition below given by CAD provides the link with kallūtum, literally “daughter-in-lawship,” which in fact refers to a specialized legal arrangement prior to marriage. 44 e2-gi4-a (Akkadian kallātu) appears in sixty-nine instances in Sumerian and always with the exclusive meaning of “bride.” For further details regarding the occurrences, usage, and semantics of this term in Sumerian, see ETCSL. 45 CAD K, 82. 46 Fronzaroli (1984a), 140; idem (1984b), 168, “gal-la-tum (= ᾿à – g i – a, var. gal-latúm, gal-tum), /kall-at-um/ ‘daughter-in-law; bride.’” See also Archi (1980), 86; Krebernik

222

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Thus, the internal and external data from Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian suggest that the first component of the epithet klt knyt might indicate a familial relationship, namely, “the daughter-in-law (of the god ᾿Il).” Among the many Ugaritic divine epithets are a considerable number which express filiation.47 Moreover, in my previous study, I found that in all cases in which a Ugaritic divine epithet expresses a filial relationship of the sort bn X, bt X, or ḫtn X, without further qualification of the deity X, the connection is always with a well-known major deity, such as ᾿Ilu, ᾿Aṯiratu, Ba῾lu, Dagānu, or ῾Anatu. By contrast, the names of minor deities are normally qualified with an identifying epithet, even when they form part of an epithet qualifying another deity.48 The epithet under study has the adjective knyt as its second component, without reference to a specific deity.49 From the general context, however, the reference to the supreme god ᾿Ilu is obvious. His various epithets50 make it clear that the supreme Ugaritic god ᾿Ilu is the most generally responsible of all Ugaritic deities. This status is confirmed by the epithet studied here, klt, which indicates that the three goddesses, even when called Ba῾lu’s daughters, are under ᾿Ilu’s control, and may therefore be presumed to be living in Ilu’s house.51 The context in which the epithet appears does not give further information on the status of these deities as Ilu’s daughters-in-law. A possible semantic parallel could be drawn from the wellattested epithet btlt “the maiden,” which refers to the goddess ῾Anatu. Even in recent research, scholars52 have offered different hypotheses regarding the relationship of the epithet btlt as well as the component klt to the questions of virginity, and of sexual relationships with the god Ba῾lu. The extant references to ῾Anatu’s sexuality in the Ugaritic texts occur solely in obscure and broken contexts. Thus, I adopt the minimalistic interpretation of the evidence and ignore the hypothetical allusions to ῾Anatu’s sexual activity.53 The same could be said about the discussions (1983), 14, no. 322 under É.GI.A = gal-la-tum/du, gal-tum /kall-at-um/ “Schwiegertochter”; DNWSI, 510 (klh2 Tadmor). 47 Other Ugaritic epithets indicating filial relationships include, see n. 3, p. 195, n. 9, p. 285, 305-309, conclusions §1.3. 48 See e.g., bnt hll b῾l gml, pp. 194-198, 307-308, 321. 49 Few epithets fall into this category. In my previous study on the Ugaritic epithets, I found only two out of 112, bṯn brḥ “the fleeing(?) serpent” (DEUAT, 142-143), and bṯn ῾qltn “the twisting (/twisted) serpent” (DEUAT, 144-146). 50 See DEUAT, 335-337, 380-381 under ᾿il. 51 This same legal usage is attested in Akkadian, see pp. 220-221 above, and especially Westbrook (1988), 36-38. 52 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 134-141; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 117-118. 53 Walls (1992), 112-159; Parker, UNP, 186; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 186.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

223

of the sexual activity of Ba῾lu’s daughters, which is mere interpretation without textual evidence. For example, the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” does not involve any allusion to sexual activity, even when the first component of the term klt denotes a “young woman of marriageable age, bride/a fiancée, or a young woman who was acquired by the master of a household as a future wife for his son living in his household.” Because of the abundant external data in both Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian, technical legal usage is more widely attested in those languages than in Ugaritic,54 and, by analogy with other Ugaritic epithets such as btlt, there is no reason to suppose that the epithets, at least in the mythological genre, have legal connotations. In ancient Near Eastern society, the unmarried nubile woman was normally expected to be young, beautiful, and chaste; but the mythic qualities of the Ugaritic divinities would appear to differ from mortal criteria.55 Finally, references to relationships stemming from marriage do occur in other Ugaritic epithets. As I mentioned in my former study, ḫtnm b῾l “sonin-law of Ba῾lu”56 apparently derives from Ḫrḫb’s suggestion that Yariḫu57 wed Pidrayu, the daughter of Ba῾lu (lines 26-27). The epithet ybmt l᾿imm “the (divine) sister-in-law associated with the people(?)” evidently refers to ῾Anatu,58 and mt mt “husband, husband” refers to ᾿Ilu.59 I turn my attention to the second component of this epithet, knyt, which occurs in the Ugaritic corpus only as a component of the epithet under discussion.60 There is a scholarly consensus61 regarding its correspondence to Akkadian and its translation as “glorious, honorable, beloved, of noble ancestry, etc.” Its Akkadian cognate is kanûtu “worshipped, honored, beloved,” which occurs mainly as an epithet of single goddesses related 54

Westbrook (1988), 13, 17-18, 36-38. Cf. Deuteronomy 22:13-21; Ezekiel 23:3-8. Compare Rahmouni, DEUAT, 139-141. 56 The Akkadian cognate ḫatānu (ḫatnu) “relative by marriage (son-in-law, brother-inlaw, bridegroom)” does occur with reference to gods (with the meaning brother-in-law), although to the best of my knowledge is not attested in divine epithets (see CAD Ḫ, 148, s.v. ḫatānu, meaning (b); AHw, 335, meaning 2; CDA, 112). 57 Concerning this deity and his role, see esp. Wiggins (1998), 761-779; Pardee (2010a); and my discussion of the epithets mlk ᾿aġzt “the (divine) patron of ...” (DEUAT, 229-231), mlk qẓ “the (divine) patron of (summer) fruit” (DEUAT, 232-233), and ḫtnm b῾l “son-in-law of Ba῾lu” (DEUAT, 184-185). 58 For a detailed discussion of this epithet, see DEUAT, 186-192, 337. However, this epithet has thus far defied reasonably certain translation and interpretation and hence cannot be used as a basis for argument. 59 For a detailed discussion on this epithet, see DEUAT, 234-235. 60 In KTU3 4.171:3, kny is a personal name. See PTU, 51, 153, 278; DULAT, 451. 61 De Moor (1971) 81, 83; Walls (1992), 117-118; Pardee, CS I, 253, n. 99; DLU, 221; DULAT, 451-452 and the references mentioned there. 55

224

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

to a group of goddesses, such as this description of Ninsigga, dNinsige kanût dištarāti bēlet dadmī šagapurti ilat pāṭ gimri “[spouse of] Ninsigga, the favored one among the goddesses, mistress of human habitations, the warrior, goddess of the whole of everything” (RIMB 2, B.6.14.2001:2).62 Other examples are šaruḫtu gitmāltu ištarāti “most splendid (and) perfect of the goddesses” (CMAwR 8.29:44);63 and kanûtu dBau kullat adnāti rikis māti “beloved Bau, for all men, center of the country” (KAR 109 r. 15).64 As early as 1933, von Soden65 classified the Akkadian terms kanūtu and kunnūtu, “die gehegte” under “Hymnische Epitheta.” Indeed, it appears as an epithet in line 1 of the important Akkadian prayer šu-íl-lá to Ištar, qarittum dIštar kanût ilāti “Valiant Ištar, darling of the goddesses” (JAOS 103:3-15).66 Nevertheless, the Akkadian semantic field of the verb kunnû also involves its synonyms kubbutu “to honor”67 and šurruḫu “to extol,” as is evident from ukannī[ku]nūši ušarriḫkunū[ši] ukabbitkunūši “I have treated you with respect, I have heaped praise on you, I have honored you (spirits of the dead)” (Farber Ištar and Dumuzi 136:159; cf. CMAwR 8.25, manuscript A iii 13 [Abusch/Schwemer 2016:190ff.] and dupl. LKA 89 r. 7), and ettum muštarḫat u kanât “She (Nanâ), the unique one, is proud and honored” (ZA 102:19, Streck and Wasserman [2012]:187).68 Moreover, this verb may be also applied to the pampering of a child, šerru kunnû “to treat the baby tenderly” (Šurpu IV 28 [ed. E. Reiner, p. 25])69 as well as of women (KAR 158 II 25). In some passages we read of the pampering or babying of male and female divinities. The goddess Gula says of her youth, uldanni Antum kīniš ukannanni ušāḫizanni milki damqa uza᾿inanni kuzbi “Antu gave birth to me, she steadfastly cared for me // she taught 62

Lambert (1968), 125:Ia:2, cf. 7. Compare Ebeling (1949), 187, 189:25-26. 64 CAD K, 171-172; see also, for other examples, Sperling (1981), 13. For further examples of the use of this term as an epithet, see CAD T, 95. Tallqvist in AG, 112, indicates that this term was used of various goddesses – Bau, Ningal, Tašmet?, Damkina, Ištar, and Ninšagga – but curiously speaks “von unsicherer Bedeutung.” 65 Von Soden (1933), 166. 66 Ungnad (1925), 108, n. 1, “die zärtliche” or “die zärtlich handelnde”; Geers (1934), 222, “Kriegerische Ištar, gehegteste der Göttinnen”; Sperling (1981), 11. 67 CAD K, 483, 484. The verb kubbutu “to honor” is not attested as an epithet component, see CAD K, 483-484; Berger (1970), 132. 68 CAD Š/2, 36-40; CAD M/2, 286. The derived šaruḫtu/ muštarḫat “the proud one” occurs as an epithet of the god Marduk, for example ana DN ... dEnlil ilāni muštarḫa “for Marduk, the lord of the gods, the proud one” (VAB 4 60 i 2 [Nabopolassar]); (Marduk) mudû ilāni muštarḫu “the wise one among the gods, the proud one” (ibid., 96 i 8); Berger (1970), 132. 69 Schott (1934), 129, n. 1; CAD Š/2, 319; check Cancik-Kirschbaum, Kahl and Wagensonner (2018), 139, ill. 23. 63

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

225

me fair counsel and adorned me with sexuality.”70 An Old Babylonian hymn refers to Nana as ettum muštarḫat u kanât “she, the only (child), is haughty and pampered” (ZA 102:9).71 The male Nergal is referred to as māru kunnû libbi dEnlil “Pampered son, darling of Enlil’s heart” (AOAT 11, 59). It is plausible that the nuance of pampering carries over into Ugaritic where the daughters of Ba῾lu are termed klt knyt “the honored brides.”72 The studies of Schott and Berger are of special importance for a detailed philological analysis of the Akkadian verb kunnû and its substantive kanūtu, which no doubt could be akin to the Ugaritic knyt. They relate the Akkadian root knu to both Hebrew ‫ כנה‬and Arabic ‫ كنا‬and define it basically as “ehren/zu Ehren bringen/in Ehren halten/Ehre erweisen/Ehrung/Ehren,” translating the adjective kanū(tu), kunnutu as “geehrte.”73 This is incorrect, however. In Biblical Hebrew as well as in Classical Arabic, the root ‫ كنى‬/ ‫ כנה‬has the strict meaning of “to title; to give an epithet or cognomen (of honor or the opposite).”74 Furthermore, in Classical Arabic the adjective ‫ مكنون‬/ maknūnun, from ‫ كنن‬/ KNN “closely kept, treasured, hidden, well-guarded, highly valued, protected, preserved,”75 might somehow be related to the Akkadian kunnû76 and to the Ugaritic knyt, given 70 For this collation and translation see Lambert (1967), 124-125, lines 139-140; Sperling (1981), 13; CAD K, 541; del Olmo Lete (2001-2002), 23-24. 71 Streck and Wasserman (2012), 187; von Soden (1938), 32 and 33:19; see further CAD E, 396; AG, 230. 72 Compare with Sperling (1981), 13. This is an additional argument for rejecting the contention by Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 116-118, regarding hints in KTU3 1.3:I:22ff. of sexual looks given by Ba῾lu to his supposed wives (Ṭallayu and Pidryu; ᾿Arṣayu is not mentioned in this context). It also casts doubt on RS 24.291 (= KTU3 1.132), in which most scholars read a reference to the hieros gamos, and where the goddess Pidrayu is mentioned, line 2, trbd ῾rš [.] pdry . b [š]t . mlk “You are to prepare the bed of Pidray with the king’s bed-covers,” (= KTU3 1.132, reads b bt mlk). Regarding this passage, Pardee, RCU, 96-97, notes, “There is no reason to believe that all the activities of the unnamed month in which this rite took place were devoted to the incubation or the hieros gamos, of which these would be the culminating ceremonies; but without knowledge of the rest of this month’s liturgy, any observations would be pure speculation.” 73 For a detailed study of this root and its Sumerian connection, see Schott (1934), 125-129; and for a detailed commentary on the semantic development of the noun taknû and other Akkadian verbs which share its semantic value, see Berger (1970), 131-133, esp. 133. On tracing the corresponding Ugaritic term in the same etymological manner, see Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 173, n. c; de Moor (1971), 81, 83; Walls (1992), 117118. 74 For Biblical Hebrew, see BDB, 1181. 75 Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XIII, 122; Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 822; Ali (2004), 1371, n. 5058, 1410, n. 5234. 76 CAD K, 541-542. See Berger (1970), 132. Because the modern distinction between animate and inanimate was not always made by the ancients, kunnû was sometimes employed for the careful treatment of inanimate objects (Borger, Esarh. 93:8-9).

226

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

that ‫ مكنون‬/ maknūnun appears in the Qur᾿ān four times,77 three of them referring to “young beautiful women” called ‫ حور‬/ ḥūrun “the ‘houris,’ virgins of paradise, nymphs; pure, fair-skinned (also said to mean, having beautiful eyes, as characterized by pure whiteness of the cornea and intense blackness of the iris), pleasant.”78 See, for example, Q. 56:22-24, َ َ ‫ٱلم ْك ُنونِ َج َز ًآء ب َِما َكانُو ْا َي ْع َم ُل‬ ‫ون‬ ٌ ‫ َو ُحو ٌر ِع‬/ wa-ḥūrun ῾ īnun ka-᾿amṯāli َ ‫ين َكأ ْمثَالِ ٱلُّلؤْ ُل ِؤ‬ l-lu᾿lu᾿i l-maknūni ǧazā᾿an bimā kānū ya῾malūna “[there will be] ... and beautiful-eyed maidens like hidden pearls: a reward for what they used ِ ‫ات ٱلط َّْر‬ ِ ‫ َق‬/ to do.”79 In one Qur᾿ānic passage this adjective describes ‫ف‬ ُ ‫اص َر‬ qāṣirātu ṭ-ṭarfi “women who shorten the range of their gaze, who cast down their eyes; modest women, avoiding staring” Q. 37:48-49, ‫َو ِعندَ ُه ْم‬ ِ ‫ات ٱلط َّْر‬ ِ ‫ َق‬/ wa-῾indahum qāṣirātu ṭ-ṭarfi ῾īnun ٌ‫ض َم ْك ُنون‬ ٌ ‫ين َك َأن َُّهنَّ َب ْي‬ ُ ‫اص َر‬ ٌ ‫ف ِع‬ ka᾿annahunna bayḍun maknūnun “With them will be spouses – modest of gaze and beautiful of eyes – like protected eggs.” The same metaphorical description occurs in Q. 52:24, where ‫ حور‬/ ḥūr is replaced by ‫ غلمان‬/ ُ ‫َو َي ُط‬ ġilmānun “youth, boy, manservant,”80 ‫وف َع َل ْيهِ ْم ِغ ْل َمانٌ ل َُّه ْم َك َأن َُّه ْم ُلؤْ ُل ٌؤ‬ ْ ٌ‫ مَّك ُنون‬/ wa-yaṭūfu ῾alayhim ġilmānun lahum ka᾿annahum lu᾿lu᾿un maknūnun “and there go around [waiting upon] them devoted youths like hidden pearls.” Also the Classical Arabic expression ‫ وهي مكنونة‬/ wa-hiya maknūnah is proper to “Mädchen.”81 In addition, the Classical Arabic ‫ ك ّنة‬/ kannah “daughter-in-law,” derives from the root َّ‫ كن‬/ KNN, which semantically corresponds to the Ugaritic klt, Akkadian kallā/atu, Biblical Hebrew ‫כלה‬, and Aramaic and Syriac ‫א‬/‫“ כלת‬daughter-in-law.”82 From the contexts above it is clear that the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” refers to Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu. However, klt knyt could also have referred to other female Ugaritic deities related to Ba῾lu, 77 ٍ ‫يم ِفي ِك َت‬ In Q. 56:77-78 this adjective is applied to the Qur᾿ān itself, ‫اب‬ ٌ ‫اِن َُّه َلقُ ْرآنٌ َك ِر‬ ٍ‫ م َّْك ُنون‬/ ᾿innahu la-Qur᾿ānun karīmun fī kitābin maknūnin “that this is truly a noble Qur᾿an, in a protected Record.” 78 Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 242; Ali (2004), 1291, n. 4729. This term appears four times in the Qur᾿ān, Q. 44:54; Q. 52:20; Q. 55:72; Q. 56:22. In the contexts above, it has to be substituted by ‫غلام‬. It is curious that the Ugaritic epithet ġlmt “the maiden” (DEUAT, 269-270), which is an epithet of the goddess Nikkalu, a bridal candidate with Pidrayu for marriage to Yariḫu (KTU3 1.24), parallels btlt “the maiden.” For this epithet and others using the same component, see DEUAT, 132-141. 79 On the theological interpretation of this Sūrah, see aṭ-Ṭabarī (2001), vol. XIII, 201202. 80 On the Qur᾿ānic use of this term, see Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 674. 81 Ullmann, WKAS, 375. 82 Ullmann, WKAS, 372-373; Gesenius, vol. III, 548; DNWSI, 510.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

227

but unknown to us, the presumably female deities ᾿uz῾rt,83 bt ῾lh,84 and ybrdmy.85 83 Virolleaud (1936b), 220, enumerated seven daughters of Ba῾lu. Pardee, TPM, 141-144, in his interpretation of the para-mythological text RS 24.245 (= KTU3 1.101:6-7) assumes that Ba῾lu had at least two other daughters besides the trio, the goddesses ᾿uz῾rt and bt ῾lh, which he defines as “des noms de déesses, peut-être d’autres filles de Ba῾lu” (see Pardee, TR, 306; see also Caquot, TO II, 48-49, n. 107; Dietrich and Loretz [1986a], 129, 140 and the bibliographic references there; contrast Avishur [1980], 126). Moreover, Avishur (1984), 715-718 (and the bibliographic references to earlier works concerning line 6-7), states that ᾿uzr῾th “is the appellation of one of the wives or daughters of Baal (even though this is not found elsewhere), or a description of one of her attributes (perhaps a description of ‘pdry’ that frequently appears together with ‘ṭly’ in a number of Ugaritic texts).” Earlier, Gordon, PLM, 127, considered the term ᾿uzr῾t a divine name of a goddess along with the goddess Ṭallayu without giving further explanation. Others, such as Lipiński (1971b), 82, 84, consider the term uzr῾t “la cadette ... une autre déesse ou ... une seconde épithète de Ṭalay,” in contrast to Pope and Tigay (1971), 126-128. For a completely different interpretation of this passage in particular and of the whole text in general, see Waytt, RTU, 388-390, and the bibliographic references there. Indeed, from the parallelism of lines 5-7, ᾿uzr῾th occurs as a B-word regarding the divine name ṭly. This makes the interpretation of this term as an epithet of Ṭallayu, or as a divine name of a different goddess associated with Ṭallayu and her sisters, reasonable. However, given that ᾿uzr῾th is not found elsewhere in the whole Ugaritic corpus, this suggestion is somewhat speculative. 84 The interpretation of bt ῾lh is even more difficult, as its structure seems incompatible with a divine name. The suggestion that bt ῾lh is another goddess is valid only if one accepts the reading bt instead of dt. KTU3, 119 returns to collate dt ῾lh, which, given the immediate context, seems more plausible. Scholars are divided on this matter, and even when they agree, offer differing interpretations concerning bt ῾lh, see Virolleaud (1968), 557; Avishur (1980), 126, who reads bn ῾nh in parallelism with r᾿išh; Pardee, TPM, 142, n. 107-109, and the bibliographic references there. 85 Some scholars identify ybrdmy (KTU3 1.24:29) as another of Ba῾lu’s daughters, and a candidate with Pidrayu (see below) for marriage to Yariḫu as a substitute for Nikkalu. See Aistleitner (1939a), 53; Jirku, KME, 78, n. 7, “Jbrdmj nur hier genannt”; Herrmann (1968), 17 under ybrdmy; Gibson, CML2, 129; de Moor, ARTU, 144, n. 28, “Possibly ybrdm is the name of the city Yabritu in the dual, provided with the same feminine ending that characterizes the names of her sisters Pidrayu, Tallayu and Arsayu. Because this goddess is mentioned only here, it is possible that Ybrd(m) was a cult centre of either Tallayu or Arsayu.” Marcus, UNP, 217, “Yaparudmay, daughter of ...!”; Wyatt, RTU, 339, n. 20, “Yabradmay ... a further candidate (along with Pidray) offered as a substitute for Nikkal”; PTU, 120, BRD “unsicher”; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 519, “ND, hija del dios b῾l (?)”; DULAT, 952 “DN, daughter of the god b῾l (?).” Astour (1969a), 10, assumes that this term might indicate another young goddess or be an epithet of the goddess Ṭallayu (for his detailed etymological explanations of brd, see below). Gordon (1937), 32, n. 19, gave a different etymology for Ybr dmy, translating it as “let my blood be pure,” but expressing dissatisfaction with the sense this translation gives of lines 28-30, he later, PLM, 66, changed his mind, and joined the general interpretation of this name given here. Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 459, 557 saw Yabrudmayu (?) as a variant of Y῾bdr, and in (1991), 71, mentions Yabrudmayu as another of Ba῾lu’s daughters without giving further explanation. Goetze (1941), 363, assumed that Ybrdmy is ῾Aṯtaru’s daughter; see also du Mesnil du Buisson (1970), 14. Ginzberg (1939), 324, did not give a translation of ybrdmy, but assumed that an epithet should follow this term and translated this line as “a maiden.” Watson (1993a), 53-54, n. 74 and 75

228

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

I will now consider the identification, character, and role of each divinity potentially included under the epithet klt knyt. The group of female divinities labeled klt knyt is limited in the Ugaritic alphabetic corpus to the Cycle of Ba῾al, and they are mentioned with their corresponding individual epithets followed by the epithet under study, which refers to them collectively. This might reflect a crucial feature of the Ugaritic religious system, which seems to attribute more importance to individual female deities, such as ῾Anatu, ᾿Aṯiratu, and (to a lesser degree) Šapšu and ῾Aṯtartu, and relegating the female divinity groups to a secondary status.86 The role and the character of these goddesses in the mythological corpus is revealed mainly through their divine names and epithets and through their possible relationship with the god Ba῾lu. In the Cycle of Ba῾al, each goddess is usually addressed by her particular epithet, the goddess Pidrayu by bt ᾿ar “the one associated with light,” the goddess Ṭallayu by bt rb “the one associated with showers,” and the goddess ᾿Arṣayu by the complex epithet bt y῾bdr “the one associated with ... / daughter of y῾bdr.”87 Unlike the divine name of the goddess without explanation, numbers Ybrdmy as the fourth daughter of Ba῾lu after Pidryu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu, mentioned only once in the Ugaritic texts. Wiggins (2003), 83, also refers only to Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu. Others see the term ybrdmy as an epithet. Astour (1969a), 10, n. 8, assumes that Ybrdmy is another daughter of Ba῾lu, adding that Ybrdmy “... une autre jeune déesse, Ybrdmy, qui n’apparaît que dans ce passage, mais qui pourrait être la même que Ṭly ... si l’on interprète ybrd-my comme ‘dispersion d’eau,’” following Gaster, Thespis, 127. On the other hand, Margalit (1980), 149-150, n. 2; idem (1996), 180-181 considers ybrdmy “he who serves up water” (brd “serve up” + my “water”) as an appellation of the Ugaritic god ῾Aṯtr, who was responsible for subterranean water springs as the “lord of the subterranean deep.” Pardee (2010a), 26, 34, followed Margalit’s philological analysis and assumed that ybrdmy “soit une épithète de ῾Aṯtartu soit un avatar de ce dieu.” I emphasize again that the Ugaritic god ῾Aṯtar, despite his rare appearances in the Ugaritic corpus, is an astral deity (see Smith, UBC I, 240-250), as is confirmed in KTU3 1.24. The idea that the term ybrdmy was an epithet is incorrect because if we relate ybrd to the root brd + my, the resulting structure is not attested in any of those epithets presented in my former studies. While the possibility that it is a divine name seems plausible. However, the etymological interpretation of it is less convincing due to the lack of an immediate or general literary context which might clarify such a name. The attestation of its cognate component as a divine name in Elba dBaradu madu (Xella [1986], 437-444) and its possible relationship to the Biblical ‫ ברד‬and the Ugaritic brd might be used as a precedent for its consideration as a divine name. The fact that the component brd-d is attested as a personal name in Ugaritic (see PTU, 120) might favor considering Ugaritic ybrdmy as a divine name. Unfortunately, the attestation of ybrdmy only in this text and the damaged state of this line, make my speculation tentative. No other data confirm ybrdmy as another name for ῾Aṯtar; and the idea that it is the name for one of Ba῾lu’s daughters is simply incorrect. 86 This is also stated in my study on the epithets of the goddesses Kôṯarātu, see Rahmouni (2012), 55-73. 87 For bt ᾿ar “the one associated with light,” see DEUAT 120-125 and Rahmouni (2012), 62, n. 59; and for bt rb “the one associated with showers” and bt y῾bdr “the one associated

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

229

Pidrayu,88 the semantic value of which is difficult to trace, the divine names Ṭallayu and ᾿Arṣayu are quite transparent. Due to the lack of information in the Ugaritic myths about the roles and activities of these goddesses as a group, the semantic values of the goddesses’ individual divine names take on special importance. Though proposing etymologies for proper names is generally not recommended in the absence of context, the etymology for Ṭallayu and ᾿Arṣayu is clear and consistent. It is widely agreed that Ṭallayu (ṭly) derives from ṭl “dew”89 and ᾿Arṣayu from ᾿arṣ “earth.”90 The semantic values of these terms carry hydrological and chthonic associations. Some scholars91 classify Pidrayu and Ṭallayu as hydrological, and derive the component ᾿ar in the epithet bt ᾿ar, as well as the name of the goddess who bears this epithet, Pidrayu, from a root meaning “lightning/flashy.” Others92 state that the meaning of ᾿ar is “mist, moisture, dew,” and relate it to Arabic ‫“ أري‬dew.” The latter would be appropriate for the present epithet (showers//mist),93 and is consistent with the hypothesis that these two goddesses, who are mentioned in closely associated Ugaritic mythological texts (in addition to the context above, see KTU3 1.4:VI:10-11; 1.5:V:10-11), have an aquatic character. Nevertheless, it seems methodologically preferable to interpret ᾿ar in accordance with / daughter of y῾bdr,” see DEUAT, 126-131 and 133, respectively. Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 221 interpret this last epithet as “Daughter of the Wide World.” In my earlier studies on this epithet I decided not to translate it because of the dubious, insufficiently supported, etymologies and the lack of precedents for any of the meanings suggested by different scholars. For a detailed commentary and bibliographic references, see DEUAT, esp. 128, n. 9. 88 Rahmouni, DEUAT, 123, n. 9, 124-125, and the bibliographic references there. Virolleaud (1936c), 343, n. 3 discerned the name of this goddess in the Akkadian dPi-id-dir[i(?)-?], another name for Ištar. For the relationship between Pidrayu, Ḫebat, and Ištar, see RIA, IV, 326-327; von Schuler (1965), 172; de Moor (1970a), 195, 203, 214, 217; Saracino (1982), 191-192; Bonnet (1987), 123-124; Lambert (1988), 136; Fleming (1992a), 58, 59; idem (1993), 92; Archi (1994), 249-251; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 119-120. 89 For a detailed discussion, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 131, n. 5, and the bibliographic references there. 90 DEUAT, 127, n. 3 and the bibliographic references there. 91 Virolleaud (1936c), 343-345; Ginsberg, ANET, 131, n. 12; Smith, UBC I, 83 with a question mark; see for a survey Wiggins (2003), 83-101, esp. 95. 92 Driver, CML1, 135, nn. 7-8; Gibson, CML2, 142; Gray, LC2, 39, n. 8; de Moor (1971), 82-83, and the bibliographic references there. Pardee (1988a), 3, translates this epithet as “Pidray, daughter of Dew ... .” See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 94. In fact, in Classical Arabic the term ᾿ary refers to “dew,” ‫ب‬ ِ ‫الع ْش‬ ُ ‫ َما َو َق َع ِم َن النَّدى والطَّلِّ على الشجر َو‬... / mā waqa῾a mina n-nadā wa-ṭ-ṭalli ῾ala š-šaǧari wa-l-῾ušbi “The dew and the mist that falls on the trees and grass.” For criticisms of the etymological suggestions of de Moor (1971), 82-83, see DEUAT, 124, n. 14. For a recent detailed survey, see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 119-120. 93 Some scholars consider these goddesses as “dew goddesses”; see Grabbe (1976), 60; Korpel (1990), 563; Smith (2006), 102-103.

230

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

with the attested lexicon whenever such an interpretation is semantically appropriate, rather than turning to an etymology from another Semitic language. As I stated in my detailed study on this epithet, in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Biblical Hebrew, both the term ᾿ār and Arabic nūr are used as epithet components generally meaning “light,” with wide cosmological nuances and connotations, including Ba῾lu’s command of weather and his chthonic lordship over the qualities embodied in his daughters, klt knyt “the honored brides.”94 However, the goddess ᾿Arṣayu is not mentioned in the Cycle of Ba῾al every time that Pidrayu and Ṭallayu are. The first context above mentions Pidrayu and Ṭallayu as daughters of Ba῾lu (see below). This might mean that each goddess had an individual function; but neither the Cycle of Ba῾al nor any other mythological Ugaritic text says so explicitly. Moreover, in the Cycle of Ba῾al these goddesses play roles proper to minor deities.95 Nevertheless, the omission of Arṣayu in KTU3 1.5:V:6-11 could be explained by her chthonic name: that is, if she is indeed an “earth” or underworld goddess, then there is no need for her to descend with Ba῾lu into the netherworld.96 The chthonic character of this goddess is suggested by her identification with Allatu (≈ ereš.ki.gal) in the Ugaritic god lists.97 Indeed, KTU3 1.5:V:6-11 attests to the chthonic character of the goddesses Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, or at least of Pidrayu. However, many questions remain because of the limited Ugaritic data.98 Nevertheless, Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu are Ba῾lu’s daughters, and their common label klt knyt “the honored brides” ties them together under the authority of Ba῾lu. Their names and epithets suggest that our conception of the range of Ba῾lu’s nature activities should be widened; that role should not be limited to that of a “weather god” but is that he is a cosmological deity with both hydrological and chthonic characteristics.99 94 Unfortunately, the para-mythological text KTU3 1.101, which could have helped define the nature of the light here, and even the role and character of some of Ba῾lu’s daughters, is very damaged. On this text see Pardee, TPM, 119-152. 95 Grabbe (1976), 60, states that in this context “the mention of two versus three is purely a free interchange, perhaps formulaic in nature.” Grabbe uses this passage among others to criticize de Moor’s seasonal pattern interpretation of the Cycle of Ba῾al. See Wiggins (2003), 88. 96 Astour (1969a), 12; Wyatt (1987b), 391-392; de Moor, ARTU, 4 n. 18; Smith, UBC I, 72, n. 143; Pardee, CS I, 267, n. 228 and idem, TR, 307, n. 91, n. 92, n. 93; Wiggins (2000), 585-586. For more bibliographic references. 97 See Pardee, TR, 292, 307. 98 Wiggins (2003), 96-98; see Wyatt (2020), 111ff., n. 57, “These goddesses, who appear to be wives of Baal, are the antecedents of the Greek Graces.” 99 Wiggins (2000), 577-598; and idem (2003), 95-96.

KLT KNYT “THE HONORED BRIDES”

231

Indeed, Ba῾lu’s Ugaritic epithets100 suggest he ultimately has exclusive dominion over both the weather and the fertile earth. Only Ba῾lu is described as rkb ῾rpt “rider of the clouds,”101 and through his epithet bn dgn “the son of Dagānu,”102 he is affiliated with the god Dagānu. Moreover, Ba῾lu’s supremacy and wide responsibilities are established through his numerous other epithets, such as w ᾿in d ῾lnh “the one without equal (lit. there is none above him),” ᾿al᾿iy qrdm “the mightiest of the heroes,” and ᾿al᾿iyn b῾l “Ba῾lu the mighty one,” which is by far his most frequent Ugaritic epithet. Furthermore, Ba῾lu is the only Ugaritic deity called zbl b῾l ᾿arṣ “the prince, lord of the earth,” in which, as I have already stated in my study on this epithet, the component ᾿arṣ undoubtedly refers to the entire sub-celestial regime – land, sea, and underworld.103 Ba῾lu’s associations with weather and meteorological phenomena seem to be his most important aspect.104 This is corroborated by the parallel weather epithets of two of his daughters. Moreover, the Ugaritic word-pair ṭl // rbb is attested for precipitation, thunder, and rain, and metaphorically described as Ba῾lu’s voice, for example, in KTU3 1.19:I:44-46, bl . ṭl . bl rbb (45) bl. šr῾ . thmtm . bl (46) ṭb[[n]]t . ql . b῾l, “No dew, no downpour, no swirling of the deeps, no welcome voice of Baal.”105 Thus the names and epithets of the three female deities Ṭallayu, ᾿Arṣyu, and Pidrayu reflect and summarize many of Ba῾lu’s characteristics as described in his multiple epithets. That they are designated by one common epithet, klt knyt “the honored brides,” corroborates their minor divine status in comparison to Ba῾lu.106 100

DEUAT, 381, under 8. b῾l. DEUAT, 288-291. 102 DEUAT, 94-97. 103 See w ᾿in d ῾lnh “the one without equal (lit. there is none above him)” (DEUAT, 8485; Wiggins [2000], 594, with an argument that seems to contradict his denial that Ba῾lu was a fertility deity); ᾿al᾿iy qrdm “the mightiest of the heroes” (DEUAT, 49-52); and ᾿al᾿iyn b῾l “Ba῾lu the mighty one” (DEUAT, 53-63); zbl b῾l ᾿arṣ “the prince, lord of the earth” (DEUAT, 162-164). I do not agree with Wiggins’s (2000), 598, statement concerning the lack of qualification of Ba῾lu to be a “fertility deity” (see below). 104 For more arguments concerning Ba῾lu’s meteorological connections, see the detailed study of Wiggins (2000), 577-598. 105 Parker, UNP, 69; Pardee, CS I, 351, n. 97; Smith (2006), 102-103. 106 Besides the three goddesses’ appearance in the contexts above, and their other literary references, which are mainly in the Cycle of Ba῾al (see KTU3 1.3:III:6-7; 1.7:23-24 [reconst.]; and only Pidrayu and Ṭallayu in KTU3 1.4:VI:10-11; 1.5:V:10-11; and only Pidrayu in the very damaged KTU3 1.117:5-7, 11-12; on the latter, see below and DEUAT, 122, n. 6), some of the goddesses appear individually in other Ugaritic mythological texts – particularly Pidrayu, who is mentioned in KTU3 1.24, a text attributed to Ṯab᾿ilu in which Pidrayu is confirmed as a daughter of Ba῾lu (see Pardee [2010a], 13, 39). She also appears in another much-discussed bilingual Hurrian-Ugaritic text, KTU3 1.132:1-3, in the controversial lines interpreted as a hieros gamos, which seems to be pure speculation (see Pardee, 101

232

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The fact that the three goddesses are not mentioned together in every mythological passage tends to confirm Wiggins’s107 statement of “the difficulties encountered in a triadic assumption.” The allusion to the goddesses as a trio108 only in specific contexts, such as the above, could mean that this was part of a formula. Their role in the Cycle of Ba῾al seems marginal, like those of minor deities. Although the activities and roles of the three might seem to have merited mention in the mythological texts, they are not major figures. Instead, the goddesses appear in the Cycle of Ba῾al merely as passive minor deities, classified together by their epithet klt knyt “the honored brides,” which in fact simply reflects their religious status relative to Ba῾lu and ᾿Ilu.

TR, 738-744 and idem, RCU, 96-97; Smith [2001], 56; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 118-119; see n. 72, p. 225 above). In addition, the goddess Pidrayu is mentioned as a recipient of sacrifices in KTU3 1.39:15; 1.91:7; 1.102:7-8; 1.109:14, 18; 1.139:14-16; 1.148:6. ᾿Arṣayu occurs in the cultic texts KTU3 1.106:32; 1.148:7 (see de Moor [1970a], 191, 209; Pardee, TR, 307, n. 91-93, 439-440, 591; 599, 600, 780, 787, 791; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 127-128, n. 3), whereas Ṭallayu is missing (see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 131, n. 5). This testifies that both Pidrayu and ᾿Arṣayu had cults in Ugarit (contrast Lambert [1988], 136), while Ṭallayu did not. Ritual texts, however, limit us to cultic practise, in which the occurrence of epithets and attributes is rare. 107 Wiggins (2003), 88-89, 93. 108 Astour (1969a), 9-23, followed by Gordon (1984), 11, compares these goddesses to the three Greek Graces: Aglaia, Thalia, and Euphrosyne. Gordon, ibid., added that the preIslamic Arabs ascribed three daughters to Allāh: Allat, Al-῾Uzza, and Manat (Q. 53:19ff.). On the tafṣīr of this Sūrah, see aṭ-Ṭabarī (2001), vol. XIII, 68-70. Moreover, Job 40:29 alludes to the girls (‫ )נערות‬of God via the pagan myth of Leviathan. These trios anticipate the Classical Three Furies, Allecto, Tisiphone, and Megaera, who were chthonic deities, daughters of Darkness and Gaea – in other words, of Chaos and the Earth. See Wyatt (2020), 111ff. on his comparison to Greek and Egyptian triads.

XXVIII

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “(THE) MESSENGERS / MESSENGERS OF YAMMU” (1.2) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.2:I:11 11

ml᾿akm . yl᾿ak . ym . [t῾dt . yl᾿ak . ṯpṭ nhr]

Yammu sends Messengers, [the judge (ruler) Naharu sends envoys].1

2. KTU3 1.2:I:22 hlm 22 ᾿ilm . tphhm . tphn . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt[[ṯpṭ]]t . ṯpṭ[ . nhr]

Behold, the gods see them, They see messengers of Yammu, The envoys of judge (ruler) [Naharu].

3. KTU3 1.2:I:26 ᾿aḥd 26 ᾿ilm . t῾ny lḥt . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nh

As one will the gods answer, The letter (lit. tablets) of the messengers of Yammu, The envoys of judge (ruler) Naha.

4. KTU3 1.2:I:28 w ᾿ank . ῾ny . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nhr

And I (myself) will answer2 the messengers of Yammu, The envoys of judge (ruler) Naharu.

5. KTU3 1.2:I:30 ᾿aḫr . tmġyn . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nhr

30

Afterwards, the messengers of Yammu arrive, The envoys of judge (ruler) Naharu.

6. KTU3 1.2:I:41 ᾿ik . mḫ[ṣt] 41 [xx .

Why did you smi[te3 the messengers of Yammu],

1 See KTU3, 7, n. 5 comment “perhaps to be restored: [t῾dt . yl᾿ak . ṯpṭ . nhr], cf. lines 22. 26. 28. 30. 41. 44.” 2 For ᾿ank ῾ny (< *᾿ank ᾿a῾ny,) see Tsumura (1991), 428-431 and cf. GUL, 33; UG, 157; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 94, n. 1, 311, n. 2. 3 KTU3, 6 and others (e.g., Smith, UBC 1, 260; idem, UNP, 101; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 172, incorrectly restore mḫ[ṣt], which, however, could only be a 3.f.s. qatala form. Similarly, CML2, 42. For the correct restoration mḫ[št], as the required 2.m.s. qatala form, see Tropper, UG, 105-106. The shift ṣt > št in this verb, which parallels the well-known Akkadian shift

234

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

t῾]dt . ṯpṭ , nhr

[The en]voys of judge (ruler) Naharu?

7. KTU3 1.2:I:44 44

[xxxxxx]dm . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nh[r

[...] ... The messengers of Yammu, The envoys of judge (ruler) Naha[ru

The majority of scholars translate ml᾿akm and ml᾿ak ym as “messengers,” or the like.4 PARALLELS Context 1: ml᾿akm // t῾dt Contexts 2-7: ml᾿ak ym // t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr DISCUSSION The designation ml᾿ak/ml᾿ak ym “(the) messengers/messengers of Yammu” occurs seven times (including one reconstruction; see context 6 above) in the Ugaritic corpus,5 mostly in the Cycle of Ba῾al, and refers to a group of minor gods.6 While the role of the deities labeled by ml᾿ak ṣt > št (> lt), was first demonstrated by Held (1959), 172-173. As in Akkadian, the shift takes place only when the /ṣ/ is in direct contact with the /t/; one thus also finds the 1.c. qatala form mḫšt /maḫaštu/ < * /maḫaṣtu/) (KTU3 1.3:III:38, 41, 43, 45), but the 3.f.s. qatala form can only be mḫṣt /maḫaṣat/ (KTU3 1.19:IV:58). See Tropper, ibid., 105; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 312, n. 3. 4 Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “the messengers of Yamm”; Driver, CML1, 79, 80, 81, “the messengers of Yam”; Jirku, KME, 22, 23, “die Boten des Jam”; Aistleitner, MKT, 48, 49, 50, “die Boten Jm-s”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 128, 130-131, 132-133, “des/les messagers de Yam”; Gordon, PLM, 69, 70, 71, 72, “the messengers of Yamm/Sea”; Gibson, CML2, 40, 41, 42, “(the) messengers of Yam”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 169, 170, 171, 172, “los mensajeros de Yammu”; de Moor, ARTU, 30, 32, “(the) messengers of Yammu”; Smith, UBC I, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269; idem UNP, 98, 99, 100, 101, “Yamm’s messengers”; Pardee, CS I, 245-247, “Yamm’s messengers”; Wyatt, RTU, 57, 60, “messengers of Yam”; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 311, 312, “the messengers of Yammu”; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 273, “mensajero de ND”; DULAT, 546, “messengers of DN.” On the translation of ml᾿ak . šmm, see the previous note. 5 On the collation mlk . šmm of KTU3 1.13:25, 26, see pp. 38-40 above. 6 However, the contexts above are not the only Ugaritic literary passages with divine messengers; for examples, see the contexts listed under ῾nn and ġlmm. See also KTU3 1.2:I:42 [xxxxx] . ml᾿ak . bn . kptm . rgm . b῾lh . w . y [xxxxxx]. In the latter the term ml᾿ak refers to a single messenger and therefore is excluded here. See Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “A messenger”; Driver, CML1, 80, 81, “the (other) messenger”; Aistleitner, MKT, 50, “Der Bote [berichtet?] getreu ....”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 133, “un messager [porte] entre ses épaules le message de son maître”; Gordon, PLM, 72, “[ ] a messenger between the shoulders”; Gibson, CML2, 42, “A messenger . . . . . . . . . . [ ] //[ ] a messenger”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 173, “[herido] a (otro) mensajero en la espalda, // que las palabras de su señor [habían traído]”; de Moor, ARTU, 34, “How dare [you slay a messenger]? // [An en]voy of Judge

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “THE MESSENGERS OF YAMMU”

235

seems transparent from its semantic value, they appear to be among the lowest deities in divine rank, and their members would be difficult to individualize given that they act in pairs or in a group as mere functionaries. The suggestion of Handy7 that they are minor deities working on the construction of Ba῾lu’s temple has yet to be proven. This group of divine messengers appears in the Ugaritic Cycle of Ba῾al, exclusively in Tablet 2, where, in a passage that deals with the building of the Ba῾lu’s temple, Yammu sends divine envoys before the divine assembly. Therefore, contrary to the diplomatic protocol that requires divine messengers to prostrate themselves before other gods higher in rank when transmitting a verbal message,8 the ml᾿akm in this case (see the contexts 1-7 above) violate convention by not bowing down before the divine assembly after their long journey.9 Nevertheless, in the Ugaritic religious world messengers are minor deities – as illustrated in KTU3 1.3:III:5-14, tšr . l . dd . ᾿al᾿iyn (6) b῾l yd . pdry . bt ᾿ar (7) ᾿ahbt . ṭly . bt . rb . dd . ᾿arṣy (8) bt . y῾bdr km ġlmm (9) w . ῾rbn . l p῾n . ῾nt . hbr . [[w]] (10) w ql . tštḥwy . kbd . hyt (11) w . rgm . l btlt ῾nt (12) ṯny . l ymmt . l᾿imm (13) tḥm . ᾿al᾿iyn b῾l . hwt [[xx]] (14) ᾿aliy . qrdm “She sings of the love of Ba῾lu, the mighty one, The affection of Pidrayu, the one associated with light, // The fondness of Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers, // The love of ᾿Arṣayu, the one associated with (/ daughter of) y῾bdr. // Like two messengers/lads then enter, // At the feet of ῾Anatu bow down and fall, // prostrate yourselves, honor her, Naharu?// A messenger hol[ds] the staff of a free man, // [so would you slay] a messenger?”; Smith, UBC I, 264, 268; idem, UNP, 101, “The messenger(s?) ... he ... // ... the messengers ... // Between the shoulders ... his lord’s word (?) and ...”; Wyatt, RTU, 62, nn. 118-121, “The messenger clas[ps] a noble’s sceptre; // [ ]// the messenger between his shoulders (has) the word of his master // and [ ]”; contrast with Jirku, KME, 23, “die Boten an seine Schulter, das Wort seines Herrn.” Pardee, CS I, 247, n. 40 states, “Beginning with line 41, the text is progressively less well preserved. The goddesses’ reproof apparently continues for about two lines, perhaps dealing with the diplomatic inviolability of messengers.” Moreover, it is agreed that the term ml᾿akm in the epic text of Krt in KTU3 1.14:III:20, 33 and 1.14:VI:35 refers to two different messengers, or the messenger pair Gapanu waUgaru, and not to a group of messengers. See e.g. Ginsberg, ANET, 144, 145; idem (1946), 40; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 295, 296, 301; Greenstein, UNP, 16, 17, 23, 43, n. 27; Wyatt, RTU, 194, n. 88, 195, n. 94, 204, n. 129. In addition to the latter contexts, KTU3 1.62:5-6 reads (6) [ ]b qrb . ῾r (6) [ m]l᾿akm lh. KTU3, 91 collates the same damaged context offered by Virolleaud (1944-45), 21, 22, who connected ml᾿akm lh to “I K, 136-137 wššb ml᾿akm lh ‘et il renvoya (ou : et de renvoyer) les messagers vers lui.’” Due the very damaged state of the latter, it has been excluded from the present study. Compare Introduction pp. 36-40 under §3.4. 7 Handy (1990), 26; idem (1994), 149, 154, 163-164. 8 See the broad context of the studied terms ġlmm and ῾nn, see pp. 93, 234, n. 6, 251255, 259-266, 290, 299, 313, 320, 321. 9 Alomia (1987), 231-243, esp. 231-235; Smith (1984), 359; Handy (1994), 160ffs.; and the reference to Gruber, n. 10, pp. 261-262 below.

236

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

// And say to the maiden ῾Anatu, // ‘Tell the (divine) sister-in-law associated with the people(?) //The message of Ba῾lu the mighty one, // The word of the mightiest of the heroes.’”10 Thus, the divine messengers have no autonomy; Ba῾lu dictates every step of their mission.11 In KTU3 1.2:I:30-35 the messengers are depicted as fire, two fires, and their tongues like a sharpened sword,12 which demands an immediate response from the divine assembly. Scholars13 consider this image a parallel to that of Biblical messengers/angels and servants described as “a blazing fire / a fiery flame and clouds.” The most representative instance is Psalm 104:4, ‫ משרתיו אש להט‬// ‫“ עשה מלאכיו רוחות‬He makes the winds His messengers, // fiery flames His servants,”14 but also the Qumranic 10 See Smith (1984), 359; Handy (1990), 18-35, esp. 18-19, 24; idem (1994), 149, 151; idem (1996), 36. 11 The Ugaritic data imply messengers are sent in pairs. In addition to Gapanu wa-Ugaru, the messengers of Ba῾lu, the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu has her own messengers, Qdš w-᾿Amrr. See my commentary on the terms ġlmm and ῾nn. See also Ginsberg (1944), 25; Lipiński (1973), 36-37; Good (1978), 436-437; Handy (1994), 159ff. 12 The fiery image is attested in Ugaritic in the divine epithet of the god Yammu, tnn ᾿ištm lh “the dragon of the two flames,” which occurs once in the Ugaritic corpus and, following the epithets sequence, seems the correct reading (KTU2 1.3:III:40; however KTU3 1.3:III:40 reads tnn ᾿ištmdh; see also Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 200, 255ff. ᾿ištmd(?)h), a description more proper to divine monsters than to messengers, or perhaps meaning a servant and a messenger who carries strong words and a message full of authority. Compare Miller (1965), 256-261, esp. 257; Smith, UBC I, 306-307; Weinfeld (1983b), 132-136. The sea monster Leviathan similarly belches forth flames in Job 41:11-13. Monstrous creatures belching forth flames are also attested in Mesopotamian art. On this, see Keel (1978), 50-51, fig. 44-45 (citing Job 41:11). In the case of fig. 44, the flame appears to be double, whereas in fig. 45 it appears to be triple-pronged. See Smith, UBC I, 306, n. 158 and the bibliographic references; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 309-310, n. 5. Paralleling the epithet tnn ᾿ištm lh are two other epithets referring to minor demons deities associated with fire, bt ᾿il ḏbb “the daughter of ᾿Ilu, Ḏbb (Flame),” and klbt ᾿ilm ᾿išt “the bitch of ᾿Ilu, ᾿Išītu (Fire)” (KTU3 1.3:III:45-46). For a detailed discussion of these epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 118-119, n. 5, 199-200, n. 3. A divinized fire is well attested in Mesopotamian literature, but there is no explicit reference to divine messengers associated with fire. An indirect allusion to such perhaps appears in a description of Esarhaddon in battle, nablu muštaḫmiṭu Girra la āniḫu “(before him goes the Zu-bird) ... behind him the blazing flame / (Esarhaddon) burning flame, restless fire” (Borger, 97 r. 14; cf. Weinfeld [1983b], 130, n. 43, 132, n. 53a; CAD N/1, 26; Leicht [2011]). My opinion is that the comparison of the speech’s messenger to a sharpened sword refers strictly to the messenger’s words (contra Miller [1973], 31-32; Smith UBC I, 307), which is paralleled in other Semitic languages and beyond. In the New Testament, for example, Rev. 19:15 describes the head of the heavenly armies thus, “From his mouth issues a sharp sword.” See Smith UBC I, 307. 13 See Miller (1973), 31-32, and the excellent contribution of Weinfeld (1983b), 132-136 with the corresponding footnote for discussion and references; Strugnell (1960), 332; Cunchillos (1981), 30-32; Cho (2007), 191-193; Smith, UBC I, 306-307, and bibliographic references; and idem (2014a), 164; idem (2015), 484; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 512. 14 See also Exodus 3:2, 13:21-22, 14:19, 24, 33:9-10; compare Numbers 9:15ff., 11:25, 12:5; Isaiah 6:2; Psalms 97:2-3, 99:7, 105:39.

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “THE MESSENGERS OF YAMMU”

237

ml᾿ky ᾿š “fiery angels,” and in the New Testament Rev. 4:5, “And before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God.” For a similar image from Babylonian Jewish Aramaic incantation, see bowl 13, line 21, “Ten of their angels who came to the presence of Shamish, five mysteries from the demon house of Shamish, angels who came to the presence of Shamish, are clad with fire and covered with fire, and a flame of fire comes out of their mouths.”15 Qur᾿ānic Arabic uses a different term for angels of fire, ‫ الزبانية‬/ az-zabāniyatu, referring to ‫ ملائكة النار‬/ malā᾿ikatu n-nari “the guardians of Hell, angels of Hell” occurs once in the Q. 96:18.16 It is agreed that the Ugaritic noun ml᾿ak [mal᾿ak], “messenger (human and divine), ‘lit. the one who is sent,’” derives from the Ugaritic common verb l᾿k “to send.” It is related to Classical Arabic via metathesis ‫ ألك‬/ ᾿alaka, to Ancient South Arabian L᾿K;17 and even to the Ethiopic la᾿aka. Hebrew prefers ‫ שלח‬/ ŠLḤ, strictly meaning “to send.”18 However, the pattern maqtal of the construction mal᾿ak is attested in Hebrew ‫ מלאך‬and 15

Naveh and Shaked (1985), 202-203; Smith, UBC I, 307, n. 159. See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 394; but in tafsīr, aṭ-Ṭabarī (2001), vol. XV, 282-284 ‫ الزبانية‬/ az-zabāniyya designates al-malā᾿ika/angels with no distinction. Moreover, in the Hadith collection of Muslim, ‫ وخلق‬،‫ ”خلقت الملائكة من نور‬:(‫ قال رسول ﷲ )ص‬:‫عن عائشة قالت‬ ‫الجان من مارج من نار‬... / ῾an ῾Ā᾿išata qālat: qāla rasūlu llāhi, ṣalla llāhu ῾alayhi wa-sallama: “ḫuliqati al-malā᾿ikatu min nūrin, wa-ḫuliqa l-ǧānnu min māriǧin min nārin” “according to ῾Ā᾿išah, the Prophet said: the angels were created from light, but the jinn out of smokeless fire.” ῾Ā᾿išah refers to the Qur᾿ān 55:15. However, classical dictionaries derive both nār “fire” and nūr “light, light beam; brightness” from the same root. See e.g. Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XIV, 379-382; al-᾿Iṣfahāni (2009), 641-642. 17 See the excellent article by Arbach and Maraqten (2018), 251-256, and their discussion on the Qur᾿ānic malā᾿ikah as a borrowing from Ancient South Arabian. My opinion is that, despite the attestation of the root L᾿K in Ancient South Arabian, its meaning is restricted to the diplomatic “to send / messages, messengers,” whereas the theological background of this term in the Qur᾿ānic language and context proves its relation to the Old Testament background (see below). Many thanks to my colleague George Hatke for calling my attention to this article. In a written communication he adds, “I am not convinced by Arbach and Maraqten that the Qur᾿ānic malā᾿ika is derived from Ancient South Arabian. Words derived from the root l᾿k in Ancient South Arabian all have some connection with messages, messengers, or sending, whereas in the Qur᾿ān malā᾿ika has such a specialized religious connotation that I think it is a loanword from some other source, probably Gǝ῾ǝz.” 18 HALOT, 1511-1517 under ‫ שלח‬I and 585-586 under ‫ ;מלאך‬Boneschi (1945), 108; Greenstein (1979), 331, n. 22. Compare Cunchillos (1981), 32-39; idem (1982), 153-160, who concludes that the Ugaritic verb la᾿ika signifies not strictly “envoyer,” but “commissionner,” “charger d’une mission.” My opinion is that the basic meaning of the Ugaritic verb is certainly “to send,” and the semantic value established by Cunchillos would be a semantic development mostly required by the context. The Ugaritic verb l᾿k occurs in both the qal and piel stem, ᾿il᾿ak, tl᾿ik, tl᾿ikn, see e.g., KTU3 2.21:11 (il᾿ak); KTU3 2.26:4 (tl᾿ik); KTU3 2.30:20 (il᾿ak); 2.42:21 (il᾿ak) and 22 (l᾿ik); KTU3 2.72:10 (tl᾿ikn), etc. See Greenstein (1979), 331, n. 22; Pardee (1977), 5, on line 7; Fenton (1977), 75, n. 21, on the root l᾿k. In general, see Sivan, GUL, 291, and Tropper, UG, 953. 16

238

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

in other Semitic languages (Phoenician ml᾿k; Aramaic ‫ ;מלאכא‬Arb. ‫ ملك‬/ malak, plur. ‫ ملائكة‬/ malā᾿īkah; Ethiopic maleak), confirming the agency of the noun by which the action of the verb is accomplished thorough divine or human messenger.19 Indeed, in Northwest Semitic inscriptions ml᾿k means “divine and human messenger,” e.g., AMB 7:4, ml᾿kyh qdšyh “the holy divine messengers/angels,” and KAI 19:2, ml᾿k mlk῾štrt “the holy divine messengers/angels of Mlk῾štrt”; KAI 224:8, w᾿šlḥ ml᾿ky ᾿[l]wh “I (i.e., a king) send my envoy to him (i.e. another king).”20 Besides, the Akkadian uses the expression mār šipri to mean “messenger”; however, CAD includes mālaku meaning “messenger(?),” but in a secular context.21 In Mesopotamia single, pairs as well as groups of divine messengers are known.22 The Mesopotamian divine messengers do whatever their dispatchers order them to do, and as such they are mere communication vehicles between distant gods, sent normally by deities of high rank. They travel long distances to call a divine assembly or to announce a banquet; see e.g. kaššāptī . . . ša . . . ana 2 bēr ištappara mār šiprīša 19 Huehnergard, UVST, 82, 91; Meier (1988), 42-43, 120-124, 128; idem, DDD2, 45. The same pattern is attested in the feminine related term ml᾿kt “work.” Scholars agree on relating the latter to the root L᾿K “to send.” The same semantic development is attested in Akkadian šapāru “to send” and the noun šipru “work,” which is semantically equivalent to the Biblical Hebrew root ‫*לאך‬, “to send,” and the noun ‫מלאכה‬, “work.” It is clear that in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Biblical Hebrew there is an identical semantic development from a root meaning “to send” developing into a nominal form meaning “work.” However, as Cohen (1989), 17 states, “Here it must be stressed that a logical explanation for the semantic development is absolutely unnecessary and may even lead to drawing incorrect conclusions ... The rationale behind this semantic development is totally irrelevant to the fact that the precedent exists and could therefore theoretically occur in any Semitic language with respect to roots meaning ‘to send.’” See HALOT, 585-586; Cohen (1989), 17; cf. Greenstein (1979), 331, n. 22; contrast with Yamashita (1975), 57, and the bibliographic references there; Cunchillos (1981), 44-49; idem (1982), 158, n. 23, 160; following him, see DLU, 273; DULAT, 546-547. 20 DNWSI, 629. 21 PN mālaki aṭṭardakku šipātim mala tīšu . . . ṭurdam “I am sending you PN, my messenger(?), send me all the wool you have” (CT 29 21:19; AbB 2 152 [OB let.]); CAD M/1, 159 under mālaku B; Meier, DDD2, 46-47, suggests, “It is possible that the proper name of one Mesopotamian messenger deity (Malak, CT XXIV 33.24-31) preserves the West Semitic noun as a loan word in Akkadian.” 22 Among the group of seven divine messengers are, mār šipri ša Marduk anāku “I am the messenger of Marduk” (SAACT V 3:9, 56, 83, 149; 16:181; Geller [2007]); mār šipri ālik maḫri ša Ea anāku ša Marduk MAŠ.MAŠ Enki māri rēštî ša Ea mār šiprīšu anāk[u] “I am the messenger, who goes in front of Ea, I am the messenger of Marduk, conjurer of Enki, the first born son of Ea” (SAACT V 8:25-26); [anāku mār šipri] ša Marduk MAŠ.MAŠ šamê u erṣēti “I am the messenger of Marduk, conjurer of heaven and earth” (SAACT V 9: 24’); mār šipri (ša) Ea “I am the messenger of Ea” (SAACT V 9:57’; 15:130); mār šipri ša Anim “I am the messenger of Anim” (SAACT V 16:12, 35, 41).

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “THE MESSENGERS OF YAMMU”

239

“my sorceress who sent out her messenger at a distance of two double miles” (Maqlû VI 122); and ana aḫatīšunu DN išpur mār šipri “they sent a messenger to their sister Ereškigal” (CM 9:2).23 However, they are considered part of the divine sphere, e.g. mār šipri ša Marduk anāku “I am the messenger of Marduk” (SAACT V, 3:9, 56, 83, 149; 16:181’); mār šipri ālik maḫri ša Ea anāku “I am the messenger, the herald of Ea” (SAACT V, 8:25. Cf. SAACT V 9:24’, 57’; 15:130; 16:12, 35, 41).24 In Mesopotamia messengers can also be women; according to Meier,25 “the Akkadian mārat šipri is attested from the Old Babylonian period down to the Persian empire.” However, the Ugaritic corpus offers no hard evidence of women serving as messengers. Biblical Hebrew employs the term ‫ מלאך‬/ mal᾿ak “messenger” to refer to supernatural emissaries and God’s envoys who not only deliver their message from the divine to the human world, execute duties on behalf of the God of Israel, Yahweh, through the expression ‫ אלהים‬/ ‫“ מלאכי אלהים מלאך יהוה‬an angel of the LORD/Yahweh” (Genesis 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 21:17; 22:11; 28:12), but also protect human beings, Genesis 24:7, ‫ הוא ישלח מלאכו‬... ‫יהוה אלהי השמים‬ “The LORD, the God of heaven ... – He will send His angel before you”; Genesis 24:40, ‫“ ויאמר אלי יהוה אשר־התהלכתי לפניו ישלח מלאכו אתך‬He replied to me, ‘The LORD, whose ways I have followed will send His angel with you ... ”; Exodus 23:20, ‫ הנה אנכי שלח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך‬... “I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way ....” Angels also serve as God’s agents of punishment, e.g. Psalm 78:49, ‫משלחת‬ ‫“ מלאכי רעים‬a band of deadly messengers,” and 1 Chronicles 21:12 ‫ומלאך‬ ‫ יהוה משחית‬... “the angel of the LORD wreaking destruction ....”26 The few 23

Cf. Izre᾿el (1997). CAD M/I, 261, 265; CAD A/I, 173, 344; Tallqvist, AG, 124. Contrast Meier (1988), 120, 121, 122; idem, DDD2, 46, who incorrectly assumes a correspondence with the Akkadian malkatu (malikatu), a title of Ištar; see CAD M/I, 166, and the reference to the example. 25 Meier (1992b), 540-547, esp. 545ff. 26 In Genesis 19:13 the LORD orders angels to destroy the city of Lot’s daughter and son-in-law. See also 2 Samuel 24:16 on the punishment of Israel by the angel and the words of ‫יהוה‬/Yahweh to him; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Psalms 34:8; 35:5; 91:11; Exodus 3:2-4; 14:19; Judges 2:1; 2 Kings 6:33. See Johnson (1961), 4-5, 6, n. 1, 11, n. 2; de Moor (1980), 309; Handy (1990), 27, 35; idem (1994), 157-159, esp. 158 for discussion and references; idem (1996), 38-41; Burnett (2001), 88-89; Meier (1988), 123-124; idem, DDD2, 46-50; idem, DDD2, 53-59, on ‫“ מלאך יהוה‬an angel of Yahweh” and the bibliographic references there; van Henten, DDD2, 50-53, and the bibliographic references; Smith (2015), 474475, 476; Römer (2014), 98 on Hosea 12:5 and the theological dimension of insertion of the term ‫ מלאך‬and the vocalization of ‫ אל‬by the Massoretes, and 173-175 in general. For a comparison to Ugaritic epic characters see below. The Biblical God would communicate with humans mostly through prophets as messengers; see e.g. Genesis 16:7-12 (Abraham); Exodus 19:3-6 (Moses); 1 Samuel 3:11-14 (Samuel); 1 Kings 3:5 (Solomon); Isaiah 6 24

240

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

examples mentioned show that the Biblical Hebrew ‫מלאכים‬/‫ מלאך‬possess divine characteristics and roles attributed in the mythological era to deities or groups of deities. Note the emphasis on the authority and supremacy of the Biblical God over the angels sent by Him to represent Him on earth (e.g., Exodus 23:20, above, and Psalm 148:2). The simple reading of the Hebrew ‫ מלאך‬/ mal᾿ak as “angel” ignores the semantic and etymological Semitic background that means “a divinity who assists God and transmits His word/message.” The overlap between the characteristics of the latter minor deity or group of deities and the Biblical Hebrew ‫מלאכים‬/‫“ מלאך‬angel(s)” occurs in the later texts of the Old Testament and the later monotheistic scriptures in general (see also the Qur᾿ānic context below), where mal᾿ak “angel(s)” became a generic term for any of God’s supernatural assistants, whether they function as mere messengers or not.27 Classical and Qur᾿ānic Arabic used the term ‫ ملك‬/ malak, pl. ‫ ملائكة‬/ malā᾿ikah “messengers.” In fact, Pre-Islamic Arabic used the root ‫ لأك‬/ l᾿k and ‫ ألك‬/ ᾿alaka with the strict meaning of “to send” from which the noun ‫ ملك‬/ malak most probably derived, given that “the contact of a laryngeal (guttural) consonant with a sonorous (liquid) one producing a metathesis is an attested process of Arabic phonetics,” (plural malā᾿ika, proving the existence of the hamza in the original form).28 The shifted form has been indicated by Qur᾿ānic commentators and grammarians, but via ḥaḏf/elision of hamza in mal᾿ak < malak.29 Therefore, the term malak occurs in the Qur᾿ān with the meaning “a celestial messenger, sent by God; an angel” and still incorrectly classified in recent sources under the root mlk/ ‫ملك‬.30 Indeed, the two meanings “message” and “messenger” (Isaiah); Jeremiah 1 (Jeremiah); Ezekiel 1-3 (Ezekiel), see Greene (1989); Handy (1994), 161, n. 46. 27 See HALOT, 585-586; Meier (1992a), 277-291, esp. 277, on the Biblical messenger’s formula ‫ כה אמר‬... “As such, this formula was exploited by the prophets in order to authenticate their role as messengers relaying a message from God”; Meier, DDD2, 47. See the remark of Handy (1990), 27, n. 56, p. 34, regarding 2 Kings. 18:4; idem (1994), 152ff.. For a survey of “angels” in the three monotheistic religions, see Bamberger, EncJu1, vol. 2; 952-77, esp. 966-968, and Altmann, EncJu2, vol. 2, 155-161; also Fallon, NCathEnc, vol. I, 506-509 and Michl, NCathEnc, vol. I, 509-514; and Murata (1987), 324-44. For a comparison of the role and character of the divine Ugaritic messengers with the Biblical messengers, see Handy (1994), 149-167. For the Qumran context, see Newsom (1985), 25, 226, 229, 235, 306; Sommer (2009), 42, 43, 54,166. 28 See Boneschi (1945), 109, n. 22 based on Brockelmann. 29 See the next note. 30 See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 893, 895. Classical lexicographical studies on the term differ regarding its derivation. According to one theory, malak is derived from l-᾿alukah, meaning r-risālah “a message,” because it tu᾿laku “chews” in the mouth. The latter form derives from ma᾿lūk; then a metathesis of the lām and hamza occurs, giving mal᾿ak.

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “THE MESSENGERS OF YAMMU”

241

of the word ma᾿lak > mal᾿ak > malak are related to the root ‫ ألك‬/ ᾿alaka “to send,” e.g., ‫ َأ ِل ْك ِني إِ َل ْي َها ِب ِر َسا َلة يكون معناه َأ ْر ِس ْل ِني إليها بهذه الرسالة‬/ ᾿aliknī ᾿ilayha bi-risālatin: yakūnu ma῾nāhu ᾿arsilnī ᾿ilayha bi-hāḏihi r-risālah “put me in touch with her through this letter [×2].” Check also the following semantic definition: ‫ جمع َملأكة ثم ترك الهمز فقيل َم َلك في‬: ‫والملائكة‬ َ ‫اس َت ْألك َم ْأ ُل َكته أي حمل رسالته‬ ْ ‫ جاء فلان قد‬: ‫ ويقال‬.‫ وأصله َملأَك كما ترى‬،‫ الوحدان‬/ wa-l-malā᾿ikatu  : ǧam῾u mal᾿akatun ṯumma turika l-hamzu faqīla malakun fī l-waḥdān, wa-᾿aṣluhu mal᾿aka kamā tarā. wa-yuqāl  : ǧā᾿a fulānun qadi sta᾿laka ma᾿lukatahu ᾿ay ḥamala risālatahu “wa l-malā᾿ikatu [means] angels/messengers: plural of mal᾿akatun messenger/angel then the hamza dropped and it was said malakun angel/messenger in singular, its origin [is] mal᾿aka as you see. In addition, it was said: so-and-so came and asked you for a ma᾿lukatah / his message meaning he brings you his message/letter.”31 From this it is obvious that malak is the synonym of rasūl “message,” while the use of the word rasūl “messenger” would be an ellipsis for ḏū rasūlin ᾿ay ḏū risālatin: “ḏū rasūlin [means] the one who brings/carries a message, in other words, the one (in charge) of the message.”32 In Arabic the term malak occurs in the Qur᾿ān ten times and the plural ‫ ملائكة‬/ malā᾿ikah eighty-one times and means “a celestial messenger, sent by God; an angel,” while rasūl means “a human messenَ ‫ُق ْل ل َّْو َك‬ ger sent by God to a people; a prophet.”33 See e.g. Q. 17:95, ‫ان‬ Consequently, the ellision of the hamza happens because of the frequent use of the term, giving malak, but in the plural form the hamza appears again in ‫ ملائكة‬/ malā᾿ikah “angels,” as is ِ ‫ت ِلإن ِْس ِيِّ َو‬ attested in the pre-Islamic poetic verse, ‫وب‬ َ ‫ َف َل ْس‬/ ُ ‫ َت َنز ََّل ِم ْن َجوِّ الس ََّما ِء َي ُص‬// ‫لك ْن ِل َمْلأ َ ِك‬ fa-lasta li-᾿insiyyin wa-lākin li-mal᾿akin // tanazzala min ǧawwi s-samā᾿i yaṣūbu “you are not a human but an angel // that falls and glances from Heaven.” See Tahḏīb al-luġah, vol. X, 370; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 135-136; al-῾Ubayd as-Salmi (1990), 14, n. 1 and n. 2. Another opinion states that malak derives from ‫ لأك‬/ l᾿ak, and ‫ الملائكة‬/ l-malā᾿ikah  : ‫ الرسالة‬/ r-risāla “the message”; then the hamza drops and its vowel goes to the preceding letter – thus ‫ الملائكة‬/ l-malā᾿ikah, because they transmit the message of God. See Tāǧ al῾arūs, vol. XIII, 233-234 under ‫ لأك‬/ l᾿k; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XIII, 152; al-῾Ubayd as-Salmi (1990), 14, n. 3. The third ُ ‫الم ْل‬ ِ / l-milku and l-mulku, which means “strength,” opinion derives ‫ ملك‬/ malak from ‫والم ْلك‬ ُ ‫ك‬ with the mim the first radical, and the plural ‫ ملائكة‬an irregular form. See Tāǧ al-῾arūs, vol. XIII, 650ff. and the lexicographical discussion there; and al-῾Ubayd as-Salmi (1990), 14, n. 4, for discussion and bibliographic references. The fourth opinion is that ‫ ملك‬/ malak has no derivative forms and relates it to the Hebrew, given that in Hebrew (‫ سمت الملك َملاَكا)ه‬/summat l-malaku malākā(h) “malak was called malākāh.” See al-Qurṭubī, Tafsīr, electronic source; at-Taḥrīr wa-t-Tanwīr, vol. I, 398; and al-῾Ubayd as-Salmi (1990), 14, n. 5. In comparison to Ugaritic, the option that malak is a noun derived from l᾿k seems correct. 31 See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 135-136. 32 See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VI, 153. See also p. 289, n. 9 on KAI 202 A:12. 33 For a detailed study of malak in Arabic, see the classic article of Boneschi (1945), 107-111, who concludes, “... from the morphological point of view, the noun ma᾿lak > mal᾿ak > malak is a native Arabic word,” a view that has to be reconsidered in light of the

242

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

َ ً ‫ِّين َل َنزَّ ْل َنا َع َل ْيهِ م ِم َن الس ََّما ِء َم َل ًَكا ر َُّس‬ َ ‫ض َم َلا ِئ َك ٌة َي ْم ُش‬ ‫ولا‬ ِ ‫ ِفي اْلأ ْر‬/ qul law َ ‫ون ُم ْط َم ِئن‬ kāna fī l-᾿arḍi malā᾿ikatun yamšūna muṭma᾿innīna lanazzalnā ῾alayhim mina s-samā᾿i malakan r-rasūlan “Say, ‘if there were angels walking about on earth contentedly, We would have sent them an angel from Heaven َ َ as a messenger’”; and Q. 11:31, ‫ب‬ َ ‫قو ُل َل ُك ْم ِع ْن ِدي َخ َزا ِئ ُن اللَّ ِه َو َلا أ ْع َل ُم ا ْلغَ ْي‬ ُ ‫َو َلا أ‬ ُ ‫ َو َلا َأ ُق‬/ wa-lā ᾿aqūlu lakum ῾indī ḫazā᾿inu llāhi wa-lā ᾿a῾lamu l-ġayba ٌ ‫ول إِنِّي َم َل‬ ‫ك‬ wa-lā ᾿aqūlu ᾿inni malakun “I am not telling you that I hold God’s treasures, or have any knowledge of what is hidden, or that I am an angel”; َ َ َ ‫اس َت ْك َب َر َو َك‬ Q. 2:34, ‫ان ِم َن‬ ْ ‫يس أ َبى َو‬ ْ ‫َوإِ ْذ ُق ْل َنا ِل ْل َم َلا ِئ َك ِة‬ َ ‫اس ُج ُدوا ِلأ َد َم َف َس َجدُ وا إِلاَّ إِ ْب ِل‬ ‫ين‬ َ ‫ ا ْل َكا ِف ِر‬/ wa-᾿iḏ qulnā li-lmalā᾿ikati sǧudū li-᾿ādama fa-saǧadū ᾿illā ᾿iblīsa ᾿abā wa-stakbara wa-kāna mina l-kāfirīna “When We told the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they all bowed. But not ᾿Iblīs,34 who refused and was arrogant, he was disobedient.” The distinction between the human and divine spheres is absent from the Ugaritic data as well as from the early books of the Old Testament, where there is no distinction between the minor deities who carry the function of messengers strictly in the sacred sphere and those who do so in the human domain. In Ugaritic epic, the divine message would sometimes be carried by no less than Ba῾lu himself, who was intermediary between the head of the pantheon ᾿Ilu and the epic heroes Dan᾿il and Kirta (see KTU3 1.15:II:12-16; 1.17:I:16-23). In the Old Testament the divine messengers are usually depicted as exalted humans (see e.g. Judges 13:3-23, esp. 6, ‫איש האלהים בא אלי ומראהו כמראה‬ ‫“ מלאך האלהים נורא מאד‬A man of God came to me; he looked like an angel of God, very frightening,” see also Genesis 19:1-22, 32:25-31; Daniel 8:15). In the book of Daniel the angel is depicted in overwhelmingly supernatural terms: Daniel 10:6, ‫וגויתו כתרשיש ופניו כמראה ברק ועיניו‬ ‫“ כלפידי אש וזרעתיו ומרגלתיו כעין נחשת קלל וקול דבריו כקול המון‬His body was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and legs had the color of burnished bronze, and the sound of his speech was like the noise of a multitude.”35 The belief in Ugaritic data presented here. Comparable examples include Old Babylonian instances where a prophet communicates or writes to the king with the divine message; see PongratzLeisten (2003), 155-159; and for the Biblical background see Greene (1989), 139-179, 231258. 34 From the context ‫ إبليس‬/ ᾿iblīs is an angel, but a “fallen” angel. Here a comparison with the fallen angels of the Old Testament would be proper. On the latter characters in general, see Morgenstern (1939), 75-120; Bamberger, EncJu, vol. 2: 952-77, 966-968; Wackham (1974), 136-140; and for recent version see Altmann, EncJu2, vol. 2, 155-161; Handy (1994), 166-167, n. 65 for discussion and bibliographic references; idem (1996), 40-41. 35 See Greene (1989), 77-135, chapter 3. For more Biblical passages and discussion, see Greene, ibid., 86; and the references to Meier and Handy above; Cho (2007), 133ff. on

ML᾿AKM / ML᾿AK YM “THE MESSENGERS OF YAMMU”

243

minor gods called ml᾿ak, “messenger(s), > angel(s),” was present in SyroMesopotamian sources from the earliest times and persisted in the Old Testament and later in monotheistic religions. These groups of divine characters are designated by semantic equivalents of the root l᾿k and their derivatives in at least five Semitic languages, in all instances meaning “messenger(s).” This latter proves that the belief in “angels,” at least in the early Biblical context, is a continuation of the early Syro-Mesopotamian mythological background, and challenges the theory that the angels were a late addition to the Judean religion to fill the vacuum of the polytheistic religions and to assure the uniqueness of the Deity.36

Judges 13:6. Römer (2014), 136, states, “On pourrait même imaginer que les deux messagers et la divinité dans le récit de la Genèse, au chapitre 19, représentent le dieu solaire et ses deux acolytes.” 36 Smith (1972), 445-446; Wackham (1974); Cunchillos (1976a), 157-159; Mays (1985), 60-64; Greene (1989); Weippert (1991), 169-170; Handy (1994), 152-154, and the corresponding footnotes with bibliographic references; idem (1996), 37-38. See the thorough article on Biblical monotheism, Sommer (2016), 239-270.

XXIX

NGRT ᾿ILHT “THE HERALD-GODDESSES” (1.16) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.16:IV:8 (= KTU3 1.16:IV:4 [emended text]1) yṣḥ . ngr ᾿il . ᾿ilš ᾿ilš . ngr . bt . b῾l 8 w ᾿aṯth . ngrt . ᾿ilht 6 7

He called the divine herald, ᾿Ilš, ᾿Ilš, the herald of the house of Ba῾lu, And his wives, the herald-goddesses.

2. KTU3 1.16:IV:12 šm῾ . l ngr . ᾿il ᾿il[š] ᾿ilš . ngr . bt . b῾l 12 w ᾿aṯtk . ngrt . ᾿ilht 10 11

Listen, O divine herald, ᾿Ilš, ᾿Ilš, the herald of the house of Ba῾lu, And your wives, the herald-goddesses.

In earlier studies, ngrt was usually translated “carpenter-goddess(es),” or the like,2 though in more recent studies it has been rendered as “the herald-goddess(es),” or something similar.3 PARALLELS Contexts 1, 2: ngr ᾿il ᾿ilš // ᾿ilš ngr bt b῾l // ᾿aṯth/k ngrt ᾿ilht 1 Most scholars have emended ṣḥ . ngr ᾿il . ᾿ilš ᾿il[š] following the parallel in KTU3 1.16:IV:6-8. See KTU3, 46, n. 12; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 563, n. u; Greenstein, UNP, 36, 47, n. 148; Pardee, CS I, 341, n. 88; Wyatt, RTU, 233, n. 260; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 64, n. 1. 2 Ginsberg, ANET, 148, “his/thy wives the carpenter-goddesses”; Driver, CML1, 42, 43, “his wife the carpentress of the goddesses/Or perhaps ‘the herald of the gods’ and ‘the woman herald of the goddesses’”; Gibson, CML2, 99, “his/your wife the stewardess of the goddesses”; MKT, 102, “seine Frau, die Zimmermeisterin der Göttinnen”; KME, 109, “deine/seine Frauen, die Handwerker-Göttinnen”; PLM, 55, “his/ thy wife, the carpenter of goddesses.” 3 Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 563, “sa/ta femme, celle qui convoque les déesses,” but explained in footnote v. “ngrt ᾿ilht: litt. ‘la femme-héraut des déesses’”; de Moor, ARTU, 218, “his/your wife, the heraldess of the goddesses”; Greenstein, UNP, 36, 37, “his/your wives, herald-goddesses”; Pardee, CS I, 341, “his/your wife, the herald of the goddesses”; Wyatt, RTU, 233, “his wife, the herald of the [go]ddesses.” However, del Olmo Lete, MLC, 316, “su(s/tus) mujer(es) la(s) diosa(s) heraldo(s).”

NGRT ᾿ILHT “THE HERALD-GODDESSES”

245

DISCUSSION The epithet ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses” occurs three times in the Ugaritic corpus and refers most probably to a group of minor anonymous goddesses. It occurs in parallel with other two other epithets of the god ᾿Ilš,᾿ilš ngr bt b῾l “᾿Ilš, the herald of the house of Ba῾lu,” and ngr ᾿il ᾿ilš “the divine herald, ᾿Ilš.”4 The component ᾿ilht refers to a group of female deities,5 the Ugaritic ᾿ilht being always used in plural, for example with reference to the Kôṯarātu,᾿ilh[t] kṯr[t] “the Kôṯarātu goddesses” (KTU3 1.24:11, 40). The term ᾿ilht appears consistently in parallelism with the plural masculine divine name ᾿ilm “gods/ deities” (KTU3 1.4:VI:47-54),6 as in KTU3 1.25:2 where ᾿ilht is used with ᾿ilm, e.g., ᾿ilm w ᾿ilht “the gods and the goddesses.”7 The translation of ngr/t as “carpenter,”8 based mainly on the etymological correspondence of Hebrew ‫“ נגר‬carpenter” and its Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic, cognates is incorrect because there is no precedent in any of these languages for a divine epithet containing such a component. The translation “herald,” however, is supported by the many Akkadian divine female epithets that contain the component nāgirtu “herald,” such as d GÚ.AN.NA sassukkat ilī nāgirat dAnim “dGÚ.AN.NA, the registrar of the gods, the (female) herald of Anu” (YOS 11, 23:14).9 No attempt to identify the divine group ngrt ᾿ilht has been made, with the exception of de Moor,10 who explains that “These so-called ‘heralds’ took the shape of ravens,” which suggests their function as messengers. There are several female deities in service of the counterparts of ᾿Ilu, the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu and the god Yariḫu. The epithets ᾿amt yrḫ “maidservant of ᾿Aṯiratu” and ᾿amt yrḫ “maidservant of Yariḫu,” refer to the minor female divinity, Dmgy/Tlš.11 By analogy with the latter female epithets, 4

For a detailed study of the epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 64-66, 236-237. However, The translations above indicate that scholars are divided on whether ᾿ilht is a singular, dual or plural, see n. 2, n. 3, p. 244 above. 6 See p. 104, n. 5. 7 See pp. 103-105. 8 See n. 2, p. 244 above. 9 See CAD N/1, 115 under lex. section, 117 meaning 1c; van Dijk, Hussey and Götze (1985); and AG, 135; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 65, n. 4. In further support of this interpretation, note Gə᾿əz nagara “to say, to tell, to speak”; and mangər “herald, crier.” 10 De Moor, ARTU, 218, n. 96, which refers to p. 19, n. 100, p. 31, n. 133. 11 For a detailed study of the two epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 78-83. In Akkadian there is mention of groups of minor gods in the service of a more important deity: e.g., 3 muḫaldim-gal An-na-ke4 “(Ninda.u6.di.du10, etc.) the 3 great bakers of Anu” (An = dA-nuum, I:85-88 [Litke (1998), 30]); 7 atê [ša] dEreškigal “the 7 doorkeepers [of] Ereškigal” (AFO 19, 117:24). See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 65, n. 5. 5

246

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

and from the parallel epithets composed of the singular ngr mentioned above, the epithet ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald goddesses” must refer to minor female deities, perhaps servants or attendants of a major god – in this instance, as shown by the semantically parallel epithet, Ba῾lu. The present epithet can be compared to the Mesopotamian dbēlet ṣēri “scribe of the queen’s household” (e.g., Gilgameš VII 204), which refers to a female scribe goddess, household of Ereškigal. In this case, the female divinity appears as a “scribe of the queen’s household.”12 This suggests an organized household or other institution of female deities depending on their functions (servants, attendants, heralds, scribes, and others).13 However, the exact functions and identities of these female deities are uncertain due to the damaged state of the passage in which they are mentioned.

12

See George (2003), 483, n. 129, 644, 645; CAD B, 189, 1. 4’. For a lamentation to the goddess dGú.an.na = Ningeštin known as dbēlet ṣēri, see Cohen (1989), 79-85; AG, 404, under Nin-geštin-na “Herrin der Weinrebe.” 13

XXX

῾DT ᾿ILM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS” (1.15) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.15:II:7 5 6 7

[xxx . k]ṯr . w ḫss  [xxx]yn . rḥmy . ršp zbl [w]῾dt . ᾿ilm . ṯlṯh

[... Kô]ṯāru wa-Ḫasīsu [...] Raḥmayu, Rašpu the Prince, [And] the assembly of the gods, a third of it.

2. KTU3 1.15:II:11. [᾿aḫ]r. mġy . ῾dt . ᾿ilm [w] y῾n . ᾿al᾿iy[n .] b῾l  11

[After]wards the assembly of the gods did arrive, [And] Ba῾lu the mighty one responded.

There is a consensus that ῾dt ᾿ilm should be translated as “the assembly/ company of the gods,” or the like.1

1 For the first context, see Ginsberg (1946) 22, “[the com]panies of gods, threefold”; but later Ginsberg, ANET, 145, 146, refrains from giving a precise translation. Gordon, UL, 74; idem, PLM, 47, “The assembly of the gods threefold”; Gray (1964), 18, “The Assembly of the gods, the three categories thereof”; Driver, CML1, 36, and Gibson, CML2, 91, “the company of the gods, the third thereof”; Aistleitner, MKT, 96, “Die Versammlung der Götter erhob ihn zum Rang eines ṯlṯ (?)”; Jirku, KME, 96, “[die] Versammlung der Götter in ihrer Dreizahl ”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 537, n. f, “l’assemblée des dieux, ses triades”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 303, instead translates “a la asamblea de los dioses el triple de su (peso) (?)”; de Moor and Spronk (1982), 174; de Moor, ARTU, 205, “the Assembly of the gods in its triplicity”; Margalit (1995), 241, “the assembly of (younger) gods (arrives) in threes”; Greenstein, UNP, 24, “A / the party of gods, a third (?)”; Pardee, CS I, 337, left the context untranslated due to the badly damaged section, but recognized that the assembly of gods was gathered for a banquet; Wyatt, RTU, 206, “the assembly of the gods in threes.” Regarding the second context, scholars translate “[The]n came / arrived the companies of the gods”: or the like, see Ginsberg (1946) 22; idem, ANET, 145, 146; Gordon, UL, 74; idem, PLM, 47; Gray (1964), 18, “The Assembly of the gods came”; Herrmann (1982), 100, “... der ‘Versammlung’ oder ‘Schar der Götter’ spricht”; Gibson, CML2, 91; Aistleitner, MKT, 96; Jirku, KME, 96, n. 96; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 536-537; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 303; de Moor, ARTU, 205; Greenstein, UNP, 24. Driver, CML1, 36, however, translates, “Afterwards the victor Baal did come to the company of the gods.” Wyatt, RTU, 207, who erroneously regards ᾿ilm as the subject of the sentence and not part of the expression ῾dt, and thus translates: “[After]wards there came the gods to the assembly.”

248

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

PARALLELS Given the very damaged state of the passage where ῾dt ᾿ilm appears, it is difficult to determine if it occurs in a parallelism. DISCUSSION ῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” appears with certainty just twice in the legend of Kirta.2 Despite its infrequency, the combination of ῾dt with the divine appellation ᾿ilm makes it certain that the former refers to a divine assembly. This is confirmed by the mention of divine names which precede the phrase (see the first context above). Moreover, etymologically and semantically, ῾dt is related to the Ugaritic m῾d,3 which occurs in combination with pḫr, the term par excellence for “assembly.” Thus, the expression pḫr m῾d means “the great assembly.”4 Furthermore, the only attestation of both m῾d and ῾dt is in the context of divine assembly. Etymological and semantic parallels of the expression ῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” are found in Biblical Hebrew ‫עדת אל‬, see e.g., Psalm 82:1, ‫ בקרב אלהים ישפט‬/ ‫“ אלהים נצב בעדת־אל‬God stands in the divine assembly; // among the divine beings He pronounces judgment.”5 Moreover, in Northwest Semitic inscriptions the term ῾dh1 with the semantic value of “community, assembly” is widely attested.6 Finally, in the Deir ῾Allā fragments the term mw῾d also refers to the divine assembly, wnṣbw šdyn mw῾d “the Sh. gods came together in an assembly” (DA i 8).7 2 KTU3 1.16:V:5 reads b ῾dt [ xxxxxxx]: scholars are loath to translate it because so little is preserved. See e.g., Gordon, UL, 76; idem, PLM, 49; Ginsberg, ANET, 148; Driver, CML1, 36; Gibson, CML2, 99; Aistleitner, MKT, 98. Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 564, offered a translation but did not read ῾dt ᾿ilm. Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 317 reads b῾d-[ ], but leaves lines 1 to 9 untranslated. See also Greenstein, UNP, 37; Pardee, CS I, 341, n. 89; Wyatt, RTU, 234. 3 MacDonald (1979), 523. 4 For a detailed discussion on pḫr m῾d, see my commentary on pp. 272-275, 300-302, 321. 5 This is the Biblical term paralleling the use of the Ugaritic ῾dt, which might be considered its source. However, the broader Biblical context shows the changes Israelite beliefs had undergone. See Morgenstern (1939) for a detailed study on the mythological background of Psalm 82 in general; Kraus (1966b), 650-651; Driver, CML1, 36, n. 5; Herrmann (1982), 100, n. 58; Handy (1994), 117-118, n. 118; Niehr (1996), 62-63, for more examples and discussion; Smith (2001), 48, 156, 223, n. 61 and 62, for discussion and references. Avishur (2007), 44, n. 12, n. 13, based on the Ugaritic, accepts the correction of ‫ועדת לאמים תסובבך‬ (Psalm 7:8) to ‫ ;ועדת אלהים‬see Römer (2014), 169. By analogy with Psalm 89:6-9 and the Biblical context above, the latter correction seems proper. 6 DNWSI, 828. 7 Sasson AUSS xxiv 152f., see DNWSI, 604, 750 under mw῾d. See Hoftijzer and van der Kooij (1976), 173, 179, I:8, wnṣbw.šdyn.mw῾d.w᾿mrw.lš(gr. .... ) “The Shadday gods gathered

῾ DT ᾿ ILM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS”

249

Thus, despite its rarity in Ugaritic the semantic value of ῾dt seems well established. However, its interpretation when followed by ṯlṯh is controversial. Ginsberg8 was the first to analyze the -h suffix of ṯlṯ-h as an adverbial ending and thus translated “threefold.” Most scholars9 have since interpreted ṯlṯh to refer to ranks or divisions within the pantheon. De Moor and Spronk10 suggest ᾿ilm ṯlṯh, which they translate “the gods in its triplicity,” referring to three sets of deities: “1) the older gods like Ilu and Athiratu, 2) their offspring the dr ᾿il ‘Race of Ilu’ (among them gods like Môtu and Yammu), and finally 3) the newcomers around Ba῾lu, the pḫr b῾l ‘Congregation of Ba῾lu.’” Other scholars11 read ṯlṯh as “a third of the company/congregation of the gods.” Margalit12 interprets ṯlṯh to mean that, “the assembly of the ‘sons of El,’ representing the anonymous ‘younger generation,’ escort each other in triads.” According to Margalit, then, the triads of the gods are sections of the divine guests at Kirta’s wedding reception. The contexts of the two instances in which ῾dt ᾿ilm appears describe Kirta’s preparation for a banquet in his house before the arrival of the in an assembly and spoke to Sh(gr? ...)”; compare Hackett (1984), p. 25, col. I. line 6 and p. 25, 27, 29, wnṣbw.šdyn.mw῾d.w᾿mrw.lš[ .] wa-niṣṣabû šddayyīn maw῾id wa-᾿amarû la-Š[ .] “the Šaddayyin took their places as the assembly. And they said to Š [ ] ... ”; Handy (1994), 117-118, n. 118. On Bala‛am and Deir ‛Alla, see Puech (2008), 25-47; DNWSI, 828ff. under ῾dh1. 8 Ginsberg (1946), 22, 40, under Krt B, Line 7. 9 Evans (1958), 114 already commented about three divisions of the assembly of the “great” at Kaneš. See Gordon, UL, 74; idem, PLM, 47; Gibson, CML2, 91, n. 2; Wyatt, RTU, 206. Contrast Gaster (1946-1947), 287-288, who interprets ῾dt ᾿ilm ṯlṯh to refer to three pairs of gods, “yea, the company of the gods (cf. Ps. 82.1) in its tripartite division” (Ba῾al and Yariḫu/῾Anatu, and Rašpu and Kôṯaru wa-Ḫasisu). Gray (1964), 18, 58, regarding ῾dt ᾿ilm ṯlṯh writes, “We suggest that here we have the consciousness of three different strata of religion and mythology, possibly corresponding to three different stages of settlement and cultural development at Ugarit. There are ᾿Ilu and his family, the astral deities, represented by yrḫ, the moon, and kṯr w ḫss.” Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 536-537, n. f suggest, “il s’agirait du tiers du poids de Ḥurray et Keret s’acquitterait ici de son voeu.” On the other hand, following Skinner (1969), 303, the Ugaritic ῾dt ᾿ilm ṯlṯ could be related to Genesis 18-19, about which he commented, “It is most natural to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the rank of Yahwe’s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive Hebraïzing of the conception, but never consistently carried through.” See Smith (2015), 477-478. Cf. van den Branden (1981), 57-58 “... comme formant une unité dans la multiplicité, ... .” 10 De Moor and Spronk (1982), 174; and de Moor, ARTU, 205, n. 47, who adds group 2) “their offspring, ‘the family of Ilu’ / ‘sons of Athiratu.’” Korpel (1990), 270, n. 368 adds that de Moor’s “... this description does not cover the entire pantheon, for it excludes at least the assembly of Ditanu, and those of the demons and the stars.” 11 MacDonald (1979), 523, n. 45; cf. Driver, CML1, 36, n. 5. 12 Margalit (1995), 242; following him, see Wyatt, RTU, 206-207, n. 136.

250

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

assembly of the gods. As Pardee13 comments, “... the assumption of a type of banquet or feast is based on the fact that in the following section drinking vessels are mentioned.” On the other hand, MacDonald14 believes the passage here deals with Kirta’s blessing, and sees that “The purpose of this small ‘assembly’ is the bestowal of blessing on Kirta. It is El who is asked by Baal to bestow blessing on Krt (lines 14-15), which he did (19).” The latter interpretation seems acceptable, since the term brk of lines 1415 and 19 does indeed mean “to bless.” Whatever the case, it is clear that a group of Ugaritic gods is convened here. Despite the badly damaged passage, several divine names have been preserved here, line 2 has ṯr “the bull,” which refers to ᾿Ilu; line 3 contains the reconstructed epithet ᾿al᾿iyn b῾l “Ba῾lu the mighty one”;15 line 4 has the god yrḫ with his epithet zbl;16 in line 5 are the gods kṯr . w ḫss; and line 6 mentions the goddess rḥmy and the god ršp with his epithet zbl.17 Line 6 also mentions the ῾dt ᾿ilm ṯlṯh, though with no information about their identity. The gods mentioned in these five lines (᾿il, b῾l, yrḫ, kṯr wḫss, rḥmy, ršp) preceding the ῾dt ᾿ilm are part (presumably a third) of the divine company present in the assembly.

13 14 15 16 17

Pardee, CS I, 337, n. 45. MacDonald (1979), 523-524. See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 53-63. This is the only context in which this epithet appears, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 198. This is the only context in which this epithet appears, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 297.

XXXI

῾NN ᾿ILM “ATTENDANTS OF ᾿ILU” (1.1; 1.3; 1.4) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.3:IV:32 (= KTU3 1.1:III:17 [totally reconstructed]). lk . lk . ῾nn . ᾿ilm 33 ᾿atm . bštm . w ᾿an . šnt

Go, go attendants of ᾿Ilu, You, you delay, but I, I depart.

2. KTU3 1.4:VIII:15 w nġr 15῾nn . ᾿ilm . ᾿al 16 tqrb . l bn . ᾿ilm 17 mt

And beware, O attendants of ᾿Ilu, Do not approach the son of ᾿Ilu, Môtu.

The epithet ῾nn ᾿ilm is usually translated “attendants,” or something similar.1 Mann, however, renders ῾nn ᾿ilm “clouds or cloud-messengers.”2 PARALLELS Context 1: No parallelism is provided. Context 2: The alternation of the phonemes /m/, /n/, and /l/ with the epithet of the god Môtu and the designation of the group of divine messengers ῾nn creates a kind of aural parallelism. However, the designation ῾nn ᾿ilm itself, given that both divine designations occur in different semantic verses and relate to different deities, appears without parallelism.

1 Ginsberg, ANET, 135, 137, “divine messengers / attendants divine”; Driver, CML1; 88, 89, 102, 103, n. 5, “lackeys of El or the gods”; Gibson, CML2; 51, 66, “lackeys of the gods”; Gordon, UL, 21, “O retainers of the gods”; idem, PLM, 101, “Liegemen of the gods”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 171, 220, “valets divins”; Cross (1973), 165-166, n. 86, “divine messengers boys”; del Olmo Lete, CML, 161, 187, 211, “heraldos divinos”; Meier (1988), 42, n. 79, 124ff., “divine messengers”; Smith, UNP, 91, 114, 139; and idem, UBC I, 160, 292-293; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 279, 703, “Divine Servants”; Wyatt, RTU, 45, 82, 113, “attendants of the god(s)!” Pardee, CS I, 245, 253, “attendants of the gods / couriers of the gods”; Tropper, UG, 273, 721, 896, “Gehilfe / Diener der Götter.” 2 See Mann (1971), 22, n. 38; idem (1977), 96 and discussion below.

252

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

DISCUSSION The epithet ῾nn ᾿ilm appears three times3 in the Cycle of Ba῾al, in the mythological passages regarding Ugaritic divine messengers at Ugarit. The plural participle bštm and the personal pronoun ᾿atm indicate that ῾nn ᾿ilm might refer to a specific pair of divine messengers (Gapanu wa-Ugaru) or a group of divine messengers (see below).4 3 The term ῾nn has been widely considered to be a component epithet in KTU3 1.4:IV:5962, (59) p῾bd . ᾿an . ῾nn . ᾿aṯrt (60) p ῾bd . ᾿ank . ᾿aḫd . ᾿ulṯ (61) hm . ᾿amt . ᾿aṯrt . tlbn (62) lbnt “Am I a slave that I should attend ᾿Aṯiratu // a handmaid that should handle tools // or is ᾿Aṯiratu a handmaid that should make bricks?” With the exceptions of Albright (1968), 107, n. 30, who related ῾nn ᾿aṯrt “to the Canaanite word ῾anni or ῾anini of reciting (i.e., ḏd) to music (῾nn) and Hebrew ῾ônēn ‘to recite charms,’” and Renfroe, AULS, 22, n. 33, who erroneously interprets ῾nn ᾿aṯrt as “Is Athirat a lackey?” most scholars consider ῾nn to be the first component epithet in ῾nn ᾿aṯrt, and have translated “an attendant / lackey / servant of ᾿Aṯiratu / un valet d’Athirat / un criado de Aṯiratu.” See Driver, CML1, 97; Gibson, CML2, 60; Gordon, UL, 32; contrast with Andersen (1966), 112; Ginsberg, ANET, 133; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 206; Good (1978), 437; del Olmo Lete, CML, 201; Wyatt, RTU, 101; Pardee, CS I, 259. However, Smith, UNP, 129, translates “Athirat a slavegirl,” while Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 495, 501, 524, read “Athirat’s slave.” My opinion is that the term ῾nn corresponds to the verb ᾿aḫd and should be interpreted as a verbal form. The reading of ῾nn here as a verb is assured by the syntax, morphology, and balance and therefore cannot be an epithet. Held (1969), 71-72; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 501, 523-225. Similarly, the verb ῾nn-h (KTU3 1.2:I:35; KTU3 1.2:I:18 [restored]) has been incorrectly interpreted to be an epithet, and translated “his attendant, lackey etc.,” see Driver, CML1, 79, 80 and Gibson, CML2, 41, 42, “Ba῾al [and his lackeys]”; Kaiser (1959), 60, n. 242, “sein Geloge (?),” with reference to Driver; Gordon, PLM, 70, 71, “Baal and his liegemen”; Schmidt (1966), 31, n. 6, “Hierher gehört nicht ῾nn(h), das – meist als ‘(seine) Diener’ verstanden – außer bei Baal ... noch bei Asherah ... angefügt wird”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 129-130, 131, “Ba῾al et ses valets”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 170, 172, “(a) Ba῾lu y (a) sus servidores”; Wyatt, RTU, 59, 61, “Baal and his retinue”; Pardee, CS I, 246, “Ba῾lu [and his attendants].” My opinion is that KTU3 1.2:I:35 (= KTU3 1.2:I:18 [restored]), tn . b῾l . w ῾nnh . bn . dgn . ᾿arṯm . pḏh should be translated, “Hand over Ba῾lu, that I may subjugate him, // (Hand over) the son of Dagānu, that I may possess his gold!” See Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “Give Baal [to me to lord over]”; but Smith, UBC I, 266, 267, 292; idem, UNP, 99, 100, 166, n. 19, “Give up Baal that I may humble him,” commenting, “Based on parallelism, interpreting as w῾nnh, with lost due to sandhi. ‘And his servants’ is another possible translation.” According to the parallelism, w῾nnh is a verbal form which developed from *w᾿a῾nnh as the result of sandhi: see Tsumura (1991), 428-431 (esp. 431). Cf. also Held (1969), 72, n. 15; GUL, 33 (with no reference to the context here) and UG, 157, 222, 492; Smith, UBC I, 291-292, for discussion and bibliographic references; DEUAT, 94, n. 1. In addition, the contexts of ῾nn in KTU3 2.8:4 and ῾nnm KTU3 7:135:3 are very damaged, though the term ῾nn in KTU3 1.10:II:33, [᾿il .]hd . d ῾nn . nx[x] appears in a damaged context, it is considered by most scholars to be an epithet of the god Haddu, and comparable to the Hebrew and Aramaic “cloud,” see de Moor, ARTU, 113; Wyatt, RTU, 158; Walls (1992), 131; Renfroe, AULS, 23. This interpretation has been disproven in my study of the divine epithets of the Ugaritic single gods, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 94, n. 1. Parker, UNP, 184, sees here a noun ῾n + the possessive suffix -n “our eyes.” Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 285, refrain from the translation of ῾nn in this context. In any case, the term ῾nn does not refer to any divine group and therefore is excluded from the present study. 4 Compare Meier (1988), 124-125 and the corresponding footnote.

NGRT ᾿ILHT “THE HERALD-GODDESSES”

253

From the different translations mentioned above, it seems that the interpretation of the epithet ῾nn ᾿ilm has met with general acceptance. However, scholars are divided on the etymological genealogy of the Ugaritic term ῾nn. Some5 relate it to Classical Arabic root ῾ny / ‫“ عني‬to humble, oppress.” Others6 see here the noun ῾ny, ῾ān / ‫ عني‬،‫“ عان‬ministration, occupation” (Biblical Hebrew ‫ענין‬, etc.). The consensus, however, relates it to Classical Arabic ‫ عون‬/ ῾wn, “assistant, attendant.”7 Another etymological suggestion,8 which seems less probable, associates ῾nn with the Biblical Hebrew ‫ ענן‬/῾ānān “cloud,” based on Arabic ‫عن‬ ّ / ῾anna “to appear, take shape.” Indeed, in Classical Arabic we find the noun῾ānnah; and ῾anānah is a synonym of ‫ سحاب‬/ saḥāb, “cloud” and, more concretely, “the cloud charged with the water / the rain-bearing cloud.”9 In agreement with most scholars,10 the meaning of ῾nn as “attendants,” seems the most suitable to 5 Good (1978), 436-437 and bibliographic references there; Tahḏīb al-luġa, vol. III, 210-211. The same semantic is attested in Biblical Hebrew too. 6 Gaster (1935), 27-28. Aistleitner (1939b), 203 comments, “Gpn und ᾿Ugr sind die Sachwalter, Betrauten, etwas freier ‘die Herolde’ der Götter.” Later, however, (WUS, 237, no. 2061) he translated “Bote.” 7 See n. 1, p. 251. See also de Moor (1971), 129; Renfroe, AULS, 23-24, and the bibliographic references there. Indeed, the Arabic root ‫ عون‬/ ῾wn is widely used in different conjugations, and its noun refers to a person who aids or helps, and came to mean “servant,” see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X, 343; Tāǧ al-῾arūs, vol. XVIII, 395. The root also occurs in epigraphic South Arabian with essentially the same meaning as in Classical Arabic, cf. Sabäisches Wörterbuch of Friedrich Schiller University Jena, online: sabaweb.uni-jena.de s.v. ῾wn “helfen, unterstützen” and its multiple derivative meanings including a militaristic context; Renfroe, AULS, 24; Zammit (2002), 300, where the Ugaritic cognate is missing; Kogan (2015), 323. 8 Mann (1971), 22, n. 38; idem (1977), 96; Clifford (1972), 112; cf. Cross (1973), 17, 165-166 n. 86, states, “One might argue that the divine clouds were messengers of Ba῾l in the first instance, and then ῾nn came to mean ‘messenger, errand boy’”; compare to Mendenhall (1973), 54-56. Scott (1952), 24-25 assumed that Biblical Hebrew ‫ ענן‬/ ῾ānān is “cloud or mist in general, ... ; seldom if ever could bring rain.” See Smith, UBC I, 292, n. 132, who adds, “The closest instance would be Genesis 9:13-14 which, describes rained-out clouds with a shining rainbow (Professor Aloysius Fitzgerald, personal communication).” Compare to Weinfeld (1983b), 131-132, who identifies the clouds and fire of Psalm 97:32 and Nahum 1:3 [for more Biblical instances, see n. 13 and n. 14, pp. 236-237] to correspond to the Ugaritic ῾nn ᾿ilm, who appear as messengers of Ba῾lu similar to the messengers called ġlmm (deputies[?] CTA 2, I:13ff), the attendants of Yammu. He adds and identifies the pillar of cloud of Exodus 14:19 with the messengers of God. This approach is acceptable whenever it helps to find connections between the Ugaritic and Biblical data if the etymological approach breaks down. 9 See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X, 310, 312; Lane, Lexicon, 2162-2163, ،‫ السَّحابة‬: ‫والع َنان َُة‬ َ ‫العانَّة‬ ‫ التي تمسك الماء‬... ٌ‫ وجمعها َع َنان‬/ l-῾ānnatu wa-῾anānatu  : s-saḥābatu, wa-ǧam῾uhā ῾anānun ... allati tumsiku l-mā᾿a “l-῾ānnatu and ῾anānatu: the cloud, and its plural ῾anānun ... the cloud charged with water,” or ِ‫ض في الأُفُق‬ ُ ‫ الذي َي ْع َت ِر‬: ‫ والعانُّ من السحاب‬/ wa-l-῾ānnu mina s-saḥābi  : al-laḏi ya῾tariḍu fī l-᾿ufuqi “and l-῾ānnu [means] is what appears in the heights.” 10 See n. 1, p. 251 and n. 7, p. 253 above.

254

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

our literary contexts here. However, as was stated by Renfroe,11 the “comparison of Ugaritic ῾nn with Arabic ῾wn necessitates assuming either that an analogous development took place in Ugaritic, or that, from a root designating ‘help, assist’ etc., Ugaritic formed a noun ῾wn + ān (῾awnān > ῾ônān = ῾nn) to designate the agent of ‘help, assistance,’ i.e. ‘helper, assistant’ ... .” The use of the term ῾nn “servant, attendant,” in parallelism with ῾bd “servant, slave,” and ᾿amt “serving-girl, maidservant,” in KTU3 1.4:IV:5961 suggests the latter semantic value.12 The identification of the specific divinities labeled ῾nn ᾿ilm is difficult. Some scholars13 believe that ῾nn designates Ba῾lu’s messengers Gapanu wa-Ugaru, asserting that the ῾nn “messenger(s)” of Canaanite storm deities then naturally came to mean “cloud” when associated with Yahweh, representing a demythologized relic of the polytheistic world of pre-Israelite Canaan. However, the etymological analysis of the term ῾nn offered above disproves this interpretation. De Moor14 went a little further, affirming that ῾nn are Gupanu and Ugaru, and that the ġlmm “the lads (messengers)” who serve as Ba῾lu’s messengers are the ῾nn ᾿ilm. De Moor added that it should be recalled that Qdš w-᾿Amrr, the regular attendant of ᾿Aṯiratu, is a messenger of Ba῾lu. Therefore, ῾nn ᾿ilm must designate some class of attendants of the gods. Smith15 suggested that ῾nn ᾿ilm are perhaps the same helpers as those in 1.5 V 9, called ġlmm “lads” and ḫnzrm “boys.” Following the same line of thought, Renfroe16 presumes that ῾nn are designated in other parts of the Cycle of Ba῾al as “ġlmm ‘boys’ (e.g. KTU3 1.3:III:8; 1.3:IV:5), ‘gods’ (e.g. KTU3 1.3:III:32), and by name ‘Gapanu wa Ugaru’ (cf. KTU3 1.3:III:36; 1.4:VII:54).” The identification of ῾nn ᾿ilm only as Gapanu wa-Ugaru is based mainly on the context KTU3 1.4:VIII:15. However, given that the end of column VII of KTU3 1.4, lines 56-60 are damaged and their meaning unclear, this is mere speculation. From the first context above, it is certain that the group of gods labeled as ῾nn ᾿ilm 11 Renfroe, AULS, 24; followed by Sivan, GUL, 38; Tropper, UG, 273, 721, 896; but with a question mark. 12 See Renfroe, AULS, 23-24. On KTU3 1.4:IV:59-6, see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 495, 524-525. See n. 13, p. 69. 13 Mann (1971), 20-21; idem (1977), 96; van Zijl (1972), 102, for discussion and bibliographic references; Clifford (1972), 112, 125; Wyatt (1992a), 421-422, n. 119. Good (1978), 436, 437, accepted the identification of ῾nn ᾿ilm as the messengers Gapanu wa-Ugaru, but correctly pointed out that ῾nn belongs to another verbal root implying neither “cloud” nor “messenger.” Meier (1988), 124-128, specifically identifies ῾nn ᾿ilm exclusively with Gapanu wa-Ugaru. 14 De Moor (1971), 129. 15 Smith, UBC I, 292. 16 Renfroe, AULS, 23-24, n. 35.

NGRT ᾿ILHT “THE HERALD-GODDESSES”

255

are deities addressed like any other group of deities in the immediately following verses KTU3 1.1:III:18-19, as ᾿ilm “gods” and its parallel ᾿ilnym “deities,” and so from the contexts such deities must be messengers. In any case, as I have said, it is difficult to identify the gods included in the epithet ῾nn ᾿ilm.17 There is no equivalent Akkadian term for ῾nn, but the semantic equivalent “helper(s)” or “attendant(s)” is expressed by the Akkadian terms s/šukkalu, meaning “attendant of god,” and its corresponding feminine sukkalatu, “attendant of a goddess,” both of which are used as epithet components to indicate minor gods serving as messengers and/or attendants to another deity higher in status.18 Examples of the use of s/šukkalu are, Bunene sukkalka damiqti “Bunene, your vizier of a good word” (Lenzi 2011:378, line 41); Nabium aplu kīnim sukkalam ṣīru “DN, a true heir, an outstanding vizier” (Lenzi 2011:476, line 1); Namtar šukkal erṣeti piqdānim “Namtar, a minister can take (their suffering) to the netherworld where it belongs” (Lenzi 2011:138, line 10).19

17 Contra Meier (1988), 124-128, who identified ῾nn ᾿ilm exclusively with the minor deities Gapanu wa-Ugaru. 18 The Mesopotamian deity known as Papsukkal refers to an attendant serving higher gods (usually Anu) as minister. From the iconographic representation of Papsukkal/Ninšubur in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian terra-cotta figurines, the divinity is depicted as anthropomorphic, a standing man holding a long staff, with a beard, horned crown, and a long robe. These figurines were often found in temples beneath the dais of the cult statue, in accordance with their role as attendants to a higher-ranked deity like An. On the god and goddess Ninšubur, see Black and Green (1998), 141-142, under Ninšubur (god). The female deity Ninšubur has been attributed with the role of messenger and traveller for other gods, e.g., Inanna (Ištar). The Neo-Assyrian astronomical compendium MUL.APIN, Tablet I, ii, 2 says that the constellation of Sipa-zi-an-na (= Orion) is the Papsukkal of Anu and Ištar. (Hunger and Pingree [1989].) The star-pattern of Sipa-zi-an-na is decidedly anthropomorphic, consistent with the shape of the terra-cotta figurines. 19 The translation is based on Lenzi (2011), 138-139, 378, 476, commentary; CAD S, 358-359; Johnston (2004), 535-536; Tallqvist, AG, 146-149, for examples and semantic nuances. I think that this comparison is more appropriate than the Akkadian rēṣum “helper, supporter, ally,” which has a militaristic nuance. On the latter, see p. 94, n. 15 under ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l.

XXXII

῾QQM “THE DEVOURERS” (1.12) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.12:I:27 ḫl . ld 26 ᾿aklm . tbrkk 27w ld . ῾qqm

Writhe, give birth to the eaters, kneel,1 and give birth to the devourers.

2. KTU3 1.12:I:37 36 37

[[n]]wn . ymġy . ᾿aklm w ymẓa . ῾q[[m]]qm

And now, he comes upon the eaters, and encounters the devourers.

There is a scholarly consensus that the epithet should be translated “the voracious,” or the like.2 PARALLELS Contexts 1, 2: ᾿aklm // ῾qqm DISCUSSION The epithet ῾qqm occurs twice in the Ugaritic corpus and refers to a group of gods, most probably the same group as its parallel ᾿aklm. Because of 1

See n. 1, p. 61. Dussaud (1936), 12, “les ῾Oqeqim/les Déchirants”; Ginsberg (1936a), 143, 144, “Raveners”; Gaster (1938b), 42, 45, 46, 47, “Ravening Beasts”; Gray (1951), 149; idem, LC2, 77, 78; idem (1971), 61-63, “the Voracious Ones/the Renders”; Løkkegaard (1955), 11, “(the) tearers”; Driver, CML1, 70, 71, “ravenous beasts”; Aistleitner, MKT, 55, 56, “die Reißenden”; Oldenburg (1969), 200, “the Ravening Beasts”; Gordon, UL, 54; idem, PLM, 123, “the devourers”; Kapelrud (1969b), 320, “the Voracious Ones!”; van Zijl (1972), 255, “the devourers”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 327, 341, 342, “les Ravageurs”; du Mesnil du Buisson (1978), 60, “les Ravageurs (les Déchireurs)”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 482, “los Destrozones”; de Moor, ARTU, 131, “Rippers”; Renfroe, AULS, 24, 25, “the Rippers”; Wyatt (1996), 222, “the Devourers”; Parker, UNP, 189, “Tearers”; Sanders (2001), 437, n. 25, “the splitters (of the womb).” However, some scholars refrain from translating it, for example Virolleaud (1935), 250. Except for Montgomery (1936), 227, 230, “rebels.” 2

῾ QQM “THE DEVOURERS”

257

the lack of Ugaritic internal data regarding the term ῾qqm, most scholars appeal to etymology to define it. Virolleaud3 compared it to the Akkadian uqququ “(bête) brute,” the ideographic expression of which is EME.DIB “celui dont on a ôté la langue.” This comparison has been accepted by recent scholars4 despite the fact that the Akkadian uqququ / eqēqu (egēgu) means “to be heavy, tied (said of the tongue) / zungengelähmt, stumm.”5 My opinion is that for semantic and contextual reasons, Virolleaud’s etymological comparison is incorrect.6 Another etymological equivalence suggested by scholars is with the Classical Arabic ‫عق‬ ّ / ῾aqqa “to split, sever, cut, rip,” and its derived meaning ῾aqqa “to cleave, to rend.”7 Indeed, the Classical Arabic root ῾aqqa is widely used as a synonym for šaqqa “to split, to cut, to rip,” which might fit the literary context of ῾qqm, though, as observed by Renfroe,8 “‘devour, eat,’ and ‘cleave, rip’ are by no means identical.” However, the context in which ᾿aklm and ῾qqm appear suggests that the two terms are contiguous, ᾿aklm as an A term signifies simply “to eat,” while ῾qqm as a B term means “to devour,” the latter possibly derived from “to tear, to rip, etc.” – a semantic that seems to fit the context above, given that the group of gods labeled under the two epithets are described as wild beasts and horned oxen of the wilderness who assault and tear their victim, the lord Ba῾lu.9 Indeed, the semantic and phonological identity of Ugaritic ῾qq and Arabic ‫عق‬ ّ /῾qq, may be sufficient grounds for regarding the two words as cognate.10 The Akkadian cognate agāgu means basically “to be angry, to flare up in anger,” and is a term used apropos gods in contexts implying destructive 3 Virolleaud (1935), 254, 256f.; following him, Ginsberg (1936a), 143, n. 13; cf. Oldenburg (1969), 200, n. 6. Watson (1983), 12, translates “‘deformed’ (rather than ‘destroyers)’”; see idem (2008), 361-365. 4 See, for example, DLU, 86; DULAT, 177 and the bibliographic references there. 5 AHw, 1427; CAD E, 249; Renfroe, AULS, 25. 6 See the detailed study of the epithet ᾿aklm “the eaters,” on p. 61-65, 304, 320, 321. 7 Ginsberg (1936a), 143, n. 13; Gaster (1938b), 45, n. 19; Gray (1971), 61; Oldenburg (1969), 200, n. 6; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 341, n. k; Renfroe, AULS, 25; following him, Sanders (2001), 437, n. 25; DLU, 86; DULAT, 177. 8 Renfroe, AULS, 25-26 with the corresponding bibliographic references; Kogan (2015), 318. 9 See de Langhe (1945), vol. II, 191; Haldar (1950), 14, 18, 35; Løkkegaard (1955), 1011; Engnell (1967), 125, 126. 10 Contrast Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 341, n. k; Renfroe, AULS, 25-26; Dalix (2006), 49, n. 39, (action of) boars; Watson (2008) 361-365, esp. 362. On the other hand, Montgomery (1936), 229, confirms that ῾qqm must be the opposite of the “‘eaters,’ and so the word may be interpreted from Arab. ῾aqqa, with primary sense of ‘bitter,’ and then of ‘rebellion.’” The latter must be rejected because no semantic value of the Arabic root ῾aqq explicitly includes “rebellion.”

258

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

feelings, e.g., iggagma dEN uḫallaq ešrētu “DN is angry, he wants to destroy the sanctuaries” (STC 2 pli. 68:21).11 A potential semantic parallel of the epithet ῾qqm is the Biblical Hebrew ‫“ משחית‬destroyer.” In some Biblical passages ‫ משחית‬has been applied to supernatural beings, where the destruction is checked by a cultic act (blood on the doorposts, e.g., Exodus 12:16-23, esp. 22-23; // 1 Chronicles 21:1230, esp. 12, 15).12

11 CAD A/1, 140. See the reference to Tallqvist, AG, 14, 117; Johnson (1961), 25-26 and the footnote, n. 26, p. 65 of this study. See Gray (1899), 1078; Burnett (2001), 86-87, n. 20; Meier, DDD2, 242-244. 12 On the classification of KTU3 1.12 as an etiological myth explaining and sanctioning the punishment or expiation of fratricide, see Gray (1951), 152, 154-155; idem, LC2, 80; idem (1971), 61-64, 70; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 322-325. In the Cycle of Ba῾al, the goddess ῾Anatu and the god Ba῾lu enjoy the destructive power described through the Ugaritic root MḪṢ, see KTU3 1.4:II:24-25 and 1.6:V:1-4. See UBC II, 435, 450; Sommer (2009), 76-77.

XXXIII

ĠLMM “THE LADS (MESSENGERS)” (1.2; 1.3; 1.4) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.2:I:19 (= KTU3 1.2:I:13 [reconstructed]) tb῾ . ġlmm . l yṯb . ᾿i[dk . pnm] 20 l ytn . tk . ġr . ll .   ῾m . pḫr . m῾d .

The lads depart, they delay not. Now they head for Mount Lalu,1 for the Great Assembly.2

2. KTU3 1.2:I:39 ᾿ap . ᾿anš . zbl . b῾l [w y᾿uḫ]d . b yd , mšḫṭ . bm . ymn . mḫṣ . ġlmm . yš[ḫt(?)]4

39

1

Then prince Ba῾lu became angry.3 He takes in his hand a striking weapon, in his right hand a smiting weapon, the lads he strikes.5

See n. 1, p. 272 below. See KTU3, 7, n. 10 “Lg. pḫr: The three ‘verticals’ of ḫ are written slightly broader, but they still do not resemble the shape of a h.” 3 On the translation of “became angry” here, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 159, n. 1. 4 Correcting KTU3 1.2:I:39, ġlmm . yš᾿u. See next note. 5 Scholars disagree regarding the reading and the restoration of the term here. However, they agree that its semantic must involve the meaning “to strike” or “to attack.” Driver, CML1, 80, 81, read ġlmm . yš[qlh] and translated “the servitors [would fell him]”; but Gibson, CML2, 42, n. 5, read simply ġlmm . yš[- -], and translated, “‘The pages [ ]’ or ‘He . . . the pages.’” Gordon, PLM, 71 understood the opposite and translated, “... he flou[rishes them]”; while Ginsberg, ANET, 130, read, “He r[eached] to strike the lads.” Following the same line of thought, Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 132, n. a, suggested the reconstruction “yš[ql], ‘il abat’, ou yš[ḫṭ], ‘il égorge’” and translated “pour ab[attre] les pages”; see also del Olmo Lete, MLC, 172, who refrained from any reconstruction, reading simply ġlmm . yš[ ], but translating “para abatir a los mancebos de Yammu.” Smith, UNP, 101; idem, UBC I, 268, 310 read ġlmm . yš[ḫṭ(?)], translating “The lads he st[rikes (?)],” and correctly commenting on p. 264 that “Line 39. []: CTA, KTU, etc. reconstruct [y᾿u]ḫd at the beginning of the line. ṭ: The heads of all the wedges (except for the winkelhocken) are mostly visible. []: perhaps reconstruct yš[ḫṭ] or yš[kl] at the end of the line. A verb of violence, ‘to attack,’ ‘to strike,’ or the like appears indicated by the parallelism. The only I-š verbs that seem contextually suitable are *šḫṭ and *škl (*šql, ‘to slay,’ the C-stem of *qyl, is reserved for the slaughtering of animals.)” See also Wyatt, RTU, 62, n. 116, “the divine assistants he [attacked?]”; and Pardee, CS I, 246, “the lads he [strikes],” contra the recent reading of KTU3, 6, returning to the same dubious reading without remark (see the previous note). 2

260

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

3. KTU3 1.3:II:4 kl᾿at . ṯġrt 4 bht . ῾nt . w tqry . ġlmm 5 b št . ġr .

The gates of ῾Anatu’s house are closed. She met the lads at the foot of the mountain.

4. KTU3 1.3:IV:5 5

y῾n . ġlmm . y῾nyn .

The lads spoke up, they answered:

5. KTU3 1.3:V:15 15

l p῾n . ġl[m]m[xxxxxxxxx] At the feet of the lads.6

6. KTU3 1.4:V:43 42 w ṯb l mspr . k tl᾿akn 43 ġlmm

And go back to the recitation when the lads are sent.

Most scholars render the epithet as “the servitors/divine assistants,” or the like.7 PARALLELS Context 1. ġlmm appears in a relatively long poetic passage with no parallelism. Context 2. ġlmm appears in a poetic narrative, again without parallelism. However, the repetition of the phonemes /š/ and /ḫ/, and the alternation of the nasal /n/ and labial /m/, create a poetic resonance. This collation has been maintained only by de Moor (1971) 125; and idem, ARTU, 33, who translated “he ra[ised] a slayer of lads in his right hand.” Against the latter interpretation, see the detailed commentary by Smith, UBC I, 310. 6 Few scholars venture to translate this phrase. Among them are Driver, CML1, 90, 91; Gibson, CML2, 53; Gordon, UL, 22 and idem, PLM, 82; de Moor, ARTU, 16; Wyatt, RTU, 85. Due to the damaged state of lines 12-16, other scholars refrain from translation, see Ginsberg, ANET, 137; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 174; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 189; Smith, UNP, 116; Pardee, CS I, 254, n. 106. Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 315, 326 read lp῾n. ġl[ ]m [ ]. Here I follow KTU3, 16 and therefore include the context. 7 Driver, CML1, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 87, “(The) servitors”; Gordon, UL, 17, 18; idem, PLM, 70, 71, 77, “The lads”; Gibson, CML2, 40, 41, 42, 49, “The pages”; Ginsberg, ANET, 130, 136, “fighters/The lads”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 163, n. d’, “Les pages”; de Moor (1971) 88, 124, 125; idem, ARTU, 5, 8-9, 31, 33, “The lads”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 169, 170, 172, 181, 183, “los mancebos,” but for 1.3:III:8 reads “jóvenes sirvientes”; Wyatt, RTU, 58, 72, 77, n. 41, “(the) divine assistants”; Smith, UNP, 99, 101; idem, UBC I, 266, 268, “the boys/the lads”; but for KTU3 1.3:II:4 translates simply “youth(s),” see UNP, 107 and UBC II, 127, 133, 277 “the youth(s).” For KTU3 1.3:III:8 Smith, UNP, 109, translates, “messengers”; then Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 202 “two youths.” However, for KTU3 1.4:V:43 they suggest interpreting ġlmm as the plural ġalamūma or dual ġalamāmi, see ibid., 540, n. 18, 546, 576. Pardee, CS I, 246, 250, 251, always reads “the lads”; but in KTU3 1.4:V:43 translates “two lads.”

ĠLMM “THE LADS MESSENGERS”

261

Context 3. ġlmm appears in a bicolon with no parallelism. However, the two lines seem to be equal in length and present some resonance because of the recurrence of the alternating guttural consonants ῾ayin and ġayin. There is also a recurrence of the preposition b in the first and the second line. Context 4. The context is too damaged to determine any parallelism.8 Context 5. ġlmm usually appears in a speech formula with no parallelism. DISCUSSION The epithet ġlmm occurs seven times in the Ugaritic corpus and refers to Yammu’s messengers.9 The classification of the term ġlmm as an epithet is evident from the contexts above, but the deities to which it refers are difficult to identify. The use of the term ġlmm as an epithet appears to be restricted to minor Ugaritic divinities, and to human royalty and epic heroes. The contexts above show ġlmm used as a generic term for some minor Ugaritic divinities, mostly messengers:10 in the first and second contexts, ġlmm refers 8

Compare to Smith and Pitard, UCB II, 137, 206-207, 283, 331, 533. It is uncertain whether the term ġlmm in KTU3 1.19:II:28, b hlk . ġlmm “in the arrival of two pages,” refers to human or divine messengers. In contrast to its use in all the contexts above, here ġlmm seems to refer to “two messengers,” most probably human. See Ginsberg, ANET, 153-154, who gave the options of interpretation, “two supernatural” or “two attendants”; Driver, CML1, 60, 61, “two servitors!”; Gibson, CML2, 116, n. 3, “two youths (= These were servants of Aqhat who had been attacked with him [18 iv 26, 38] but had escaped; they act out his killing in mime and repeat his dying words)”; KME, 131 n. 6, “Es kamen zwei Jünglinge (= ... die beiden Jünglinge [Götterboten?])”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 447, n. b, “des pages (= des messagers)”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 391, “(dos) mensajeros?”; de Moor, ARTU, 253, n. 194, “two lads (= messengers)”; Parker, UNP, 70, “the messengers”; Wright (2001), 173-175, “two lads”; Wyatt, RTU, 300, nn. 220-222, “two young men,” commenting in n. 222 that “the two were hunting companions of Aqhat”; Pardee, CS I, 352, n. 102, “two pages”; Smith (2014a), 122, 438, n. 193 and 194 comments contra Wyatt that “no such companions are known from the earlier narrative, and the narrative at this point may simply understand ǵlmm as messengers....” 10 The term ġlmm is also attested as an epithet of the Ugaritic single/dual divinity Gapanu wa-Ugaru from the contexts KTU3 1.3:III:8, km ġlmm (9) w . ῾rbn . l p῾n . ῾nt . hbr . [[w]] (10) w ql . tštḥwy . kbd . hyt “So then, O lads, enter; // at ῾Anatu’s feet bow and fall down. // Prostrate yourselves, and honor her,” and of KTU3 1.3:IV:5, y῾n . ġlmm . y῾nyn “Indeed, the lads answer up.” (The translation of the first context is based on Ginsberg, ANET, 136; contrast with Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 148, 222-223, who compare the latter scene to Emar 370.90 (cf. 369.44), where the warrior-goddess Astarte is the recipient of ritual obeisance, LÚ.MEŠ ta-ḫa-zi a-na GÌR.MEŠ ša i-[-ma-qu-tu] “The men of the battle wi[ll fall] at her feet.” See Fleming [1992b], 213). I deduce that the epithet ġlmm here refers exclusively to the messenger(s) Gapanu wa-Ugaru, and therefore is excluded from the contexts above (see 9

262

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

generally to unknown messengers of the god Yammu;11 in context 3, however, the term seems to refer to minor divinities related to ῾Anatu who are therefore part of Anatu’s retinue and whose function would have been described in the preceding lacuna. It is uncertain if such minor deities are simply messengers or also have a military function.12 Finally, a reference in context 5 to a group of deities as messengers seems to label them as ġlmm.13 The term ġlm in reference to a group of Ugaritic deities is also attested in KTU3 1.5:V: 8-11, ῾mk šb῾t (9) ġlmk . ṯmn . ḫnzrk (10)῾mk . pdry . bt .᾿ar (11) ῾mk . {t}ṭly bt rb “(take) with you your seven divine assistants, // your eight boars // (take) with you Pidrayu, the one associated with light, // Ṭallayu, the one associated with showers,”14 (= KTU3 1.6:VI:8, šb῾t ġlmh “his seven lads”; see also KTU3 1.4:VII:52-53). It is obvious that the term ġlm in the latter context refers to a group of Ba῾lu’s helpers or assistants, and not necessarily to the messengers of Ba῾lu. Introduction). See Ginsberg (1944), 25-30; Renfroe, AULS, 23, n. 35; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 50, 223, 289, and the bibliographic references there. On the verb tštḥwy, a key term of the obeisance formula employed in Ugaritic in connection with divine messengers lower in rank, see the detailed study on the Ugaritic tštḥwy and its Hebrew cognate ‫השתחוה‬ “to bow down etc.,” of Gruber (1980), 90-123, esp. 97, 98, 187-200, 292-303, esp. 298303. 11 Regarding the context KTU3 1.2:I:19 (= KTU3 1.2:I:13 [reconstructed]) above, de Moor, ARTU, 31, n. 134, assumes that Yammu’s messengers are described in the form of birds, and therefore he translates, “the bills of their beaks (open) to a span,” and interprets the passage as “a description of their terrifying hawk-like appearance.” This forced interpretation is incorrect. As suggested by Smith, UBC I, 284, “Perhaps the best guess about this colon is that the messengers rejoice at the prospect of receiving instructions from their master Yam ... .” See Pardee, CS I, 246; Smith, ibid., and the bibliographic references there. 12 See Meier (1988), 124; contrast Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 148 and Pardee, CS I, 250, n. 72. 13 On this highly interesting context, see the detailed and extensive commentary by Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 574-576, and the bibliographic references there. 14 Scholars who relate the Ugaritic ḫnzr to the common Semitic ḫnzr all translate, “seven lads, // eight boars,” or the like. See Ginsberg, ANET, 139, “seven lads, // eight boars”; Driver, CML1, 107, “thy seven servitors (and) thine eight boars”; Gaster, Thespis, 211, “thy sevenfold servitors//thine eightfold serving maids”; KME, 61, n. 4, “deine sieben Diener, deine acht ‘Schweine’”; MKT, 16, “deine sieben Jünglinge, deine acht Eber”; Gordon, PLM, 107, “seven lads/eight swines”; Gibson, CML2, 72, “your seven pages (and) your eight ‘boars’”; MLC, 220, 552, “tus siete mancebos // tus ocho jabatos”; de Moor, ARTU, 77, n. 372, “your seven lads, // your eight ‘boars’”; Smith, UNP, 147, “your seven boys,// Your eight attendants”; Pardee, CS I, 267, “your seven lads, // your eight officers”; Wyatt (1987b), 391, n. 3; idem, RTU, 122, “your seven (divine) assistants // your eight boars”; following him, see Cho (2007), 209; Avishur (2007), 103, “seven of your valets, // Eight of your pigs.” Others relate the Ugaritic term to the Hurrian and translate “officials,” or the like, see e.g., Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 247-248, n. g, “tes sept valets, tes huit officiers.”

ĠLMM “THE LADS MESSENGERS”

263

Ġlm parallels the term ḫnzr, the function and character of which would also parallel ġlm.15 15 Because of parallelism, the semantic of the word ḫnzr would apply to a divine character associated with deities described by the parallel epithet ġlm(m). Despite the damaged passages before and after the context, it is generally agreed that these are Môtu’s words urging Ba῾lu to gather his metrological impedimenta and his group of helpers and assistants and descend to meet him in the netherworld. Ba῾lu orders the group of divine beings, which include šb῾t ġlm “seven divine assistants,” ṯmn . ḫnzr “eight boars,” and Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, to join him. The parallel šb῾ // ṯmn should be interpreted as a mere poetic device of fixed word-pairs known in other West Semitic literary traditions as well as in Sumerian and Hittite texts (see Roth [1962], 302-310, esp. 304-305; Haran [1972], 242, n. 1-4, esp. n. 4, 253-256; Wyatt [1987b], 391-392; Avishur [2007], 84-107, esp. 102-105, 169.) Therefore, the number of deities meant here is seven or eight rather than fifteen. Most scholars agree here on the meaning “swine/boar” (BH. ‫חזיר‬, Arm. ‫ ;חזירא‬Classical Arabic‫ ;خنزير‬some even compare it to the Egyptian ḫnḏr). See e.g., Burchardt (1912), 7, n. 4 under point 8.; Virolleaud (1931), 196; Al-Yasin (1952), 59, no. 217; Ug. V, 243, no. 137:II:25’; Gordon, UT, 403, no. 977; Helck (1962), 82, 84, n. 15, 16; Aistleitner, WUS, 114, no. 1048; Sivan (1984), 231; and the previous references corresponding to the translation above. On the other hand, Albright (1950), 389, in his criticism of Gordon noted, “ḫnzr probably has nothing to do with the word for ‘swine.’” Others relate the word to the Akkadian-Hurrian ḫuziru / ḫanizarru, which more precisely means “a military officer” (see e.g., Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 247-248, n. g; but Goetze [1952], 4, 10-11, n. 32, compared it to Hurrian siduri “girl”). The latter comparison connects the form ḫnzr with the more attested ḫzr, the meaning of which seems well established as “assistant, auxiliar” (see DLU, 204, compare 195; DULAT, 417-418, under ḫzr and the bibliographic references mentioned there). The connection of ḫzr and ḫnzr finds support in the Ugaritic corpus; indeed, KTU3 4.141:III:4-5, (4) ṯmn . ḫzr (5) w᾿arb῾ . ḥršm “eight boars and four artisans,” shows that ḫzr also means some kind of workmen rather than military figures (Miller, [1970b], 178). This last semantic field of ḫzr versus ḫnzr would fit our only Ugaritic religious literary attestation of the latter. Contrast de Moor [1971], 185, who commented, “It is doubtful whether the Ugaritic profession ḫzr has any connection with our ḫnzr ....” See also Hvidberg [1962], 26, n. 1; Dietrich and Loretz [1966a], 190-191. For an alternative interpretation, see Miller [1970b], 178f., with discussion and bibliographic references.) Besides, the semantic value of ḫnzr “swine/boar” does not preclude the possibility of its identification as an “attendants/ servitor” or even as “an official,” given that the metaphorical use of animal-names is well attested in Ugaritic as well as in other Semitic cultures (Dahood [1959], 161, though many of Dahood’s etymological propositions are incorrect. See also de Vaux [1958], 256-257; Miller, ibid.; compare Cathcart [1973], 109, n. 197). Because ḫnzrk appears in parallelism with ġlmk “your lads,” the semantic field of ḫnzr must parallel that of ġlm(m). The etymological comparison of the Ugaritic ḫnzr to ḫanizarum of the Shemashara text, where the term functions as a military title as well as designates a high officer, or even an administrative and military official of some sort, demonstrates the usage of ḫnzr in a religious context. The divine group ḫnzr must have had high status, because ḫnzr seems to be followed by the important Ugaritic goddesses, the daughters of Ba῾lu, Pidrayu, and Ṭallayu. A few attempts at the identification of ḫnzr have been made. Virolleaud (1931), 196, assumes that “... deux sortes d’animaux sauvages [ḫnzr and ḫlm] symbolisent sans doute ici, comme dans tant d’autres mythes, les tempêtes et l’orage.” Following him, de Moor (1971) 185, states, “... real swine may well have been meant since animals in the train of deities are nothing out of the way in the Ancient Near East. Compare also the ‘seven and seven’ demons (?) that Nergal takes with him into the Nether World (V AB (2)1, ... .)” De Moor, ARTU, 77, n. 372, defined ḫnzr as

264

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The anticipated mention of the group of divinities labeled as ġlmm followed immediately by Ba῾lu’s daughters Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, important female deities in the Ugaritic pantheon, despite their minor status in the Ugaritic religious corpus due mostly to a lack of data, would indicate that the deities described as ġlmm held an important role in the Ugaritic religious world and were not simply minor divine messengers. In addition, the close association of the divinities labeled ġlmm with important Ugaritic deities such as ῾Anatu, Yammu, and Ba῾lu makes their association and genealogical relationship to ᾿Ilu and ᾿Aṯiratu plausible.16 The term ġlm has the basic sense of “young person.” However, its use as an epithet and its adaptation to different theological contexts involves a variety of semantic values.17 The singular masculine form, ġlm “the youth,” occurs as a component of the divine epithet ġlm d῾tm “the youth, the expert (in magic),” and refers to Ḥôrānu.18 It is also a component in the epithet of the human epic hero Kirta, n῾mn ġlm ᾿il “the handsome servant of ᾿Ilu” (e.g., KTU3 1.14:I:40-41; 1.15:II:16, 20), and refers to Kirta’s heir Yassib as well (e.g., KTU3 1.14:III:49; 1.15:II:25; and 1.16:VI:39). The semantically equivalent feminine form, ġlmt “maiden,” occurs once as a divine epithet of the Ugaritic goddess Nikkal in KTU3 1.24:7, hl ġlmt . tld bn [xx] “Behold the maiden will bear a son, [...],”19 while a “An obscure metaphor, perhaps a reference to the seven or eight Pleiades.” Spronk (1986), 166, n. 5, compares them to the seven demons who took Dumuzi to the netherworld and extends the comparison to the seven evil spirits of the New Testament (Mark 16:9; Luke 11:26, cf. also the seven plagues mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:22-25). My opinion is that the plausibly divine entities labeled by the epithet ḫnzr would include the same deities as the epithet ġlm(m) (see below). The term ḫnzr appears only once in the Ugaritic religious corpus, the fragment from HIB 78/22 (KTU3 4.870 former KTU2 7.218), which KTU3, 600 classifies as a list of persons, but Bordreuil and Caquot (1980), 365-366, based on the successive mention of Ugaritic Kirta’s epithets ᾿adn, ḫnzr, n῾mn, correctly classify as a mythological fragment. However, the potential epithets ᾿adn, ḫnzr, n῾mn do not necessarily refer only to Kirta. A plausible Akkadian parallel, but in different contexts and functions, is the Akkadian ilū sebettu “the seven gods,” who in the Akkadian myth of Erra are agents of death and destruction. Finally, ḫzr/ḫnzr widely appears as a component in Ugaritic PN (see de Vaux [1958], 256-257; Ward [1961], 34; Lipiński [1967], 39-40, and the corresponding footnotes, especially n. 6; Gröndahl, PTU, 22, 28, 140; Watson [1990], 119, and the corresponding notes; McGeough and Smith [2011], 57, 62, 79-80, 550-552, on e.g. KTU3 4.69:I:14, II:15; KTU3 4.98:16 and KTU3 4.64:II:2). The term ḫnzr would be an epithet referring to a group of minor gods, however excluded from the current study according to the rule under point IV. See the Introduction pp. 5-6, esp. 6. 16 Contrast Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 51. 17 Contrast Wyatt, RTU 58, n. 99. For a discussion of the various possible interpretation of ġlm “the youth,” all relating to the youthfulness of the deity, see Ford (2002), 182, 184186. See also Weippert (1964), 186-187, for his criticism of Aistleitner. 18 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 266-268. 19 For a detailed commentary on the epithet ġlmt “the maiden,” see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 269.

ĠLMM “THE LADS MESSENGERS”

265

similar use of ġlmt “maiden” in the context of marriage occurs in the Epic of Kirta, serving as a general epithet for Ḥurrayu, Kirta’s young (human) bride (KTU3 1.14:IV:41; 1.15:II:22).20 I therefore conclude that the semantic of the singular ġlm not only describes the function of the deity bearing such an epithet, but also describes them physically, whereas its use in the plural form implies the deity’s character and role (see below). Because ml᾿ak was applied only to those assistants whom the god(s) or a god dispatched on missions as messengers,21 ġlmm seems to be an epithet for two and/or more minor deities whose main role is to assist and serve a major god who occasionally dispatches them as messengers. The apparently West Semitic Ugaritic noun ml᾿ak is thus a more specific term for divine messenger, appearing in Ugaritic mainly associated with the god Yammu and mostly in the Cycle of Ba῾al, specifically in tables KTU3 1.2. In the first and second contexts, however, the author chose the plural ġlmm to refer to unknown messengers of the god Yammu.22 Based on the context of the Cycle of Ba῾al KTU3 1.2-1.4, some scholars23 link ġlmm with ῾nn ᾿ilm, mostly for the scenes where the gods dispatch the divine messengers on a mission, and in which the ġlmm predominate. This might imply that ῾nn ᾿ilm and ġlmm are two groups of deities with different roles. The precise identities of the individual gods known as the ῾nn ᾿ilm and the ġlmm is impossible to determine. The literary context in which these gods are named as Gapanu wa-Ugaru is ambiguous; they are not necessarily the only ones meant by ġlmm, ᾿ilm, or ᾿ilnym. 20 Note also the dual form ġlmtm “two maidens” (KTU3 1.119:8), which refers to a pair of goddesses. The identity of the “two maidens” is unknown; contrast Cho (2007), 141ff. Del Olmo Lete, RC, 200 identifies them with ῾Anatu/῾Aṯtartu and ᾿Aṯiratu; however, the epithet ġlmt “maiden” is hardly appropriate for the matronly consort of the aged ᾿Ilu, but a reference to ῾Anatu and ῾Aṯtartu is conceivable; see Xella, TRU, 30. For a discussion of the relationship between these two deities, see Pardee, TPM, 48-50; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 270, n. 5. Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 4, 365, 371-372, once again suggested bn ġlmt to be the epithet of Gapanu wa-Ugaru and translated “sons of ẓlmt” (KTU3 1.3:VI:7 [former KTU 1.8] = 1.4:VII:54 [reconstructed]); see also Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT III/ 6:1170, “die Söhne der Dunkelheit.” The appearances of bn ġlmt are so damaged and contextually obscure that its status as epithet is uncertain, see Cohen (1996b), 305-306, n. 67; de Moor (1971), 164; idem, ARTU, 65, n. 297; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 210; 501; Smith, UNP, 138, 179, 180, n. 6; Wyatt, RTU, 111, 112, nn. 172-173, 152; Pardee, CS I, 263; Cho (2007), 145. See Smith and Pitard, ibid., 365, 369, 371-374, 638, 648, 651, 657, 694-695, for a detailed discussion and the numerous bibliographic references. 21 On the theological position of ml᾿akm in the Ugaritic religion and the Old Testament, see Handy (1990), 18-35, for discussion and bibliographic references. On the tracing of the etymology of the term ml᾿ak, see pp. 236-243. For the context of the use of the term in combination with ġlm (see below). 22 See Cunchillos et al. (2003), 1940-1941 and 1942; del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 273; idem DULAT, 546. 23 Ginsberg (1944), 25-30; Mann (1971), 20-21; de Moor (1971), 129; Meier (1988), 124-126; Smith, UCB I, 292; Renfroe, AULS, 23.

266

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Semantically, the epithet ġlm corresponds to the Akkadian ṣuḫāru, which means basically “1. (male) child, adolescent, and 2. servant, subordinate, employee.”24 However, this term does not occur as a divine epithet,25 but in messaging contexts like ṣu⌜uḫ⌝artaki lā taturrīma lā tašappari “don’t send your maid again” (AbB VII 25.8-10).26 On the other hand, the Akkadian word ardu “worshiper of a deity > servant, attendant” refers to minor divinities in relationship to a major one, e.g., [d]⌜é⌝-a pāšu ipušma iqabbi izakkara ana ardīšu jâtu “Ea opened his mouth to speak, saying to me, his servant” (Gilg. XI 36-37).27 Likewise, the etymological and semantic Classical Arabic correspondent to the Ugaritic epithet ġlm-m is ‫ غلام‬/ ġulām “the youth, boy, attendant,” a literary figure and a Qur᾿ānic term par excellence, which functions as an epithet and refers to “menservants, messengers.” In ancient Classical ٍ ‫ ب َِأ‬// ‫َو ُغل َا ٌم َأ ْرس َل ْت ُه ُأمُّه‬ Arabic poetry, Labīd b. Rabī῾a (C.E. 660/1) wrote, ‫لوك‬ َ ‫ َف َب َذ ْل َنا َما َسأ ْل‬/ wa-ġulāmun ᾿arsalathu ᾿ummuhu // bi-᾿alūkin fa-baḏalnā mā sa᾿al “and a youth sent by his mother // with a message and we interُ ‫َو َي ُط‬ changed what he requested.”28 Meanwhile Q. 52:24 reads ‫وف َع َل ْيهِ م‬ ٌ‫لهم َك َأن َُّه ْم ُلؤْ ُل ٌؤ َم ْك ُنون‬ ً ‫ ِغ‬/ wa-yaṭūfu ῾alayhim ġilmānun lahum ka᾿annahum ُ ‫لمان‬ lu᾿lu᾿un maknūn “and there go around [waiting upon] them devoted youths like hidden pearls.” The latter term parallels the term ‫ ولدان‬/ wildānun, e.g., ُ ‫ َي ُط‬/ yaṭūfu ῾alayhim wildānun muḫalladūna َ ‫مخل‬ Q. 56:17, ‫َّدون‬ َ ٌ‫وف َع َل ْيهِ م ِو ْلدان‬ “and there go around [waiting upon] them everlasting youths.”29 The Ugaritic singular ġlm is also attested in texts from Ugarit as an independent divine name.30 24

CAD Ṣ, 231. See CAD A/2, 250, meaning d; compare to the Akkadian parallel to the Ugaritic ῾nn ᾿ilm, p. 255, n. 18 and n. 19. The feminine Akkadian ardatu “young woman (girl or adult), servant,” is widely attested as an epithet of various goddesses. See CAD A/2, 243, 244, meaning b, and AG, 32; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 270, n. 10 and the references. In Biblical Hebrew – e.g., 2 Samuel 13:17-18; 1 Kings 1:4; and 2 Kings 6:15 – the verb ‫ שרת‬/ šrt “to serve, to wait upon” appears in association with (‫ נער)ה‬/ n῾r, which is “the youth, boy/girl > young attendant” and in this context means “attendant.” For more, see Bridge (2013), 23, nn. 37-40; Römer (2014), 162, for discussion and bibliographic references; Kogan (2015), 298-299. 26 Meier (1992b), 545, 546. 27 George (2003), 704, 705. 28 Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 135-136 under ‫ ألك‬/ ᾿LK; and vol. XIII, 152 under ‫ لأك‬/ L᾿K; Boneschi (1945), 108, n. 7 and 8 and references. See also pp. 237-238 here. 29 Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 674, 1045f.; Zammit (2002), 308; Ali (2004),1409, n. 5231. For the basic meaning of the term ‫ غلم‬/ ġlm with sexual connotations, see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XI, 77-78. On the persistence of the semantic meaning in the Northern Moroccan Arabic dialect, see Rahmouni (2015), 79 and the bibliography there. 30 For the latter usage, see KTU3 1.119:7; Pardee, TR, 672; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 270, n. 6. 25

XXXIV

PḪR ᾿ILM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS” (1.47; 1.118; 1.148) 1. KTU3 1.47:29 (= 1.118:28) 27

ršp  ddmš 29 pḫr . ᾿ilm 30 ym 28

Rašpu Dadmišu the assembly of the gods Yammu

2. KTU3 1.148:9 ršp š .   ddmš š 9 pḫr . ᾿ilm š . ym . š

Rašpu a ram; Dadmišu a ram; the assembly of the gods a ram; Yammu a ram

Earlier scholars translated pḫr ᾿ilm as “the totality of the gods”;1 present scholarship prefers “the assembly of the gods,” or the like.2 PARALLELS For the ritual genre there are no strict parallels. However, the occurrence of pḫr ᾿ilm among the same sequence of single Ugaritic gods in the two sources above is meaningful (compare below). DISCUSSION The expression pḫr ᾿ilm appears three times exclusively in the ritual Ugaritic corpus, twice in a list of gods (context 1), and once in a list of sacrifices (context 2). pḫr ᾿ilm parallels dpu-ḫur DINGIR.MEŠ – dpuḫur 1 Dhorme (1931), 50, “l’ensemble des dieux”; following the same line Eissfeldt (1951), 22, 27, “Gesamtheit der Götter”; Healey (1985), 120, “the totality of the gods.” 2 Nougayrol (1968), 58 “l’assemblée divine/des dieux”; Gordon, UL, 108, “Assembly of the Gods”; Albright (1968), 125 “the Council of the Gods”; Caquot (1979), col. 1404, “l’assemblée des dieux”; Xella, TRU, 93, “l’assemblea degli dèi”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 303, n. 29/28a, “Versammlung der Götter”; del Olmo Lete (1986d), 298; idem (1988a), 13; idem, RC, 89, “La Asamblea de los dioses”; Wyatt (1998), 45, “the assembly of the gods.”

268

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

ilānim of the Akkadian parallel version from Ugarit (RS 20:24:28), which confirms that pḫr ᾿ilm is a group of deities.3 Some scholars4 believe pḫr ᾿ilm to be the totality of the Ugaritic divinities. Others5 think it is a group of anonymous minor deities, more precisely the offspring of ᾿Ilu and Aṯiratu. Among the latter scholars, Herrmann6 takes ᾿ilm to refer to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu. Del Olmo Lete7 affirms that pḫr ᾿ilm corresponds to dr ᾿ilm “la familia de Ilu,” both expressions referring to the family of ᾿Ilu. However, the correspondence of the logographic DINGIR.MEŠ with the Ugaritic ᾿ilm suggests that the latter is the plural noun meaning “gods,” not the divine name of the head of the Ugaritic pantheon ᾿Ilu, plus the enclitic -m. Therefore, pḫr ᾿ilm should be interpreted as referring to a group of anonymous Ugaritic divinities that are possibly, but not necessarily, related to ᾿Ilu. The identification of this group of gods is, however, very difficult. Healey8 suggests pḫr ᾿ilm (context 1) includes the gods listed before it and translates “the totality of the gods.” Wyatt9 offers two different definitions of pḫr ᾿ilm, stating that “the usage, particularly clear in the pantheon lists, indicates the group of gods as a unity,” but that, in the second context above, where pḫr ᾿ilm appears in “a sequence surrounded by other individual deities who are presumably all members of the pḫr ᾿ilm, ... its specific use in KTU 1.47 and parallels, in distinction from other sub-groups, 3

Roche-Hawley (2012), 164, n. 215, 171,176. Eissfeldt (1951), 22, 27 “‘die Götter’ oder vielleicht ‘die Gottheit’”; Nougayrol (1968), 58 along with pḫr bn ᾿il, pḫr m῾d, ῾dt ᾿ilm and mpḫrt bn ᾿il; and n. 1, p. 267 above. 5 Caquot and Sznycer (1980), 15, 16; Mullen (1980), 269 adds, “The members of the heavenly assembly were accorded the same basic deification as were ‘the helper gods of Ba῾l’ (᾿i[l t]῾ḏr b῾l, CTA 29.II.4 = ilānum til-la-at dadad, 18.25). Both the assembly and auxiliary troops were composed of numerous deities, but they were minor gods.” Sanmartín (1986), 104, asserts with no explanation that the expression pḫr ᾿ilm enfolds the “... Entsprechungen der sum.-akk, igigū und anunnakkū zu sehen.” The assumption of Mullen (1980), 269, that this was a group of minor deities was based solely on the position of pḫr ᾿ilm at the end of the list (see context 1), but the important Ugaritic god ym was listed right after pḫr ᾿ilm and before ršp, a god active in the Ugaritic cultic corpus. For more arguments, see Pardee, TR, 309, n. 108. For criticism, see del Olmo Lete (2004), 586. 6 Herrmann (1982), 100 and the corresponding footnotes. Caquot and Sznycer (1980), 16 state it refers to “the offspring of El and Athirath”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 303, n. 29/28a, speak of “Eine Göttergruppe im El-Kreis.” 7 See Introduction n. 179 and n. 181, p. 36, n. 12, p. 205. 8 See n. 1, p. 267 above. Healey (1985), 120. Contrast MacDonald (1979), 522, who assumed the opposite and thought that pḫr ᾿ilm should be interpreted as a head title anticipating the listing of important god groups. This erroneous notion turned out to be based on the inversion of the recto and the verso of the text in KTU/and CTA. See Pardee, TR, 309, n. 108. 9 Wyatt (1998), 45; idem (2020), 91-94 states, “pḫr ilm, containing ym, uṯ ḫt, knr (a triad/ tetrad: 1 + 3)”; on p. 96 affirms, “... pḫr ilm, Akkadian dpuḫur ilânim, denotes at least a considerable grouping of deities, if not the entire divine community, but seen as a unity ... .” 4

PḪR ᾿ ILM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE GODS”

269

evidently shows that in some cases at least it has a narrower reference.” Pardee10 states that “il serait pourtant insolite de rencontrer à l’intérieur d’un ‘panthéon’ une formule signifiant ‘panthéon large.’” It is, however, difficult to determine the identities of the divinities included in pḫr ᾿ilm. The expression pḫr ᾿ilm recalls the phrase mpḫrt bn ᾿il, which seems to refer to the children of ᾿Ilu. While the expression literally means “the assembly of the gods,” with no restriction, an interpretation corroborated by its syllabo-logographic correspondence dpu-ḫur DINGIR.MEŠ – dpuḫur ilānim (see above) leads us to interpret pḫr ᾿ilm as a group of Ugaritic gods gathered in a specific pḫr, “assembly,” hinting that such divinities formed a unity of the gods mentioned in the ritual sources where pḫr ᾿ilm appears, or even that the mentioned assembly included a larger number of deities of the Ugaritic pantheon. Owing to the lack of data, however, it is difficult to be sure.11

10 Pardee, TR, 309 and the corresponding footnotes from 104 to 108. For criticism and discussion of Pardee’s opinion, see del Olmo Lete (2004), 586. 11 Contrast Pardee, TR, 308-309 and the corresponding footnotes.

XXXV

PḪR KKBM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STARS” (1.10) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.10:I:4 ]ḥ . d l yd῾ . bn ᾿il ]pḫr . kkbm ]xdr . dt . šmm 

3

[ [ 5 [ 4

[...] the sons of ᾿Ilu do not know1 [...] the assembly of the stars, [...] the circle of (those in) the heavens

There is a scholarly consensus that pḫr kkbm means something like “the assembly of the stars.”2 PARALLELS Context 1: bn ᾿il // pḫr kkbm // dr dt šmm DISCUSSION The idiom pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars”3 appears once in the Ugaritic corpus, in a very damaged column of KTU3 1.10. However, the parallelism of dr dt šmm with bn ᾿il and pḫr kkbm proves that the latter expression must have been common in Ugaritic religious terminology, though it is unfortunately preserved only here. The parallelism of bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu” with dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens” and pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” implies that it was a group of Ugaritic star-gods. Furthermore, according to the parallel epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” this group of gods had to 1

See n. 1, p. 168. Virolleaud (1936a), 150, 151, “étoiles ou astres”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 281, “l’assemblée des astres”; Herrmann (1982), 95, “die Gesamtheit der Sterne”; Parker, UNP, 182; Smith (2001), 61; idem (2006), 101; and Wyatt, RTU, 155; Cho (2007), 16; Cooley (2011), 282, “(the) Assembly of the stars.” 3 Virolleaud (1936a), 151, who explained that “kkbm, par erreur, sans doute, pour kbkbm ‘étoiles ou astres.’” Indeed kkbm, an unusual spelling in Ugaritic, can be explained as an assimilation of /b/ to the following /k/, kkbm: /kakkabūma/: /kabkabūma/: kbkbm (see Tsumura [2005], 150). 2

PḪR KKBM “THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STARS”

271

be related to the head of the pantheon, ᾿Ilu. Obviously, it does not include every god related to ᾿Ilu, only those described as star-gods and included in the expression dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens.” The Ugaritic divinities of known astral character are Šapšu, ῾Aṯtaru, Yariḫu, and ῾Aṯtartu, although there is nothing to confirm that these specific divinities are meant here.4 A possible Mesopotamian parallel to the relationship of the Ugaritic pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” to the supreme deity can be found in the Neo-Assyrian astronomical text MUL.APIN, which refers to two groups of stellar deities in the northern skies, dingir-gub-ba.MEŠ and dingir-tu-a. MEŠ “Standing Gods” and “Sitting Gods,” referring specifically to deities in the Ekur of Enlil.

4 With the exception of de Moor, ARTU, 111, n. 5, 262, n. 242, “according to the ancestor cult of Ugarit the members of the royal family became gods after their death. They are called ‘star-gods’ in Ritual III (KTU 11.43):2f.”; a totally erroneous interpretation. The majority of scholars read pḫr kkbm as a divine denomination. See Dietrich and Loretz (1992), 50-51; Smith (2001), 42, 61-66; idem (2006), 101. See ᾿ilm kbkbm, p. 120-125, 316-317, 320, 321.

XXXVI

PḪR M῾D “THE GREAT ASSEMBLY” (1.2) 1. KTU3 1.2:I:14-15 (×2) ᾿idk . pnm] 14᾿al . ttn . ῾m . pḫr . m῾d .  t[k . ġr . ll . l p῾n . ᾿il] 15᾿al . tpl . al . tštḥwy . pḫr . [m῾d .

[Now] head for the great assembly, for [mount Lalu].1 At the feet of ᾿Ilu] do not fall, do not prostrate yourself before the great assembly.

2. KTU3 1.2:I: 16-17 w rgm . l ṯr . ᾿ab[ . ᾿il . ṯny . l pḫr] 17 m῾d

And say to the bull, [my]2 father, [᾿Ilu]! [Tell the] great [assembly]!

3. KTU3 1.2:I:20 ᾿i[dk . pnm] 20 l ytn . tk . ġr . ll .   ῾m . pḫr . m῾d .

Now they head for mount Lalu, for the great assembly.

1 Despite the difficulty of identifying the Ugaritic mount ll, I do not believe this term should be corrected to ᾿il, as suggested by some scholars. See e.g., Wyatt, RTU, 58, n. 101, who reads ġr ᾿il based on line 20 below. See also del Olmo Lete, MLC, 572 under ll; following him, Wyatt (1996), 44; idem (1995), 135-136. Contrast Smith (1986), 458; idem, UBC I, 285, for discussion and bibliographic references. 2 See Rahmouni, DEUAT, 322, n. 1. KTU3, 6 reads w rgm . l ṯr .᾿ab[ .᾿il]. Herdner, CTA, 7, n. 7 suggests two possible reconstructions, ṯr.[᾿aby.᾿il] or ṯr.[᾿abh.᾿il]. I opt for the first. Cf. CML2, 41; MLC, 170. The same reconstruction is reflected in the translations of many scholars; e.g., de Moor, ARTU, 31; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 129; Pardee, CS I, 246. KTU3’s reading (reconstruction) contradicts all other occurrences of this epithet, since the component ᾿ab always occurs with a pronominal suffix. The same holds true for the related epithets ṯr .᾿abh “the bull, his father” (see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 320-321) and ṯr ᾿aby/k/h/n ᾿il “the bull, ᾿Ilu, my/your/his/her/our father” (see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 322-323). Wyatt, RTU, 59, translates “Bull [your] father [El],” apparently based on the reconstruction *ṯr.᾿ab. [km.᾿il]. Wyatt’s interpretation ignores the subsequent usage of the epithet in KTU3 1.2, where the pronoun clearly refers to Yammu, not to his messengers, and is probably too long for the lacuna (see UBC I, plate 39). Smith, UNP, 98, idem, UBC I, 260, 265 proposes lṯr.᾿a[by.] “Bull [(?) my] father,” but suggests that the text is possibly instead ṯr ᾿a[by] (ibid., 262). Such an emendation would be gratuitous in light of the other attestations of the present epithet and the fact that the lacuna seems long enough to permit the reconstruction proposed above.

PḪR M῾D “THE GREAT ASSEMBLY”

273

4. KTU3 1.2:I:31 l p῾n . ᾿il 31 l . tpl . l tštḥwy . pḫr . m῾d .

At the feet of ᾿Ilu they do not fall, They do not prostrate themselves before the great assembly.

There is a consensus among scholars that pḫr m῾d should be translated as “(the) great assembly/council,” or the like.3 PARALLELS Contexts 1, 4: ᾿il // pḫr m῾d Context 2: ṯr . ᾿ab[ . ᾿il . // pḫr] m῾d Context 3: ġr . ll . // pḫr . m῾d .   DISCUSSION The compound pḫr m῾d occurs five times exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al. It appears in the second tablet, first column of the Cycle of Ba῾al (KTU3 1.2:I. Ba῾lu-Yammu myth, see above),4 a context considered the most explicit description of the Ugaritic divine council and of the assembly protocol at the time of delivering a divine message – which proves the divine high council to be a medium for the execution of divine power. The messengers fall at the feet of the god ᾿Ilu, the head of the assembly, and prostrate themselves before the great council/assembly, and then stand up to deliver their message before ᾿Ilu. In context 2, ᾿Ilu is addressed by the epithet ṯr ᾿ab[y] ᾿il “the bull my father, ᾿Ilu,” which parallels pḫr m῾d. This indicates that ᾿Ilu presided over the great assembly/council of all Ugaritic gods, which obviously included the god Ba῾lu.5 Therefore, from the use of pḫr m῾d in the contexts above, it is appropriate to read here 3 Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “the Assembled Body” and in n. 6, explaining, “the assembly of the gods.” Driver, CML1, 78-79 and Gibson, CML2, 40, “the full convocation, (lit. ‘the assembly’ or ‘totality of the appointed meeting.’ Cp. Isa. xiv 13)”; Held (1957), 183-184, “the assembled body (of the gods)”; Loewenstamm (1978), 118, “the assembly of the convention”; Cross, (1973), 37, “the gathered council”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 169-170, “la Asamblea plenaria”; Smith, UBC I, 265, 266, 267, “the Assembled Council”; Wyatt (1998), 45; idem, RTU, 58, 60, 61, “(the) convocation of the Council”; Pardee, CS I, 246, “the Great Assembly.” 4 Wyatt (1998), 45, incorrectly says six times. 5 See van Selms (1970), 259-260; MacDonald (1979), 521-526; Mullen (1980); Pardee (1986a), 65-66; Smith, UBC I, 285-286, n. 113, n. 114; Wyatt (1998), 45; Pardee, CS I, 246, n. 37. The assumption that the gathered gods are also referred to by the term hmlt, which corroborates the sense of the plenary meeting of all gods in KTU3 1.2:I:18, 35, is incorrect. See Introduction pp. 42-43, Introduction §3.5.

274

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

that the members of the Ugaritic pantheon are being called to a formal assembly. In fact, the first component, pḫr, is a common noun used for “assembly.”6 The second component, m῾d, seems to be a technical term used exclusively in the mythological passages mentioned above. It should be related etymologically and semantically to Hebrew ‫מועד‬, Aramaic ‫מעדן‬, and Arabic ‫ موعد‬/ maw῾id and ‫ ميعاد‬/ mī῾ād “appointed time or place of meeting.”7 Smith8 suggests that the word m῾d is “a West Semitic loan-form,” and cites the Egyptian Wen-Amun story: “When morning came, he [ZakarBaal] had his assembly (mw῾d) summoned, and he stood in their midst and said to Tjeker, ‘What have you come (for)?’” Nevertheless, the Arabic attestation proves the common Semitic background of this term. Furthermore, some scholars9 believe that the Ugaritic term m῾d refers to a formal divine assembly and regard it as a native Canaanite word specific to a political assembly, while pḫr would be the East Semitic, Akkadian puḫrum “assembly, gathering,” and thus a broader term.10 Indeed, the Ugaritic m῾d occurs only in the mythological genre and exclusively in the context mentioned above, while pḫr is restricted to the lists of gods and therefore appears only in a cultic genre. The Ugaritic phrase m῾d corresponds etymologically and semantically to the Biblical Hebrew ‫מועד‬, which occurs in e.g., Lamentations 2:6, ‫ מועד ושבת‬// ‫ שכח יהוה בציון‬// ‫ שחת מועדו‬// ‫“ ויחמס כגן שכו‬He has stripped His Booth like a garden, // He has destroyed His Tabernacle (= the place of his appointed feasts ‫;)מועדו‬11 // The LORD has ended in 6 For other expressions compounded from the term pḫr, see e.g., pḫr b῾l; pḫr ᾿ilm; pḫr bn ᾿il, see e. g., pp. 93, 101, 168-176, 202-206, 249, 267-272, 299-300, 301, 302, 316. 7 Held (1957), 183-184; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XV, 241, ‫ وقت الوعد وموضعه‬:ُ‫واعدة‬ / َ ‫والم‬ ُ ُ ‫الميعاد‬ al-mī῾ādu wa-l-muwā῾adatu: waqtu l-wa῾di wa-maw῾ḍi῾uhu “l-mī῾ādu wa-l-muwā῾adatu: appointed place, promised destination: the time and the place of a meeting / an appointment.” Qur᾿ānic Arabic uses the term ٌ‫ َم ْو ِعد‬/ maw῾idun “appointment, appointed time, scheduled meeting,” e.g., Q. 20:59, ‫ قال َم ْو ِعدُ ُك ْم َي ْو ُم الزِّي َن ِة‬/ qāla maw῾idukum yawmu az-zīnati “Moses said your appointment/meeting will be on the feast day”; or even with the meaning “appointed ِ ‫ َو َم ْن َي ْكفُ ْر ِب ِه ِم َن الأ َ ْح َز‬/ wa-man yakfur place, promised destination,” Q. 11:17, ‫اب فَالنَّا ُر َم ْو ِعدُ ُه‬ bihi mina l-᾿aḥzābi fa-nnāru maw῾iduhu “as for those of the groups who deny it [its truth], the Fire is their promised place.” See Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 1033-1034. 8 Smith, UBC I, 285-286, n. 113, n. 114 and the bibliographic references there. Cf. Wilson (1945), 245; Clifford (1971), 225. 9 Pope, EUT, 49, 102-103; Clifford (1971), 221-227; Tigay (1973), 519-522 on the emendation of the Biblical Hebrew term pḥr; Miller (1973), 187-188, n. 35; Cross (1973), 37; MacDonald (1979), 521, 524; Herrmann (1982), 96, n. 19. 10 On this common Semitic word, see n. 8, p. 204. 11 See JPS, 1753, c “Lit. ‘(Tent of) Meeting’”; Provan (1990), 254-255, esp. 254. Contrast Hillers (1972), 32, 37, who translates “his assembly,” and explains “Yahweh laid waste his

PḪR M῾D “THE GREAT ASSEMBLY”

275

Zion // Festival and sabbath.” See also the Biblical expression ‫ הר מועד‬in Isaiah 14:13, ‫ בירכתי צפון‬// ‫“ ואשב בהר־מועד‬I will sit in the mount of assembly (= e.g., the assembly of the gods in council) // On the summit of Zaphon.”12 The latter implies that the Biblical Hebrew ‫ הר־מועד‬originally referred to the place of the divine assembly and therefore the Hebrew ‫ מועד‬originally meant “the divine assembly,” but “the sense of ‘meeting’ was changed by the priestly source to ‘meeting’ between God and Moses.”13 In fact, the expression ‫“ אהל מועד‬the Tent of Meeting” (Joshua 18:1, compare to ‫ משכן‬in Joshua 22:29) seems to refer to a mobile sanctuary.14 From Isaiah 14:13 it seems obvious that the expression ‫ הר־מועד‬parallels ‫ירכתי צפון‬, which some scholars15 relate to the Ugaritic Ṣpn. The latter comparison, however, is dubious.16 In the present context, pḫr m῾d parallels ġr ll “the mountain Lalu,” where all the deities including Ba῾lu are gathered. The Classical Arabic term ‫ ميعاد‬/ ‫ موعد‬/ ‫ وعد‬wa῾ada / maw῾id / mī῾ād, which has the strict meaning of “to make an appointment,” is widely used in Qur᾿ānic Arabic, e.g. Q. 8:42, ‫يعا ِد‬ َ ‫ َو َل ْو ت ََو‬/ wa-law َ ‫اعدْ ت ُّْم َلا ْخ َت َلفْ ُت ْم ِفي ا ْل ِم‬ tawā῾adtum laḫtalaftum fī l-mī῾ādi “had you made an appointment together [to fight/meet], you would surely have differed [in keeping the time of, or in finding the place of] the appointment.”17

‘covert,’ that is, the temple (cf. Ps 27:5) and ruined his (place of) festal assembly (mō῾ adō ...).” Smith, UBC I, 286, n. 114, for discussion and bibliographic references. 12 See JPS, 877, n. e. 13 Clifford (1971), 225, 226-27; Smith, UBC I, 286, n. 114. 14 See Sommer (2009), 80-82, 96-97 and the corresponding footnote on p. 233 for discussion and bibliographic references. Römer (2014), 116. 15 Pope, EUT, 49; Miller (1973), 187-188, n. 35; Cross (1973), 37-38, 180 n. 148; Loewenstamm (1978), 118; Herrmann (1982), 96, n. 20; Smith, UBC I, 286, n. 114 for discussion and references. 16 On the basis of the Ugaritic pḫr m῾d, Ginsberg (1967), 79-80, n. 2, writes, “... in Isa. xiv 13 b

ḥr mw῾d (‫ )בפחר מועד‬is actually to be read for bhr mw῾d and is to be translated ‘in the Assembled Company (lit. Company of Assembly).’” He later (1968), 51, n. 25, reaffirmed his opinion, commenting that “the Assembled Gathering ... Read bpḥr mw῾d after Ugar. pḫr m῾d (that this is actually miswritten phr m῾d in one instance [CATC I = Gordon 137, line 20 – contrast line 14] is only a coincidence). Even supposing the locality was conceived of as a mountain (...), the designation ‘Mount of Assembly’ owes its existence to textual corruption.” See also Tigay (1973), 520. 17 Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 1033-1034; see n. 7, p. 274 above.

XXXVII

ṢĠRM “THE YOUNGSTERS” (1.6) 1. KTU3 1.6:V:3 y᾿iḫd . b῾l . bn . ᾿aṯrt rbm . ymḫṣ . b ktp 3 dkym . ymḫṣ . b ṣmd 4 ṣġrm . ymṣḫ . l ᾿arṣ 1 2

Ba῾al seized the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the mighty (among them) he smites with the sword,1 the crushers (among them) he smites with the mace, the youngsters (among them) he tramples2 on the ground.

There is no scholarly consensus concerning whether the term ṣġrm is one word or two words ṣḥr + mt; and even when scholars agree that it is one word, they differ on its translation3 – though recently most scholars have reached a semi-consensus that it means something like “the small ones/the youngsters.”4

1

See n. 1, p. 162. See n. 2, p. 163. 3 Scholars agree that mt here designates the Ugaritic god Môtu, but differ on the interpretation of the term ṣḥr and its etymological referent. Virolleaud (1931), 218, 219, “blanc (?) de Môt (?)”; Gaster (1932), 873, 891, n. 98, “Moth, the effulgent one = the brightness of Mōth.” Gaster, Thespis, 224, “effulgent (?) though they be”; Ginsberg (1932-33), 117, “(?) ‫ ;”מת הצחור‬however, Ginsberg, ANET, 141 refrained from translation; Hvidberg (1962), 38, n.2, “that brained Mōt,” and related ṣḥr to Arabic ṣaḥara “injure the brain (sunstroke).” Other scholars relate ṣḥr to Arabic ṣḥrr, see e.g., Gibson CML2, 79, n. 3, “‘the yellow ones of Mot’ (prob. a title of henchmen of Mot (cp. vi 8), who were aiding the sons of Athirat [cp. 4 ii 24-26] against Baal, so-called because they were parched by the sun or were pale from habitually living underground).” De Moor (1971), 226, 227, 228, “the Dust-coloured of Môtu/ brownish”; following him, see Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 265-266, n. d, “la chaleur de Mot”; see also van Zijl (1972), 217. Dijkstra (1974), 67, gives two possible translations, “the white heat or the heat of Death.” Pardee, CS I, 272, n. 268, “Môtu’s scorching heat,” explaining that the first word ṣḥr could be taken “either as singular, ‘Môtu’s heat,’ or as plural, ‘the scorching/scorched ones of Môtu,’” but on p. 272, n. 268, he recognizes that the expression fits the Ugaritic goddess Šapšu, and states correctly that the latter goddess is an ally of Ba῾lu and ῾Anatu, rather than of Môtu. 4 Del Olmo Lete, MLC, 231, and idem (1982), 69, “a los pequeños/the little ones”; Watson (1978), 401, “youngsters”; Margalit (1980), 175, 178-179, “the Creeps”; Waytt, RTU, 140, “the small ones.” But Smith, UNP, 160, 174, n. 186, “the young of Yammu (?)” commenting that, “The wedges between r and m appear to be the heads of the top left-hand, bottom left-hand and right-hand wedges of y. Therefore, ṣġrym is tentatively read here. Cf. CAT’s reading ṣġrm.” 2

ṢĠRM “THE YOUNGSTERS”

277

PARALLELS Context 1: bn ᾿aṯrt // rbm // dkym // ṣġrm DISCUSSION The one-component epithet ṣġrm appears once in the Ugaritic corpus, in the mythological Cycle of Ba῾al, where it refers to a certain group of gods called bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” mentioned in the first hemistich of the context above. The alternative reading ṣḥr mt, which forces the god Môtu to return to the scene, and beclouds text and interpretation, is incorrect. The consensus collation ṣġrm is confirmed by the sequence of rbm // dkym // ṣġrm, which presents a perfect parallelism, not only of epithets but of every word mentioned in the three hemistichs of KTU3 1.6:V:2-3, ymḫṣ . b ktp // ymḫṣ . b ṣmd // ymṣḫ . l ᾿arṣ “he smites with the sword, // he smites with the mace, // he tramples to the ground.” The interpretation of rbm “the mighty/the great ones,” as an epithet suggests that ṣġrm would be a parallel epithet meaning “the small/young ones/youngsters” – an accurate description of the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the enemies of Ba῾lu, which suits the mythological contexts. Moreover, the Ugaritic term ṣġr appears in parallelism with n῾r in KTU3 1.107:8-9 (lines 11-12), šrġzz . ybky . km n῾r (9) [w ydm῾ . ]km . ṣġr “he (Šrġzz) weeps like a boy // sheds tears like a youth,”5 which confirms its semantic value as “young/youth” and also implies his lack of physical strength in battle. That is why the latter word has been semantically equated with 5 There is scholarly consensus regarding the collation and the translation of the above context. Virolleaud (1968), 576, 580, “... et tu pleureras comme un enfant.” Pardee, TPM, 230, 241, 245, “Šrġzz pleure comme un garçon, [il versera des larmes] comme un jouvenceau”; del Olmo Lete (2013), 193-203, esp. 196, “[Fallen in disgra]ce šrġzz, // he weeps like a boy // [and sheds tears] like a youngster.” For more bibliographic references in relation to this context, see Clemens (2001), 1198-1199. For more on the Ugaritic term n῾r, see DULAT, 616 under n῾r (I), which basically means “boy,’’ and “lad, assistant, serving lad.’’ For its Biblical Hebrew etymological and semantic cognate, see HALOT, 707-708. The same cognate occurs in Northwest Semitic inscriptions (see DNWSI, 739f.) which include all the meanings discussed here, “young boy; youth, servant, prob. certain kind of temple servant, and prob. indication of high (sometimes military) function.’’ Indeed, Sivan, GUL, 77 correctly observes that the word in question is West Semitic: “It is also known on West Semitic words attested in Egyptian transcription, e.g. na-῾á-rú-na ‘elite warriors’ (literally ‘youths’).’’ See also Hoch (2014), 182-83, #245, “soldiers; special detachment”; following Sivan see Smith (2014a), 128, 441-442, n. 250 and n. 251. The derived meaning of n῾r calls to mind ġlmm and ῾nn; however, neither include the sense of fighter, warrior, or any military function. For more on the term n῾r, see p. 266, n. 25, and p. 286, n. 14.

278

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Biblical Hebrew ‫ עזר‬I, which seems to have a very strong association with battle.6 There is also a Ugaritic epithet using the term ṣġr in the feminine: ṣġrt appears as an epithet component in dmqt ṣġrt kṯrt “the youngest among the Kṯrt” (KTU3 1.24:50), which refers to one of the Kôṯarātu goddesses.7 Furthermore, the parallelism rbm//ṣġrm has a significance in the family structure of Ugaritic society, which most likely was reflected in divine “society” as well.8 Finally, the component ṣġr “young/little/small,” semantically parallels the Akkadian plural feminine divine epithet ṣaḫurāti “the two small ones/ the youngsters,” which likely refers to Sin and Nergal (ABL 648, Rs. 8).9

6

See, for example, the Ugaritic term ġzr in KTU3 1.169,1 ydy . dbbm . d ġzr[[m .]] “This recitation casts out the tormenters of a young man,” with reference to ġzr. See Pardee, RCU, 160; Bordreuil and Pardee, MO II, 67, “(Ceci/on) expulsera les ennemis du jeune homme”; contrast Fleming, CS I, 301, “(Baal) shall drive off the young man’s accuser”; del Olmo Lete, CR1, 385, n. 177, “Banishment of the demons of strength”; idem (2004), 638 fixes the meaning of ġzr as “vigor” or “youth”; Dietrich and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 335, “(Der Exorzist) vertreibt: Die Reden des Helden sollen dich bannen, // die Worte Ba῾als sollen dich bannen,” and interpret ġzr as “Epitheton des Vegetationsgottes Ba῾al.” Despite the different interpretations and translations of KTU3 1.169:1, scholars agree that ġzr here refers to “a young man/youth/vigor.” Gruber (1989), 69, n. 45, suggests that the Biblical Hebrew ‫“ זעיר‬a lad,” (Isaiah 28:10) is cognate with Akkadian ṣeḫrum, “child,” (Ugaritic ṣġr and Arabic ‫صغر‬/ṣġr) [For a completely different interpretation see JPS, 905.] On the age of legal maturity in Biblical law, see also Fleishman (1992) 35-48, esp. 43-48, on gdl and ṣġr/qṭn; Na᾿aman (2004) 92-99. See Smith (2014a) 128, 441-442, n. 246-248, 250. I see a case for comparing the latter term to the Ugaritic ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, see p. 90-95, 314, 321. 7 On dmqt ṣġrt kṯrt “the most beautiful among the Kṯrt” (KTU3 1.24:50), see n. 46, p. 111 above. 8 Rainey (1975), 76, “Note also the private documents from Ugarit (in Akkadian) in which a father established by deposition before witnesses the order of seniority of his sons (one is named aḫu rabû, the other[s] aḫu ṣeḫru): RS 14.16:6 ...” 9 Tallqvist, AG, 159. On the common Semitic root ṣeḫēru/ṣexēru “klein, jung, wenig sein, werden,” see Huehnergard (1991), 707, and the bibliographic references there.

XXXVIII

RBM “THE MIGHTY” (1.6) 1. KTU3 1.6:V:2 y᾿iḫd . b῾l . bn . ᾿aṯrt rbm . ymḫṣ . b ktp 3 dkym . ymḫṣ . b ṣmd 4 ṣġrm . ymṣḫ . l ᾿arṣ 1 2

Ba῾al seized the children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the mighty (among them) he smites with the sword,1 the crushers (among them) he smites with the mace, the youngsters (among them) he tramples2 to the ground.

Most scholars translate the epithet rbm as “(the) great/mighty,” or the like.3 PARALLELS Context 1: bn ᾿aṯrt // rbm // dkym // ṣġrm DISCUSSION The one-component epithet4 rbm appears once in the Ugaritic corpus in the mythological text of the Cycle of Ba῾al and refers to a certain 1

See n. 1, p. 162. See n. 2, p. 163. 3 See Virolleaud (1931), 219, “les chefs”; Albright (1932), 203, “the magnates”; Gaster (1932), 873, n. 94, “Mighty ones”; later Gaster, Thespis, 224, “Great though they be”; Ginsberg (1932-33), 117, “‫שרים‬.” Ginsberg, ANET, 141, n. 5, “Rabim” (Ginsberg stated in n. 5, “According to f [between lines 30 and 40], Anath has already destroyed Rabim once,)” is difficult to accept due the damaged state of the passage. Gibson, CML2, 79, “the great ones”; Oldenburg (1969), 119-120, “the great ones”; Dahood (1972), 336, “the Strong One”; Watson (1978), 401, “adults”; de Moor (1971), 226; idem, ARTU, 94, “the great/ the big ones” (can only be a designation of the sons of Aṯiratu); Aartun (1978), 21-22, “... den Großen”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 231, “los grandes”; Smith, UNP, 160, “the mighty”; Wyatt, RTU, 140, “the great ones.” Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 265, n. b offered two options, “les grandes (eaux),” or “les nombreux (fils d’Athirat).” Pardee, CS I, 272, “numerous (as they are).” Margalit (1980), 175, 178-179, n. 2, translates “The Arrogant.” (Hebrew rhb “to be arrogant,” refers to a serpentine (tanīn) sea-monster.) 4 Aistleitner, MKT, 21-22, and idem, WUS, 287, no. 2484, was the first scholar to specify that rbm in our context is an “Epitheton e. Gottheit,” but left it untranslated; see also the previous note. Contrast Gray, LC2, 72, n. 9, who considered rbm and its parallel dkym and 2

280

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

group of gods labeled as bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” mentioned in the first hemistich of the context above. The epithet rbm appears in parallelism with the epithets dkym and the semantic antonym parallel ṣġrm. The semantic value of rbm as “the mighty / great ones” seems correct. Indeed, according to the parallelism, the later semantic value should be contrasted with the fourth hemistich where the parallel epithet ṣġrm “the youngsters; small/little ones” means the opposite. Therefore, we have here a triple-sequence parallelism. Moreover, the component rbm occurs as a component in other Ugaritic epithets ᾿adn ᾿ilm rbm “lord of the great gods,” and ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods,” which probably refer to the same group of gods, the children of ᾿Aṯiratu and ᾿Ilu.5

ṣḥr mt (KTU3, 30 ṣġrm) a verbal noun form, translating, “Repeatedly he smites them ... // He pounds them ... // He makes vast desolation ...,” with Ba῾lu as the subject. 5 Rahmouni, DEUAT, 29-32; and my detailed commentary on the epithet component rbm on p. 149-152 here.

XXXIX

ŠB῾ BNT “THE SEVEN MAIDS” (1.3; 1.7) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.3:II:2 (= 1.7:351) 2 kpr . šb῾ . bnt rḥ . gdm 3 w ᾿anhbm 1

The chosen scents2 for the seven girls, The perfume of coriander and ᾿anhbm.3

KTU3, 32, n. 12, “For lines 35-36 cf. KTU 1.3 II 2-4.” With the exception of Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 157, n. b, who compare kpr to Akkadian kapāru and translate “essuyer.” The consensus relates the Ugaritic term kpr to Hebrew ‫ כופר‬and reads it as “henna,” see Driver, CML1, 85; Gibson, CML2, 47; Ginsberg, ANET, 136 and Gaster, Thespis, 236; Pope (1977a), 352-353, “cypress.” See also de Moor (1971), 85; idem, ARTU, 5; Brenner (1982), 153 and the corresponding footnote; Lambert (1991), 185, 186, n. 13; Pardee, CS I, 250; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 144-145 for discussion and detailed references; and Renaut (2009) for an exhaustive study on “henne.” Ibn-Manẓūr relates the Classical Arabic word ‫ كافور‬/ kāfūr to the root KFR meaning ‫نبات له ن َْو ٌر أبيض ك َنور‬ ‫ الأ ُ ْق ُح َوان‬/ nabātun lahu nawrun ᾿abyḍu kanawri l-᾿uqḥuwāni “a plant that has white flowers like the daisy/chrysanthemum”; and ‫ نبت طيب الريح ُي َشبَّه بالكافور من النخل‬/ nabtun ṭayyibu r-rīḥi yušabbahu bi-l-kāfūri mina n-naḫli “a plant of good smell, which was compared to a kind of palm tree known as kāfūr.” The term kāfūr “camphor; a mixture of chosen scents,” which philologists classify under KFR although they recognize it as a borrowed usage, appears once in Qur᾿ānic Arabic describing a spring in Paradise. See e.g., Q. 76:5, ‫إِنَّ الأ َ ْب َرا َر‬ ْ َ ‫س َك‬ َ ‫َيش َر ُب‬ ‫اج َها َكافُور ًا‬ ْ / ᾿inna l-᾿abrāra yašrabūna min ka᾿sin kāna mizāǧuhā ٍ ‫ون ِم ْن َكأ‬ ُ ‫ان ِم َز‬ kāfūrān “the pious shall drink of a cup/wine whose mixture is camphor/drink with a mixture of chosen scents.” Most interpreters consider kāfūr to refer to the pleasent aroma of the drink/wine. E.g., ‫زاجها كالكافور لطيب ريحه‬ ُ ‫ قال وقد يكون ِم‬،‫ يقال إنها َع ْي ٌن تسمى الكافور‬:‫ قال الفراء‬/ qāla l-farrā᾿: yuqālu ᾿innaha ῾aynun tusammā l-kāfūr, qāla wa-qad yakūnu mizāǧuhā ka-lkāfūri liṭībi rīḥih “l-Farā᾿ said: It has been said that is a spring called l-kāfūr. He added that it refers to its mixture with such a name because of its good smell.” See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XIII, 87; Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 790-791, 809; aṭ-Ṭabarī (2001), vol. XIV, 223. Compare Renaut (2009), 193-212, esp. 196-197, “Je suis plutôt d’avis que le terme kōper = henné, et probablement la plante qu’il désigne, ont constitué une nouveauté dans le paysage linguistique et botanique du Levant vers le milieu du Ier millénaire av. J.-C.”; following him, Noonan (2019), 128, n. 328 writes, “Even if kpr does occur as a distinct word in Ugaritic it probably does not mean ‘henna.’” The occurrence of the Ugaritic kpr in combination with the noun rḥ and the Arabic data above affirm that kpr means “aromatic plant < scents.” For more arguments, see Noonan, ibid., 128-129. 3 Undoubtedly, the term rḥ could be used as a precedent for considering gdm w ᾿anhbm as perfumes. The semantic value of gd(m) seems to be “coriander (perfume)” (see DLU, 144; DULAT, 294, under gd (I) and the bibliographic references there; contrast with Pope [1977a], 2

282

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Scholars render the epithet šb῾ bnt as “seven girls/maids.”4 PARALLELS The first line is too damaged to determine any parallelism. Nevertheless, the appearance of the term ġlmm in the third line could be considered as the semantically antonymic parallel bnt. DISCUSSION The epithet šb῾ bnt “the seven maids (lit. girls)” occurs once in the Ugaritic corpus in one of the most controversial passages of Ugaritic literature.5 It probably refers to a group of divine female assistants of 353, “ambergris [?]”). The word ᾿anhbm seems to refer to a maritime product, DLU, 38 and DULAT, 78-79, render it “de caracol marino / of sea snail”; see the bibliographic references there. Dietrich (2009), 42-43, “Both passages, if the context has been correctly interpreted, deal with a liquid that was extracted from anhb-sea-creatures and was used as a perfume.” However, a perfume from “sea snail, murex shell fish or anhb-animals/sea-creatures, which lived in the sea” seems inappropriate, Wyatt, RTU, 72, n. 16, points out, “It is hard to imagine that the odour of murex (dead) was pleasant!” Smith and Pitard corroborate the classical meaning of “murex, or perhaps better the shell containing the purple snails producing the murex,” see UBC II, 145,194, 201, 215-216, 281 for discussion and references. The latter seems more appropriate if we understand the term ᾿anhbm to refer to a “dye,” < “female cosmetic product” rather than to a perfume – which would better fit the other two occurrences of the term ᾿anhbm KTU3 1.3:IV:45 [= 1.3:III:1 partially reconstructed]. For the failed etymologies of this term, see Renfroe, AULS, 80. However, from the parallelism it seems likely that ᾿anhbm alludes to some pleasant perfume/cosmetic product. Because of its uncertainty, I prefer to leave it untranslated. Compare Wright (2001), 208-209, “gdm w ᾿anhb ... the smell of coriander and anhbm-dye.” See Dietrich (2009), 35-57, on sea-snails as an indication of the transfer of religion and technology in the eastern Mediterranean region in general; see the detailed study of the expression, rḥ gdm w᾿anhbm as “el perfume de una diosa” of del Olmo Lete (2018), 191-197. 4 Driver, CML1, 85, “seven young women”; Gibson, CML2, 47, “seven girls”; Ginsberg, ANET, 136 and Gaster, Thespis, 236, “seven maidens”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 157, “Sept jeunes filles”; de Moor (1971), 85; idem, ARTU, 5, n. 23, “the seven girls”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 180, “siete doncellas,” who then seems to change his mind, see below; Pardee, CS I, 250, “seven girls”; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 69, 133, “seven girls.” Pope (1977a), 352, 353, translates “... (which) gratifies girls” (see below). With the exception of Gordon, PLM, 76, “seven daughters”; Wyatt, RTU, 72, believes the translation “daughter” does not fit and suggests that bnt is related to Akkadian bīnu, Syr. bīnā, “tamarisk”; cf. Akkadian bīnitu, “tamarisk wood” as “tamarisks”; following him, see del Olmo Lete (2018), 196, “henna/perfume de siete tamariscos.” 5 The Ugaritic term bnt seems to be used as a first component, and in combination with an Ugaritic common noun, three times in the Ugaritic incantation text, KTU3 1.82:13. Although the latter context reads simply bnt ḥ[ ], some scholars restore bnt ḥ[rn] and translate “the daughters/creatures of Ḥôrānu” (see de Moor and Spronk [1984], 242-245; de Moor, ARTU, 177, n. 16. Contrast del Olmo Lete, RC, 253, n. 148, who reads simply line 13, ḥr.ḥr.bnt.ḥ[ ], and translates “¡Las entrañas, las entrañas de la criatura!”; Dietrich

ŠB῾ BNT “THE SEVEN MAIDS”

283

and Loretz, TUAT II/3, 336-339, “Weicht, weicht, Geschöpfe des Ho[ron ! . . .]”). The first restoration has an internal textual precedent given that the god ḥrn is an important demonic character who appears in two other passages, lines 27 and 41. Moreover, in line 41 the expression bnt ṣ῾ṣ is followed immediately by bnt m῾m῾ and parallels ῾bd ḥrn “the servants of Ḥôrānu” (see below). The term bnt also appears in association with ṣ῾ṣ and ḫrp in KTU3 1.82:18, and bnt ṣ῾ṣ and bnt ḫrp parallels bn ḥtt (×2) in line 23. The latter parallel could be used as an internal textual argument to consider the divinities under the component bnt to be related to the demonic god Ḥrn and to indicate that the terms following bnt are the first component of an epithet or rather of a divine name. Therefore, the few scholars who have dealt with the text KTU3 1.82 have interpreted bnt ṣ῾ṣ as well as bnt m῾m῾ as epithets of groups of demonic goddesses. De Moor and Spronk (1984), 242-245, esp. p. 244; de Moor, ARTU, 177, 178, n. 22, 181, n. 47, translate bnt ṣ῾ṣ “the creatures of Agitation//creatures of Insanity” based on the Arabic etymology ṣa῾ṣa῾ “dispersed, agitated,” and bnt m῾m῾ “creatures of Agitation/Intestinal Trouble.” Del Olmo Lete, RC, 253, 254, n. 155 translates, “... criatura siseante / criatura ... .” DLU, 413; DULAT, 776-777 accepts both Arabic etymologies. (For a completely different interpretation, see Caquot, TO II, 67, n. 193). Indeed, ṣa῾ṣa῾ is a rare archaic Arabic term which basically means “movement/agitation,” and is used with human beings as well as being the name of a plant and a bird, see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. VIII, 241. However, the latter etymological comparison lacks context and must be rejected. In Ugaritic we find the term ḫrpn used as a personal name in KTU3 4.75:IV:6 (see Gröndahl, PTU, 30, 139; Watson [1990], 119, n. 44), which might hint that the parallel terms ṣ῾ṣ and m῾m῾ are components of a divine or personal name. For general bibliographic references on KTU3 1.82, see Clemens (2001), 1187-1188. In addition, the word bnt also appears in the context KTU3 1.3:V:19-20, bnt .]bht (20) k . y ᾿ilm . bnt [.] bh[t]k] . ᾿a[l . t]šmḫ (21) ᾿al . tšmḫ . b rm[. h]kl[k]. Its analysis and interpretation, however, has been a subject of controversy. Three main interpretations have been suggested: (1) The noun bnt is related to the verb *bny “to build,” therefore, e.g., Gibson, CML2, 53 translates, “[(In) the building of] your mansion, o El, // in the building of [your] mansion do not [rejoice], // do not rejoice in the raising of [your] palace.” Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 326, 331, 332, 349-350 adopt this interpretation and translate, “[In the construction] of your house, O El, // in the construction of your hou[se] do [not re]joice, // Do not rejoice in the he[ight of your pa]lace.” Cf. Smith, UNP, 117; idem UBC I, 235. However, although following the same line, Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 175, analyze bnt as a verb in the indicative and translate “tu as bâti” (cf. based on Herdner’s, CTA, 19, n. 6 collation and interpretation). (2) The second interpretation is by Margalit (1983), 91, who accepts the latter reading but analyzes bnt as the preposition b + the inf. construct from the verb ntw “to be elevated,” which according to him provides an appropriate parallel to brm hklk. Pardee, CS I, 254, n. 108, despite his commentary regarding the shaky etymology given by Margalit, follows the latter, translating, “[In the grandeur of] your house, O ᾿Ilu, // in the grandeur of [your] house do not rejoice, // do not rejoice in the height of [your] palace.” Another suggestion based on the same reading of bnt is by del Olmo Lete, MLC, 190, who interprets bnt “en, dentro,” as a preposition and translates, “Y respondió la Virgen ῾Anatu: [Dentro] de tu casa, ¡oh Ilu ! // dentro de tu casa no te regocijes, // no te alegres en lo alto de tu palacio.” (3) The third major interpretation is by Dijkstra and de Moor (1975), 192, 193, who suggest the reading bnm // bnm and translate, “And the Virgin ῾Anatu answered: ‘Let not, o Ilu, the sons of your house, // let not the sons of your house rejoice, // let not rejoice the sons of your palace!” De Moor, ARTU, 17, n. 88 slightly changes this translation and reads bnm in parallelism with bnt, commenting, “Not only declared enemies of Ba῾lu like Yammu and Motu, but also other members of ᾿Ilu’s family used to rejoice in the misfortunes of their brother-in-law.” He translates, “And the Virgin ῾Anatu answered: ‘let not the sons of your mansion, o Ilu, // let not the daughters of your mansion rejoice, // let not the children of your palace rejoice’!” See also Wyatt, RTU, 86, n. 67, n. 69. Pardee, CS I, 254, n. 108, despite his translation given above, suggests, because the latter reading is an emendation of an already damaged

284

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

the goddess ῾Anatu, in a passage where the goddess ῾Anatu seems to be preparing herself for war.6 The component bnt literally means “girls/daughters,” but most scholars7 read it as “young women, girls, maids.” Despite the agreed translation required by the context, the term bnt generally refers to a familial relationship, namely, “the daughters of X deity.”8 Here, however, the epithet and uncertain text, restoring bnm // bnt “sons” // “daughters,” which, he says, would constitute a perfect “staircase” tricolon parallelism. Though the first interpretation does not fit the context, from the terminology of the tricolon (bnt, bhtk, rm, hklh) it seems the best. The second interpretation is based on a dubious Arabic etymology and must be rejected. The third interpretation, especially the Pardee suggestion, looks perfect, and offers two parallel epithets bnm // bnt referring to the children of ᾿Ilu and the family of ῾Anatu. Unfortunately, given that it is based on a pure emendation, it remains uncertain. Moreover, KTU3 1.18:I:7-8, (6) [xxxxxx] . w t῾n. [xxxxxxxx] (7) [xxxxxxx]tk . y ᾿ilm [. xxxxxxxx] (8) [xxxxx]. ᾿al . tš[mḫ . xxxxxxxxx], which seems to be a parallel context to KTU3 1.3:V:19-20, and which therefore could have solved the problem of the meaning of the context studied, also appears in a very damaged passage. For more on this, see Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 350. Another controversial context which might use the singular form bt with reference to a female deity is KTU3 1.3:IV:38-40, b ᾿alp . šd . rbt . kmn (39) hlk .᾿aḫth . b῾l . y῾n . tdrq (40) ybnt .᾿abh . šrḥq .᾿aṯt . l pnnh “From a thousand yards off, / Ba῾lu sees his sister’s march, / The approach of his father’s daughter / He put women at a distance from his presence.” Ba῾lu is speaking of a female deity, who, if we read bt ᾿abh is identified as his sister (his father’s daughter) or, if we read ybmt ᾿abh instead of the unclear ybnt ᾿abh (as in KTU3, 15; contrast Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 280, ybmt bt ᾿abh “{In-law}/Daughter[?] of his Father”), is “his father’s sister-in-law.” In either case, the reference here is to a single goddess described as the bt ᾿abh of Ba῾lu, which refers to ῾Anatu. In these contexts the reference to ῾Anatu parallels the Ugaritic ᾿aṯt “women,” which might refer to a group of goddesses. For translations and studies of the passage, see Pardee, CS I, 253, n. 96; and Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 101,102, 280, 285, 302-303, and the bibliographic references. On the other hand, in mythological contexts such as KTU3 1.3:V:28, yd῾[tk . ]bt . k ᾿anš[t] (28) k ᾿in . b ᾿ilht . ql[ṣ]k “[I] know [you], (my) daughter, (I know) that [you] are a manly sort (or: you are furious/gentle), // and that among goddesses there is none so emotional as you (scorn/inexorable/pitiless like you),” (compare to KTU3 1.18:I:16), ῾Anatu is addressed as ᾿Ilu’s daughter and compared to other Ugaritic goddesses labeled as ᾿ilht. Some of the terms of the mentioned contexts, such as ᾿anšt and qlṣk, are subject to various interpretations and translations, see Driver, CML1, 56-57, 91; Gibson, CML2, 111, n. 1; Ginsberg, ANET, 137, 152; Gordon, PLM, 18; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 176, n. r and n. s, 435; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 190-191, 381, 516; de Moor, ARTU, 17, n. 91, 242, n. 123; Wyatt, RTU, 86, n. 71, 278, n. 127, n. 128; Pardee, CS I, 254, n. 111, 348; Smith, UNP, 117; Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 326, 332, 351-353. 6 Wright (2001), 209, n. 12 states, “The relationship between the henna and the seven girls is not clear; ARTU 5 has the seven girls placing it on Anat, whereas CML 47 sees Anat putting on the amount of henna that seven girls would put on. Since the text before this is missing, we do not know if Anat washes.” 7 See p. 285. A semantic of the Biblical Hebrew ‫ בנות‬in the Song of Songs. 8 On the epithet component bnt, see my studies on bnt hll snnt “The daughter of Hll, the radiant ones,” and bnt hll b῾l gml “The daughter of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff,” on pp. 184-198, 307-308, 319, 321, 322. According to the recent version of KTU3, 77, the term bnt also occurs as a component in the Ugaritic expression bt ᾿ugrt “the population of ᾿Ugarit / Ugarit’s citizens” in KTU3 1.40:35 (Pardee, TR, 94, 98, the collation of bt ᾿ugrt “la fille d’Ougarit”): compare to bn ᾿ugrt in the same text, line 26. For a detailed commentary on bn ᾿ugrt and bnt ᾿ugrt, see Pardee, TR, 136-137, 140. The term bnt “daughters,”

ŠB῾ BNT “THE SEVEN MAIDS”

285

bnt means “young women, girls, maids.” and refers to a group of minor female divine assistants of the goddess ῾Anatu. The component bnt, when used as an epithet, calls to mind other Ugaritic epithets9 composed of the same term in singular, both the masculine bn and the feminine bt, referring to a familial relationship to the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu. However, the epithet component bnt discussed here does not imply a familial relationship, but is a descriptive function of a group of minor goddesses classified according to the same profession or service, which could be compared to the Akkadian parallel divine epithet formulation mārat ili “the daughter of a god” as an epithet for priestesses and women devoted to, or serving in a temple of, a deity; and the reference to the seven daughters of Enu and Ea, e.g., mannan lašpur ana maruāt Éa “whom should I send to the daughters of Ea?” (Kültepe 1948, 611:8 [OA inc.,] cited JNES 14, 17).10 The exact semantic nuance of the first component, the term šb῾, is more controversial.11 The literary context in which šb῾ bnt appears seems to indicate that the group of goddesses described here are minor-goddess attendants of ῾Anatu, whom they helped adorn in preparation for the war. The same goddesses could function as household or personal servants (see above). An exact parallel is attested in Biblical Hebrew, e.g., ‫שבע הנערות‬ “seven maids” (Esther 2:9); ‫“ בנות ירושלים‬O maidens of Jerusalem” (Song of Songs, 1:5, 2:7, 3:5, 5:8, 16 and 8:4); and when in Proverbs 9:3 Wisdom had built her seven-pillared house, she sent an invitation to its dedicatory banquet with ‫“ נערתיה‬her maids,” ‫“ שלחה נערתיה תקרא‬she has sent out her maids to announce.” The Hebrew maids appear to have been not only the messengers, assistants, but also the friends of the female lover.12 The etymological equivalent of the Ugaritic bnt, the Classical Arabic ‫ بنات‬/ banāt, refers in some contexts to “pagan statues.”13 Another potential might simply refer to the Ugaritic king’s daughters: see the ritual text KTU3 1.112:6, w bn mlk w bn[t] mlk “and the sons of the king and the daughters of the king.” See Pardee, ibid., 630, 631, 633, 638, 641-642. 9 Other Ugaritic epithets indicating filial relationships include, see n. 3, p. 195, n. 47, p. 222, 305-309, conclusions §1.3. 10 See CAD M/1, 304, meaning 4, where other examples referring to this group of goddesses are mentioned. 11 Cf. Kapelrud (1968b), 494-499 to refer to “amount of times.” The number seven could designate the seven goddesses included under the epithet šb῾ bnt, and whose number and identity are difficult to establish, or it could be used as a term with religious significance and aura. For more on the number šb῾ and its derivatives, see n. 15, p. 167. 12 De Moor (1971), 85; idem, ARTU, 5, n. 23; Meier (1992b), 546; Marsman (2003), 421, n. 114. َ 13 ِ ‫بالب‬ Lisān al-῾arab, vol. II, 160, ‫نات‬ َ ‫ كنت ألعب مع الجواري‬:‫ رضي ﷲ عنها‬،‫وفي حديث عائشة‬ ‫ب بها الصبايا‬ ُ ‫ أي التماثيل التي َت ْل َع‬/ wa-fī ḥadīṯi ῾ā᾿išah, raḍiya l-lāhu ῾anha: kuntu ᾿al῾abu ma῾a

286

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

semantic Classical Arabic correspondence to the Ugaritic bnt is ‫ جارية‬/ ǧāriyyah “servant, maid, assistant,” which is also defined as fatāt “young girl,” e.g., ‫ يقال للجارية فتاة‬/ yuqālu li l-ǧariyati fatātun “the maiden/servant/ assistant is called young girl,” a synonym of ‫ الامة‬/ l-᾿amatu, which strictly means “slave.” The Qur᾿ān frequently uses fatātun to avoid terms having connotation of slavery.14

l-ǧawārī bi l-banāti ᾿ay at-tamāṯili llati tal῾abu bihā ṣ-ṣabāyā “And in Aicha’s words, blessed be her name: I was playing with the servants with l-banāt, in other words, with statues that used to play with children,” Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 115. 14 Lisān al-῾arab, vol. XI, 127-128 and Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 694, ‫وفي‬ َ ‫ لا يقو َلنَّ أحدُ كم عبدي‬:‫ َأنه قال‬،‫ صلى ﷲ عليه وسلم‬،‫حديث النبي‬ ‫َتاي وفَتاتي أي‬ َ ‫وأمتي ولكن َليقل ف‬ َ َ ‫العبودية لغير ﷲ‬ ُ ‫ كأنه كره ذكر‬،‫ جاريتي‬،‫ غلامي‬/ wa-fī ḥadīṯi n-nabiyyi, ṣalla l-lāhu ῾alayhi wa-sallam, ᾿annahu qāla: lā yaqūlanna ᾿aḥadukum ῾abdī wa-᾿amatī wa-lākin liyaqul fatāya wafatātī ᾿ay ġulāmī, ǧāriyatī, ka᾿annahu kariha ḏikra l-῾ubūdiyyati liġayri l-lāhi “And in the ḥadīṯ of the prophet, blessed be his name, He said: No one should call my slave-servant or my slave-maid but one must say my servant and my maid, like if God dislikes the worshipping َ ‫َوإِ ْذ َق‬ of others but God.” The same usage is attested in the Qur᾿ān: ‫ال ُموسى لِفَ تا ُه َلا َأ ْب َر ُح َحتَّى‬ َ َ ُ ً‫ضى ُحقُ با‬ َ ِ ‫الب ْح َر‬ َ ‫ أ ْبلغَ َم ْج َم َع‬/ wa᾿iḏ qāla mūsā li-fatāhu lā ᾿abraḥu ḥattā ᾿abluġa maǧma῾a َ ‫ين أ َو ا ْم‬ al-baḥrayni ᾿aw ᾿amḍiya ḥuqubān “[As for] Moses, he said to his servant, ‘I will not desist [from journeying] until I reach the place where the two seas meet, even if it takes me years!’” (Q. 18:60).

XL

T῾DT ṮPṬ NHR “THE ENVOYS OF JUDGE (RULER) NAHARU” (1.2) CONTEXTS 1. KTU3 1.2:I:11 11

ml᾿akm . yl᾿ak . ym . [t῾dt . yl᾿ak . ṯpṭ nhr]

Yammu sends Messengers, [the judge (ruler) Naharu sends envoys].1

2. KTU3 1.2:I:22 hlm 22 ᾿ilm . tphhm . tphn . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ[ . nhr]

Behold, the gods see them, they see messengers of Yammu, the envoys of judge (ruler) [Naharu].

3. KTU3 1.2:I:26 ᾿aḥd 26 ᾿ilm . t῾ny lḥt . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nh

As one must the gods answer, the letter (lit. tablets) of the messengers of Yammu, the envoys of judge (ruler) Naha.

4. KTU3 1.2:I:28 w ᾿ank . ῾ny . ml᾿ak . ym . t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nhr

And I (myself) will answer2 the messengers of Yammu, the envoys of judge (ruler) Naharu.

5. KTU3 1.2:I:30 ᾿aḫr . tmġyn . ml᾿ak . ym . Afterwards, the messengers of Yammu arrive, t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nhr the envoys of judge (ruler) Naharu.

30

6. KTU3 1.2:I:41 ᾿ik . mḫ[ṣt] 41 [xx . t῾]dt . ṯpṭ , nhr

Why did you smi[te3 the messengers of Yammu], [the envo]ys of judge (ruler) Naharu.

7. KTU3 1.2:I:44 41

[xxxxxx]dm . ml᾿ak . ym . [...] ...The messengers of Yammu, t῾dt . ṯpṭ . nh[r the envoys of judge (ruler) Naha[ru ...] 1 2 3

See n. 1, p. 233. See n. 2, p. 233. See n. 3, p. 233-234.

288

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The majority of scholars translate t῾dt as “the envoys/the embassy of judge (ruler) Naharu,” or the like.4 PARALLELS Context 1: ml᾿akm // t῾dt Contexts 2-7: ml᾿ak ym // t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr DISCUSSION The designation t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr “the envoys / the embassy of judge (/ruler) Naharu” occurs seven times (including one reconstruction; see context 6 above) in the Ugaritic corpus, mostly in the Cycle of Ba῾al and always in parallelism with ml᾿ak ym “the messengers of Yammu,” referring to a group of gods. The nominal designation t῾dt occurs exclusively in parallelism with ml᾿ak “messenger” in the same manner that the divine name ym occurs in parallelism with its epithet ṯpṭ nhr “(the) judge (/ruler) Naharu.” Thus, the semantic value of the latter would be applied to its parallel t῾dt, a translation of which would be “messenger / legation,” or more abstractly “envoys, embassy” (see below). Ginsberg5 etymologically relates the Ugaritic t῾dt “the delegation of” to Biblical Hebrew ‫“ תעודה‬message,” and states that the latter has nothing to do with “testimony” (see Isaiah 8:16, 20), based on the parallelism between ῾dd and l᾿ak (᾿il᾿ak // ῾dd “I will send // I will dispatch”) rather than ῾wd “tell, inform, speak/ repeat, turn; go around.”6 4 Ginsberg, ANET, 130, “the envoys of Judge Nahar”; Driver, CML1, 79, 80, 81, “the embassy of Judge Nahar”; Jirku, KME, 22, 23, “die Sendlinge des Richters des Stromes”; Aistleitner, MKT, 48, 49, 50, “die Beauftragten/Bevollmächtigten des Flutenbeherrschers”; Caquot and Sznycer, TO I, 128, 130-131, 132-133, “une/l’ambassade du Juge Nahar”; Gordon, PLM, 69, 70, 71, 72, “the emissaries of Judge River”; Gibson, CML2, 40, 41, 42, “(the/an) embassy of judge Nahar”; del Olmo Lete, MLC, 169, 170, 171, 172, “una/ la embajada del Juez Naharu”; de Moor, ARTU, 30, 32, “(an/the) envoy(s) of Judge Naharu”; Smith, UBC I, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269; idem UNP, 98, 99, 100, 101, “the legation of Judge River”; Pardee, CS I, 245-247, “embassy of Ruler Naharu”; Wyatt, RTU, 57, 60, “the embassy of Ruler Nahar”; Rahmouni, DEUAT, 311, 312, “ the embassy of judge (/ruler) Naharu.” 5 Ginsberg (1958), 62; see Ross (1970), 3-5, n. 12, 13, 15 and 16; Cunchillos (1981), 34ff.. On the term ῾ddn “messenger, herald” in the Northwest Semitic inscriptions, see DNWSI, 827-828 under ῾dd2. 6 On the common Semitic and Afro-Semitic root ῾wd, see Leslau (1966), 226, n. 1 and 2. In Gə῾əz, ῾wd, ῾od (yə῾ud) means “go around, turn around, circle, encircle, encompass, surround, circulate, revolve, turn,” with a derived form ῾awwada “issue a decree, proclaim,” and its active participle ῾awwādi “crier, herald, preacher, messenger,” see Leslau (1987), 77. The Classical Arabic ῾wd, “to go back, to rescind, to accrue, to be accustomed,

T῾DT ṮPṬ NHR “THE ENVOYS OF JUDGE NAHARU”

289

Held7 agrees with Ginsberg on the semantic value of the Ugaritic ῾dd, but points out that it cannot be understood as a verb here (//᾿il᾿ak), but rather as a substantive paralleling another noun, dll. He suggests that KTU3 1.4:VII:45-47, dll . ᾿al . ᾿il᾿ak . l bn (46) ᾿ilm . mt . ῾dd l ydd (47) ᾿il ġzr should be “A delegation I’ll send (not) to Divine Mot, // (47) a messenger [I’ll send (not) to El’s Darling Ghazir.”8 The preceding argument, first used by Ginsberg, is based on the Aramaic inscription KAI 202 A:12, [b]yd ḥzyn wbyd ῾ddn “through seers and messengers (v. ῾dd2),” in which the king, Zakir, receives a word from the god Ba῾alšmēn.9 In this instance, ḥzyn, classically translated as “prophet,” parallels the semantic value of ῾dd2 “divine messenger.” Therefore, ῾ddn in analogy with the Ugaritic t῾dt refers to a prophetic message transmitted via a prophet or a divine messenger.10 Based on the internal Ugaritic and Phoenician data, the semantic value of t῾dt seems established, but its etymology is controversial. Ginsberg11 derives t῾dt from ῾wd, and its Biblical Hebrew cognate ‫תעודה‬, but with the semantic value of “message” and not “testimony.” Most scholars,12 however, generally compare it to the Biblical Hebrew ‫ תעודה‬but emphasize its meaning of “testimony.” The Ugaritic ῾d or t῾dt is nowhere used with the precise meaning of “testimony.” Pardee13 suggests, “Indeed, if t῾dt in CTA 2.1 (137). l1, 22, 26, 28, 30, 41, and 44 is correctly interpreted as ‘messenger’ (< *῾[w]d ‘to witness’), than one might surmise that a word *῾d ‘witness’ did exist in Ugaritic – and it would be the literary term for ‘witness.’”14 On the other hand, due to the parallelism between habits, to repeat, to be experienced; to change to, to visit,” does not occur with the semantic value of “testimony,” see Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X, 325-329; Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 651-653. Although the Arabic َّ‫عد‬/῾DD means “recount/count,” the Classical and Qur᾿ānic Arabic َّ‫عد‬/῾DD strictly means “to number, to count, to reckon, to enumerate,” with no notion of “to transmit a message or messengers” but with the semantic derivative “to narrate,” involved in some Arabic dialects. See Lisān al-῾arab, vol. X, 56-59; Badawi and Abdel Haleem (2008), 652, 604 for َّ‫ عد‬/῾adda and its derivations. 7 Held (1969), 72, n. 15; Greenstein (1979), 332, n. 24; Ross (1970), 6, 7, 8; see also Renfroe, AULS, 87. 8 For an alternative translation of KTU3 1.4:VII:45-47, “I shall surely send a messenger to the son of ᾿Ilu, Môtu, // A courier to the beloved of ᾿Ilu, the hero,” see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 195. 9 See DNWSI, 436, 827-828 under ῾dd2 and the bibliographic references to the discussion on the phrase’s collation and meaning; and see the previous note. 10 See DNWSI, 436, 827-828 under ῾dd2). See also n. 5, p. 288. 11 Ginsberg (1958), 62. 12 See de Moor (1971), 130-131 and bibliographic references there; Smith, UBC I, 282, n. 103 and 104 for discussion and references. 13 Pardee (1978), 206, n. 8; see Smith, UBC I, 282, n. 103. 14 Actually, the verb yt῾dd is attested in Ugaritic in KTU3 1.4:III:10-11 (10) y[ṯ]b . ᾿al᾿iyn . b῾l (11) yt῾dd . rkb . ῾rpt “Ba῾lu the mighty one answers, // the rider of the clouds

290

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

dll and῾dd (KTU3 1.4:VII:45), Sanmartín15 suggests the semantic “der für Verträge Zuständige, Notar” for Ugaritic ῾dd and Aramaic ῾ddn (KAI 202 A: 12),16 which he relates to the technical Aramaic word ῾d “Vertrag, Pakt,” and regards as suitable to the semantic of the parallel noun dll “Mittelsmann, Makler, Agent,” which echoes the Classical Arabic ‫دلل‬/ dll.17 However, this etymological argument is erroneous, as Renfroe18 states, “The extrapolation of a meaning ‘messenger, courier agent’ from a root which, in its Arabic manifestations, unambiguously signifies ‘to guide, show the way’ is semantically questionable, as ‘to convey, transmit’ and ‘to direct’ are clearly disparate notions.” The interpretation adopted here is based mainly on the Ugaritic internal data. The term dll appears in the Cycle of Ba῾al only once, as a direct object of the verb l᾿k “to send,” and in parallelism with ῾dd in a broad context involving divine messengers and delegations. Furthermore, the noun t῾dt appears invariably in parallelism with ml᾿ak(m) “divine messengers,” and precedes another Ugaritic messenger designation, ġlmm, which appears in KTU3 1.2:I:19 (= KTU3 1.2:I:13 [reconstructed]) and KTU3 1.2:I:39 – which might be used as evidence for its consideration as a technical term meaning “envoys, embassy” acting in the divine sphere, given that the word t῾dt appears strictly in the mythological texts, especially the Cycle of Ba῾al. While the role of the deities included under the term t῾dt seems transparent from its semantic value, and since t῾dt consistently appears in parallelism with ml᾿ak, they have to be, like the deities labeled with the latter term, among the lowest deities in divine rank; but their members would be difficult to individualize. In the Ugaritic religious world minor deities act merely as messengers, repeats.” Because of the parallel, the meaning of “to repeat, to answer again” seems more suitable, and consequently the root would here be ῾wd and not ῾dd “testifies.” Contrast Rahmouni, DEUAT, 288, KTU3 1.4:III:10-11, “Ba῾lu the mighty one answers, // the rider of the clouds testifies.” However, the damaged context in which yt῾dd appears makes the latter assumption unlikely. Sivan, GUL, 176 suggests, “He is encouraged(?), he is admonished(?).” Renfroe, AULS, 87 says, “The word yt*῾dd in line 11 may instead be cognate with Hebrew hit῾ôdad (as in Psalm 20:19) where it appears to be synonymous with qām and antonymous with nāpal and kāra.” Tropper, UG, 523, 582, 585 relates yt῾dd to the root ῾wd “zurückkehren, wiederholen tun, wiederholen” and states, “Eine Ableitung von einer Wz. √῾dd (vgl. ar. √῾dd ‘zählen, aufzählen’”) ist aus semantischen Gründen unwahrscheinlich”; Smith, UBC I, 282, n. 104, writes, “It should be remembered that the reading of yt῾dd in 1.4 III 11 is uncertain (see Renfroe, AULS, 87). 15 Sanmartín (1980), 346-348, esp. 347. 16 However, contrast with DNWSI, 359, 360, 436, 827f. 17 Renfroe, AULS, 87, 95; Lisān al-῾arab, vol. V, 291-292. 18 Renfroe, AULS, 95. The discussed etymology is accepted by del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, DLU, 132 and DULAT, 270-271.

T῾DT ṮPṬ NHR “THE ENVOYS OF JUDGE NAHARU”

291

envoys, functionaries, servants. In the contexts above they are in the service of the Ugaritic god, Yammu, the judge (ruler) Naharu.19

19

On the epithet ṯpṭ nhr “judge (/ ruler) Nahar,” see DEUAT, 311-315. The epithet ṯpṭ nhr “judge (/ ruler Naharu”) refers to the Ugaritic god Yammu known also by his name Naharu. Yamm/Naharu is a binomial for a single deity. Thus, t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr and ml᾿ak ym refer to the divine messengers of the god Yammu.

CONCLUSIONS 1. THE DIVINE EPITHETS AND APPELLATIONS AS A REFLECTION OF THE RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS OF UGARITIC SOCIETY The appellations, designations, and epithets of the Ugaritic deities, whether individual gods or groups of divinities, show that Ugaritic social and cultural reality was linked to the world of the gods, whose assumed existence dominated Ugaritic life. Consequently, the deities as grouped in different divine families constitute the fundamental base of Ugaritic religion. In general, Ugaritic divinities appear in numerous circumstances not only as singly, but as many. The present research demonstrates that Ugaritic religion was profoundly polytheistic,1 despite the dominant figure and reputed supremacy and authority of the god ᾿Ilu, head of the Ugaritic pantheon, and the vigorous activity of the god Ba῾lu in the Cycle of Ba῾al, and their female counterparts, ᾿Aṯiratu and ῾Anatu. Groups of gods are present and active in parallel in almost every mythological and ritual passage of the Ugaritic corpus. The divine assembly consists of groups of 1 We use “polytheistic” here but assume the following: The most universal, primordial human experience is not monotheistic, but neither is it atheistic or polytheistic; it is rather a deep-rooted faith in a divine world, a world populated by different kinds of superhuman beings or forces. Whether those Beings are one or many, whether they represent a polytheistic hierarchy or an Urmonotheismus, is not actually the fundamental question. What is most important is that these beliefs express a human experience according to which Man is not alone in the universe and that the sensible world does not represent the whole of reality in existence (Based on Panikkar [1987], 264-76. esp. 267; contrast Wyatt [2020], 88-128). Lambert (1975) states that the Mesopotamians were unaware of their drift toward monotheism. Parpola (1997) claims that the Assyrian religion was “essentially monotheistic.” For a summary on the matter, see Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 1-40. Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 168, concludes that “instead of adhering to the antagonism of ‘The One and the Many’ I propose that the religious systems of polytheism and monotheism should not be considered as categories excluding each other. Rather monotheism should be perceived as a process of differentiation and transformation of conceptions and cultic patterns, while relying on media and frameworks of reference that existed already within the ancient Near Eastern koinè.” I agree completely with Pongratz-Leisten, ibid., 142, that “... research on the morphology and typical structures of polytheism and its possible links to monotheism is still in its infancy.” Compare this to the interpretation of polytheism in Greek religion by Burkert (1985), 216218. For a detailed discussion and bibliographical references on the ancient Near Eastern deities and the origin of Biblical monotheism, note the numerous works of Smith (2001); idem (2002); idem (2004); idem (2008) and the bibliography there. Also Sommer (2009), Appendix: Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Near East, pp. 145-174 and the corresponding footnotes on pp. 259-275.

294

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

divinities. Mythological duties, such as the building of Ba῾lu’s temple, involve the participation of multiple deities in named groups. Like the major active deities, the groups of gods also received offerings and participated in the cultic and ritual life of Ugarit. These gods and goddesses had their own collective appellations, designations, or epithets, and were regarded as agents (messengers, assistants, servants, etc.) responsible for maintaining the cosmic religious order. In this study, rather than focusing on the interactions of the individual gods in the religious world, I have focused on the deity groups that had a powerful presence in the Ugaritic religious spectrum, thus demonstrating that the divine groups were pivotal for the worshiper.2 The epithets, appellations, and designations for the deity groups evoke the feeling of an underlying unity, not in the sense of any deliberate movement towards monotheism, but in the sense of a cohesive, cooperative association of supernatural powers working broadly in concert. This is brought out particularly clearly in the expression ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” (KTU3 1.47:1), since this includes ᾿Ilu himself.3 However, considerable evidence in this study suggests that the Ugaritians believed in the divine as eminent both in an individual quasi-supreme deity and in multiple gods and groups of gods.4 Whether an Ugaritian approached a divinity in its individual character or as a member of a group of divinities would depend on the context and circumstances. Moreover, even when the worshiper addressed a divinity individually, the latter could appear either as a single divinity or as a member of a group of deities (sometimes both), the latter itself being one of several groups of deities. In the same manner, the human being interacting with a deity or a deity group does so both as a single person and as the embodiment of all humanity. In fact, as suggested by Hornung, “This divine and human unity is, however, always relative and never excludes the fundamental plurality that permits all other approaches to the nature of god.”5 Basically, the mythology, rituals, and prayers of Ugarit reflect a concept of the divine as not solely an individual 2

To compare with Egyptian religion, see Baines (1997), 41. Wyatt (1998), 56. However, as Baines (1997), 71 states, “Those who sought unitary principles among deities did not thereby negate their multiplicity. Polytheism was a diverse institution well anchored in a complex society. ... The unity of the concept of the divine or of deities sits at least as well in a polytheism as in a monotheism, where it is mainly tautological.” For a redefinition of polytheism and monotheism see Pongratz-Leisten (2011a); idem (2011b) 1-40; Sommer (2009), 146-174; idem (2016); and the several works of Smith cited in n. 1, p. 293. 4 For an analogy with the Assyrian concept of divinity, see Lambert (1975). See Porter (1997), 218, for discussion and bibliographical references. 5 See Hornung (1996), 253. 3

CONCLUSIONS

295

deity, but as part of a large pantheon, mainly attested in the divine assembly which appears in several passages of the Cycle of Ba῾al. Indeed, some Ugaritic sources, mostly of the ritual genre, repeatedly imply a strong belief in deity groups. The fact that the god lists of some Ugaritic ritual texts, such as KTU3 1.39 and KTU3 1.47 (= KTU3 1.118; 1.148),6 are not simple catalogs of individual deities but include single deities, pairs of deities, and deity groups, proves the importance of deity groups in official and unofficial Ugaritic religion.7 These lists are probably based on the specific individual gods, god pairs, and god groups worshipped in specific Ugaritic temples.8 Our research shows that the organization of divine power in groups was axiomatic in Ugaritic religion. The gods and goddesses are organized to function as a sacred community. However, the information available to us at present does not allow us to accurately reconstruct the organization of the divine groups, or to form a clear idea of the contrast between how the gods acted individually and in groups. However, it seems that deity groups under their epithets and appellations made up the dominant religious structure among polytheistic religions like that of Ugarit. 6 Actually, some appellations and designations of the groupings of the Ugaritic deities appear in the text KTU3 1.47 (= KTU3 1.118; 1.148), which many scholars believe presents the official list of the Ugaritic pantheon. See Pardee, TR, 15-91, 290-319, esp. 292, 659-660, 779-806, esp. 796-797. Contrast with Del Olmo Lete, CR2, 50-62,102-103, 340-351, 366-369, 402-403, esp. 53-62, for discussion and references. According to my study, the latter categorization should be reconsidered; as Wyatt (1998), 57-58, commented, “The ‘canonical pantheon’ is a theoretical, representative construction. The texts we have (KTU 1.47 and parallels) represent only a brief window into the history of Ugaritian theological thought, and no doubt, although there was probably a conservative tendency at work, which would use this ideal form as a canon against which to measure other deities, there would also tend to be the incorporation of new and the exclusion of old deities from time to time. For no theology is static, it is always subject to the changing perspective of altered historical circumstances.” 7 The composition of the list of the divine names in Ugaritic and their parallel in syllabologographic cuneiform does not seem to have been a fortuitous act. It must have had the purposes of naming and categorizing the divinities of Ugarit within its pantheon and then facilitating their identification by placing them in a Mesopotamian perspective. However, given that the lists are just simple catalogs of divine names with no context, and assuming that the divine names do not imply precise identifications, many divine names of single deities as well as groups of gods remain unidentifiable despite the syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallels. Nevertheless, these lists must have included titles, appellations, designations, and epithets of groups of gods that expressed the true nature and being of the bearers. Compare Lambert (1975), 194-195, 196. Indeed, the god lists include a variety of divinities and of pairs and groups of deities and thus represent a synthetic approach to the presentation of the Ugaritic gods. Compare Handley (2013), 87. 8 With reference to Mesopotamia, Porter (1997), 231, writes, “... the tākultu texts’ emphasis on the multiplicity of the gods and their suggestion of the special importance of a single god, Aššur, make them significant evidence for Assyrian concepts of divinity.” See ibid., 234, n. 41, for references.

296

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

The study of the groups of gods in Ugarit confront us with the same, and even worse, problems than the study of the individual gods. While the characters, roles, and acts of at least the major deities can be described and understood, the character of a group of gods, their influence, their hierarchy, their members, their conceptual structure, the positive and negative actions which determine their inherent organization, and their experiences, are difficult to apprehend in any detail because they are presented only in a fragmentary way. In addition, appellations and epithets such as ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods” (KTU3 1.124; KTU3 4.149) imply either augmentation or diminution of the individual deities because not all the gods included under that epithet would be of the same level of greatness.9 The study of the Ugaritic pantheon in particular and of Ugaritic religion in general has been concentrated basically on individual divinities, while the groups of gods have been largely neglected. This could be explained by the dependence of studies of the Ugaritic religion on the Hebrew Bible and Ugaritic contrasts with Old Testament and ancient Israel.10 In fact, although the polytheistic character of the Ugaritic religion and its comparison with polytheistic vestiges in the Old Testament has been widely studied, it is mainly based on the assumption that the numerous individual gods are more representative of Ugaritic religion than are the deity groupings.11 Accordingly, this book addresses this imbalance, endeavoring to redefine the concept of unity within a divine grouping. Nevertheless, even after a detailed study, at least at the philological level, my knowledge of the organization, position, categorization, and dynamics of the groupings of Ugaritic divinities remains fragmentary, not because of any conceptual deficiency in the Ugaritic religion itself and its organization, but because of the limitations of the data available and the conflicting interpretations of modern scholarship. Indeed, my knowledge and understanding of Ugaritic culture and society in general is fragmentary.12 Therefore, an approach coordinating the Ugaritic data with that from neighboring areas – Northwest Semitic inscriptions, the Hebrew Bible, texts from sites in Syro-Mesopotamia – has been applied, while remaining mindful of the differing religious conceptions of the various periods and areas.13 9

Compare Baines (1983), 13ff. See the references to Smith n. 1, p. 293 above. See also the survey of Niehr (1990), esp. 17-41; idem (1996), 45-72; Van der Toor (1995), 2043; Handy (1996), 27-47, esp. 29, 32; Dever (1997), 27-56; Sommer (2009). 11 See Sommer (2009), for discussion and bibliographic references. 12 Compare Wyatt (1998), 34. 13 See introduction pp. 8-10, 36-40. 10

CONCLUSIONS

297

From my study I can also deduce that the different groups of gods are organized in configurations that do not exactly correspond to the definition, character, roles, and acts carried out by the gods as individuals in the religious world of Ugarit. The definition of a group of gods in contrast to an individual god, or even in contrast to another group of gods, is more difficult because the performance of a group of gods is more ambiguous in Ugaritic religion than is that of a single god. The fact that most groups of gods appear basically in the ritual genre – which lack a broad descriptive act of worship, and in which one group of deities of one appellation or epithet would receive one single sacrifice – shows that the contrast between unity and groupings and their theological meaning, so important to our modern understanding, would have been irrelevant to the Ugaritian believer. In fact, most probably an Ugaritian believer did not need to “keep apart” the ideas of unity, multiplicity, and grouping in divine expression and the divine world.14 This does not mean, however, that a group of gods emanating from a single supreme divine being would not indeed have been individual gods in their own right. Thus, I assume that the appearance of multiple groups of gods, such as ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods,” bn qdš “the children of the holy one,” and others listed in this study, would have constituted a structural feature of the Ugaritic religious system, at least in the Ugaritic alphabetic corpus known to us. The Ugaritic deity groups as well as single gods were related by birth. Most Ugaritic divinities were descended from ᾿Ilu and ᾿Aṯiratu. Therefore, it seems that the Ugaritic groups of deities were conceived of as independent but related entities acting in a unified system despite their differences in appearance and action in different contexts (mythological, epic, or ritual). The bottom line is that the Ugaritic pantheon was one of unity, not of fragmentation and chaos. For example, in the Ugaritic ritual corpus (e.g., KTU3 1.39:7 [= KTU3 1.41:16; KTU3 1.87:18]), a single sacrifice is often simultaneously made both to single deities and to a group of deities. Sometimes the group of deities is easily identified by their occurrence in the mythological genre; however, their identification is mostly doubtful, which of course does not necessarily imply that there was no system to this plurality.15 14 Compare Versnel (1997), 104. I assume that the strict categorization of a deity as individual or a member of a group of gods is a useful starting point for modern scholarship considering the question of monotheism versus polytheism in the three so-called Semitic monotheistic world-religions. In fact, Ugaritic believers were indifferent to whether or not a group of gods could function individually or in concert. Compare Archi (1979), 9; Sommer (2009). 15 Compare Versnel (1997), 81 on the Greek religious context, “Likewise at festivals of the gods, sacrifice is often made not to one god, but to a whole series of gods. Sometimes

298

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Thus, in Ugaritic religion the sense of the divine was expressed both through a belief in one individual deity and the belief in groupings of gods, but with an ambiguous idea of their simultaneous unity and multiplicity. Indeed, an agglomeration of divinities would suppose an agglomeration of divine power, just as having many deities in one group does not imply a real unity but suggests that a worshiper had the option of choosing from among the deities, depending on the worshiper’s condition and situation. Nevertheless, the chosen deity often functions as a unity, and so in the ritual genre receives one and the same sacrifice (e.g., dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l [KTU3 1.39:7; KTU3 1.41:16; KTU3 1.87:18]).16 As suggested above, the sense of divine unity is very strong at least in the ritual genre, although the representation and the action of the groupings of deities should be considered as inherent in the Ugaritic religion. Consequently, the groupings of divinities continued in other Semitic religions that are considered monotheistic religions, despite their “persistent representation of the divine sphere as populated by a substantial number of active and powerful numinous entities, such as angels, devils, demons, jinns and saints.”17 Yet, while the sub-divinities are represented in Ugaritic religion as mere divine entities, mostly minor deities, in the monotheistic religions they are considered spiritual beings of inferior rank, of qualified divine character. The identification of the particular members in a group of deities is difficult, as is the identification of their relationship and origins. My study indicates that the Ugaritians perceived their gods as belonging to different the place and function of each of the participants can be discovered with some effort, at other times this exercise remains without convincing success, which of course does not necessarily imply that there was no system to the plurality.” See also Burkert (1985), 216-218. 16 See n. 22, p. 174, n. 11, p. 269, n. 15, 297-298. See Pardee, TR, 308-309, and the corresponding footnote for a detailed study and discussion; contrast Smith, UBC I, 287. The compound dr ᾿il occurs once in the epics KTU3 1.15:III:19. See my commentary on p. 202, 203, 208. 17 Porter (1997), 1-8, n. 1, esp. 2, 3, for bibliographic references, suggests, “... The difference between the monotheistic and polytheistic conception of divinity as one or many rests to a large extent on the participants’ definition of deity ... Recent scholarly discussion in four different fields of ancient history increasingly suggests that the sense of divinity as both one and many evident in modern Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is part of our inheritance from the distant past, a theological paradox whose roots lie in similarly paradoxical conception of divinity espoused by philosophers, theologians, and ordinary believers of the ancient cultures that developed in Mesopotamia, in the Nile Valley, and in Greece and Israel in the eastern Mediterranean – that part of the world in which Judaism, Christianity and Islam were born and experienced their initial theological development.” See also Johnson (1961), 1, n. 2; Baines (1997), 9-78, esp. 14, 15; on the biblical context, see Sommer (2009), 16, 146, 174, 180-181, n. 15, n. 16, and references there; idem (2016), 239-270, esp. 264, “[The] terms monotheist and polytheist are useful starting places for a historian of religion, it also shows that they are no more than that.”

CONCLUSIONS

299

categories and assemblages of qualities. The features most relevant for describing the members integrated under a specific epithet or appellations are generally gender (male, female), affiliation (sons, daughters), age (young, elderly), function (messengers, attendants, slaves, maidens) – e.g., bn/bt “sons/children, daughters,” ġlmm “lads/boys,” and ῾nn “servant, attendant,” and so on. Another distinction among groups of gods is location, especially core groups of national deities, ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit”; ᾿il qrt “the gods of the city”; ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt”;᾿il ᾿alṯy “the gods of Alashia.” These appellations display the social and ethnic constituents of the Ugaritic society, as well as the diplomatic relations of the kingdom of Ugarit with the great powers of the day.18 Moreover, the gods can be divided into multiple categories, including minor gods, major gods, malevolent gods, benevolent gods. A group of divinities could thus include very disparate types of deities, and so, before grouping the gods under certain categories, I have first taken into consideration the internal Ugaritic data (lexicography, semantic, grammar, morphology, etc.). For example, individual gods as well as groupings of gods are normally divided according to certain characteristics, the most obvious of which is gender, especifically when their function implies a gender – e.g., ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses.”19 However, even in the latter case some combinations include both male and female divinities, such as the component bn, which would normally refer to both female and male deities – e.g., bn qdš “the children of the holy one.”20 The appellations and epithets of the various deity groups often imply specific functions which frequently accord with those activities and/or characteristics as known from Ugaritic texts. 1.1 Council and Assembly Terminology of Deity Groups Undoubtedly, the most obvious and clear references to the collectives of Ugaritic gods are those expressions that refer to the divine councils and assemblies in the Ugaritic religion. Most of these expressions contain the technical term for assembly,21 pḫr “assembly,” which is commonly used as the first component in those expressions, like pḫr bn ᾿il “the assembly 18 For᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit,” see pp. 112-114, 310-311, 320.; ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt,” see pp. 53-56; ᾿il ᾿alṯy “the gods of Alashia,” see pp. 56-58; see also Wyatt (1998), 25. 19 For ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses,” see pp. 103-111, 312, 320. 20 For bn qdš “the children of the holy one,” see pp. 177-183, 306-307, 318, 321. 21 See the commentary by Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 20-21, esp. 20, “During the transition to monotheism, the demotion of the divine council was therefore a major challenge.”

300

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

of the children of ᾿Ilu,” pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars,” pḫr m῾d “the great assembly,” and pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” (cf. Akkadian puḫur ilāni “the assembly of the gods”), with no distinction between male or female members.22 Indeed, the divine council is one important domain where the group of deities achieves a unity in purpose and action, even though the hierarchical status of the individual divinities in their interactions remains clear.23 One of the most important terms for the divine council is dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu.” This appears four times in Ugaritic rituals (KTU3 1.39; KTU3 1.41; KTU3 1.87; KTU3 1.162). The combination of the two expressions dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l means that a larger number of deities are included, but their individual identifications are difficult to determine. The expression itself implies that a group of divinities related to Ba῾lu and another group related to ᾿Ilu are intended. Nevertheless, the two groups of deities must both be under the ultimate authority of the head of the pantheon, ᾿Ilu.24 This is evident from comparison with other Ugaritic divine assembly terminology. For one thing, the analogous specific appellations of the divine assembly, dr bn ᾿il “the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu” and mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu,” appear exclusively in the cultic ritual genre, in both instances the first component dr and mpḫrt are followed by the divine group epithet bn ᾿il “the children of the god ᾿Ilu.” Moreover, both appellations appear systematically in parallelism with ᾿ab bn ᾿il “the father of the children of ᾿Ilu,” which has an exact parallel in text KTU3 1.65 in the expression ᾿il bn ᾿il “᾿Ilu, the children of ᾿Ilu.” The affiliation and kinship with ᾿Ilu is corroborated by the first component of the chain, the term ᾿ab/᾿il “father/᾿Ilu,” and the term dr, which means “circle, generation, community,” whereas mpḫrt “assembly, council” is more specific terminology for the divine assembly and council themselves. The appearance of ᾿ab /᾿il bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the father/ ᾿Ilu, the children of ᾿Ilu, // the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu, // the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu” in parallel could be interpreted as either referring to the same group of deities and thus a stylistic, not a semantic, tool, or as having a theological dimension, with each expression including a different group of deities. In fact, the main ritual texts where ᾿ab bn ᾿il / dr bn ᾿il 22

Jacobsen (1943), 159-172, esp. 163, n. 22; Korpel (1990), 269. On Ugaritic religious council and familial discourse compared to that of Mesopotamia, see Smith (2001), 78; compare Cooper (2000), 439-440. 24 See Mullen (1980), 282-283; contrast Smith (2001), 46, 221, n. 53, n. 54. Nevertheless, the Ugaritic divine assembly parallels the Mesopotamian divine assembly. 23

CONCLUSIONS

301

and mpḫrt bn ᾿il (KTU3 1.40) appear hint at different deity groups for each expression. For example, in the controversial KTU3 1.65 the semantically analogous appellation appears as head of the text followed by dr bn ᾿il and mpḫrt bn ᾿il. In KTU3 1.10 the two-component epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu” occurs in parallel with pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” and dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens,” showing that here bn ᾿il alludes to a specific group of deities, i.e., those related to the stars and heavens. Ugaritic mythological texts also use the deity assembly designation pḫr bn ᾿ilm “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu” (KTU3 1.4), whereas the cultic texts of lists of divine names and sacrifices use pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods.” My conclusion is that the different assembly terminology in the above parallels would have had different theological meanings. The designation pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods,” appears three times in the Ugaritic corpus (KTU3 1.47:29; 1.118:28; 1.148:9) and parallels dpu-ḫur DINGIR.MEŠ / dpuḫur ilānim of the syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallel version from Ugarit (RS 20:024:28). Indeed, the correspondence of the syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallel version DINGIR. MEŠ with the Ugaritic ᾿ilm suggests that the latter is the plural noun meaning “gods,” and not the divine name of the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, ᾿Ilu, plus the enclitic -m. Therefore, pḫr ᾿ilm should be interpreted as referring to a group of anonymous Ugaritic divinities who might be, but are not necessarily, related to ᾿Ilu. Thus, pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods,” must refer to all the Ugaritic deities without restriction, as suggested by its syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallel. If not, then it must include at least the gods mentioned in the three textual sources where it appears. Some of the deity group expressions included in this study apply to the divine assembly in general, with no reference to its specific participants. However, given that an assembly supposedly consists of more than one god, I see the inclusion here of such generic expressions as m῾d and ῾dt as necessary. As was said, ritual and cultic texts use pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods,” whereas mythological texts employ pḫr m῾d “the great assembly,” which appears five times exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al, and specifically in the Ba῾lu-Yammu myth (KTU3 1.2). Thus, “the great assembly” would most probably include the totality of the Ugaritic gods, minor and major, including Ba῾lu. Furthermore, the pḫr m῾d appears in contexts containing explicit description of the Ugaritic divine council when receiving a divine message, a proof that the high divine council has executive power. The messengers bow down and kneel at the feet of ᾿Ilu, the head of the assembly, prostrate themselves before the assembly, and

302

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

then stand to deliver their message before ᾿Ilu. In KTU3 1.2:I:16-17 ᾿Ilu is addressed by the epithet ṯr ᾿aby ᾿il “the bull my father, ᾿Ilu,” and in parallelism with pḫr m῾d “the great assembly”; therefore, the group of the gods of Ugarit must have summoned the major and/or minor gods that play a role in this mythological cycle. A counterpart to the expression pḫr m῾d “the great assembly,” is ῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods,” used twice in the epic passage KTU3 1.15 concerning Krt’s blessing. Thus, the latter assembly must be smaller than the pḫr m῾d “the great assembly” in the Cycle of Ba῾al. The purpose of ῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” here seems more humble: the bestowal of a blessing on Kirta. It is ᾿Ilu who is asked by Ba῾lu to bless Kirta (lines 14-15), which he does (line 19). According to the deities mentioned in the broad context, the group of gods summoned includes ᾿Ilu, Ba῾lu, Yariḫu, Kôṯāru wa-Ḫasīsu, Rašpu, and the goddess Raḥmayu. Another Ugaritic expression with the term pḫr as its first component is pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars,” which appears once in the Ugaritic corpus in a very damaged column of KTU3 1.10, in parallel with bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu” and dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens,” which suggests that the group of Ugaritic gods meant here are star gods and proves that the expression must have been common in Ugaritic religious terminology, although it is unfortunately preserved only here. Furthermore, according to the parallel epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” such a group of gods would have to be related to the head of the pantheon, ᾿Ilu. Obviously the appellation pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” would not include every god related to ᾿Ilu, but only those characterized as star gods, who are also part of dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens.” The Ugaritic divinities of known astral character are Šapšu, ῾Aṯtaru, Yariḫu, and ῾Aṯtartu, though it is not explicitly stated that these deities are meant here. Another group of gods exclusive to the ritual genre is the singlecomponent ᾿ilhm “᾿Ilāhūma,” which appears twenty times and refers to a group of unspecified gods. By analogy with ᾿il/᾿ab bn ᾿il, dr bn ᾿il, and mpḫrt bn ᾿il, this group of deities might be related to ᾿Ilu. The identification of the individual deities in this group is unknown. The deity group epithet ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” seems to refer to the entire Ugaritic pantheon: indeed, this title appears once in the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.47:1, heading a list of thirty-four Ugaritic deities. This text has two Ugaritic parallels, the alphabetic texts KTU3 1.118 and KTU3 1.148, and a syllabo-logographic cuneiform parallel, RS 24.024 (Ug. VN 18). This quadruple attestation has prompted some scholars to

CONCLUSIONS

303

consider the list a canonical catalog of the deities in the official Ugaritic pantheon. The single deities, deity pairs, and deity groups listed after᾿il ṣpn in KTU3 1.47:1 are:᾿il᾿ib, ᾿il, dgn, b῾l ṣpn, b῾lm [×5], ᾿arṣ wšmm, kṯrt, yrḫ, ṣpn, kṯr, pdry, ῾ṯtr, ġrm w῾mq, ᾿aṯrt, ῾nt, špš, ᾿arṣy, ᾿ušḫry, ῾ṯtrt, ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, ršp, ddmš, pḫr ᾿ilm, ym, ᾿uṯḫt, knr, mlkm, and šlm. However, the Ugaritic pantheon probably includes more deities than these.25 Indeed, the text KTU3 1.47 has an extra opening line, ᾿il ṣpn, which is missing in all other parallel Ugaritic alphabetic and syllabo-logographic versions. The same could be said regarding ᾿il ḫyr in KTU3 1.148, heading a list of single divine names as well as appellations of a group of deities, all of which receive sacrifices, while ᾿il ḫyr receives none. The appellation ᾿il ḫyr appears in the first line of the verso26 of the text KTU3 1.148, corresponding to the syllabo-logographic cuneiform text RS 92.2004.27 The syllabo-logographic parallel does not include a correspondence of ᾿il ḫyr. All the parallel versions start with DINGIR-a-bi. In the parallel Ugaritic text KTU3 1.148, the title ᾿il ḫyr “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru” appears once. The latter alphabetic Ugaritic text from line 23 to the end contains an independent section of Ugaritic ritual practice, which has led some scholars to give controversial interpretations on the moment of the ritual practice and the Ugaritic pantheon(s).28 Thus, the hapax legomenon expression ᾿il ḫyr is a title heading a list of important Ugaritic deities, like ᾿il᾿ib, kṯrt, dgn, b῾lm, lesser known deities like ᾿arṣ w šmm, ġrm w thm, and unknown deities and deity groups like ṯrṯy, šgr w᾿iṯm,᾿il ddmm,᾿il lb[-]n, each with their corresponding sacrifice. Therfore, based on the Ugaritic alphabetic text and its logo-syllabic correspondent version, the title ᾿il ḫyr heads a list of forty-three names and appellations indicating single deities, pairs, and groups of deities – ᾿il᾿ib, ᾿arṣ w šmm, ᾿il, kṯrt, dgn, b῾l ḫlb, b῾l ṣpn, ṯrṯy, yrḫ, ṣpn, kṯr, ῾ṯtr, [᾿a]⌜ṯ⌝rt, šgr w ᾿iṯm, [šp]š, ršp ᾿idrp, [----]⌜mṣ⌝r, [ddmš], [-(-)]mt, [᾿ušḫry], [gṯr?], [῾ṯ]⌜tr⌝t, [trṯ], mḏr, [᾿il q]⌜r⌝t,᾿il m⌜-⌝[...], [ġr]⌜m⌝w ⌜t⌝hm, [ym], [--]⌜m⌝mr, s⌜r⌝[---], [᾿il dd]⌜m⌝m, ᾿il lb[-]⌜n⌝, ⌜᾿u⌝[ṯḫt], [(knr)], [b῾lm], b῾lm, [b῾lm], [b῾lm]29 – which testifies that ᾿il ḫyr heads the deities mentioned but in no way implies that all divine entities are included under this appellation. In contrast, scholars agree that the deities mentioned under ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” represent the official Ugaritic divine pantheon, 25 26 27 28 29

Contrast Smith (2001), 41-43 and the corresponding footnotes 217ff. See pp. 77-80, 303, 320. See n. 14, p. 79, n. 20, p. 80, 324. See e. g., n. 11, p. 3-4, n. 3, p. 77, n. 9, p. 78, n. 5 and n. 6, p. 84. See n. 21, p. 5, pp. 45-46 under Introduction § 3.7, p. 80, n. 20.

304

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

and that the second component ṣpn implies that the abode of this group of gods, a distant abode, necessitates communication through messengers who must make long journeys. The place of the abode of this deity group indicates that, by their divine nature, they are above the vicissitudes of mere mortals. In fact, their distant presence finds an accent in their distant residence, isolated from human beings, on the periphery of the universe. Their dwelling on Mount Ṣapānu recalls the abode of the Ugaritic god Ba῾lu. This is the background of the dwelling-place of the god of Israel.30 1.2 Group of Demons This category consists of a group of terrifying supernatural characters superior to humans and different in appearance from the anthropomorphic deities.31 The epithet ᾿aklm “the eaters,” which parallels its semantic cognate ῾qqm “the devourers” occurs in the mythological text KTU3 1.12. The broad context of KTU3 1.12 and the semantic of ᾿aklm “eaters” and ῾qqm “devourers” implies their identification as demons, which fits their physical description, bhm qrnm km ṯrm w gbṯt km ᾿ibrm w bhm. [b]pn . b῾l “they have horns like oxen, bulk like bullocks, and faces like Ba῾al” (KTU3 1.12:I:30-33).32 The circumstances of their birth are consistent with their nature: in the Ugaritic literary text KTU2 1.12:I:9-11 the two goddesses Dmgy and Tlš complain to ᾿Ilu of their sufferings in pregnancy, saying, kbdn . ᾿il . ᾿abn / kbd k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln . / ṯdn . km . mrm . tqrṣn “Our innards, O ᾿Ilu our father, // (Our) innards they consume like fire, // Our insides they gnaw like ... .” Here both k ᾿iš . t᾿ikln and its parallel tqrṣn must refer to destructive consuming and gnawing,33 which justifies the monstrous characterization in the epithets as ᾿aklm “eaters” and ῾qqm “devourers.” Moreover, their association with the steppe-land is consistent with their monstrous and destructive character. They are therefore to be compared with such groups of Mesopotamian demons and evil spirits as the Akkadian ilāni lim[nūti] “the bad/ hostile gods” (Zû, Ašakku CT 15: 44, 13), and the Biblical Hebrew ῾azazel and Quranic djinn “the demons.”34 30 Compare Day (1994), 182-183, 187; Van der Toorn (1995), 2043; UBC II, 43, 63, 329-300. 31 Compare Handley (2013), 93. 32 Analogous Mesopotamian deities were also depicted as winged bulls with human faces, for example, Pazuzu, the wind demon. See Riley, DDD2, 237; Black and Green (2008), 147-148, and n. 19, p. 64 of this study. Contrast Watson (2008), 361-365, esp. 364. 33 See p. 64, n. 21. 34 For more, see the detailed discussion under the epithets ᾿aklm and ῾qqm, see pp. 61-65, 256-258, 304, 320, 321.

CONCLUSIONS

305

1.3 Deity Group Epithets and Appellations Expressing Divine Familial Status / Relationship Our study of the epithets, appellations and designations of groups of Ugaritic divinities shows that social and familial terminology is essential for a correct understanding of the Ugaritic divine world. However, familial epithets do not necessarily imply biological or sexual relationship, but often simply refer to roles or functions.35 The Ugaritic god ᾿Ilu, the head of the pantheon, and his consort ᾿Aṯiratu enjoy various parental relationships implied by the component bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” in the epithet ᾿ab bn ᾿il “the father, the children of ᾿Ilu,” which occurs systematically in parallelism with the expressions dr bn ᾿il “the circle of the children of ᾿Ilu,” and mpḫrt bn ᾿il “the assembly of the children of ᾿Ilu,” all alluding to the divine assembly and council (see above). The same parallelism is attested in KTU3 1.65, where the epithet bn ᾿il uses the divine name ᾿il as an epithet component. The latter text’s sequence of ᾿ab bn ᾿il “the father, the children of ᾿Ilu,” and ᾿il bn ᾿il “᾿Ilu, the children of ᾿Ilu,” confirms that the god referred to here is ᾿Ilu, and that the group of divinities described as his children, bn ᾿il “the sons / children of ᾿Ilu,” should be related to him. The term bn “the children/sons” implies a familial relationship with ᾿Ilu, but does not necessarily exclude the interpretation of bn ᾿il as referring to the entire Ugaritic pantheon, since ᾿Ilu is commonly thought to be responsible for the creation of all the Ugaritic gods and, as such, is their theological/cosmological father. In fact, in KTU3 1.3:V:38-39 and 1.4:IV:51; V:1, the name ᾿ilm “gods,” which seems to refer to the totality of Ugaritic divinities, occurs in parallelism with another deity group epithet, bn ᾿aṯrt “the children/sons of ᾿Aṯiratu,” and since the children of ᾿Aṯiratu are the sons of ᾿Ilu, the identity ᾿ilm = bn ᾿aṯrt = bn ᾿il seems logical (see below). Moreover, in KTU3 1.16:V:24, ᾿Ilu addresses the gods ᾿ilm as bny “his sons.” In addition, the epithet bn ᾿il being “the children/sons of ᾿Ilu” seems correct. However, this does not exclude the interpretation of bn ᾿il as “the divine beings” or simply “deities,” taken to refer to all of the gods, whether or not explicitly related to ᾿Ilu. Moreover, the epithet bn ᾿il “the children of ᾿Ilu,” as such appears in the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.10 in parallelism with pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars,” and with dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens,” which indicates that the gods meant here are those who have a cosmological character (see above). Furthermore, a semantically analogous epithet component has been attested 35

88.

See Smith (2001), 78-79; compare Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 163, n. 158; idem (2011c),

306

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

for single individual deities: the epithet bn ᾿il(m) “the son of ᾿Ilu,” is used for both gods Môtu and Ba῾lu.36 While the god Môtu is biologically related to ᾿Ilu, the god Ba῾lu is not. The epithet bn qdš “the children of the holy one” occurs eight times in both mythological and epic literary sources (three times in KTU3 1.2 and five times in KTU3 1.17). The component qdš is morphologically masculine, suggesting that the god referred to here is male and, given the data preceding the epithet, must be ᾿Ilu. Furthermore, the parallel ᾿ilm “the gods” with bn qdš “the children of the holy one,” means qdš is a (nominalized) adjective in a construct chain referring to ᾿Ilu. Moreover, the epithet lṭpn wqdš “the sagacious and holy one,” which clearly refers to ᾿Ilu, indicates that qdš must here refer to the same god. The parallel ᾿ilm // bn qdš “the gods // the children of the holy one” itself parallels ᾿ilm // bn ᾿il “the gods // the children of the god ᾿Ilu.” The Biblical Hebrew / Phoenician parallel ‫ קדושים‬/ qědōšîm, designating the members of Yahweh’s council and assembly, shows that familial and assembly terminology were interrelated – which is not surprising given that, as has been said, ancient Near Eastern monarchs, like modern Near Eastern rulers, usually chose their advisers and chief administrators from their family or clan. Another epithet analogous to bn ᾿il “the children/sons of ᾿Ilu,” is bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” which occurs ten times (including two reconstructed and one doubtful). It refers to a group of gods who share ᾿Aṯiratu as their mother. This epithet is one of the most common Ugaritic deity group titles and appears exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al, showing that the goddess ᾿Aṯiratu in this domain has the same status as ᾿Ilu. Moreover, the appearance of the epithet bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” in parallelism with ᾿ilm “gods,” shows that the epithet refers specifically to gods. This fact confirms once again that ᾿Ilu and his consort ᾿Aṯiratu were ultimately the only Ugaritic deities responsible for the creation of the Ugaritic gods and thus theologically/cosmologically ᾿Ilu is their “father” and ᾿Aṯiratu “their mother.” Furthermore, the Ugaritic phrase šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu” (KTU3 1.4:VI:46) confirms the association of most of the Ugaritic gods with ᾿Aṯiratu, though here the number “seventy” is probably a mere convention.37 By analogy, the Biblical On the epithets bn ᾿ilm mt “the son of ᾿Ilu, Môtu,” and bn ᾿il “the son of ᾿Ilu,” the epithet of Ba῾lu, see the detailed commentary in Rahmouni, DEUAT, 88-93. 37 Contrast with the Hurrian and Hittite divine associations, which specify the gender of the divinities separately, DINGIR.LÚMEŠ DINGIR.SALMEŠ.. Archi (1979), 7-12, esp. 9-12 states, “Dans la préoccupation – commune aux réligions polythéistes – de n’exclure aucune divinité, les Hittites concluent leurs listes des dieux ainsi: ‘divinités mâles et féminines toutes, dieux primordiaux, montagnes, fleuves, sources d’Ḫatti, ciel et terre, vents, nuages tous’. 36

CONCLUSIONS

307

parallel terms and constructions ‫ בני אלים‬and ‫בני )ה(אלהים‬, “the divine beings,” and ‫“ קדושים‬holy beings,” refer to deities in general even in the Biblical context. However, though the epithet “children of Aṯiratu” might suppose the unity of all the Ugaritic gods under that title, such a unity might be misleading given that not all of the Ugaritic pantheon gods are gods of Canaanite, or even of North-West Semitic, origin. The fact is that the Ugaritic pantheon includes gods of mixed origins that go back to the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Ancient South/North Arabians, and even the Indo-Europeans.38 Another divine group epithet stating familial affiliation is bnt hll snnt “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones,” which occurs a total of eight times: six times in KTU3 1.17 and twice in KTU3 1.24. Its variant bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff” occurs just once but in the important text KTU3 1.24. The parallel epithets refer to a group of female deities called the Kôṯarātu, who then must be identical to the bnt hll snnt, “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones,” given that in all the considerable number of divine epithets expressing filiation in Ugaritic texts, there is not one instance in which the stated deity or deities is related to a lesser-known deity. Normally a Ugaritic divine epithet expresses a filial relationship of the sort bn X or bt X, without further qualification of the deity X. The connection is always with a well-known major deity, such as ᾿Ilu, ᾿Aṯirat, Ba῾lu, Dagān, ῾Anatu, or Yariḫu; the names of minor deities are normally qualified with an identifying epithet, even when they form part of an epithet qualifying another deity. In the case of bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff,” the minor deity Hll is qualified by his own internal epithet, b῾l gml “possessor of the gamlu-staff.” The available data suggest that there are two conflicting traditions here, one making the Kôṯarātu the daughters of ᾿Ilu (as in the tradition related by Philo of Byblos) and the other making them the daughters of Hll (and therefore associated with Yariḫu).39 Both traditions would be reflected in KTU3 1.148, 5 and 25; compare the epithets bn ᾿il “the son of El” and bn dgn “the son of Dagānu,” both referring to Une formulation hourrite analogue est: ‘les dieux, ceux de Tešub, ceux de la salut, ceux du šubri, ceux de la maison, tous’, ou encore: ‘les dieux, ceux de celui (Tešub) de la salut [ . . . ], mâles, de la maison’ (IBoT II 39 I 49 et II 43 sq.).” See also Archi (1993), 14-15. Unfortunately, unlike Hittite and Hurrian, in Ugaritic we lack a specific source for a listing of deity groups. 38 Compare Waytt (1998), 29, n. 14, “... The pantheon we view in the Ugaritic texts is varied both in its antecedents and in its various descendants, and reflects both centripetal and centrifugal processes.” 39 Pardee, TR, 799 and n. 92; Cf. Pardee, DDD2, 492. See pp. 197-198.

308

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Ba῾lu. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, Ištar was variously referred to as mārat Sîn “the daughter of Sîn,” mārat Enlil “the daughter of Enlil,” and mārat Anim “the daughter of Anu.” Alternatively, the epithet bnt hll “the daughters of Hll” may merely indicate that Hll was responsible for the Kôṯarātu, without implying a biological relationship. Both Hll and Yrḫ are mentioned in KTU3 1.24, but only Yrḫ plays an active role in the text, while the reference to Hll is limited to its occurrence in the epithet here. Still, the epithet is an example of familial status. An additional example of an epithet of a group of Ugaritic goddesses related to ᾿Ilu as well as to Ba῾lu is klt knyt “the honored brides,” mentioned five times exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾lu and referring to the goddesses Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu, daughters of Ba῾lu and most probably daughters-in-law of ᾿Ilu. The constant occurrence of this epithet in the Cycle of Ba῾al in almost every context where the goddesses are mentioned indicates that it is a stereotyped epithet and implies their ongoing role in the story. The plurality of goddesses is clearly indicated both by the epithet discussed here and by bnt(h), “his [Ba῾al’s] daughters” (KTU3 1.3:I:23), which includes Pidrayu and Ṭallayu (and presumably ᾿Arṣayu), and reflects the familial status of those goddesses and their affiliation with Ba῾lu. The latter epithet suggests the three goddesses are biological daughters of Ba῾lu – though the goddess ᾿Arṣayu seems to be missing from the latter context but is present in every context where the three goddesses bear the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides.” Another indication that these goddesses are Ba῾lu’s daughters is the fact that the epithet klt knyt “the honored brides” is applied to them only when they are within the household of ᾿Ilu’s sons. It is possible that Ba῾lu’s complaint is that, while his daughters are nubile and of marriageable age, they depend on some man other than their father Ba῾lu, since he himself does not even have his own house. This suggests that the interpretation of the first component of the epithet, the term klt, should be “daughters-in-law (of ᾿Ilu),” plausibly meaning that the three goddesses were part of the household of ᾿Ilu’s son. However, this translation seems interpretative, given that klt is followed by an adjective and in no instance does it have the divine name ᾿il as a second component. Additional support for this interpretation comes from KTU3 1.24:25-26, where the god Yrḫ is called ḫtnm b῾l, “son-in-law of Ba῾lu,” an epithet apparently deriving from Ḫrḫb’s proposal that Yariḫu weds Pidrayu, the daughter of Ba῾lu (line 26-27). Therefore, the translation of klt as “bride” in this context seems accurate. In fact, despite the fact that the latter epithet component is followed by the adjective knyt as its second component, meaning “glorious, honorable, beloved,” without

CONCLUSIONS

309

reference to a specific deity, the dependence of the three goddesses on ᾿Ilu is obvious, despite their status as Ba῾lu’s daughters. Indeed, the different epithets of the head of the Ugaritic pantheon ᾿Ilu makes it clear that the supreme Ugaritic god is the one most generally responsible for all the Ugaritic deities.40 This status is confirmed by the component, klt, which indicates that the three goddesses, even when called Ba῾lu’s daughters, are under ᾿Ilu’s control, and may therefore be presumed to be living in his son’s house. Another appellation probably belonging to this category is ᾿inš ᾿ilm “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma,” or “the humankind of the gods,” (lit. “᾿inš of the gods / the human being / humankind who are (becoming) the gods”), which occurs twenty times in the Ugaritic corpus, mostly in rituals but also in KTU3 1.123, a text classified as a prayer or scribal exercise. As discussed, the only information about the character of ᾿inš ᾿ilm that seems certain is that they were chthonic infernal entities. The fact that ᾿inš ᾿ilm often appears in close association with the god Rašpu suggests, but does not prove, the identity of these group of deities, who might have shared a common chthonic and infernal character as keepers of the underworld and gods who control epidemics. However, if my philological study of ᾿inš is correct, then ᾿inš ᾿ilm would have included human beings who are divine or belong to gods, and so its translation as “the humankind of the gods” seems most likely. Nevertheless, there is still no definitive evidence against the interpretation of ᾿inš ᾿ilm as a group of anonymous minor Ugaritic divinities, whose character, role and identification still puzzle the scholars. What is more, since ᾿inš ᾿ilm appears mainly in the ritual genre and specifically in the sacrifice list, the lack of literary context makes its translation and interpretation difficult. However, ᾿ilm could also be analyzed as an apposition with ᾿ināšu, which makes its proposed translation “the ᾿ināšu who are gods / the human beings/humankind who belong to gods” more logical. 1.4 Deity Group Epithets and Appellations with Geographic References One of the most important deity group appellations and epithets contains a toponym component referring to a sacred mountain: ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” heads a list of thirty-four entries (KTU3 1.47:1, with correspondents KTU3 1.118 and the syllabo-logographic cuneiform RS 20.024), which is presumed to constitute the official gods of Ṣapānu and Ugarit 40

See DEUAT, 335-336, 380-381 under ᾿il.

310

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

(see commentary under ᾿il ṣpn). The divine mountain Ṣpn is the cosmological center of both the Ugaritic mythological and ritual religious worlds. It appears in the Cycle of Ba῾al as an ontological center, and in KTU3 1.47 it heads the most likely official version of the canonical Ugaritic pantheon.41 Most of the deity group appellations and epithets with one or more toponym components occur in the epistolary genre:42 specifically, the epithets ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit,” and ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt.” Indeed, the salutation formulas of the syllabo-logographic cuneiform texts and the Ugaritic alphabetic texts are loaded with religious expressions evoking power of groups of gods normally identified only by the generic term ᾿ilm “gods.” However, some of these employ a specific toponymic – e.g., the formula ᾿ily ᾿ugrt . tġrk . tšlmk “might the gods of Ugarit guard you, may they keep you in good health” in KTU3 2.16:4-5. In this usage the gods of Ugarit can be considered a subgroup within the general name ᾿ilm. Indeed, the generic ᾿ilm “the gods” occurs commonly in epistolary formulae, such as ᾿ilm tġrk tšlmk “might the gods guard you and keep you in good health” (see e.g., KTU3 2.1:1-2; 2.11:7-9; 2.13:7-8; 2.14:4-5 etc.), ᾿ilm tšlmk tġrk “might the gods keep you in good health and guard you” (see KTU3 2.21:5-6 and 2.71:4-5), and ᾿ilm tšlmk tġrk t῾zzk “might the gods keep you in good health, guard you, and maintain you in strength” (see KTU3 2.4: 4-6 and its variants in KTU3 5.9:I:2-4). Both the generic ᾿ilm “the gods” and the specific ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit,” must have included many distinct deities,43 but the latter implies the faith of the Ugaritians in the superiority of their deities’ divine power – as in the Ugaritic epistolary text KTU3 2.23, where ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt” occurs with the invocation of a local divinity b῾l ṣpn “Ba῾lu of Ṣapānu” (KTU3 2.23:19). This juxtaposition often implies something about the political strengths and weaknesses of Ugarit. For example, the invocation of ᾿il mṣrm “the gods of Egypt,” in KTU3 2.23:20-24 occurs in the correspondence of an Ugaritian vassal king addressing the king of Egypt, Šapšu, demonstrating submission and loyalty. However, the invocation of the Egyptian gods along with the Ugaritic gods indicates that the Ugaritian correspondent believes that the divine power of the Ugaritic deities does 41

See above n. 28, p. 303; compare to Wyatt (1998), 56, 59; see pp. 83-86, 294, 302303 in my commentary on ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu.” 42 Pongratz-Leisten (2011c), 85, states, “Conflict and diplomacy played a major role in the dissemination of [Ancient Near Eastern] religious knowledge and interpretation of divinities as carriers of identities ... .” 43 On the same phenomena with a Mesopotamian background see Porter (2004), 43-44; Spencer (2015), 2, n. 7.

CONCLUSIONS

311

extend beyond the borders of the Ugaritic state. The references to nonUgaritic divinities in the Ugaritic epistolary genre reflects a tolerance toward foreign religions,44 though the Ugaritic senders clearly prefer to invoke their own gods – as in KTU3 2.16:4-5, where the national ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” are invoked in the correspondence of an Ugaritian citizen to his mother while in Hittite country.45 Two other deity group epithets with a toponymic component are in RS 24.643:43 (=KTU3 1.148),᾿il ddmm “the gods (of) Dadmima,” followed by ᾿il . lb[-]n “the gods (of) Lab[a]na.” ddmm and lb[-]n are thought to have been located in northern Syria and southeastern Lebanon (see commentary); however, the specific deities included under these titles are uncertain. Nevertheless, if the semantic interpretation is correct, the divinities grouped under both titles would be foreign gods that had been integrated into Ugaritic ritual practices. Another plausible interpretation is that Ugaritic society included foreign elements whose native religions had been integrated into the Ugaritic religious world – a rather common occurrence in ancient nations with extensive foreign trade. The epithet ᾿il bldn (KTU3 1. 91:6 and KTU3 1.162:1) “the gods of the land,” seems to refer to ᾿IIu᾿ibi, Ba῾lu, Dagān, Yariḫu, ῾Anatu, Pidrayu, ῾Aṯtartu, and Rašpu, and belongs to this category, since grosso modo the latter semantically parallels another group of Ugaritic divinities mentioned in the syllabo-logographic texts of Ugarit, DINGIRmeš ša KURu-ga-ri-it / ilū ša matUgarit “the gods of the country/land Ugarit” (RS 15.24:6-7), which in turn corresponds to the epithet ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” (KTU3 2.16:4-5). The latter divine appellation recalls ᾿ỉl qrt “the gods the city,” which occurs once in the entire Ugaritic corpus (KTU3 1.148:40). The syllabic correspondence to this line in RS 20.024:27, DINGIR.MEŠ.URU.KI confirms its reference to a group of Ugaritic deities, despite the damaged state of the corresponding Ugaritic aphabetic text. The component qrt “the city” occurrs in association with ᾿il in only one Ugaritic context. Thus, the identity of ᾿ỉl qrt and᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” is plausible. However, the occurence of ᾿il qrt and ᾿ily ᾿ugrt in two completely different contexts and genres stands against considering them as certainly related.46

44

Compare Assmann (1996), 26-27. See the interesting work of Singer (1999), 700; Smith (2008), and in general his discussion of Assmann’s theory. Contrast Pongratz-Leisten (2011b), 9; (2011c), 85; Tugendhaft (2016). 46 See pp. 87-89, 112-114, 299, 320. 45

312

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

1.5 Deity Group Epithets and Appellations Expressing an Area of Professional Expertise Our study of deity group epithets and appellations shows that in Ugaritic religion there was no absolute god: both ᾿Ilu and Ba῾lu required helpers and attendants (see below). The group of female deities, the Kôṯarātu, takes on a role of greater importance that supposes their professionalism and expertise, and accords with their feminine being. This section discusses the Ugaritic minor deities who normally serve a major divinity. These include different kinds of divine servants (the servants of ᾿Ilu and the servants of Ba῾lu), general messengers serving especially the god Yammu, female servants or divine attendants of the goddess῾Anatu, and others who were part of a major god’s household.47 The goddesses Kôṯarātu are an especially important group in this category. The epithet ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses” occurs twice in KTU3 1.24. The name kṯrt semantically indicates the skillful performance of the goddesses in their respective professions. According to the two most widely accepted theories, the Kôṯarātu are either songstresses, bridesmaids and professional wailers or procreation goddesses, birth assistants, and midwives. Some scholars suggest that they perform both duties. Their role in conception is evident from their presence in Dan᾿ilu’s house immediately before the conception of his son in KTU3 1.17. In KTU3 1.24 the goddesses seem to function specifically as patronesses of wedlock and conception. The interpretation of Kôṯarātu as divine midwives is based mainly on the correspondence provided by god lists and ritual texts from Ugarit between the West Semitic Kôṯarātu and the Mesopotamian šassūrātu, a group of (seven) birth goddesses. Thus, the Kôṯarātu, in addition to their role in conception, seem to be a group of most likely seven female deities functioning as midwives and birth helpers, each possibly exercising a particular role in birth events. Nevertheless, little can be said about the individual members of the group, as they normally appear only as a group acting in unison, with no clear information regarding the individual deities. The only text where each goddess is possibly mentioned individually is the much-debated KTU3 1.24, 46-50. At Ugarit, there is no indication of any role of the Kôṯarātu in creation, the role of creator is reserved to ᾿Ilu, the head of the pantheon and the father of all gods, and his consort ᾿Aṯiratu, neither of whom are described as midwives. Although no Ugaritic creation epic has survived, those two deities’ role in creation is evident from their epithets: ᾿Ilu is called ᾿ab ᾿adm “father of mankind,” ᾿ab bn ᾿il “father of 47

Compare Handley (2013), 91; cf. Renger (1974), 437.

CONCLUSIONS

313

the children of ᾿Ilu,” and bny bnwt “the creator of creatures”; while ᾿Aṯiratu bears the epithets qnyt ᾿ilm “the creatress of the gods” and ᾿um ᾿ilm “the mother of the gods.” The function of ᾿Aṯiratu is distinct from that of the midwife goddesses Kôṯarātu.48 A possible reason for the paucity of documentation concerning the Kôṯarātu is the absence of texts in the extant Ugaritic corpus dealing with the two major cosmological themes where references to the Kôṯarātu might be expected to occur: the birth of the gods and the creation of mankind.49 Hopefully new textual discoveries will someday shed additional light on this crucial passage. This category of deity group epithets and designations also includes such minor Ugaritic divinities as ml᾿ak ym “the messengers of Yammu,” referred to seven times exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al as attending and in the service of a major god who occasionally dispatches them on missions. They appear to be among the lowest deities in the divine rank; and their numbers and members are difficult to specify because they act in pairs or in a group.50 In the mythological text KTU3 1.2, their designation is always paralleled with t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr “the messengers/legation/ envoys (or ‘embassy’) of judge (/ruler) Naharu.” The deity group known under the designation ml᾿akm “the messengers,” is also labeled as ġlmm “the lads (messengers).” This term appears seven times in the Ugaritic corpus and refers to a group of minor Ugaritic gods. Normally, ġlmm is followed immediately by Ba῾lu’s daughters Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, important female deities in the Ugaritic pantheon, suggesting that the ġlmm were not merely just minor messengers. The close association of the ġlmm with important Ugaritic deities such as ῾Anatu, Yammu, and Ba῾lu makes their association and genealogical relationship to ᾿Ilu and ᾿Aṯiratu plausible. According to some scholars, the divine designation ġlmm semantically parallels the expression ῾nn ᾿ilm “attendants of ᾿Ilu,” which appears three times exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al. In fact, ῾nn, ġlm(m), and t῾dt have one common semantic value, which corresponds to the Ugaritic word ml᾿ak “messenger.” However, despite their shared semantic value, their precise meaning depends on the function and role 48 Compare the Mesopotamian material, as in Ugarit, “Assyrian tradition splits the roles of the divine mother and midwife into two figures,” Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 147150 under 1.3 The Trope of the Divine Mother and the Institution of Divine Adoption, and pp. 160, 163-164, 165. Contrast with the Assyrian goddess(es) Ištar(s), see Spencer (2015), 12. 49 See Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 144, n. 69, 150-155, on the role of the midwife and wet nurse in the ancient Near East, especially ancient Iraq, in comparison to the Western world. Unfortunately, the Ugaritic material fails to provide a detailed description of this role. 50 Pongratz-Leisten (2011a), 10ff..

314

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

required by their immediate context.51 In any case, all Ugaritic terms relating to messengers, attendants, and envoys appear exclusively in the Cycle of Ba῾al (KTU3 1.2, 1.3, 1.4). This reveals that the protocol of request to a higher god happened through an intermediary.52 To the same category belong the ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” (once abbreviated ᾿il t῾ḏr), mentioned eight times, exclusively in cultic and ritual texts. The term’s syllabo-logographic correspondence, DINGIR.MEŠ til-la-at dIM (ilānu til-la-at dadad) “relief troops / auxiliary gods of dAdad” (RS 20.024, 25) implies that it had a military connotation. The identification of the members of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods (of Ba῾lu)” is difficult. However, the third component, the divine name b῾l, suggests that the deities must be in that god’s service, and among them would be his daughters Pidrayu and Ṭallayu, because they systematically appear after ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods (of Ba῾lu).” In addition, the identification of ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods (of Ba῾lu)” with the mythological characters šb῾t ġlm(k) . ṯmn . ḫnzr(k) “seven lads, eight boars” and their relation to the pḫr b῾l seems logical in that all certainly refer to subordinate deities related to Ba῾lu. An example from a militaristic context is the Ugaritic epithet šb῾ bnt “the seven maids,” which occurs once in the same mythological contexts (KTU3 1.3:II:2 [= 1.7:35]). It is generally agreed that the term bnt should here be translated as “young women, girls, maids” and refers to a group of divine female assistants of the goddess ῾Anatu in a passage where the goddess prepares herself for war – though it is plausible that šb῾ bnt might generally refer to ῾Anatu’s household staff, personal servants rather than to a group of specialist goddesses. In the same category is a group of goddesses designated ᾿amht “maidservants,” which appears twice in the Ba῾al Cycle (KTU3 1.4). The semantic value of ᾿amht “maidservants” in this context not only alludes to their low social status in the pantheon, but also to their low moral status in a way that might be in the manner of “blaming the victim.” The singular ᾿amt is used as an epithet component in ᾿amt ᾿aṯrt “maidservant of ᾿Aṯiratu,” and ᾿amt yrḫ “maidservant of Yariḫu” (KTU31.12), which refer 51 Compare Handy (1994), 157, n. 24, and his criticism of del Olmo Lete, MLC, 602, 607, and 637. 52 Smith and Pitard, UBC II, 37, 307, point out that “a similar situation is attested in 1 Kings 1, where Solomon’s mother Bathsheba goes to David to request that the king appoint her son as successor: Solomon plays no direct role in the negotiations. By sending an envoy, the petitioner avoids the potential embarrassment of being turned down in person, which might also be an unpleasantness to the one petitioned.” This same situation would be applied to the god Ba῾lu.

CONCLUSIONS

315

to the minor goddesses, e.g., Dmgy and Tlš, in a context with sexual nuances. I conclude that ᾿amht “maidservants,” here designates the low status of such divine entities in relation to a superior god, in this specific context Ba῾lu. The etymological and semantic cognate of this term have persisted in other Semitic languages, such as Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic.53 Another group of female deities in this same category are the ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses,” mentioned three times exclusively in the Kirta legend (KTU3 1.16). This epithet occurs in parallel with ᾿ilš ngr bt b῾l “᾿Ilš the herald of the house of Ba῾lu” and ngr ᾿il ᾿ilš “the divine herald ᾿Ilš,” both referring to the same minor deity ᾿Ilš.54 Thus, ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses” must usually act in concert with the minor Ugaritic deity ᾿Ilš in the service of the god Ba῾lu. The epithets and designations in this section prove that Ugaritic religion was not a religion exclusively dominated by male deities. Nevertheless, the final divine epithets and designations above show that in Ugaritic religion the function and the role carried out by divinities are related to their gender, which no doubt reflects various aspects of the Ugaritic social reality. One of the most important functions is that attributed to the group of minor male divinities, the Ugaritic ml᾿akm “messenger(s), > angels,” the semantic and the role of which was widely attested in Syro-Mesopotamian sources from the earliest times into the Old Testament and beyond, and in every source they were mostly masculine. The essence of the groupings of female deities, on the other hand, is their devotion to a major male deity, and only occasionally to a major goddess. The groups of female deities adopt social roles such as that of the marriageable maiden and such stereotypical female functions as that of the midwife. The role of the Kôṯarātu goddesses as “midwives” seems to have been typically female in that society. In Ugarit too, some female deities occupied themselves with domestic concerns – e.g., the šb῾ bnt “the seven maids.”55 Thus, the Ugaritic goddess groupings, even more the single female divinities, display archetypal and stereotyped female roles.56 Nevertheless, the gender of any group of deities included under the same epithet or divine appellation 53

See n. 15, n. 16, p. 69. For a detailed study of the epithets, see Rahmouni, DEUAT, 64-66, 236-237. 55 Compare to Dever (1997), 52, who states, “In ancient Israel most women, having been excluded from public life and the conduct of official political and religious functions, necessarily occupied themselves with domestic concerns.” Compare Wyatt (1998), 28, n. 10. 56 See the comparison offered by Frymer-Kensky (1992), 14, 15, 24-25. 54

316

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

and designation is usually difficult to determine precisely.57 The function and the role of mostly minor Ugaritic goddesses mirrors the organization of the women in secular Ugaritic households or other institutions.58 1.6 Deity Group Epithets and Appellations Expressing Celestial and Astral Characters The stars, planets, and constellations must have been essential features in the Ugaritic religious world. The data are meager, but I assume that the celestial bodies were conceived of as divine, though most probably with less status than the major gods. Celestial divination very likely was practiced at Ugarit.59 To this category belongs the epithet ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star-gods,” which appears once in the Ugaritic corpus (KTU3 1.43) and refers to a group of gods obviously associated with the stars. The identification of ᾿ilm kbkbm as a group of astral divinities is confirmed by pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” (KTU3 1.10:I:4), which appears in parallelism with bn ᾿il “the children / sons of ᾿Ilu,” and dr dt šmm “the circle (of those in) the heavens” in KTU3 1.10:I:5, thus confirming that ᾿ilm kbkbm are probably divinities related to ᾿Ilu. However, since astronomical and astrological references are very scarce in Ugaritic texts, the identification, character, and role of the ᾿ilm kbkbm is difficult to determine. The first component ᾿ilm could be interpreted as referring to the entire Ugaritic pantheon; but the second component kbkbm “star” proves that the epithet refers only to celestial bodies. Therefore, my opinion is that ᾿ilm kbkbm would include mainly those specific Ugaritic gods described in Ugaritic texts as astral deities, such as Šapšu, Yariḫu, ῾Aṯtaru, ῾Aṯtartu and Rašpu, etc.. These deities – and most probably other unknown Ugaritic astral deities – would be included under the expression pḫr kkbm “the assembly / the entirety of the stars,” and consequently its parallels bn ᾿il “the children / sons of ᾿Ilu,” and dr dt šmm “the circle (of those in) the 57

Compare Wyatt (1998), 25. Compare UBC II, 22 and the Mesopotamian material in Pongratz-Leisten (2003), 144, 162. See Hundley (2013), 72, n. 22 for references. 59 Contrast Cooley (2011), 281-287; idem (2012), 21-30; compare to the Mesopotamian material. See Pongratz-Leisten (2011a), 8-10, n. 26-30, 13-14, n. 44, 49, who distinguishes “between the deity as primary agent and his or her indices of presence, such as the statue, symbol, and celestial bodies, as secondary agents,” explaining, “the category of secondary agents implies a conceptual distinction between the deity as primary agent and his or her secondary agents. In other words, the deity is neither isomorphic nor identical with the statue and other secondary agents.” She further states that “although celestial bodies, images, and symbols were conceptualized as having divine status, they were neither thought to represent the actual form of a deity nor were they considered to be identical and synonymous.” 58

CONCLUSIONS

317

heavens.” Moreover, the phrase bt ᾿ilm kbkbm “the house/temple of the star-gods” means that these gods had their own “house/temple,” though there is no evidence of it in the excavations at Ras Shamra. The three expressions above prove once more that the veneration of the stars or starry heavens was an important feature of Ugaritic religion, as of Semitic religions in general. Another Ugaritic reference to the astral deities is kbkbm knm “the fixed stars” (KTU3 1.23:54), which appears once in the Ugaritic corpus. However, the identification of this group of gods is unknown, although the first component, kbkbm, and its parallelism with the goddess Šapšu, prove their astral character, which some relate to ᾿Ilu’s astral family in general. If my interpretation of the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.13 is correct, the minor gods known as messengers are astral deities as well, ml᾿ak šmm “celestial messengers” (KTU3 1.13:25-26).60 1.7 Epithets Expressing Physical and Other Qualities – Divine Status, Strength, Beauty, etc. The epithet ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods” is one of the most important regarding the relative status of the gods in the Ugaritic pantheon and religion. It specifically refers to the Ugaritic deity Šaḥru wa-Šalimu with other Ugaritic divinities like Šapšu and Yariḫu, and appears exclusively in the Ugaritic text KTU3 1.23, which uniquely synthesizes two genres, myth and ritual, and thus stands outside the Ugaritic mythological cycles (the Cycle of Ba῾al, the Epics of Kirta and ᾿Aqhatu). This implies that it belongs to an older, somewhat different, Ugaritic cycle unknown to us. The epithet ᾿ilm n῾mm “gracious gods” appears in parallelism with the term ysm, indicating that both refer to the physical attractiveness of the gods. Unexpectedly, however, the ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods” are also described in their youth as gods with an enormously voracious appetite. The semantic value of the component n῾m(m) “gracious, pleasant, handsome” is corroborated by the attestation of the component n῾m in other epithets of particular Ugaritic deities: e.g., n῾mn ᾿ilm “the most handsome of the gods,” which refers to the god Yariḫu (KTU3 1.24); and ῾Anatu n῾mt (/bn) ᾿aḫt b῾l “the loveliest of (/among) the sisters of Ba῾lu” (KTU3 1. 10), both epithets referring to fertility and physical and sexual attractiveness. Another example in this category is the epithet ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods” which occurs twice in the Ugaritic corpus, once as the second component of the epithet ᾿adn ᾿ilm rbm “lord of the great gods” (KTU3 1.124), 60

See pp. 38-40 and the corresponding footnotes; and Handy (1994), 158-159, n. 30.

318

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

and again simply as ᾿ilm rbm (KTU3 4.149), among other minor divine names. Despite the contrasting genres of KTU3 1.124 and KTU3 4.149, the parallel usage of the epithet confirms the likely religious character of both texts. As stated in my commentary on ᾿ilm rbm, its interpretation as “the great gods” (KTU3 1.124) is consistent with its first component ᾿adn “the lord,” generally identified as ᾿Ilu. Consequently, the semantic relationship of the component ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods” with ᾿Ilu seems logical. This is supported by ᾿Ilu’s epithets ᾿ab bn ᾿il “the father of the children of ᾿Ilu”; and by the collective epithets bn qdš “the children of the holy one” and ... bn ᾿il “... the children of ᾿Ilu,” which indicate without doubt that ᾿adn refers to ᾿Ilu. Consequently, ᾿ilm rbm must be understood as the gods of the Ugaritic pantheon related to the father god ᾿Ilu and the mother goddess ᾿Aṯiratu. This suggests that the šb῾m ᾿ilm bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy sons of Aṯiratu” were among those meant by the epithet “the great gods.” Therefore the gods included under the epithet would mainly be major Ugaritic gods like ᾿Ilu, ᾿Aṯiratu, ῾Anatu, ῾Aṯtartu, Šapšu, Yariḫu, and of course Ba῾lu and Dagānu.61 Thus, Wyatt62 believes that “the great gods” in the context of bt ᾿ilm rbm, which he translates as “the temple(s) of ‘the great gods’ ... may denote Ba῾lu and Dagānu, whose temples lie on the acropolis.” The latter statement is consistent with my interpretation. Unfortunately, the Ugaritic data are insufficient to establish a decisive link between bt ᾿ilm rbm “the temple of the great gods” (KTU3 4.149) and any known Ugaritic temple dedicated to a collective Ugaritic divinity. Other deity group epithets expressing physical qualities are the three single-component parallel epithets rbm “the mighty,” dkym “the crushers,” and ṣġrm “the youngsters.” These appear once in the Ugaritic corpus in the Cycle of Ba῾al (KTU3 1.6), and refer to a group of gods labeled bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” in the first hemistich. There seems to be a gradual semantic nuance in the sequence of bn ᾿aṯrt “the sons of ᾿Aṯiratu,” enemies of the god Ba῾lu: first rbm “the great / mighty ones”; last ṣġrm “the youngsters; the small/little ones”; and between dkym “the crushers.” Consequently, different epithets might apply to different groups of the sons of ᾿Aṯiratu, the enemies of Ba῾lu. However, with the exception of Ba῾lu and his unconditional faithful supporter, the goddess ῾Anatu, the identification of the members of the groups is problematic. 61 The comparative data from Mesopotamia confirm the above; see my commentary on this epithet on pp. 145-152, 162-167. Compare Smith (2001), 45, 221, n. 45-47. 62 Wyatt (1998), 42.

CONCLUSIONS

319

Another epithet in this category describes a group of female divinities that radiate luminosity because of their brightness, radiance, and divine aura:63 the epithet the bnt hll snnt “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” appears eight times in the Ugaritic legend of Aqhat, KTU3 1.17, and KTU3 1.24, and refers to the goddess-group Kôṯarātu. The translation of the epithet component snnt “the radiant ones,” semantically parallels another well-documented Ugaritic divine epithet, bt ᾿ar, “the luminary, e.g., the one associated with light” (KTU3 1.24, line 26). The latter epithet presents a construct chain composed of bt “daughter” and ᾿ar “light.” The semantic interpretation of the epithet bnt hll snnt as “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” attributes to these goddesses a dazzling divine aura. Similar epithets and descriptions are attested for Mesopotamian deities, including Ištar and Ninmaḫ. In Classical Arabic, ‫“ سنا‬brightness” refers to Allāh’s lightning. This divine aura leads to philosophical questions concerning the anthropomorphism of the so-called unique God.64 The epithet klt knyt “the honored brides,” referring to Ba῾lu’s daughters Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu, involves their physical and legal status as daughters, young women available for marriage, and nubile girls for whose virginity the father is responsible (cf. Greek. nymphai). The goddesses’ physical description and legal status is implicit in the epithet btlt ῾nt “the maiden ῾Anatu,” which refers to another of Ba῾lu’s daughters, the goddess ῾Anatu. The relationship between ῾Anatu, Pidrayu, Ṭallayu, and ᾿Arṣayu therefore is evidently quite close. Furthermore, both klt knyt “the honored brides” and btlt ῾nt “the maiden ῾Anatu” show that there is no reason to suppose that these epithets, at least in the mythological genre, have legal connotations. In ancient Near Eastern society the unmarried nubile woman was normally expected to be young, beautiful, and chaste; but in Ugaritic myth goddesses do not necessarily fulfill such criteria.65 63 Compare Hundley (2013), 80 and the corresponding footnote and bibliographical references. 64 See Sommer (2009), 3, 6, 7, 8, 177-178, n. 34, for discussion and bibliographic references. 65 Rahmouni, DEUAT, 134-141. On the translation of the semantically equivalent Biblical Hebrew word ‫עלמה‬, see Collins (2011), 307, n. 92, “In my judgment, however, no great significance can be attached to the admittedly unusual translation of ‫ עלמה‬as παρθένος in Isaiah 7. As Seeligmann concluded: ‘After all, it is not unthinkable that the translator merely conceived the Hebrew word – erroneously of course – to mean ‘young virgin’ = parthenos.’ (cf. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004] 292–93. Johan Lust [Messianism and the Septuagint, 222] denies that the choice of word is meant to imply virginity stricto sensu).” For a discussion of the Mesopotamian deities transcending, the limits of humanity, see Hundley (2013), 82-84, and bibliographic references.

320

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

1.8 Deity Group Appellations and Epithets Expressing Patronage or Ownership The epithet ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld” appears five times systematically in contexts of lamentation, and refers to a group of underworld deities – that is, chthonic deities who live in darkness. The suzerainty of this group of gods over the netherworld is confirmed by 1 Samuel 28:13, ‫הארץ‬-‫“ אלהים ראיתי עלים מן‬I see a divine being coming up from the earth/netherworld.” Some of the Ugaritic deities described as underworld divinities are Rašpu, Milku, Pidrayu, ᾿Arṣayu, and Ṭallayu, whose epithets reflect a complex aspect of the cosmic typology, since none of them are exclusively underworld gods.66 The ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld” are an important type of divinity because their various characters and roles were crucial for the development of the plot of the Cycle of Ba῾al. Another epithet belonging to this category is ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu,” ṣpn “Ṣapānu,” being a sacred mountain and the center of the earth in Ugaritian consciousness and cosmology.67 2. THE COMPOSITION OF THE EPITHETS AND APPELLATIONS In the present study, 40 divine appellations, designations, and epithets have been discussed. The vast majority are composed of one or two components. Nine are of just one component: ᾿aklm “the eaters”; ᾿amht “the maidservants”; ᾿ilhm “᾿Ilāhūma”; dkym “the crushers”; ml᾿akm “(the) messengers” (with the two-component variant ml᾿ak ym “[the] messengers of Yammu”); ῾qqm “the devourers”; ġlmm “the lads (messengers)”; ṣġrm “the youngsters”; and rbm “the mighty.” Twenty-six are composed of two components: ᾿il bldn “the gods of the land”; ᾿il ddmm “the gods (of) Dadmima”; ᾿il ḫyr “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru”;᾿il lb[-]n “the gods of Lab[a]na”;᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu”; ᾿il qrt “the gods of the city”; ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses”; ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit”; ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld”; ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star gods”; ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods”; ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods”; ᾿inš ᾿ilm “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma”; bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu” (with its threecomponent variant šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu”); bn 66 Royalty was believed to be deified at death. In this study a distinction was adopted between “primordial” gods and deified kings; consequently semi-divine heroes were excluded, p. 4, 5, see Introduction §3.1, pp. 11-21. 67 See above pp. 83-86, 302-303, 304, 305, 309-310.

CONCLUSIONS

321

᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu”; bn qdš “the children of the holy one”; dr ᾿il “the circle of ᾿Ilu” (with its four-component variant dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu”); kbkbm knm “the fixed stars”; klt knyt “the honored brides”; ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses”;῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods”; ῾nn ᾿ilm “attendants of ᾿Ilu”; pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods”; pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars”; pḫr m῾d “the great assembly”; šb῾ bnt “the seven maids”; and ml᾿akm “(the) messengers” (with its variant ml᾿ak ym “[the] messengers of Yammu”). Four epithets are composed of three components:᾿᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helpergods of Ba῾lu”; bnt hll snnt “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones”; dr dt šmm “The circle (of those) in the heavens”; t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr “the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu”; and the variant of bn ᾿aṯrt “the children of ᾿Aṯiratu,” šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” Two epithets are composed of four components: bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff”; and the variant of dr ᾿il “the circle of ᾿Ilu,” dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu.” In each of the epithets and appellations composed of three or four components at least one component is a proper name. The most common syntactic pattern for epithets with more than one component is the construct chain in which one epithet component is the personal name of a deity to whom the group of divine entities are related. For example, bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu”; bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy / (the) children of ᾿Aṯiratu.” For additional examples, see the Table of Epithets and Appellations.68 The other common syntactic pattern for epithets and appellations uses the generic ᾿ilm as the first component and is followed by a common noun or adjective, such as ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star-gods,” ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods,” and ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods.” Some compound epithets and appellations contain one or more components that are proper names, one proper name being the personal name of the god to whom the group of deities is related, as in bnt hll snnt “the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones,” and bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff” and dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu.” A number of verbal nouns frequently appear as an epithet component, such as ᾿aklm “the eaters,” ῾qqm “the devourers,” and dkym “the crushers.” However, some epithets and appellations use a simple common plural noun like ᾿amht “the maidservants” or a noun plus adjective such as klt knyt “the honored brides.” Toponyms also occur as 68

See Appendix one and Appendix two, pp. 337-345.

322

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

components of epithets and appellations; one of these is ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit.” However, no finite verbal forms occur in the Ugaritic divine epithets and appellations discussed in the present study. 3. THE USE OF THE DIVINE EPITHETS AND APPELLATIONS POETIC PARALLELISM

IN

Most deity group epithets, appellations, and designations occur in the ritual texts. Though the literary structure of the poetic texts is mainly based on parallelism, the cultic ritual genre does not systematically use parallelism. However, the alternation and combination of the phonemes and the sequenc of the listing of the deities are significant.69 These terms were listed in each entry under the rubric “Parallels.” 3.1 The Epithet Parallels the Name of the Deity Group to which It Refers In such cases, the epithet almost always occurs as the “B-word.” This may be explained as a result of the usual connection between “A-word” and “B-word,” namely, that the “A-word” is the more common term of the referent (in this case the regular generic name), while the “B-word” is the less common equivalent (here an epithet). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt ᾿ilm // bn qdš ᾿ilm // ᾿ilm // dr ᾿il ᾿ilm // ᾿ilmy n῾mm // ᾿agzr ym bn ym kṯrt // bnt hll snnt ġr ll (?) // pḫr m῾d

3.2 The Epithet Parallels a Different Epithet of the Same or Different Deity Group 1. 2. 3. 4.

᾿ab bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il // ṯkmn w šnm ᾿aḫh // ᾿aryh // šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt ᾿aklm // ῾qqm ᾿il bn ᾿il // dr bn ᾿il // mpḫrt bn ᾿il // ṯkmn w šnm

69 Due to the lack of Ugaritic data, the sequence and order of listing the deities, pairs, and groups of deities is myterious. I still consider their listing in each entry under the rubric “Parallels” important even if I am conscious that, in the present stage of our knowledge, some might consider it as insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

323

᾿ilht kṯrt // bnt hll snnt // bnt hll b῾l gml ᾿ilm n῾mm // [...]w ysmm // bn šp[...] bn ᾿aṯrt // rbm // dkym // ṣġrm bn ᾿il // pḫr kkbm // dr dt šmm ml᾿ak ym // t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr

3.3. Deity Group Parallels a Divine Name or Epithet of an Individual or Group of Deities70 1. ᾿il // pḫr m῾d 2. ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt // ᾿il // bnh // [rbt ᾿aṯrt ym] // pdr[y bt ᾿ar] // ṭly bt r[b] // [᾿arṣy] bt y῾bdr // [klt] knyt 3. ᾿ilm // bn ᾿aṯrt // ᾿il // bnh // rbt ᾿aṯrt ym // klt knyt // pdry bt ᾿ar // ṭly bt rb // ᾿arṣy bt y῾bdr 4. bnth // pdry bt ᾿ar // ṭly b[t] rb //... // klt [kny]t 5. ngr ᾿il ᾿ilš // ᾿ilš ngr bt b῾l // ᾿aṯth/k ngrt ᾿ilht 6. špš rbt // kbkbm knm 7. ṯr ᾿ab[ ᾿il // pḫr] m῾d 4. EXTERNAL PARALLELS TO UGARITIC DEITY GROUP APPELLATIONS EPITHETS

AND

Most of the Ugaritic divine appellations and epithets studied here have parallel appellations or epithets in Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Qur᾿anic Arabic, and other Near Eastern languages. This reflects the common cultural and religious background of the various polytheistic and later monotheistic religions of the Near East. In many cases, these parallels include cognates of the Ugaritic terms; in others, only the meaning is parallel. 4.1 Akkadian Parallels to Deity Group Appellations and Epithets 1. ᾿aklm: ilāni lemnūtu “the evil gods” (Livingstone 2007:122, line 9). 2. ᾿amht: The Sumero-Akkadian Geme-Sîn “The-maidservant-of-Sîn.” 3. ᾿il bldn: ilī (for ilū) mātim ištarāt mātim “the gods and goddesses of the country” (ZA 43 306:5 [OB rel.); ilū ša mātim išaqqû “the gods of the country will become important” (YOS 10 11 ii 19 [OB ext.]). DINGIRmeš ša KURu-ga-ri-it / ilū ša matUgarit “the gods of the country/land Ugarit” 70

For an exhaustive study on the divine epithets of individual gods, see Rahmouni, DEUAT.

324

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

(RS 15.24:6-7); ilānumeš ša kuramur-ri // ilānumeš ša kuru-ga-ri-it // ù ilānumeš ša-a šarri bêli-ka // a-na šul-ma-ni liṣṣururuka “the gods of Amurru, // the gods of the country/land Ugarit, // and the gods of your lord the king, // may they protect you and see to your welfare!” (Nougayrol, PRU III, p. 18 [RS 15.24+50]:5-7). 4. ᾿il ddmm: DINGIR.MEŠ da-ad-me-ma (RS 26.142:16’ = RS 92.2004:34). 5. ᾿il ḫyr: ana latāk bibli u nāmurti inbi bēl [arḫi] “in order to check (the computations) for the new moon days and the neomenia of the ‘Fruit,’ the lord of the month.” (Bab. 4 112:65-66); inbi “fruit tree, fruit” (the epithet of the god Sin). 6. il lb[-]n: DINGIR.MEŠ la-ab-a-na (RS 26.142:17’ = RS 92.2004:35). 7. ᾿il qrt: ina kakkim ša DINGIR URUKI birram “establish (it) by means of the weapon-symbol of the city god!” (OECTE 3 40:30, cf. ina kakkim ša DINGIR ālim, [ibid., 24 OB let.]); DINGIR.MEŠ ša āliša lisallim “let her (the daughter of the king of Qatna) reconcile the gods of her city” (ARM 2, 51:19). 8. ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l: DINGIR.MEŠ til-la-at dIM (ilānu til-la-at dadad) “relief troops / auxiliary gods of dAdad.” (RS 20.024, 25); Ilī-tillati “The GodsAre-My-Support/help” (OBT Tell Rimah 268:2), and dUTU-tillatu “Šamaš-Is-My-Support” (YOS 13 12 r. 18); ša ina tukulti Aššur u Šamaš ilāni rēṣīšu DU.DU-kūma “(the king) who walks trusting in Aššur and Šamaš, the gods who help him”(RIMA 3, 102.6:21, 3R 7 i 9 [both Shalm. III]); ana . . . ilāni rabûti . . . rēṣīšu bēlēšu “to the great gods, his helpers, his lords” (Unger Bel-harran-beli-ussur 8). Ekur-rēṣūtu “Ekur-IsHis-Help” (KAM 7, 85: r.14); Aššur-rēsī “Aššur-Is-My-Helper” (Ichisar [1981], 112; CAD R, 268-269; 271). 9. ᾿ilht kṯrt: tabsût ilī erištam dMami “the midwife among the gods, the wise goddess Mami” (CAD Š/1, 16; CAD E, 314, under eršu A; Lambert and Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs, 56 I 193, 56-63). šassūrātu “(divine) midwives” (Lambert and Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs, 62 iii 9-10; cf. CAD Š/2, 145-146; Lambert [1964], 101-102; RIA 8, 558). dŠag4-zu-diĝir-e-ne “the midwife of the gods” (An=Anum II:29 Litke [1998], 70); and dŠag4-zu-kalam-ma “midwife of the nation,” (Enki and the World Order, 339. Cf. also [dnintur5] X ḫi-li-a tud ki us2-sa “[Nintur,] who has established giving birth in joy”. See ETCSL [electronic version]); dnin-tu ama-diĝir-re-ne-ke4 “Nintu, mother of the gods” (Edzard [1997], 30; Krevernik [1993], 506507, under Nin-tur.) and dnin-tur5 ama maḫ kur-kur-ra-[ka] “Nintur, supreme mother of all lands.” (ETCSL [electronic version]).

CONCLUSIONS

325

10. ᾿ily ᾿ugrt: ilānu ugarit ana šulmāni liṣṣurūka “may the gods of Ugarit guard you in good health”; ilānu (ša) ugarit ana šulmāni liṣṣurūka “may the gods of Ugarit guard you in good health” (RS 15.33:5-6 = PRU III, 15 and RS 16.116:7-8 = PRU III, 10 etc.); ilānu [?] [ša matugari]t li[ṣṣirū] “may the gods of the land of Ugarit guard you” (RS 20.200B); ilānu ša ugarit u ilānu ša amurri ana šulmāni liṣṣurūki “the gods of Ugarit and the gods of Amurru” (RS 16.111:4-6 = PRU III, 13); ilānu ša amurri ilānu ša ugarit u ilānu ša šarri bēlīka ana šulmāni liṣṣurūka “the gods of Amurru, the gods of Ugarit, and the gods of the king, my master might guard you in health” (RS 15.24 + 50:5-8 = PRU III, 18); ilānumeš ša kurtipat u ilānumeš ša kurugarit u gabba ilānumeš ša bît ab[īni(?)] ana šulmāni liṣṣurūki “may the gods of Tipat and the gods of Ugarit, and the gods of our house guard you well” (RS 20.178:5-8 = Ugaritica V, 147148). 11. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ: ilū erṣeti “the gods of the netherworld” (NABU 2014/4 95: r. 51’); ilū ša erṣat[i] (parallel: ilū ša eliati) “the gods of the netherworld (parallel: the gods of the upper (world)” (Wiseman Alalakh 126 i 22 [OB]); ilū ša šamê ana šamê ītelû ilū ša erṣetim ana erṣetim īterbu “the gods of heaven went up to heaven, the gods of the netherworld went into the netherworld” (4 R 28 No. 2:19f.); erbi bēltī ša dBēlet erṣeti kīam parṣīša “enter, my Lady! such are the customs of the Lady of the netherworld” (SAACT VI:50); dNamtar sukkal erṣatim “DN, the vizier of the netherworld” (Tallqvist Maqlû pl. 94 r. 3); (said of Šamaš) dayyānim rabîm ša šamê u erṣetim (CH xxiv 85-86, quoted in Lenzi 2011:198); sukkal dAni “the vizier of Ani” (Maqlû II 5). 12. ᾿ilm kbkbm: kakkab dmarduk “Marduk the Star” (BE VIII 142,6); kakkab tanūqāti “(Ištar) the Star of the battle cry” (Ištar 2); kakkab ṣīt d šamši u erēb dšamši “the Star of the sunrise and sunset” (Nabû3 [Merkur] BE VIII 142,11). 13. ᾿ilm n῾mm: dBēlet balāṭi ilka damqu “Mistress of Life, your gracious divinity” (SAA 10, 333:r [NA]); bēltum dameqtum “(Ningal) gracious lady” (RIMB 2. B.6.14.2001, ex. 01: [Abs.]); damqu dGiš-gím-maš “the handsome/the fine Gilgamesh” (Gilg. VII 138), and [dam]qāta dEnkidu kī ili (dingir) tabašši “you are handsome, Enkidu, you are like a god” (Gilg. I 207); mannumma banî ina eṭlūti (guruš)meš mannuma šaruḫ ina zikkarī “Who is the most splendid of the young? Who is the most glorious of the warriors?” (Gilg. VI 172-173); and ḫīrat ilat bēlat šarḫat rabāt šaqāt banât “she is first wife, goddess, lady, glorious, great, exalted, beautiful” (SAA III 2:16).

326

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

14. ᾿ilm rbm: ašrid ilāni rabûti “the foremost of the great gods” (AG, 36); bēl ilāni rabûti “the lord of the great gods” (AG, 36 = Sumerian equivalent en dingir gal-gal-e-ne “the lord of the great gods”; RIME 4, 115. E4.2.5.1); etelli ilāni rabûti “the lord of the great gods” (AG, 36; for additional examples, see CAD E, 381); šar ilāni rabûti “the king of the great gods” (AG, 234); ilānu rabûtui kališunu mušīmmu [šīmātimeš] “all the great gods who decree destinies” (Enūma Eliš Tablet III 130); ilāni rabûti ḫamšātsunu ušibūma ilāni sīmātimeš sibittīšunu ana purussî uktinnu “The college of the fifty great gods took their seats. The seven gods of destinies were appointed to give decisions” (Enūma Eliš Tablet VI 80-81); ... ummi ilānu rabûti “... mother of the great gods” (RIMA 2, A.0.100.1:12); bānīt ilānu rabûti “creatress of the great gods” (RINAP 3/2 Sennacherib 162, ex. 01). The same epithet refers to the kings, migir ilī / ilāni rabûti “the favorite of the great gods” (Seux [1967], 163-164); narām ilāni rabûti “the beloved of the great gods” (Seux [1967], 192); namad ilāni rabûti “the darling of the great gods” (Seux [1967], 184). 15. ᾿inš ᾿ilm: ištarāti nišīma “the goddesses of humankind” (AOAT 447, 66); iltam šamaš nišīša “the goddess, the very sun to her people” (ZA 102:1); bēlu muštēšir kiššat nišī gimir nabnīti “lord who guides all humankind, every living being” (BMS 1:53). 16. bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt: mārē danim “the sons of Anu,” mārē denki/ea “the sons of Enki/Eas”; 7 ilāni rabūti mārē denmešarra “7 great gods the sons of Enmešarra”; mārāt dAnu “the daughters of Anu” (AG, 119-124; CAD.M/1, 313; Seux [1967], 159f.). 17. bn ᾿il(m): 8 mārē dLisin “8 children of Lisin” (CT 24, 26:118); and 13 mārē dNin-MAR.KI-ke4 “13 children of Nin-MAR.KI.” (CT 24, 48:17); abu ilāni “father of the gods” (AG, 1-2). 18. bnt hll snnt: (1) muš-na-m[ir . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] šá-ma-mi (2) mu-šaḫ-li e[k-li-ti . . . . . . . .] ⌜e⌝-liš u šap-liš (3) dšamaš muš-na-m[ir . . . . . . . . . . . ] šá-ma-mi (4) mu-šaḫ-li ek-l[i-ti . . . . . . . . e-l]iš u ǎp-liš (5) [saḫ]-pu ki-ma šu-uš-[k]al-l[i . . . . šá-]ru-ru-ka (6) [šá] ḫur-šá-a-ni bi-ru-ti e-ṭ[uti-š]u-nu tuš-par-di “(1) Illuminator [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] the heavens, (2) Who lightens the darkness [. . . . . . . .] in upper and lower regions; (3) Šamaš, illuminator [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] the heavens, (4) Who lightens the darkness [. . . . . . . .] in upper and lower regions; (5) Your beams like a net cover [. . . . . .] (6) You brighten the gloom of the vast mountains.” (Lambert BWL 126:1-5); ḫa-aṭ-ṭi šar-ru-ti kussû (GIŠ.GU.ZA) a-gu-ú ša-ar-ku-ši ... i-di-iš-ši eṭ-lu-ta-am na-ar-bi-a-am da-na-na-am

CONCLUSIONS

327

bi-ir-qí bi-ir-bi-ir-ri ú-ṣi-ib šu-a-ti uš-ta-ás-ḫi-ir-ši “Scepter of kingship, throne, (and) crown were granted to her ... he gave her manliness, power, might, in addition he surrounded her with luminous lightning [lit. lightnings and luminosity]” (VAS 10 214:iv 1-6); Sîn bēl melammê “Sîn the radiant lord” (KAR 69, 22; see Biggs Šaziga 76); Nimer-Sîn-Tuttul “Sîn of Tuttul is bright,” Niwer-Sîn “Sîn is bright” (cf. Streck [2000], 173-174); Ištar kakkabī namirtu “brilliant Ištar of the stars” (Unger, Bel-harran-beli-ussur 7); namirti bēlet dadmī “(Ištar) brilliant queen of all settlements” (RA 22 58 i 5); and Ninmaḫ bānât ilāni šalummata [uḫallipka] “Ninmaḫ the creatress of the gods [wrapped you (Adad)] in awe-inspiring radiance” (CMAwR 8.43:25’); ša šarūrūšu unammaru mātāti ... ša birbirrūšu ubbatu dūr abni “(I am Asalluhi) whose radiance spreads light over all the lands, whose luminosity penetrates a stone wall” (BAM 8 11:68-69); be-lu4 šá bir-bir-ru-šu la in-nam-ma-rù “the lord whose luminosity cannot be looked at” (KAR 101 ii 4). 19. bnt hll b῾l gml: mārāti dEa “the daughters of Ea” (SAACT V 5:58); bukrat dSîn “the child of Sîn”; mārat dSin “the daughter of Sîn”; mārtu rabītu ša dSîn “the great daughter of Sîn”; qaritta mārat dSîn “the heroine, the daughter of Sîn” (Tallqvist, AG, 332); mārat Sîn “the daughter of Sîn,” mārat Enlil “the daughter of Enlil,” and mārat Anim “the daughter of Anu.” (See CAD M/1, 303; AG, 124, 125, 126); dŠÀšá-sa-rumTÙR = bēlet-ilī dIštar “the lady of the gods/the mother goddess, Ištar” (CT 25 30 r. i 12f.); dŠÀ.TÙR (An=Anum II:102, Litke [1998], 78). 20. kbkbm knm: ša kakkabānimeš šamāmi alkassunu likīnma “let him [Marduk] fix the paths of the stars of heaven” (Enūma Eliš, VII, 130). 21. klt knyt: Aja kallatum rabītum narammat Šamaš “Aja the great daughter-in-law, the beloved of Šamaš” (RIMB 2 RIM.B.6.22.1.5); mūšab Šamaš bēlu rabû u Aja kallatim narāmtišu “dwelling place of Šamaš, the great lord, and of his beloved, the daughter-in-law Aja” (RIMB 2 RIM.B.6.22.1.5); dZarpanītu bēltu rabītu ḫīrat dEnbilulu kallat dNudi[mmud] “Zarpanītu, the great lady, the wife of Enbilulu (Marduk), the daughterin-law of Nudimmud (Ea)” (SAA III 2: r. 22); kallāt É.SAG.IL.LA2 “the daughter-in-law (of Marduk) associated with the temple Esagila” (Streck Abs. 286 r. 14); dNinsige kanût dištarāti bēlet dadmī šagapurti ilat pāṭ gimri “[spouse of] Ninsigga, the favored one among the goddesses, mistress of human habitations, the warrior, goddess of the whole of everything” (RIMB 2, B.6.14.2001:2); šaruḫtu gitmāltu ištarāti “most splendid (and) perfect of the goddesses” (CMAwR 8.29:44); kanûtu dBau kullat adnāti rikis māti “beloved Bau, for all men, center of the country”

328

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

(KAR 109 r. 15); qarittum dIštar kanût ilāti “Valiant Ištar, darling of the goddesses” (JAOS 103: 3-15); ettum muštarḫat u kanât “She (Nanâ), the unique one, is proud and honored” (ZA 102:19, Streck and Wasserman [2012]:187). 22. ml᾿ak / ml᾿ak ym: kaššāptī . . . ša . . . ana 2 bēr ištappara mār šiprīša “my sorceress who sent out her messenger at a distance of two double miles” (Maqlû VI 122); ana aḫatīšunu DN išpur mār špri “they sent a messenger to their sister Ereškigal” (CM 9:2); mār šipri ša Marduk anāku “I am the messenger of Marduk” (SAACT V, 3:9, 56, 83, 149; 16:181’); mār šipri ālik maḫri ša Ea anāku “I am the messenger, the herald of Ea” (SAACT V, 8:25. Cf. SAACT V 9:24’, 57’; 15:130; 16:12, 35, 41); mār šipri ša Marduk anāku “I am the messenger of Marduk” (SAACT V 3:9, 56, 83, 149; 16:181’); mār šipri ālik maḫri ša Ea anāku ša Marduk MAŠ.MAŠ Enki māri rēštî ša Ea mār šiprīšu anāk[u] “I am the messenger, who goes in front of Ea, I am the messenger of Marduk, conjurer of Enki, the first born son of Ea” (SAACT V 8:25-26); [anāku mār šipri] ša Marduk MAŠ.MAŠ šamê u erṣēti “I am the messenger of Marduk, conjurer of heaven and earth” (SAACT V 9:24’); mār šipri (ša) Ea “I am the messenger of Ea” (SAACT V 9:57’; 15:130); mār šipri ša Anim “I am the messenger of Anim” (SAACT V 16:12, 35, 41). 23. ngrt ᾿ilht: dGÚ.AN.NA sassukkat ilī nāgirat dAnim “dGÚ.AN.NA, the registrar of the gods, the (female) herald of Anu” (YOS 11, 23:14); d bēlet ṣēri “scribe of the queen’s household” (e.g., Gilgameš VII 204). 24. ῾nn ᾿ilm: Bunene sukkalka damiqti “Bunene, your vizier of a good word” (Lenzi 2011:378, line 41); Nabium aplu kīnim sukkalam ṣīru “DN, a true heir, an outstanding vizier” (Lenzi 2011:476, line 1); Namtar šukkal erṣeti piqdānim “Namtar, a minister can take (their suffering) to the netherworld where it belongs” (Lenzi 2011:138, line 10). 25. ῾qqm: iggagma dEN uḫallaq ešrētu “DN is angry, he wants to destroy the sanctuaries” (STC 2 pli. 68:21). 26. ġlmm: ṣu⌜uḫ⌝artaki lā taturrīma lā tašappari “don’t send your maid again” (AbB VII 25.8-10); [d]⌜é⌝-a pāšu ipušma iqabbi izakkara ana ardīšu jâtu “Ea opened his mouth to speak, saying to me, his servant” (Gilg. XI 36-37). 27. pḫr ᾿ilm: dpu-ḫur DINGIR.MEŠ – dpuḫur ilānim “the assembly of the gods” (RS 20:24:28). 28. pḫr kkbm: dingir-gub-ba.MEŠ “Standing Gods”; dingir-tu-a.MEŠ “Sitting Gods” (MUL.APIN).

CONCLUSIONS

329

29. ṣġrm: ṣaḫurāti “the two small ones/the youngsters” (ABL 648, Rs. 8). 30. šb῾ bnt: mārat ili “the daughter of a god”; mannan lašpur ana maruāt Éa “whom should I send to the daughters of Ea?” (Kültepe 1948, 611:8 [OA inc.,] cited JNES 14, 17). 4.2 Biblical Parallels to Deity Group Appellations and Epithets 1. ᾿aklm: ‫( עזאזל‬Leviticus 16:7-13, esp. 8, 10). 2. ᾿amht: ‫“ אמה‬slave-wife (of Abraham)” (Genesis 21:12. Cf. Gen. 21:10, 13). 3. ᾿il ṣpn: ‫“ ואני נסכתי מלכי על־ציון הר־קדשי‬But I have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain!” (Psalm 2:6; cf. Amos 9:1; cf. 1 Kings 13:1 [‫ ;]בית־אל‬Exodus 24:1-11, esp. 1-2, 12). 4. ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l: ‫“ עזרי רהב‬Rahab’s helpers” (Job 9:13). 5. ᾿ilhm: ‫“ אלה אלהיך‬this is your god,” or “these are your gods” (Exodus 32:4, compare 1 Kings 12:28). 6. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ: ‫“ אלהים ראיתי עלים מן־הארץ‬I see a divine being coming up from the earth/netherworld” (1 Samuel 28:13). 7. ᾿ilm kbkbm: // ‫ ממעל לכוכבי־אל‬// ‫ השמים אעלה‬// ‫ואתה אמרת בלבבך‬ ‫ בירכתי צפון‬// ‫ ואשב בהר־מועד‬// ‫“ ארים כסאי‬Once you thought in your heart, // I will climb to the sky; // Higher than the stars of God // I will set my throne. // I will sit in the mount of assembly, // On the summit of Zaphon”; (Isaiah 14:12-13, esp. 13); ‫ וירעו כל־בני אלהים‬// ‫“ ברן־יחד כוכבי בקר‬When the morning stars sang together // And all the divine beings (‫)בני אלהים‬ shouted for joy” (Job 38:7); and the Biblical Hebrew syntagm ‫צבא השמים‬ and ‫“ אלהי צבאות‬Host of Heaven” (see Psalm 89:6-9; compare Genesis 37:9; Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 4:19; 5:8; 17:3; 2 Kings 21:3-5 and 23:4-5; Isaiah 47:13; Jeremiah 10:2 and 14:22; Amos 5:26; Job 31:26; Daniel 8:9-11; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Chronicles 18:18; 33:3-5 in the passages parallel to 1 Kings 22:19). 8. ᾿ilm rbm: ‫אזלנא ליהוד מדינתא לבית אלהא רבא‬-‫“ ידיע להוא למלכא די‬Be it known to the king, that we went to the province of Judah, to the house of the great God ...” (Ezra 5:8; see also Daniel 2:45); ‫ אדני הגדול‬/ ‫ יהוה‬/ ‫אל‬ “the great LORD / the great God” (Nehemiah 4:8; 8:6; Psalms 86:10, 99:2, 135:5, 147:5; Isaiah 12:6; Jeremiah 10:6); ‫כי־גדול יהוה מכל־האלהים‬... “... the LORD is greater than all gods” (Exodus 18:11; compare 1 Chronicles 16:25); ‫“ …ואם־צדיק כביר תרשיע‬... Would you condemn the Just

330

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

Mighty/Great One?” (Job 34:17); and ‫ כביר כח לב‬/ ‫הן־אל כביר ולא ימאס‬ “See, God is mighty; He is not contemptuous; / He is mighty in strength and mind” (Job 36:5). 9. ᾿inš ᾿ilm: ‫“ איש )ה(אלהים‬man of God/the prophet” (Deuteronomy 33:1; 1 Samuel 9:6-10; Joshua 14:6; Psalm 90:1 etc.). 10. bn ᾿il(m): ‫ הבו ליהוה כבוד ועז‬// ‫“ הבו ליהוה בני אלים‬Ascribe to the LORD, O divine beings, // ascribe to the LORD glory and strength” (Psalm 29:1, see also ‫בני אלים‬, Psalm 89:7); ‫“ בני־האלהים‬sons / children of God,” “children of (the) gods” or “divine beings” (Genesis 6:1-4, esp. 2, 4; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; and originally Deuteronomy 32:8); ‫“ בר־אלהין‬son of god / divine being” (Daniel 3:25). 11. bn qdš: ... ‫ כי אלהים קדשים הוא‬... “... for He is a Holy God ...” (Joshua 24:19); ‫“ קדוש־ישראל‬the Holy One of Israel” (e.g., Isaiah 5:24; Psalm 71:22), and ‫“ האל הקדוש‬the Holy God/ He is holy!” (Isaiah 5:16, 6:3; Leviticus 20:26; Psalm 99:3, 5, 9); ‫ אף־אמונתך‬/ ‫ויודו שמים פלאך יהוה‬ ‫ אל נערץ‬// :‫ ידמה ליהוה בבני אלים‬/ ‫ כי מי בשחק יערך ליהוה‬// :‫בקהל קדשים‬ ‫ מי־כמוך חסין‬/ ‫ יהוה אלהי צבאות‬// :‫ ונורא על־כל־סביבו‬/ ‫בסוד־קדושים רבה‬ ‫“ יה ואמונתך סביבותיך‬Your wonders, O LORD, are praised by the heavens, / Your faithfulness, too, in the assembly of holy beings. // For who in the skies can equal the LORD / can compare with the LORD among the divine beings, // a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings / held in awe by all around Him?” // O LORD, God of hosts, who is mighty like You, O LORD? / Your faithfulness surrounds You” (Psalm 89:6-9); ‫ובא יהוה‬ ‫“ אלהי כל־קדשים עמך‬And the LORD my God, with all the holy beings, will come to you” (Zechariah 14:5).71 12. bnt hll snnt: ‫“ זהר‬to shine” (Isaiah 60:1-3); ‫“ נגה‬radiance” (Ezekiel 1:28; 10:4); ‫“ הוד‬splendor” (Psalm 96:6; 1 Chronicles 16:27); ‫הדר‬ “splendor, splendid” (Isaiah 2:10; 35:2). 13. dkym: ‫ …“ את־מי הנהר העצומים והרבים‬the great and immense waters of the river” (Isaiah 8:7); / ‫ ישאו נהרות דכים‬/ ‫ נשאו נהרות קולם‬/ ‫נשאו נהרות יהוה‬ ‫ אדיר במרום יהוה‬/ ‫ אדירים משברי־ים‬/ ‫“ מקלות מים רבים‬The ocean sounds, O LORD, / the oceans sounds its thunder, / the ocean sounds its pounding, / Above the thunder of mighty waters, / more majestic than the breakers of the sea / is the LORD, majestic on high” (Psalm 93:3-4). 14. dr dt šmm and pḫr kkbm: ‫ אף־אמונתך בקהל‬/ ‫ויודו שמים פלאך יהוה‬ ‫ אל נערץ בסוד־‬// :‫ ידמה ליהוה בבני אלים‬/ ‫ כי מי בשחק יערך ליהוה‬// :‫קדשים‬ 71

See n. 20, p. 182

CONCLUSIONS

331

‫ מי־כמוך חסין יה‬/ ‫ יהוה אלהי צבאות‬// :‫ ונורא על־כל־סביביו‬/ ‫קדשים רבה‬ ‫“ ואמונתך סביבותיך‬Your wonders, O LORD, are praised by the heavens, // Your Faithfulness, too, in the assembly of holy beings. // For who in the skies can equal the LORD, / can compare with the LORD among the divine beings, // a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings, / held in awe by all around him? // O LORD, God of hosts, who is mighty like You, O LORD? / Your faithfulness surrounds You” (Psalms 89:6-9); ‫הן בקדשו‬ ‫ ושמים לא־זכו בעיניו‬/ ‫“ בקדשיו לא יאמין‬He puts no trust in His holy ones; // The heavens are not guiltless in His sight” (Job 15:15). The Biblical epithet ‫“ צבא השמים‬the heaven host/the heavenly host” (see above under point 7, p. 329). 15. ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym: ‫ משרתיו אש להט‬// ‫“ עשה מלאכיו רוחות‬He makes the winds His messengers, // fiery flames His servants” (Psalm 104:4. See also Exodus 3:2, 13:21-22, 14:19, 24, 33:9-10; compare Numbers 9:15ff., 11:25, 12:5; Isaiah 6:2; Psalms 97:2-3, 99:7, 105:39); ‫ אלהים‬/ ‫ מלאך יהוה‬,‫“ מלאכי אלהים‬an angel of the LORD/Yahweh” (Genesis 16:7, 9, 10, 11; 21:17; 22:11; 28:12); ‫ הוא ישלח‬... ‫יהוה אלהי השמים‬ ‫“ מלאכו‬The LORD, the God of heaven ... – He will send His angel before you” (Genesis 24:7); ‫ויאמר אלי יהוה אשר־התהלכתי לפניו ישלח מלאכו אתך‬ “He replied to me, ‘The LORD, whose ways I have followed will send His angel with you ...’ ” (Genesis 24:40); ‫הנה אנכי שלח מלאך לפניך‬ ‫ לשמרך בדרך‬... “I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way ... ” (Exodus 23:20); ‫“ משלחת מלאכי רעים‬a band of deadly messengers” (Psalm 78:49); ‫ ומלאך יהוה משחית‬... “the angel of the LORD wreaking destruction ... ” (1 Chronicles 21:12); ‫איש האלהים בא אלי ומראהו‬ ‫“ כמראה מלאך האלהים נורא מאד‬A man of God came to me; he looked like an angel of God, very frightening” (Judges 13:3-23, esp. 6. See also Genesis 19:1-22; 32:25-31; Daniel 8:15); ‫וגויתו כתרשיש ופניו כמראה ברק‬ ‫“ ועיניו כלפידי אש וזרעתיו ומרגלתיו כעין נחשת קלל וקול דבריו כקול המון‬His body was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and legs had the color of burnished bronze, and the sound of his speech was like the noise of a multitude” (Daniel 10:6). 16. ῾dt ᾿ilm: ‫ בקרב אלהים ישפט‬/ ‫“ אלהים נצב בעדת־אל‬God stands in the divine assembly; // among the divine beings He pronounces judgment” (Psalm 82:1). 17. ῾qqm: ‫“ משחית‬Destroyer” (Exodus 12:16-23, esp. 23; // 1 Chronicles 21:12-30, esp. 12, 15).

332

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

18. pḫr m῾d: ‫ מועד ושבת‬// ‫ שכח יהוה בציון‬// ‫ שחת מועדו‬// ‫ויחמס כגן שכו‬ “He has stripped His Booth like a garden, // He has destroyed His Tabernacle (= the place of his appointed feasts ‫ ;)מועדו‬// The LORD has ended in Zion // Festival and sabbath” (Lamentations 2:6); ‫ואשב‬ ‫ בירכתי צפון‬// ‫“ בהר־מועד‬I will sit in the mount of assembly (= e.g., the assembly of the gods in council) // On the summit of Zaphon” (Isaiah 14:13); ‫“ אהל מועד‬the Tent of Meeting” (Joshua 18:1: compare to ‫ משכן‬in Joshua 22:29). 19. šb῾ bnt: ‫“ שבע הנערות‬seven maids” (Esther 2:9); ‫“ בנות ירושלים‬O maidens of Jerusalem” (Song of Songs: 1:5, 2:7, 3:5, 5:8, 16 and 8:4); ‫שלחה‬ ‫“ נערתיה תקרא‬she has sent out her maids to announce” (Proverbs 9:3). 4.3 Qur᾿anic and Classical Arabic Parallels to Deity Group Appellations and Epithets 1. ᾿aklm: ǧinn and/or šayṭān “the demons/Saitan, Satan.” 2. ᾿amht: ‫ الأ َ َمة‬/ ‫᾿ أما‬amā / al-᾿amatu “slave-servant,” e.g., ‫ماء فلا‬ ُ ‫أما ال ِإ‬ ‫ إِذا تَرامى َب ُنو ال ِإ ْموانِ بالعار‬// ‫ يدعونني ولدا‬/᾿ammā l-᾿imā᾿u fa-lā yad῾ūnanī waladan // ᾿iḏa tarāmā banū l-᾿imwāni bi l-῾āri “as for the slavewomen should not call me son // when they slavewomen’s children are thrown with shame/dishonor/disgrace” (Lisān al-῾arab, vol. I, 145ff.). ِ ‫ان َع َلى َما ت‬ َ ُ‫َصف‬ ُ ‫الم ْس َت َع‬ 3. ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l: ‫ون‬ ُ ‫  وﷲ‬/wa-llāhu l-musta῾ānu ῾alā mā taṣifūna “from God alone I seek help to bear what you are saying” (Q. 12:18). ِ ‫او‬ 4. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ: ‫ض َو َما َب ْي َن ُه َما‬ s-samāwāti wa-l-᾿arḍi ِ ‫ات َو َالا ْر‬ َ ‫ربُّ الس ََّم‬/rabbu َ wa-mā baynahumā “The LORD of the heavens and earth and everything ْ ‫قال‬/qāla ِ ‫او‬ between” (Q. 38:66); َّ‫ض الذِّي َف َط َر ُهن‬ ِ ‫ات َو َالا ْر‬ َ ‫بل َرب ُُّك ْم َربُّ الس ََّم‬ bal rabbukum rabbu s-samāwāti wa-l-᾿arḍi l-laḏī faṭarahunna “He said, no indeed, your LORD is the LORD of the heavens and the earth, He who ِ ‫او‬ created them” (Q. 21:56); ‫ض َو َما َب ْي َن ُهما َو َما‬ ِ ‫وما ِفي ََالا ْر‬ َ ‫ات‬ َ ‫َل ُه َما ِفي الس ََّم‬ ‫ت الث ََّرى‬ َ ‫ت َْح‬/lahu mā fī s-samawāti wa-mā fī l-᾿arḍi wa-mā baynahumā wa-mā taḥta ṯ-ṯarā “to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on the earth, everything between them, and everything beneath the soil” (Q. 20:6). َ ‫س َو‬ 5. ᾿ilm kbkbm and dr dt šmm: ‫الق َم ُر َلا ت َْس ُجدُ وا‬ ُ ‫َو ِم ْن آ َيا ِت ِه ال َّْي ُل َوالن ََّها ُر َوالش َّْم‬ ِ ِ ﷽ِ ‫اس ُجدُ وا‬ َ ُ‫الذي َخ َل َق ُهنَّ إِن ُكن ُت ُم إِيَّا ُه ت َْع ُبد‬ ‫ون‬ ِ ‫ ِللش َّْم‬/ wa-min ᾿āyātihi ْ ‫س َو َلا ِل ْل َق َم ِر َو‬ l-laylu wa-n-nahāru wa-š-šamsu wa-l-qamaru lā tasǧudū li-š-šamsi wa-lā

CONCLUSIONS

333

li-l-qamari wa-sǧudū li-llāhi llaḏi ḫalaqahunna ᾿in kuntumu ᾿iyyāhu ta῾budūna “The night, the day, the sun, the moon, are only a few of His signs. Do not bow down in worship to the sun or the moon, but bow down to God, who created them, if it is truly Him that you worship” (Q. 41:37); ‫َف َلمَّا‬ ُ َ ‫الي ُل رءا َك ْو َك ًبا َق‬ َ ‫ال َه َذا َربِّي َف َلمَّا َأ َف َل َق‬ ‫ين‬ َ ‫ال َلا أ ِحبُّ َالا ِف ِل‬ ْ ‫ َجنَّ َع َل ْي ِه‬/ fa-lammā ǧanna ‘alayhi l-laylu ra’ā kawkaban qāla hāḏā rabbī fa-lammā ᾿afala qāla lā ᾿uḥibbu al-᾿āfilīna “When the night grew dark over him he saw a star and said, ‘This is my Lord,’ but when it set, he said, ‘I do not like things that set.’”(Q. 6:76). َ َّ‫ إِن‬/᾿inna llāha ǧamīlun yuḥibbu l-ǧamāla َ ‫الج َم‬ ٌ ‫ﷲ َج ِم‬ 6. ᾿ilm n῾mm: ‫ال‬ َ ُّ‫يل ُي ِحب‬ “(The Messenger of God answered): God is beautiful. He loves beauty” (Hadith Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ [imān], 147). 7. ᾿ilm rbm: ‫ العظمة‬/al-῾aẓamatu “the mightiness,” ‫ المتكبر‬/ al-mutakabbiru “the truly Great, Possessor of all glory, the Proud,” and ‫الكبير‬/al-kabīru “the All Great”; ‫ أكبر‬/ ᾿akbaru in ‫ ﷲ أكبر‬Allāhu ᾿akbaru “lit. God is great/ greater/greatest! God be praised!” (Hadith: sayings attributed to the Prophet Muḥammad.) 8. bn ᾿il(m): ِّ‫ َ وات ُْل َع َل ْيهِ ْم ن ََب َأ ا ْب َن ْي َء َاد َم بِا ْل َحق‬/wa-tlu ῾alayhim naba᾿a bnay ᾿ādama bi l-ḥaqqi “and recite to them the story of the (two) sons of Adam in truth” (Q. 5:27). ِ ِ ‫ ُي َسب ُِّح‬/ ِ ‫﷽ َما ِفي الس ََّم‬ ُ ‫ك‬ ِ ‫لم ِل‬ 9. bn qdš: ‫يم‬ ِ ‫وات َو َما ِفي َالأ ْر‬ ِ ‫القد‬ َ ‫الع ِزي ِز‬ َ ‫ُّوس‬ َ ِ‫ض ا‬ ِ ‫الح ِك‬ yusabbiḥu li-llāhi mā fī s-samawāti wa-mā fī l-᾿arḍi l-maliki l-quddūsi l-῾azīzi l-ḥakīmi “Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies God, Sovereign, the Holy one, the Exalted in Might, the Wise” (Q. 62:1). َّ َّ‫َأ َلم تَر َأن‬ ُ ‫۝ ُي ْز ِجي َس َحا ًبا ُثمَّ ُيؤَ ل‬ 10. bnt hll snnt: ‫اما َف َت َرى‬ ً ‫ِّف َب ْي َن ُه ُثمَّ َي ْج َع ُل ُه ُر َك‬ َ ْ ُ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ َ َ ِ ِ ٍ‫ال‬ ِ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ ‫يه‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬ ‫َّم‬ ‫س‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ِّل‬ ‫ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ر‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ق‬ ‫يب ِب ِه َم ْن َي َش ُاء‬ ‫ص‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ف‬ ‫د‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ْ َُ َ َ ُ َ َ َ ْ ُ ُ َ َ ‫الو ْد‬ َ ُ ََ ْ َ َ ْ ِ ِ ‫ب بالأ ْبصا ِر‬ ُ ‫ َ و َي ْص ِر ُف ُه َعن مَّن َي َش ُاء يك‬/᾿a-lam tara anna llāha yuzǧī ُ ‫اد َس َنا َب ْرقه َيذ َه‬ saḥāban ṯumma yu᾿allifu baynahu ṯumma yaǧ῾aluhu rukāman fa-tarā l-wadqa yaḫruǧu min ḫilālihi wa-yunazzilu mina s-samā᾿i min ǧibālin fīhā min baradin fa-yuṣību bihi man yašā᾿u wa-yaṣrifuhu ῾an man yašā᾿u yakādu sanā barqihi yaḏhabu bi-l-᾿abṣāri “Have you not seen that Allāh causes the clouds to move onward, then joins them together, then piles them up in masses, from which you can see raindrops coming forth. He brings mountainous masses (of clouds) charged with hail from the skies, striking with it whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, (while) the brightness of His lightning nearly deprives them of their sight” (Q. 24:43).

334

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

َ َ ‫ٱلم ْك ُنونِ َج َز ًآء ب َِما َكانُو ْا َي ْع َم ُل‬ 11. klt knyt: ‫ون‬ َ ٌ ‫و ُحو ٌر ِع‬/wa-ḥūrun َ ‫ين َكأ ْمثَالِ ٱلُّلؤْ ُل ِؤ‬ ῾īnun ka-᾿amṯāli l-lu᾿lu᾿i l-maknūni ǧazā᾿an bimā kānū ya῾malūn “[there will be] ... and beautiful-eyed maidens like hidden pearls: a reward for ِ ‫ات ٱلط َّْر‬ ِ ‫َو ِعندَ ُه ْم َق‬ what they used to do” (Q. 56:22-24); ‫ض‬ ٌ ‫ين َك َأن َُّهنَّ َب ْي‬ ُ ‫اص َر‬ ٌ ‫ف ِع‬ ٌ‫م ْك ُنون‬/wa-῾indahum qāṣirātu ṭ-ṭarfi ῾īnun ka᾿annahunna bayḍun maknūnun َ “With them will be spouses – modest of gaze and beautiful of eyes – like ُ ‫و َي ُط‬/ protected eggs” (Q. 37:48-49); ٌ‫وف َع َل ْيهِ ْم ِغ ْل َمانٌ ل َُّه ْم َك َأن َُّه ْم ُلؤْ ُل ٌؤ م َّْك ُنون‬ َ wa-yaṭūfu ῾alayhim ġilmānun lahum ka-᾿annahum lu᾿lu᾿un maknūnun “and there go around [waiting upon] them devoted youths like hidden pearls” (Q. 52:24). َ 12. ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym: ‫ِّين َل َنزَّ ْل َنا َع َل ْيهِ م ِم َن‬ ِ ‫ُق ْل ل َّْو َكانَ ِفي اْلأ ْر‬ َ ‫ض َمل َا ِئ َك ٌة َي ْم ُشونَ ُم ْط َم ِئن‬ ً ‫ الس ََّما ِء َم َل َكا ر َُّس‬/ qul law kāna fī l-᾿arḍi malā᾿ikatun yamšūna muṭma᾿innīna ‫ولا‬ lanazzalnā ῾alayhim mina s-samā᾿i malakan r-rasūlan “Say, ‘if there were angels walking about on earth contentedly, We would have sent them َ an angel from Heaven as a messenger’” (Q. 17:95); ‫قو ُل َل ُك ْم ِع ْن ِدي‬ ُ ‫َو َلا أ‬ َ َ ُ ‫ب َو َلا أ ُق‬ ٌ ‫ول إِنِّي َم َل‬ ‫ك‬ َ ‫ َخ َزا ِئ ُن اللَّ ِه َو َلا أ ْع َل ُم ا ْلغَ ْي‬/ wa-lā ᾿aqūlu lakum ῾indī ḫazā᾿inu l-lahi wa-lā ᾿a῾lamu l-ġayba wa-lā ᾿aqūlu ᾿inni malakun “I am not telling you that I hold God’s treasures, or have any knowledge of what is hidden, or that I am an angel” (Q. 11:31); ‫اس ُجدُُ وا ِلأ َ َد َم َف َس َجدُ وا‬ ْ ‫َوإِ ْذ ُق ْل َنا ِل ْل َم َلا ِئ َك ِة‬ َ َ ‫اس َت ْك َب َر َو َك‬ ‫ين‬ ْ ‫يس أ َبى َو‬ َ ‫ان ِم َن ا ْل َكا ِف ِر‬ َ ‫ إِ َّلا إِ ْب ِل‬/ wa-᾿iḏ qulnā li-lmalā᾿ikati sǧudū li-᾿ādama fa-saǧadū ᾿illā ᾿iblīsa ᾿abā wa-stakbara wa-kāna mina l-kāfirīna “When We told the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam,’ they all bowed. But not ᾿Iblīs, who refused and was arrogant, he was disobedient.” (Q. 2:34). ٍ ‫ ب َِأ‬// ‫ َو ُغل َا ٌم َأ ْرس َل ْت ُه ُأمُّه‬/ wa-ġulāmun ᾿arsalathu 13. ġlmm: ‫لوك َف َب َذ ْل َنا َما َس َأ ْل‬ ᾿ummuhu // bi-᾿alūkin fa-baḏalnā mā sa᾿al “and a youth sent by his mother // with a message and we interchanged what he requested” (Labīd b. Rabī῾a ً ‫ َو َيطوف َع َل ْيهِ م ِغ‬/ wa-yaṭūfu ῾alayhim [C.E. 660/1]); ٌ‫لهم َك َأن َُّه ْم ُلؤْ ُل ٌؤ َم ْك ُنون‬ ُ ‫لمان‬ ġilmānun lahum ka᾿annahum lu᾿lu᾿un maknūn “and there go around [waitُ ‫َي ُط‬ ing upon] them devoted youths like hidden pearls.” (Q. 52:24); ‫وف‬ ْ َ ٌ‫دان‬ َ‫مخلَّدون‬ ‫عل ْيهِ م ِول‬/yaṭūfu ῾alayhim wildānun muḫalladūna “and there go َ َ around [waiting upon] them everlasting youths” (Q. 56:19). 14. pḫr m῾d: ‫يعا ِد‬ tawā῾adtum laḫtalaftum َ ‫و َل ْو ت ََو‬/wa-law َ َ ‫اعدْ ت ُّْم َلا ْخ َت َلفْ ُت ْم ِفي ا ْل ِم‬ fī l-mī῾ādi “had you made an appointment together [to fight/meet], you would surely have differed [in keeping the time of, or in finding the place of] the appointment” (Q. 8:42) . 15. šb῾ bnt: ‫يقال للجارية فتاة‬/yuqālu li l-ǧariyati fatātun “the maiden/servant/ َ ‫َوإِ ْذ َق‬ assistant is called young girl”; ‫ال ُموسى لِفَ تا ُه َلا َأ ْب َر ُح َحتَّى َأ ْب ُلغَ َم ْج َم َع‬

CONCLUSIONS

335

َ ِ ‫البحر‬/wa-᾿iḏ qāla mūsā li-fatāhu lā ᾿abraḥu ḥattā ᾿abluġa ‫ضى ُح ُقب ًا‬ َ ْ َ َ ‫ين أ َو َا ْم‬ maǧma῾a l-baḥrayni ᾿aw ᾿amḍiya ḥuqubā “[As for] Moses, he said to his servant, ‘I will not desist [from journeying] until I reach the place where the two seas meet.’” (Q.18:60). 4.4 Other Parallels to Deity Group Appellations and Epithets 1. ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l: w῾zrnm “their auxiliaries/helpers” (KAI 288:4). 2. ᾿ilhm: DINGIR.MEŠ; a-na DINGIR.MEŠ “to the gods” (Emar). 3. ᾿ilht kṯrt: ḫutena or ḫutellura (Hurrian); dgu-ša-ra-tum (Eblaitic); Gulšeš/ d GUL-aššeš (Hittite); Titanids and Artemids (Greek); Hathors (Egyptian). 4. ᾿ily ᾿ugrt: kl ’lhy rḥbh w’dm[…] “all the gods of the open country and cultivated ground” (Aramaic inscription Sefire i A 10). 5. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ:᾿lhy šmy[n w᾿lh]y ᾿rq “the gods of heaven and earth” (KAI 202B:25f.); [᾿ln] b῾l-s1myn/[᾿ln] mr᾿ s1myn / ᾿ln mr᾿ s1myn w-᾿rḍn “᾿ln, Master of the sky / Master of the sky and earth” (e.g., B 8457 and YM 1950) 6. ᾿ilm n῾mm: ᾿lm n῾mm “the goodly/favorable gods” (KAI 162:3). 7. ᾿ilm rbm: mrn wmrtn wbrmryn wb῾šmyn ᾿lh᾿ rwb᾿ “our lord, our lady, and the son of our lords, and B., the great gods” (Hatra 25:2, cf. Hatra 26:2f.); [... ᾿lh]᾿ rb᾿ d ῾rb “[...] the great [god(s)] of Arabia” (Hatra 231:1). ml ᾿kyh qdšyh dqymy[n] qdm krsyh d ᾿lh rbh “the holy angels who stand before the throne of the great God” (AMB 7:4f.). 8. ᾿inš ᾿ilm: ᾿š ᾿lm “a man / humankind of god (or: the gods)” (Lévy SGPh 18); wšnt lm᾿š ᾿lm šnt km hkkbm ᾿l is to be translated, “and may the years of the divine statue be years like (the years of) these stars (v. kkb)” (KAI 277:10f.). 9. bn ᾿il(m): i-li-lu a-mu dingir-dingir-dingir “father of the gods” (Eblaite, Archi [2004], 322, n. 14); krt ln ᾿lt ᾿lm ᾿šr krt ln wkl bn ᾿lm “he has made an eternal pact with us, Ashur, and all the sons of ᾿Ēl / the gods / divine beings have made (a pact) with us” (KAI 27:8ff.); w᾿l qn ᾿rṣ wšmš ῾lm wkl dr bn ᾿lm “El the creator of the earth, the eternal sun and the whole assembly of the sons of ᾿Ēl / the gods / the divine beings” (KAI 26A:III:19). 10. bn qdš: wkl bn ᾿lm wrb dr kl qdšm “all the sons of ᾿Ēl/the gods/the divine beings and the numerous assembly of the holy ones,” wrb dr kl qdšm – “the community of all the holy ones/gods,” versus kl bn ᾿lm “all the gods” (KAI 27:11-12); wysgrnm h᾿lnm hqdšm ᾿t mmlk ᾿dr “the holy gods will deliver them to a mighty prince” (KAI 14:9, 22); ᾿l gbl qdšm “the holy gods of Byblos” (KAI 4:4-5, 7).

336

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

11. bnt hll snnt: [‫שפיר מלך למחזה כשמש ויקיר הדרה לדרכי ארקא בניח]א‬ “A king is as splendid to see as Šamaš; and his majesty is glorious, to them that tread the earth in peace” (Ahiqar 26: 108). Eblaitic nabḫu “the radiant.” 12. dr dt šmm: kl dr bn ᾿lm “the whole assembly of the gods / the children of the god” (KAI, 26A:III:19); dr kl qdšn “the community of all the gods”; compare to kl bn ᾿lm “all the gods” (KAI 27:12). 13. kbkbm knm: expression ‫ שבתי‬- Saturn, “rest planet, or fixed stars/planet” (see Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 4 and 10:4). 14. ml᾿akm/ml᾿ak ym: ml᾿kyh qdšyh “the holy divine messengers/angels” (AMB 7:4); ml᾿k mlk῾štrt “the holy divine messengers/angels of Mlk῾štrt” (KAI 19:2); w šlḥ ml᾿ky ῾[l]wh “I (e.g., a king) send my envoy to him (e.g., another king)” (KAI 224:8). 15. ῾dt ᾿ilm: wnṣbw šdyn mw῾d “the Sh. gods came together in an assembly” (DA i 8 :: Sasson AUSS xxiv 152f., see n. 7, p. 248-249). 16. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr: [b]yd ḥzyn wbyd ῾ddn “through seers and messengers” (KAI 202 A:12).

APPENDIX ONE

A GLOSSARY OF THE APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS OF DEITY GROUPS IN THE UGARITIC ALPHABETIC TEXTS (WITH LISTINGS OF ALL EPITHETS AND APPELLATIONS) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25.

᾿aklm ᾿amht ᾿il bldn ᾿il ddmm ᾿il ḫyr

“the eaters” “the maidservants” “the gods of the land” “the gods (of) Dadmima” “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru” ᾿il lb[-]n “the gods of Lab[a]na” ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” ᾿il qrt “the gods of the city” il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” ᾿ilhm “᾿Ilāhūma” ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses” “the gods of Ugarit” ᾿ily ᾿ugrt ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld” ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star-gods” ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods” ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods” ᾿inš ᾿ilm “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma” bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy / (the) children of ᾿Aṯiratu” bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu” “the children of the holy bn qdš one” bnt hll snnt “(the) daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff” dkym “the crushers” dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens”

[᾿ākilūma] [᾿amahātu] [᾿ilū bildāni] [᾿ilū dadmima] [᾿ilū ḫiyyāru/i] [᾿ilū lab᾿ana] [᾿ilū ṣapāni] [᾿ilū qarīti] [᾿ilū ta῾ḏiri ba῾li] [᾿ilāhūma] [᾿ilāhātu kôṯarāti] [᾿ilūya ᾿ugārit] [᾿ilūma ᾿arṣi] [᾿ilūma kabkabūma] [᾿ilūma na῾īmūma] [᾿ilūma rabbūma] [᾿ināšu᾿ilīma] [ba/inū ᾿aṯirati / šib῾ ūma ba/inī ᾿aṯirati] [ba/inū ᾿ili /᾿ili-ma] [ba/inū qudši] [banātu hulēli sānināti] [banātu hulēli ba῾li gamli] [dākiyūma] [dāru ᾿ili wa puḫru ba῾li] [dāru dūtu šamîma]

338

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

26. kbkbm knm 27. klt knyt 28. ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

ngrt ᾿ilht ῾dt ᾿ilm ῾nn . ᾿ilm ῾qqm ġlmm pḫr ᾿ilm pḫr kkbm

36. pḫr m῾d 37. ṣġrm 38. rbm 39. šb῾ bnt 40. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr

“the fixed stars” “the honored brides” “(the) messengers / messengers of Yammu ” “the herald-goddesses” “the assembly of the gods” “attendants of ᾿Ilu” “the devourers” “the lads (messengers)” “the assembly of the gods” “the assembly of the stars” “the great assembly” “the youngsters” “The mighty” “the seven maids” “the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu”

[kabkabūma ka/inūma] [kallātu kanniyāti] [mal᾿akūma / mal᾿akê/ū yammi] [nāgirātu ᾿ilāhātu] [῾udatu ᾿ilīma] [῾annūna ᾿ilīma] [῾āqiqūma] [ġalmūma] [puḫru ᾿ilīma] [puḫru kakkabīma/ kôkabīma] [puḫru mô῾idi] [ṣaġirūma] [rabbūma] [šab῾u bi/anāti] [ta῾udata/ū ṯāpiti nahari]

APPENDIX TWO

A GLOSSARY OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS OF DEITY GROUPS IN THE UGARITIC ALPHABETIC TEXTS (WITH LISTINGS OF ALL APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS IN WHICH EACH COMPONENT OCCURS) I. ᾿AKLM “THE 1. ᾿aklm

EATERS”

“the eaters”

[᾿ākilūma]

II. ᾿ALṮY “ALASHIA” 1. ᾿il ᾿alṯy (FDG) 2. kl ᾿il ᾿alṯy (FDG)

“the gods of Alashia” “all the gods of Alashia”

III. ᾿AMHT “THE 1. ᾿amht

1. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ

MAIDSERVANTS”

“the maidservants”

IV. ᾿ARṢ “THE

[᾿ilū ᾿alaṯiya] [kullu᾿ilī ᾿alaṯiya]

[᾿amahātu]

UNDERWORLD”

“the gods of the underworld”

[᾿ilūma ᾿arṣi]

V. ᾿AṮRT “᾿AṮIRATU” 1. bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt

“the seventy / (the) children of ᾿Aṯiratu”

VI. ᾿IL “THE 1. ᾿il ᾿alṯy (FDG) 2. ᾿il bldn

[ba/inū ᾿aṯirati / šib῾ ūma ba/inī ᾿aṯirati]

GODS (OF)”

“the gods of Alashia” “the gods of the land”

[᾿ilū ᾿alaṯiya] [᾿ilū bildāni]

340 3. ᾿il ddmm 4. ᾿᾿il ḫyr 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

᾿il lb[-]n ᾿il mṣrm (FDG) ᾿il ṣpn ᾿il qrt il t῾ḏr b῾l bn ᾿il(m) dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l

12. kl ᾿il ᾿alṯy (FDG)

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

“the gods (of) Dadmima” “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru” “the gods of Lab[a]na” “the gods of Egypt” “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” “the gods of the city” “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu”  “The children of ᾿Ilu” “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” “all the gods of Alashia”

[᾿ilū dadmima] [᾿ilū ḫiyyāru/i] [᾿ilū lab᾿ana] [᾿ilū miṣrêma] [᾿ilū ṣapāni] [᾿ilū qarīti] [᾿ilū ta῾ḏiri ba῾li] [ba/inū ᾿ili / ᾿ili-ma] [dāru ᾿ili wa puḫru ba῾li] [kullu ᾿ilī ᾿alaṯiya]

VII. ᾿ILHM “᾿ILĀHŪMA” 1. ᾿ilhm

“᾿Ilāhūma”

VIII. ᾿ILHT “THE 1. ᾿ilht kṯrt 2. ngrt ᾿ilht

[᾿ilāhūma]

GODDESSES”

“the Kôṯarātu goddesses” “the herald-goddesses”

[᾿ilāhātu kôṯarāti] [nāgirātu ᾿ilāhātu]

IX. ᾿ILY 1. ᾿ily ᾿ugrt

“the gods of Ugarit”

[᾿ilūya ᾿ugārit]

X. ᾿ILM “THE GODS/᾿ILU” 1. ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

᾿ilm kbkbm ᾿ilm n῾mm ᾿ilm rbm ᾿inš ᾿ilm bn ᾿il(m) ῾dt ᾿ilm ῾nn ᾿ilm pḫr ᾿ilm

“the gods of the underworld” “the star-gods” “the gracious gods” “the great gods” “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma” “The children of ᾿Ilu” “the assembly of the gods” “attendants of ᾿Ilu” “the assembly of the gods”

[᾿ilūma ᾿arṣi] [᾿ilūma kabkabūma] [᾿ilūma na῾īmūma] [᾿ilūma rabbūma] [᾿ināšu ᾿ilīma] [ba/inū ᾿ili / ᾿ili-ma] [῾udatu ᾿ilīma] [῾annūna ᾿ilīma] [puḫru ᾿ilīma]

XI. ᾿INŠ 1. ᾿inš ᾿ilm

“᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma”

[᾿ināšu ᾿ilīma]

A GLOSSARY OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE APPELLATIONS

341

XII. ᾿UGRT “UGARIT” 1. ᾿ily ᾿ugrt

“the gods of Ugarit”

XIII. 1. ᾿il bldn

1. bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt

BN

“(THE)

2. bnt hll b῾l gml 3. šb῾ bnt

LAND”

[᾿ilū bildāni]

CHILDREN”

“the seventy / (the) children of ᾿Aṯiratu” “the children of ᾿Ilu” “the children of the holy one”

XV. 1. bnt hll snnt

“THE

“the gods of the land”

XIV.

2. bn ᾿il(m) 3. bn qdš

BLDN

[᾿ilūya ᾿ugārit]

[ba/inū ᾿aṯirati / šib῾ūma ba/inī ᾿aṯirati] [ba/inū ᾿ili /᾿ili-ma] [ba/inū qudši]

BNT

“the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff” “the seven maids”

[banātu hulēli sānināti] [banātu hulēli ba῾li gamli] [šab῾u bi/anāti]

XVI. B῾L “BA῾LU” 1. il t῾ḏr b῾l 2. dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l 3. bnt hll b῾l gml

“the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” “the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff”

[᾿ilū ta῾ḏiri ba῾li] [dāru ᾿ili wa puḫru ba῾li] [banātu hulēli ba῾li gamli]

XVII. GML “THE GAMLU-STAFF” 1. bnt hll b῾l gml

“the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff”

[banātu hulēli ba῾li gamli]

342

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

XVIII. DDMM “DADMIMA” 1. ᾿il ddmm

“the gods (of) Dadmima”

XIX. 1. dkym

DKYM

1. dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l 2. dr dt šmm

DR

2. bnt hll b῾l gml

ḪYR

1. ᾿ilm kbkbm 2. kbkbm knm 3. pḫr kkbm

HLL

[dāru dūtu šamîma]

“(THE

YM

[dāru dūtu šamîma]

“HLL”

MONTH)

[banātu hulēli sānināti] [banātu hulēli ba῾li gamli]

ḪIYYĀRU”

“the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru”

[᾿ilū ḫiyyāru/i]

“YAMMU”

“(the) messengers / messengers of Yammu”

XXV.

[dāru ᾿ili wa puḫru ba῾li]

“OF THOSE”

“the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones” “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff”

XXIV. 1. ml᾿ak ym

CIRCLE”

“the circle of (those in) the heavens”

XXIII. 1. ᾿il ḫyr

“THE

DT

XXII. 1. bnt hll snnt

[dākiyūma]

“the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” “the circle of (those in) the heavens”

XXI. 1. dr dt šmm

“THE CRUSHERS”

“the crushers”

XX.

[᾿ilū dadmima]

KBKBM/KKBM

“THE

[mal᾿akê/ū yammi]

STARS”

“the star-gods” “the fixed stars” “the assembly of the stars”

[᾿ilūma kabkabūma] [kabkabūma ka/inūma] [puḫru kakkabīma/ kôkabīma]

A GLOSSARY OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE APPELLATIONS

XXVI. 1. kl ᾿il ᾿alṯy (FDG)

“ALL”

“all the gods of Alashia”

XXVII. 1. klt knyt

KL

KLT

343

[kullu ᾿ilī ᾿alaṯiya]

“BRIDES”

“the honored brides”

[kallātu kanniyāti]

XXVIII. KNYT “THE HONORED 1. klt knyt

“the honored brides”

XXIX. 1. kbkbm knm

FIXED”

“the fixed stars”

XXX. 1. ᾿ilht kṯrt

KṮRT

[kabkabūma ka/inūma]

“THE KÔṮARĀTU”

“the Kôṯarātu goddesses”

XXXI. 1. ᾿il lb[-]n

LB[-]N

1. ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym

ML᾿AK(M)

1. pḫr m῾d

M῾D

MṢRM

NGRT

[mal᾿akūma / mal᾿akê/ū yammi]

“ASSEMBLY” [puḫru mô῾idi]

“EGYPT”

“the gods of Egypt”

XXXV.

[᾿ilū lab᾿ana]

MESSENGERS”

“the great assembly”

XXXIV. 1. ᾿il mṣrm (FDG)

“(THE)

“(the) messengers / messengers of Yammu”

XXXIII.

[᾿ilāhātu kôṯarāti]

“LABANA”

“the gods of Lab[a]na”

XXXII.

1. ngrt ᾿ilht

“THE

KNM

[kallātu kanniyāti]

[᾿ilū miṣrêma]

“THE HERALD”

“the herald-goddesses”

[nāgirātu ᾿ilāhātu]

344

THE GODS OF MOUNT ṢAPĀNU

XXXVI. 1. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr

NHR

“NAHARU”

“the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu”

XXXVII. 1. ᾿ilm n῾mm

N῾MM

“THE GRACIOUS”

“the gracious gods”

XXXVIII. 1. bnt hll snnt

SNNT

[ta῾udata/ū ṯāpiti nahari]

[᾿ilūma na῾īmūma]

“THE RADIANT”

“the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones”

[banātu hulēli sānināti]

XXXIX. ῾DT “THE ASSEMBLY” 1. ῾dt ᾿ilm

“the assembly of the gods”

[῾udatu ᾿ilīma]

XL. ῾NN “ATTENDANTS OF ᾿ILU” 1. ῾nn . ᾿ilm

“attendants of ᾿Ilu”

[῾annūna ᾿ilīma]

XLI. ῾QQM “THE DEVOURERS” 1. ῾qqm

“The devourers”

XLII. 1. ġlmm

ĠLMM

“THE LADS (MESSENGERS)”

“The lads (messengers)”

XLIII.

PḪR

“the assembly of the gods” “the assembly of the stars”

3. pḫr m῾d

“the great assembly”

1. ṣġrm

ṢĠRM

[ġalmūma]

“THE ASSEMBLY”

1. pḫr ᾿ilm 2. pḫr kkbm

XLIV.

[῾āqiqūma]

“THE

[puḫru ᾿ilīma] [puḫru kakkabīma/ kôkabīma] [puḫru mô῾idi]

YOUNGSTERS”

“the youngsters”

[ṣaġirūma]

A GLOSSARY OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE APPELLATIONS

XLV. 1. ᾿il ṣpn

“the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu”

1. bn qdš

QDŠ

“THE HOLY

1. ᾿il qrt

QRT

“THE

1. ᾿ilm rbm 2. rbm

RBM

“THE

ŠB῾(M)

[᾿ilū qarīti]

MIGHTY”

“the great gods” “the mighty”

XLIX.

[ba/inū qudši]

CITY”

“the gods of the city”

XLVIII.

[᾿ilū ṣapāni]

ONE”

“the children of the holy one”

XLVII.

1. šb῾ bnt 2. šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt

“(MT.) ṢAPĀNU”

ṢPN

XLVI.

345

[᾿ilūma rabbūma] [rabbūma]

“THE SEVEN/THE SEVENTY”

“the seven maids” “the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu”

[šab῾u bi/anāti] [šib῾ ūma ba/inī ᾿aṯirati]

L. T῾DT “THE ENVOYS” 1. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr

“the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu”

LI. T῾ḎR “THE 1. il t῾ḏr b῾l

1. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr

HELPER”

“the helper-gods of Ba῾lu”

LII.

ṮPṬ

[ta῾udata/ū ṯāpiti nahari]

[᾿ilū ta῾ḏiri ba῾li]

“JUDGE (/RULER)”

“the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu”

[ta῾udata/ū ṯāpiti nahari]

APPENDIX THREE

A TABLE OF THE NUMBER OF DEITY GROUP APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS IN THE UGARITIC ALPHABETIC TEXTS (IN DESCENDING ORDER OF FREQUENCY) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

bn ᾿il(m) ᾿ilhm ᾿inš ᾿ilm bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt il t῾ḏr (b῾l) bn qdš bnt hll snnt ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym ġlmm t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l klt knyt pḫr m῾d ᾿ilm n῾mm / ᾿ilmy n῾mm ᾿aklm ngrt ᾿ilht ῾nn . ᾿ilm pḫr ᾿ilm ᾿amht

23 20 20 10 8 8 8 7 7 7 5 4+1 5 5 3 +1 3 3 3 3 2

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

᾿il bldn ᾿ilht kṯrt ᾿ilm rbm ῾dt ᾿ilm ῾qqm ᾿il ddmm ᾿il ḫyr ᾿il lb[-]n ᾿il ṣpn ᾿il qrt ᾿ily ᾿ugrt ᾿ilm kbkbm bnt hll b῾l gml dkym dr dt šmm kbkbm knm pḫr kkbm ṣġrm rbm šb῾ bnt

2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

APPENDIX FOUR

A LIST OF DUBIOUS DEITY GROUP APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS IN THE UGARITIC ALPHABETIC TEXTS ᾿agzr ym . bn ym ᾿aṯt ᾿il ᾿aṯtm ᾿il bt ᾿il prz ᾿ilhnm ᾿ilt ᾿asrm ᾿ilt bt ᾿ilt mgdl ᾿iltm ḫnqtm bn šp[...] bn šrm b῾lt btm (/bhtm/bwtm) b῾lt btm rmm bt ᾿il gṯrm

gṯrm dkrm drm ᾿ilm zbl mlk šmm ysmm kbkbm mlk šmm mlkm mtm ῾ly[nm] ġlmtm pḫr qbṣ dtn/ddn rp᾿um rp᾿i arṣ rp᾿im qdmym rp᾿im qdšm

APPENDIX FIVE

A LIST OF THE COMMON NOUNS OR DIVINE NAMES INCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED AS DEITY GROUP APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS IN THE UGARITIC ALPHABETIC TEXTS ᾿arṣ w šmm ᾿ilht ᾿arḫt ᾿ilht dkrt ᾿ilht ḫprt ᾿ilht ks᾿at ᾿ilm ᾿alpm ᾿ilm kḥṯm ᾿ilm krm

᾿ilm rḥbt b῾lm hmlt ġrm w ῾mqt ġrm w thmt ršpm šmm w thm

ABBREVIATIONS AAAS

Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire. AB Anchor Bible. Garden City NY, Doubleday. ABD D. N. Freedman et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 Vols.). New York NY, Doubleday, 1992. ACF Annuaire du Collège de France. AcOr Acta Orientalia. ACT O. Neugebauer, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. London, 1955. AfO Archiv für Orientforschung. AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft. AG K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta: Mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der Sumerischen Götternamen. Studia Orientalia edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica 7, Helsingfors, Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1938. AHw W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (3 Vols.). Wiesbaden, O. Harrassowitz, 1965-1981. AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves. ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens. Münster, Ugarit-Verlag. AnBib Analecta Biblica. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ANESpp Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement. Ginsberg, ANET H. L. Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends,” in: J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd edition). Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1969, 129-155. AnOr Analecta Orientalia. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag. AoF Altorientalische Forschungen. AOS American Oriental Series. ARES Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi. ArOr Archiv Orientální. AuOr Aula Orientalis. AuOrSpp. Aula Orientalis-Supplementa. Barcelona, Editorial AUSA. ARTU J. C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Nisaba 16. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1987. ASA Ancient South Arabian. ASO Annuaire de la Société Orientale ‘Ex Oriente Lux’. AULS F. Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. ALASP Band 5. Münster, Ugarit-Verlag. 1992. BA Biblical Archaeologist.

350 BAM BASOR BBR BDB Berytus BHS Bib BibOr BiOr BJ BM BR BSAW BSOAS BWANT BZAW CA CAD CANE CAT CBQ CDA CH CIH CIS CM CMAwR CML1 CML2 CR1

ABBREVIATIONS

F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Berlin, 1963ff. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Bulletin for Biblical Research. F. Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an appendix containing biblical Aramaic. Oxford, Clarendon, 1907. Berytus. Archaeological Studies. Museum of Archaeology of the American University of Beirut. A. Alt et al., Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-1977. Biblica. Biblica et Orientalia. Bibliotheca Orientalis. La Bible de Jérusalem: La Sainte Bible. Traduite en français sous la direction de l’École Biblique de Jérusalem, Nouvelle édition, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1975. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica. Biblical Research. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Classical Arabic. A. L. Oppenheim et al., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, Oriental Institute; Glückstadt, J. J. Augustin, 1956. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Ed. by J. M. Sasson. = KTU2 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. J. Black et al., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG 5, 2nd (Corrected) Printing, Harrassowitz Verlag-Wiesbaden, 2000. Codex Hammurapi. Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars quarta. Inscriptiones ḥimyariticas et sabæas continens. Paris 1889-1932. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale; Éditions Klincksieck, 1881-1951. Cuneiform Monographs. Groningen 1992ff. T. Abusch and D. Schwemer, Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals, Vols. 1 and 2, Brill, 2010, 2016. G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1956. J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1978. G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Translated by W. G. E. Watson, Bethesda MD, CDL Press, 1999.

ABBREVIATIONS

CR2 CRAI CRB CS I CS II CS III CSAI CSD CSF CTA DDD2 DEUAT DJBA DLU DMOA DNWSI DULAT

EncJu1 EncJu2 EI EPROER EUT

351

G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Second English Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Enlarged (AOAT 408). Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2014. Comptes Rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, Paris, J. Gabalda et Cie. W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden, E. J. Brill, l997. W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture. II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 2000. W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture. III: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 2002. Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994 (reprint of 1903). Collezioni di Studi Fenici. Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiforme alphabétiques, découvertes à Ras-Shamra – Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale; P. Geuthner, 1963. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd Extensively Revised Edition). Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1999. A. Rahmouni, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. HdO I/93. Trans. by J. N. Ford, Leiden, Brill, 2008. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan, Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore/London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, Diccionario de la lengua Ugarítica (2 Vols.). AuOrSpp. 7/8. Barcelona, Editorial AUSA, 1996/2000. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Leiden: E.J. Brill. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 Vols.). Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1995. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartin, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Part One [᾿(a/i/u)-k] and Part Two [l-ẓ], English version ed. by W. G. E. Watson, Leiden/ Boston, Brill, 2004. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem. Israel, Keter Publishing House Ltd. Encyclopaedia Judaica, second edition. Detroit, NY et. al., Thomson Gale. Eretz-Israel. Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain. Leiden, E.J. Brill. M. H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts. VTS 2. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1955.

352 EVO FARG FAT FCB FF Gesenius

GLECS GM GUL HALOT HSM HSS HTR HUCA HUS IDB IEJ Iraq IOS Ištar JANER JANES JAOS JAOSS JBL JCS JEOL JESHO JHC JNES JNSL JPOS JPS

ABBREVIATIONS

Egitto e Vicino Oriente. Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte. Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Fuentes de la Ciencia Bíblica. Forschungen und Fortschritte. W. Gesenius, Heräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Unter verantwortlicher Mitarbeit von Dr. U. Rüterwörden et al. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/London/ Paris/Tokyo, Springer Verlag, 1987-. Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d’études chamito-sémitiques. Göttinger Miszellen. D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. HdO I/28. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1997. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 Vols.). Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1994-2000. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Harvard Semitic Studies. The Harvard Theological Review. Hebrew Union College Annual. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Part One: The Ancient Near East and Middle East, 39, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1999. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York NY, Abingdon Press. 1962. Israel Exploration Journal. Iraq. London. Israel Oriental Studies. A. Zgoll, Die Kunst des Betens: Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten an Ištar. AOAT 308. Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2003, 41-95. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Journal of the American Oriental Society Supplement. Journal of Biblical Literature. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap «Ex Oriente Lux». Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. Journal of Higher Criticism. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation. Second Edition. Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society, 1999.

ABBREVIATIONS

JQR JRAS JSOT JSOTSS JSS JTS KAM

353

Jewish Quarterly Review. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series. Journal of Semitic Studies. Journal of Theological Studies. Keilschrifttexte aus mittelassyrischer Zeit. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 124. KME A. Jirku, Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962. KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Einschließlich der keilalphabetischen Texte außerhalb Ugarits. Teil 1: Transkription (AOAT 24/I). Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1976. KTU2 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition), ALASP 8, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. KTU3 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten: Dritte, erweiterte Auflage (AOAT 360/1). Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2013. Lane, Lexicon E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. London, Williams and Norgate, 1863-1893. LAPO Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient. Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf. LC2 J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament. 2nd Edition, VTS 5, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1965. Lisān al-῾arab J-D.M. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-῾arab, Vols. 1-15. Bayrūt, DarSader, 2000. Lěšonénu A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects. Maarav A Journal for the Study of the Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures, California. Maqlû T. Abusch, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû. Writings from the Ancient World, 37, Atlanta GA, SBL Press, 2015. MAOG Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft. MARI Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires. MC Mesopotamian Civilizations. Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns. MisEb Miscellanea Eblaitica. MLC G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan: Según la tradición de Ugarit. FCB 1. Valencia, Institución San Jerónimo; Madrid, Ediciones Cristiandad, 1981. MKT J. Aistleitner, Die mythologischen und kultischen Texte aus Ras Schamra. 2nd edition, BOH 8, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1964. MLE Materiali Lessicali ed Epigrafici. Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche; Istituto per la Civiltà Fenicia e Punic.

354 MO II MVEOL NABU NBE NUS OrAn OBO OBT OLA OLP OLZ OrNS OTS PEQ PLM PRU II PRU V PRU VI PSAS PSWRA PTU Q QdS RA RB RC RCU

ABBREVIATIONS

P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, Manuel d’Ougaritique, Vol. 2: choix de textes, glossaire. Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A. Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap “Ex Oriente Lux.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, Paris 1987ff. cf. Mémoires de NABU, 1992ff., Cahiers de NABU, 1990ff. Nueva Biblia Española. Traducción de los textos originales dirigida por Luis Alonso Schökel y Juan Mateos. Madrid, Ediciones Cristiandad, 1990. Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies. Oriens Antiquus. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Freiburg, Universitätverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht OB Temple Records (aka OBTR; Lau; ORT): R. Lau, Old Babylonian Temple Records (= Columbia University Oriental Studies 3, New York 1906, reprint 1966). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. Orientalia. Nova Series. Oudtestamentische Studiën. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. C. H. Gordon, “Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit.” Berytus 25 (1977) 5-133. Ch. Virolleaud, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit II, Mission de Ras Shamra 7, publié sous la direction de C. F.-A Schaeffer, Paris, 1957. Ch. Virolleaud, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit V, Mission de Ras Shamra 11, publié sous la direction de C F.-A Schaeffer, Paris, 1965. J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit VI, Mission de Ras Shamra 12, publié sous la direction de C F.-A Schaeffer, Paris, 1970. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Pericope Scripture as Written and Read in Antiquity F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rom, Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Qur᾿ān. Quaderni di Semitisticà. Firenze, Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale. Revue Biblique. G. del Olmo Lete, La religión cananea: según la liturgia de Ugarit: estudio textual. AuOrSpp, 3, Barcelona, Editorial AUSA, 1992. D. Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Writings from the Ancient World 10. Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.

ABBREVIATIONS

RES-Bab RES RHA RHPhR RHR RlA RIMA RIMB RINAP RSF RSOu RSP RTU SAA SAAB SAACT SANER SAOC SBAWW SBLDS SBLMS SDB Sefarad SEL SHCANE ShSMS SILO SemClas Semitica Shnaton SMS SPAL StEb StP StPh

355

Revue des études sémitiques et Babyloniaca. Répertoire d’Épigraphie Sémitique. Paris 1900-1968. Revue Hittite et Asiatique. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions. E. Ebeling et al. (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Berlin, W. de Gruyter, 1928-. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods. The Royal Inscriptions of of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Rivista di Studi Fenici. Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. L. R. Fisher and S. Rummel (eds.), Ras Shamra Parallels (3 Vols.). AnOr 49, 50 / 51, Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1972, 1975 / 1981. N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues. 2nd revised edition, London/New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki, 1987ff. State Archives of Assyria. Bulletin, Padua 1987 ff. State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Sitzungs-Berichte der (Kaiserl.) Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1928-. Revista de Estudios Hebraicos, Sefardíes y de Oriente Próximo, Spain. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East. Shelton Semitic Monograph Series. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis. Semitica et Classica. Semitica. Institut d’études sémitiques de l’Université de Paris, Paris. Shnaton. An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies. Monographic journals of the Near East. Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla. Studi Eblaiti. Studia Pohl. Roma, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Studia Phoenicia, Leuven.

356

ABBREVIATIONS

StS Studi Semitici. Tahḏīb al-luġa M.A. Abu-Manṣūr, Tahḏīb al-luġa li-abī Manṣūr Muḥammad Ben ᾿Aḥmad al-Azharī. Vols. I-XX. Lubnān, Dār al-fikr. Tāǧ al-῾arūs M. M. Al-Ḥusaini Al-Zabīdī Al-Ḥanafī, Tāǧ al-῾arūs. Vols 1-20, Beirouth, Dar al-fikr, 1994. TBC Texts from Babylonian Collection. Ed. by W.W. Hallo, New Haven CT, Yale Babylonian Collection. Tel Aviv Journal of The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Thespis T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd edition Garden City NY, Doubleday, 1961. ThR Theologische Rundschau. TO I A. Caquot - M. Sznycer - A. Herdner, Textes ougaritiques. Tome I: Mythes et légendes. LAPO 7, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 1974. TO II A. Caquot - J.-M. de Tarragon - J.-L. Cunchillos, Textes ougaritiques. Tome 2: Textes religieux, rituels, correspondance. LAPO 14, Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 1989. TPM D. Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). RSOu 4, Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988. TR D. Pardee, Les textes rituels (2 Vols.). RSOu 12, Paris, Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2000. TRU P. Xella, I testi rituali di Ugarit - I: Testi. StS 54, Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981. TUAT O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1984-. TUAT.NF O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Neue Folge. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2004-. TWAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1973-. UBC I M. S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle - I: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. (VTS 55), Leiden/ New York/Koln, E. J. Brill, 1994. UBC II M. S. Smith and W. T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle - II: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/ CAT 1.3-1.4. (VTS 114), Leiden/New York/Köln, E. J. Brill, 2009. UBL Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur. UF Ugarit-Forschungen: Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas. UFBG R. Mayer, Werner, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der Babylonischen ‘Gebetsbeschwörungen’. Studia Pohl, Series maior 5. Rome, Biblical Institute Press. Ug. V C. F.-A. Schaeffer et al., Ugaritica V. Mission de Ras Shamra 16. Paris, Mission Archéologique de Ras Shamra dirigée par C. F.-A. Schaeffer, P. Geuthner, 1968. Ug. VI C. F.-A. Schaeffer et al., Ugaritica VI. Mission de Ras Shamra 17. Paris, Mission Archéologique de Ras Shamra dirigée par C. F.-A. Schaeffer, P. Geuthner, 1969.

ABBREVIATIONS

Ug. VII UG UL UNP UT UVST VO VT VTS WKAS WdO WUS

ZA ZÄS ZAW ZDMG ZDMGSupp ZDPV ZRGG

357

C. F.-A. Schaeffer, et al., Ugaritica VII. Mission de Ras Shamra 18. Paris, Mission Archéologique de Ras Shamra dirigée par C. F.-A. Schaeffer, P. Geuthner, 1978. J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Scripta Pontifici Instituti Biblici 98. Rome, Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949. S. B. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 9, Scholars Press, 1997. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices. (Revised Reprint). AnOr 38, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998. Huehnergard, J. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. HSS 32, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1987. Vicino Oriente. Vetus Testamentum. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements. Leiden, E.J. Brill. M. Ullmann, Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1970-. Die Welt des Orients. Aistleitner, J. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. 2nd edition, ed. by O. Eißfeldt, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 106/3, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1967. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplementa. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AARTUN 1974 - K. AARTUN, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen (AOAT 21/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1974. AARTUN 1978 - K. AARTUN, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen: 2. Teil. Präpositionen, Konjunktionen (AOAT 21/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1978. ABDEL 2016 - M. A. S. Haleem Abdel, The Qur᾿an: A New Translation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016. ABOUD 1994 - J. ABOUD, Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (FARG 27), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag 1994. ABUSCH 1983 - T. ABUSCH, “The Form and Meaning of a Babylonian Prayer to Marduk,” JAOS 103 (1983) 3-15. ABUSCH 2015 - T. ABUSCH, The Witchcraft Series Maqlû, Writings from the Ancient World, 37. Atlanta, SBL Press, 2015. ABUSCH & SCHWEMER 2016 - T. ABUSCH & D. SCHWEMER, Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals. Vol. 2, Ancient Magic and Divination, 8/2, Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2016. ACKROYD 1968 - P. R. ACKROYD, “The Meaning of Hebrew ‫ דור‬Considered,” JSS 13 (1968) 3-10. AHL 1973 - S. W. AHL, Epistolary Texts from Ugarit: Structural and Lexical Correspondences in Epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic, PhD Dissertation presented to the Faculty of Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Mediterranean Studies, Brandeis University, 1973. AISTLEITNER 1939a - J. AISTLEITNER, “Die Nikkal-Hymne aus Ras-Schamra,” ZDMG 93 (1939), 52-59. AISTLEITNER 1939b - J. AISTLEITNER, “Die Anat-Texte aus Ras Schamra,” ZAW 16 (1939), 193-211. AISTLEITNER 1954 - AISTLEITNER, J., “Ein Opfertext aus Ugarit (1929 No. 2),” AcOr 4 (1939) 259-270. ALBRIGHT 1932 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “The North-Canaanite Epic of ᾿Al᾿êyân Ba῾al and Môt,” JPOS 12 (1932) 185-208. ALBRIGHT 1934 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “The North-Canaanite Poems of Al᾿êyân Ba῾al and the ‘Gracious Gods,’” JPOS 14 (1934) 101-140. ALBRIGHT 1939 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “An Aramaean Magical Text in Hebrew from the Seventh Century B. C.,” BASOR 76 (1939) 5-11. ALBRIGHT 1941 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “Anath and the Dragon,” BASOR 84 (1941), 14-17. ALBRIGHT 1946 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel: The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, 1941, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946. ALBRIGHT 1950 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “Review: Ugaritic Handbook by Cyrus H. Gordon (= Analecta Orientalia 25), Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1947, Pp. vii+238,” JBL 69 (1950) 385-393.

360

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALBRIGHT 1964 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, “The Beth-Shemesh Tablet in Alphabetic Cuneiform,” BASOR 173 (1964) 51-53. ALBRIGHT 1968 - W. F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths, London, The Athlone Press, 1968. ALI 2004 - A. Y. ALI, The Meaning of the Holy Qur᾿ān. New Edition with Revised Translation and Commentary, Maryland, Amana Corporation, 1991, 2004. ALOMIA 1987 - K. M. ALOMIA, Lesser Gods of the Ancient Near East and Some Comparisons with Heavenly Beings of the Old Testament, PhD Dissertation, Andrews University, 1987. ALT 1942 - D. ALT, “Ein phönikisches Staatswesen des frühen Altertums,” FF 18 (1942) 207-209. AMADASI GUZZO & ZAMORA 2018 - M. G. AMADASI GUZZO & J. A. ZAMORA, “The Phoenician Name of Cyprus: New Evidence from Early Hellenistic Times,” JSS 63 (2018) 77-97. ANDERSEN 1966 - F. I. ANDERSEN, “A Lexicographical Note on Exodus XXXII 18,” VT 16 (1966) 108-112. ARBACH & MARAQTEN 2018 - M. ARBACH & M. MARAQTEN, “Notes on the Root L᾿K ‘to Send’ and the Term ml᾿k ‘Messenger’ in the Ancient South Arabian Inscriptions,” SemClas 11 (2018) 251-256. ARCHI 1979 - A. ARCHI, “Associations des divinités hourrites,” UF 11 (1979) 7-12. ARCHI 1980 - A. ARCHI, “Les textes lexicaux bilingues d’Ebla,” StEb 2 (1980) 81-89. ARCHI 1993 - A. ARCHI, “How a Pantheon Forms: the Cases of Hattian-hittite Anatolia and Ebla of the 3rd Millennium B.C,” in: Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17-21, März 1990 (OBO 129), ed. by B. Janowski et al., Freiburg, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1993. ARCHI 1994 - A. ARCHI, “Studies in the Pantheon of Ebla,” OrNs 63 (1994) 249-256. ARCHI 2004 - A. ARCHI, “Translation of Gods: Kumarpi, Enlil, Dagan/NISABA, Ḫalki,” OrNs 73 (2004) 319-336. ARNAUD 1991 - D. ARNAUD, “Contribution de l’onomastique du moyen-Euphrate à la connaissance de l’émariote,” SEL 8 (1991) 23-46. ARTZI 1984 - P. ARTZI, “Lennart Hellbing, Alasia Problems. Göteborg, Paul Aströms Förlag, 1979 (31 cm., XII 112 pp., 2 maps) = Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 57. ISBN 91 85058 90 4,” BiOr 41 (1984) col. 208213. ARTZY, PERLMAN & ASARO 1976 - M. ARTZY, I. PERLMAN & F. ASARO, “Alašiya of the Amarna Letters,” JNES 35 (1976) 171-182. ASSMANN 1996 - J. ASSMANN, “Translating Gods: Religion as a Factor of Cultural (Un)Translatability,” in: The Translatability of Cultures: Figurations of the Space Between, ed. by S. Budick, California, Stanford University Press, 1996, 25-36, 306-312. ASTOUR 1966 - M. C. ASTOUR, “Some New Divine Names from Ugarit,” JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284. ASTOUR 1968 - M. C. ASTOUR, “Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms,” JNES 27 (1968) 13-36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

ASTOUR 1969a - M. C. ASTOUR, “Le triade de déesses de fertilité à Ugarit et en Grèce,” Ug. VI (1969) 9-23. ASTOUR 1969b - M. C. ASTOUR, “The Partition of the Confederacy of MukišNuhašše-Nii by Šuppiluliuma: A Study in Political Geography of the Amarna Age (Tab. LI),” OrNs 38 (1969) 381-414. ASTOUR 1970a - M. C. ASTOUR, “Toponyms in the Hurrian Alphabetic Tablet RS 24.285,” UF 2 (1970) 1-6. ASTOUR 1970b - M. C. ASTOUR, “Ma᾿ḫadu, the Harbor of Ugarit,” JESHO 13 (1970) 113-127. ASTOUR 1973 - M. C. ASTOUR, “A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?” UF 5 (1973) 29-39. ASTOUR 1975 - M. C. ASTOUR, “Place Names (Arranged by Duane E. Smith),” RSP II (1975) 249-369. ASTOUR 1981- M. C. ASTOUR, “Les frontières et les districts du Royaume d’Ugarit,” UF 13 (1981) 1-12. ASTOUR 1982 - M. C. ASTOUR, “Caphtor/ Keftiu: A New Investigation, by John Strange. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1980,” JAOS 102 (1982) 395-396. ASTOUR 1987 - M. C. ASTOUR, “Semites and Hurrians in Northern Transtigris,” in: Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 2., ed. by D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1987, 3-68. AVANZINI 2004 - A. AVANZINI, Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions I-III. Qatabanic, Marginal Qatabanic, Awsanite Inscriptions, Arabia Antica, 2. Pisa, Edizioni Plus-Università di Pisa, 2004. AVANZINI 2008 - A. AVANZINI, “Criteri editoriali per la pubblicazione dello CSAI,” EVO 31 (2008) 145-157. AVISHUR 1980 - Y. AVISHUR, “Expressions of the Type byn ydym in the Bible and Semitic Languages,” UF 12 (1980) 125-133. AVISHUR 1984 - Y. AVISHUR, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT 210), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1984. AVISHUR 2007 - Y. AVISHUR, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ugaritic Languages and Literatures, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center Publications, 2007. BÁCSKAY 2018 - A. BÁCSKAY, Therapeutic Prescriptions against Fever in Ancient Mesopotamia (AOAT 447), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2018. BADAWI & ABDEL HALEEM 2008 - E. Badawi & M. ABDEL HALEEM, ArabicEnglish Dictionary of Qur᾿anic Usage (HdO 85), Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2008. BAINES 1983 - J. BAINES, “‘Greatest god’ or ‘category of gods’?” GM 67 (1983) 13-28. BAINES 1997 - J. BAINES, “Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity, Unity, and the Problem of Change,” in: One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. by B. N. Porter, New York NY, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1997, 9-78. BAISAS 1973 - B. Q. BAISAS, “Ugaritic ῾ḏr and Hebrew ‘zr I,’” UF 5 (1973) 4152. BALDACCI 1996 - M. BALDACCI, La Scoperta di Ugarit: La città-stato ai primordi della Bibbia, Casale Monferrato, 1996.

362

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARTON 1934 - G. A. BARTON, “A Liturgy for the Celebration of the Spring Festival at Jerusalem in the Age of Abraham and Melchizedek,” JBL 53 (1934) 61-78. BAUER 1933 - H. BAUER, “Die Gottheiten von Ras Schamra,” ZAW 51 (1933) 81-101. BAUER 1934 - H. BAUER, “Rezension zu C.F.A. Schaeffer, Ch. Virolleaud und F. Thureau-Dangin: I. La deuxième Campagne de fouilles à Ras-Shamra; II. La torisième Campagne de fouilles à Ras-Shamra,” OLZ 37 (1934) col. 239-247. BAUER 1935 - H. BAUER, “Safonisches,” OLZ 38 (1935) col. 129-134. BAUMGARTEN 1981 - A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary (EPROER 89), Leiden, Brill, 1981. BAUMGARTNER 1941 - W. BAUMGARTNER, “Ras Schamra und das Alte Testament, II,” ThR 13 (1941)1-20, 85-102. BEAULIEU 1999 - P. A. BEAULIEU, “The Babylonian Man in the Moon,” JCS 51 (1999) 91-99. BECKMAN 1983 - G. M. BECKMAN, Hittite Birth Rituals, 2nd edition, Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten Vol. 29, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1983. BELMONTE 2001, J.A. BELMONTE, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr., Wiesbaden, 2001. BERGER 1969 - P. R.BERGER, “Die Alašia-Briefe Ugaritica 5, Noug. Nrn. 22-24,” UF 1 (1969) 217-221. BERGER 1970 - P. R. BERGER, “Zur Nabonid-Inschrift Nr. 3 und ihren Duplikaten”, ZA 60 (1970) 128-133. BERLEJUNG 2007 - A. BERLEJUNG, “Die Reduktion von Komplexität. Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Bespiel des Gottes Aššur im Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr.,” in: Die Welt der Götterbilder (BZAW 376), ed. by B. Groneberg and H. Spieckermann, Berlin, 2007, 9-56. BERNETT & KEEL 1998 - M. BERNETT & O. KEEL, Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Bethsaida (et-Tell) (OBO 161). Freiburg, Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1998. BETLYON 1985 - J. W. BETLYON, “The Cult of ᾿Ašerah / ᾿Ēlat at Sidon,” JNES 44 (1985) 53-56. BIGGS 1967 - R. D. BIGGS, ŠÀ.ZI.GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations, Locust Valley NY, J. J. Augustin, 1967. BLACHÈRE, CHOUÉMI & DENIZEAU 1970 - R. BLACHÈRE, M. CHOUÉMI & C. DENIZEAU, Dictionnaire Arabe-Français-Anglais (Langue classique et moderne), Tome Deuxième, Fascicule 13, Paris, G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1970. BLACK & GREEN 2008 - J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, illustrations by Tessa Rickards, London, The British Museum Press, 1992, reprinted 2008. BLAU 1979 - J. BLAU, “Zu Lautlehre und Vokalismus des Ugaritischen,” UF 11 (1979) 55-62. BLAU 1985 - J. BLAU, “‫דקדוק חדש ללימוד האוגריתית‬,” Lěšonénu 49 (1985) 291-296. BLAU & GREENFIELD 1970 - J. BLAU & J. C GREENFIELD, “Ugaritic Glosses,” BASOR 200 (1970) 11-17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

BLOCK 2000 - D. I. BLOCK, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, 2nd edition, foreword by Alan Millard, Oregon, WIPF & Stock, 2000. BONECHI 1989 - M. BONECHI, “Un atto di Culto a Ebla,” MisEb 2. QdS 16 (1989) 131-147. BONESCHI 1945 - P. BONESCHI, “Is Malak an Arabic Word?” JAOS 65 (1945) 107111. BONNET 1987 - C. BONNET, “Typhon et Baal Ṣaphon,” in: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of November 1985 (StPh5, OLA 22), ed. by E. Lipiński, Leuven, Peeters, 1987, 101-143. BORDREUIL 1990 - P. BORDREUIL, “À propos de Milkou, Milqart et Milk῾ashtart,” Maarav 5-6 (1990) 11-21. BORDREUIL 1995 - P. BORDREUIL, “Les tablettes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra et de Ras Ibn Hani”, in: Ugarit: ein ostmediter ranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt (ALASP 7 I), ed. by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1995, 1-5. BORDREUIL & CAQUOT 1980 - P. BORDREUIL & A. CAQUOT, “Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani,” Syria 57 (1980) 343373. BORDREUIL & PARDEE 1993a - P. BORDREUIL & D. PARDEE, “Texte ougaritiques oubliés et ‘transfuges,’” Semitica 41/42 (1993) 23-58. BORDREUIL & PARDEE 1993b - P. BORDREUIL & D. PARDEE, “Le combat de Ba῾lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,” Mari 7 (1993) 63-70. BORDREUIL & PARDEE 2003 - P. BORDREUIL & D. PARDEE, “Un nouveau membre de la famille royale d’Ougarit ?” in: De la Tabilla a la Inteligencia Artificiel. Homenaje al Prof. Jesús Luis Cunchillos en su 65 aniversario, ed. by J.A. Zamora et al., Zaragoza Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo, 2003, 31-39. BORDREUIL & PARDEE 2010 - P. BORDREUIL & D. PARDEE, “Textes alphabétiques inédits du musée du Louvre,” in: Society and Administration in Ancient Ugarit, ed. by W. H. van Soldt, Leiden, PIHANS CXIV, 2010, 115. BORDREUIL & PARDEE & ROCHE-HAWLEY 2019 - P. BORDREUIL & D. PARDEE & C. ROCHE-HAWLEY, Ras Ibn Hani II. Les textes en écritures cuneiformes de l’âge du Bronze récent (fouilles 1977 à 2002), Beyrouth, 2019. BORGER 2004 - R. BORGER, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2004. BOTTÉRO 1983 - J. BOTTÉRO, “Les morts et l’au-delà dans les rituels en accadien contre l’action des ‘revenants,’” ZA 73 (1983) 153-203. VAN DEN BRANDEN 1981 - A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, “La triade phénicienne,” BibOr 23 (1981) 35-63. BREKELMANS 1966 - C. BREKELMANS, “Review of Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache, herausgegeben von O. Eissfeldt. Berlin. Akademie-Verlag, 1963 (in-8o, VIII + 362 p.) = Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Kalsse, Band 106, Heft 3,” BiOr 23 (1966) 307-308.

364

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRENNER 1982 - A. BRENNER, Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 21), Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1982. BRIDGE 2013 - E. J. BRIDGE, “The Metaphoric Use of Slave Terms in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 23 (2013) 13-28. BRON 2008 - F. BRON, “Les dieux et les cultes de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique,” in: Mythologie et Religion des Sémites Occidentaux. Vol. 2: Émar, Ougarit, Israël, Phénicie, Aram, Arabie, ed. by G. del Olmo Lete. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 162, Leuven/Paris/Dudley, Uitgeverij Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies, 2008, 449-481. BROWN 1965 - J. P. BROWN, “Kothar, Kinyras, and Kythereia,” JSS 10 (1965) 197-219. BRYCE 2002 - T. BRYCE, Life and Society in the Hittite World, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2002. BURCHARDT 1912 - M. BURCHARDT, “Zur Rassenzugehörigkeit der Hyksos,” ZÄS 50 (1912) 6-8. BURKERT 1985 - W. BURKERT, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, translated by J. Raffan, Oxford, Harvard University Press, 1985. BURLINGAME 2021 - A. BURLINGAME, “Constraining the Future in Ugaritic Juridical Composition and the Indefinite Semantics of šḥr ṯlṯt,” in: Ougarit, un anniversaire, RSO XXVIII (2021) 461-487 BURNETT 2001 - J. S. BURNETT, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim (SBLDS 183), Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. CALVET & ROBIN 1997 - Y. CALVET & CH. ROBIN, “Catalogue des antiquités arabiques du Musée du Louvre,” in: Arabie heureuse, Arabie déserte: les antiquités arabiques du Musée du Louvre, ed. by Y. Calvet et al., Paris, Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1997. CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, KAHL & WAGENSONNER 2018 - E. CH. CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM, J. KAHL & K. WAGENSONNER, Erste Philologien: Archäologie Einer Disziplin Vom Tigris Bis Zum Nil, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2018. CAPLICE 1967 - R. CAPLICE, “Namburbi Texts in the British Museum III,” OrNs 36 (1967) 273-298. CAQUOT 1960 - A. CAQUOT, “Les Rephaïm ougaritiques,” Syria 37 (1960) 7593. CAQUOT 1962 - A. CAQUOT, “Un sacrifice expiatoire à Ras Shamra,” RHPhR 42 (1962) 201-211. CAQUOT 1969 - A. CAQUOT, “Problèmes d’histoire religieuse,” in: La Siria nel Tardo Bronzo, Orientis Antiqui Collectio 9, Rome, Centro per le Antichìta e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente, 1969, 61-76. CAQUOT 1973 - A. CAQUOT, “Observations sur la première tablette magique d’Arslan Tash,” JANES 5 (1973) 45-51. CAQUOT 1975 - A. CAQUOT, “Resumé des cours de 1974-1975,” ACF 75 (1975) 426-431. CAQUOT 1976 - A. CAQUOT, “La tablette RS 24.252 et la question des Rephaïm ougaritiques,” Syria 53 (1976) 295-304. CAQUOT 1978 - A. CAQUOT, “Remarques sur la tablette alphabétique R.S. 24.272,” in: Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Y. Avishur and J. Blau, Jerusalem, E. Rubenstein, 1978, 1-6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

365

CAQUOT 1979 - A. CAQUOT, “Ras Shamra V. La littérature ougaritique,” SDB 9 (1979) col. 1361-1418. CAQUOT 1985 - A. CAQUOT, “Rephaim,” SDB 10 (1985) col. 344-357. CAQUOT 1987 - A. CAQUOT, “Notes philologiques sur la légende ougaritique de Danel et d’Aqhat. I,” Semitica 37 (1987) 5-16. CAQUOT 1995 - A. CAQUOT, “Une contribution ougaritique à la préhistoire du titre divin Shadday,” in: Congress Volume, Paris 1992 (VTS 61), ed. by J. A. Emerton, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1-12. CAQUOT & MASSON 1977 - A. CAQUOT & E. MASSON, “Tablettes ougaritiques du,” Semitica 27 (1977) 5-19. CAQUOT & SZNYCER 1980 - A. CAQUOT & M. SZNYCER, Ugaritic Religion, Iconography of Religions 8, Leiden, Brill, 1980. CARDASCIA 1970 - G. CARDASCIA, “Adoption matrimoniale et lévirat dans le droit d’Ugarit,” RA 64 (1970) 119-126. CASSIN 1968 - E. CASSIN, La splendeur divine: Introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne, Civilisations et Sociétés 8. Paris/La Haye, Mouton, 1968. CASSIN 1987 - E. CASSIN, “La mort des dieux,” in: Le semblable et le différent. Symbolismes du pouvoir dans le Proche-Orient ancient, Paris, 1987, 226-235. CASSUTO 1941 - U. CASSUTO, “The Death of Ba῾al,” Tarbiz 12 (1941) 169-180 (Hebrew). CASSUTO 1942 - U. CASSUTO, “Biblical Literature and Canaanite Literature,” Tarbiz 13 (1942) 197-212 (Hebrew). CASSUTO 1971 - U. CASSUTO, The Goddess Anath, trans. by I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1971. CATHCART 1973 - J. CATHCART, Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic (BibOr 26), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1973. CAZELLES 1956 - H. CAZELLES, “L’hymne ugaritique à Anat,” Syria 33 (1956) 49-57. CAZELLES 1957 - H. CAZELLES, “Encore un texte sur Mâlik,” Bib 38 (1957) 485-486. CAZELLES 1969a - H. CAZELLES, “Essai sur le pouvoir de la divinité à Ugarit et en Israël,” Ug. VI (1969) 25-44. CAZELLES 1969b - H. CAZELLES, UGARITICA V – Nouveaux textes accadiens, hurrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. Commentaires des textes historiques (première partie) par Jean Nougayrol, E. Laroche, Ch. Virolleaud et C. Schaeffer, Paris 1968, 806 pp. VIII planches, 47 fig., VT 19 (1969) 499-505. CAZELLES 1976 - H. CAZELLES, “Impur et sacré à Ugarit,” in: Al-Bāḥiṯ: Festschrift Joseph Henninger Zum 70. Geburtstag Am 12. Mai 1976, Studia Instituti Anthropos 28. Bonn, Verlag des Anthro pos-Instituts, 1976, 37-47. CAZELLES 1979 - H. CAZELLES, “Précis de grammaire ugaritique,” Bibbia e Oriente 21 (1979) 253-268. CHO 2007 - S. Y. CHO, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible. A Comparative Study of Their Nature and Roles, Deities and Angels of the Ancient World 2, New Jersey, Gorgias Press, 2007. CLAMER 1980 - C. CLAMER, “A Gold Plaque from Tel Lachish,” Tel Aviv 7 (1980) 152-162. CLEMENS 2001 - D. M. CLEMENS, Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice. Vol. 1. Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts (AOAT 284/1), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2001.

366

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CLIFFORD 1971 - R. J. CLIFFORD, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,” CBQ 33 (1971) 221-227. CLIFFORD 1972 - R. J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4), Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1972. CLINE 2014 - E. H. CLINE, 1177 B. C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 2014. COHEN 1978 - C. COHEN, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (SBLDS 37), Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1978. COHEN 1978-79 - C. COHEN, “Studies in Extra-biblical Hebrew Inscriptions I: The Semantic Range and Usage of the Terms ‫ אמה‬and ‫שפחה‬,” Shnaton 5-6 (1978-79) XXV-LIII. COHEN 1989 - C. COHEN, “The ‘Held Method’ for Comparative Semitic Philology,” JANES 19 (1989) 9-23. COHEN 1996a - C. COHEN, “The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: Revised Composite Text, Translation and Commentary,” UF 28 (1996) 105-153. COHEN 1996b - C. COHEN, “The Meaning of ‫‘ צלמות‬Darkness’: A Study in Philological Method,” in: Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. by M. V. Fox et al., Winona Lake IN, 1996, 287-309. COHEN 1999 - C. COHEN, “Biblical Hebrew-Ugaritic Comparative Philology: The Comparison BH / ‫ = הדר הדרת‬Ug. Hdrt,” EI 26 (1999) 71-77 (Hebrew). COHEN 2003 - C. COHEN, “Šuv: šney ha-muvanim šel ha-munaḥim ha-maqbilim ‘᾿amah’ / ‘šipḥah’ be-῾Ivrit Miqra᾿it,” in: Qol le-Ya῾aqov: Asufat Ma᾿amarim likhvod Professo Ya῾aqov Ben-Ṭulila, ed. by D. Sivan et al., Ešel Be᾿er Ševa, Meḥqarim ve-Mada῾ey ha-Yahadut 8. Beer Sheva, Ben-Gurion University Press, 2003, 239-257. COHEN 1976 - D. COHEN, Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques comprenant un fichier comparative de Jean Cantineau, Fascicule 2: TN-GLGL, Paris/La Haye, Mouton, 1976. COHEN 1976 - M. E. COHEN, “Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological Museum,” RA 70 (1976) 129-144. COHEN 1989 - M. E. COHEN, “A Bilingual Šuilla to Ningeštinanna,” in: Dumue2-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. by H. Behrens et al., Philadelphia, University Museum, 1989, 79-85. COLLINS 2011 - J. J. COLLINS, “King and Messiah as Son of God,” in: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. by B. Pongratz-Leisten, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011, 291-315. COLLON 1992 - D. COLLON, “The Near Eastern Moon God,” in: Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, ed. by J. W. Meijer Diederik, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, 1992, 19-37. CONTI 1990 - G. CONTI, Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita (QdS 17), Miscellanea Eblaitica 3, Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica Università di Firenze, 1990. COOKE 1903 - G. A. COOKE, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1903. COOKE 1964 - G. A. COOKE, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76 (1964) 2247.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

COOLEY 2011 - J. L. COOLEY, “Astral Religion in Ugarit and Ancient Israel,” JNES 70 (2011) 281-287. COOLEY 2012 - J. L. COOLEY, “Celestial Divination in Ugarit and Ancient Israel: A Reassessment,” JNES 71 (2012) 21-30. COOPER 1981 - A. COOPER, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” with Introduction and selected Comments by M. H. Pope, in RSP III (1981) 333-469. COOPER 2000 - J. COOPER, “Assyrian Prophecies, the Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Origins of Jewish Monotheism, Greek Philosophy, Christian Theology, Gnosticism, and Much More,” JAOS 120 (2000) 430-444. CRAIGIE 1973 - P. C. CRAIGIE, “Helel, Athtar and Phaethon (Jes 14:12-15),” ZAW 85 (1973) 223-225. CROSS 1973 - F. M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, Ninth Printing, 1997. CROSS & SALEY 1970 - F. M. CROSS & R. J. SALEY, “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B. C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria,” BASOR 197 (1970) 42-49. COURTOIS 1979 - J. C. COURTOIS, “Ras Shamra: I Archéologie,” SDB 9 (1979) col. 1124-1295. CUNCHILLOS 1976a - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, Cuando los ángeles eran dioses, Biblioteca Salamanticensis XIV/12, Salamanca, Universidad Pontificia, 1976. CUNCHILLOS 1976b - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, Estudio del Salmo 29: canto al Dios de la fertilidad-fecundidad: aportación al conocimiento de la fe de Israel a su entrada en Canaan. Valencia, La Institución San Jerónimo, 1976. CUNCHILLOS 1981 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “Étude philologique de mal᾿āk: Perspectives sur le mal᾿āk de la divinité dans la Bible hébraïque,” in: Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), ed. by J. A. Emerton, Leiden, Brill, 1981, 30-51. CUNCHILLOS 1982 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “La᾿ika, mal᾿āk et melā᾿kāh en sémitique nord-occidental,” RSF 10 (1982) 153-160. CUNCHILLOS 1984a - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “Expresiones de la fe y la piedad cotidianas en las salutaciones de las cartas de Ugarit,” in: Simposio Bíblico Español (Salamanca, 1982), ed. by N. Fernandez Marcos et al., Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1984, 115-128. CUNCHILLOS 1984b - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “La religiosité quotidienne dans la correspondance d’Ugarit,” RHR 201 (1984) 227-238. CUNCHILLOS 1985a - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “La foi et la piété quotidiennes dans le corps des lettres trouvées à Ugarit,” in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215), ed. by A. Caquot et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 69-77. CUNCHILLOS 1985b - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “Le dieu Mut, guerrier de El,” Syria 62 (1985) 205-218. CUNCHILLOS 1988 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “Que mère se réjouisse de père: Traduction et commentaire de KTU 2.16,” in: Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTSS 67), ed. by L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, Great Britain, Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. 3-10.

368

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CUNCHILLOS 1989 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, Estudios de epistolografía ugarítica (FCB 3), Valencia, Institución San Jerónimo, 1989. CUNCHILLOS 1998 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “Les dieux,” in: Le monde de la Bible: Textes présentés par André Lemaire, Paris, Gallimard, 1998, 292-296. CUNCHILLOS 1999 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, “The Correspondence of Ugarit (Translation W.G.E. Watson),” HUS 39 (1999) 359-374. CUNCHILLOS, VITA & ZAMORA 2003 - J. L. CUNCHILLOS, J. P. VITA & J. A. ZAMORA, A Concordance of Ugaritic Words, Vol. 1, USA, Gorgias Press, 2003. CUTLER & MACDONALD 1982 - B. CUTLER & J. MACDONALD, “On the Origin of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.23,” UF 14 (1982) 33-50. DAHOOD 1959 - M. DAHOOD, “The Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism,” Bib 40 (1959) 160-170. DAHOOD 1965a - M. DAHOOD, Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications (BibOr 17), Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. DAHOOD 1965b - M. DAHOOD, “Punic hkkbm ᾿l and Isa 14,13,” OrNS 34 (1965) 170-172. DAHOOD 1965c - M. DAHOOD, “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography III,” Bib 46 (1965) 311-332. DAHOOD 1966 - M. DAHOOD, Psalm I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 16), Garden City NY, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966. DAHOOD 1969 - M. DAHOOD, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Syntax and Style,” UF 1 (1969) 15-36. DAHOOD 1972 - M. DAHOOD, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP I (1972) 71382. DAHOOD 1974 - M. DAHOOD, Psalm II: 51-100: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 17), Garden City NY, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974. DAHOOD 1977 - M. DAHOOD, “Phoenician-Punic Philology,” OrNS 46 (1977) 462475. DAHOOD 1979 - M. DAHOOD, “Reviewed Work: A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages. SBLDS 32. Ed. by Richard S. Tomback,” Bib 60 (1979) 429-435. DALIX 2006 - A.-S. DALIX, “Ba‘al et les sangliers dans CAT 1.12,” Historiae 3 (2006) 35-68. VON DASSOW 2004 - E. VON DASSOW, “Canaanite in Cuneiform,” JAOS 124 (2004) 641-674. DAY 1986 - J. DAY, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,” JBL 105 (1986) 385-408. DAY 1994 - J. DAY, “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,” in: ‘Ein’ Gott allein? JHWH -Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religiongeschichte. 13. Kolloquium der Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaften 1993 (OBO 139), ed. by W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, Freiburg, Schweiz, Universitätsverlag, 1994, 181-196. DAY 2000 - J. DAY, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSS 265), London, Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. DEGUGLIELMO 1955 - A. A. DEGUGLIELMO, “Sacrifice in the Ugaritic Texts,” CBQ 17 (1955) 76-96.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

DEVER 1997 - W. G. DEVER, “Folk Religion in Early Israel: Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” in: Aspects of Monotheism: How God is One, ed. by H. Shanks and J. Meinhardt, Washington DC, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997, 2756. DHORME 1931 - E. DHORME, “Première traduction des textes phéniciens de Ras Shamra,” RB 40 (1931) 32-56. DHORME 1937 - E. DHORME, “Review. Charles Virolleaud – La légende phénicienne de Danel,” Syria 18 (1937) 104-113. DHORME 1951 - E. DHORME, “Le nom du dieu d’Israël,” CRAI (1951) 405-415. DIETRICH 1989 - M. DIETRICH, “Das Einsetzungsritual der Entu von Emar (Emar VI/3, 369),” UF 21 (1989) 47-100. DIETRICH 1998 - M. DIETRICH, “buluṭ bēlī ‘Lebe, mein König!’ Ein Krönungshymnus aus Emar und Ugarit und sein Verhältnis zu mesopotamischen und westlichen Inthronisationsliedern,” UF 30 (1998) 155-200. DIETRICH 2009 - M. DIETRICH, “Trumpet Snails and Purple Snails as an Indication of the Transfer of Religion and Technology in the Eastern Mediterranean Region,” in: Homeland and Exile. Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VTS 130), ed. by G. Galil et al., Leiden, Brill, 2009, 35-57. DIETRICH 2013 - M. DIETRICH, “Beschwörung gegen Unfruchtbarkeit mit Anweisung zur Therapie: Der mesopotamische Hintergrund von KTU 1.13,” UF 44 (2013) 47-120. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1966a - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit: I. Die Berufsbezeichnungen mit der hurritischen Endung -ḫuli,” WdO 3 (1966) 188-205. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1966b - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Der Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma und Niqmandu: Eine philologische und kulturhistorische Studie,” WdO 3 (1966) 206-245. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1977 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “anš(t) und (m)inšt im Ugaritischen,” UF 9 (1977) 47-50. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1978 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Bemerkungen zum Aqhat-Text: Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XIV),” UF 10 (1978) 6571. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1980a - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Baal Rpu in KTU 1.108; 1.113 und nach 1.17 VI 25-33,” UF 12 (1980) 171-182. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1980b - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Gebrauch von Götterstatuen in der Mantik von Ugarit (KTU 1.124),” UF 12 (1980) 395-396. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1981 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (I),” UF 13 (1981) 63-100. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1986a - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Sieges-und Thronbesteigungslied Baals (KTU 1.101),” UF 17(1986) 129-146. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1986b - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Orthographie und Inhalt im Ugaritischen Brief KTU 2.16,” UF 18 (1986) 111-114. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1986c - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Baals Ablehnung niedriger Gäste (KTU 1.4 III 17-22),” UF 18 (1986) 447-448. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1990 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, Mantik in Ugarit? Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – Nekromantie (ALASP 3), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1990.

370

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DIETRICH & LORETZ 1992 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, Jahwe und seine Aschera. Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1992. DIETRICH & LORETZ 1993 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Der biblische Azazel und AIT *126,” UF 25 (1993) 99-117. DIETRICH & LORETZ 2000 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, Studien zu den ugaritischen Texten. I: Mythos und Ritual in KTU 1.12, 1.24, 1.96, 1.100 und 1.114 (AOAT 269/1), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. DIETRICH & LORETZ 2002 - M. DIETRICH & O. LORETZ, “Die Wurzel ῾ḏ/db und ihre Ableitung im Ugaritischen,” UF 34 (2002) 75-108. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1973 - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie, VII: Lexikographische Einzelbemerkungen” UF 5 (1973) 79-104. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1975a - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Die Texteinheiten in RS 1.2 (sic!) = CTA 32 (sic!) Und RS 17.100 = CTA Appendice,” I.” UF 7 (1975) 141-146. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1975b - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie XIII,” UF 7 (1975) 157-169. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1975c - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Das Ritual RS 1.5 = CTA 33,” UF 7 (1975) 525-528. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1975d - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Bericht über ein Orakel (RS 24.272 = UG. 5, S. 563 Nr. 6),” UF 7 (1975) 540-541. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1975e - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Die ugaritischen und hebräischen Gottesnamen il, ilh ilhm –᾿l, ᾿lwh, ᾿lhjm,” UF 7 (1975) 552-553. DIETRICH, LORETZ & SANMARTÍN 1976 - M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ & J. SANMARTÍN, “Die Ugaritischen Totengeister RPU(M) und die biblischen Rephaim,” UF 8 (1976) 45-52. DIETRICH & MAYER 1995 - M. DIETRICH & W. MAYER, “Sprache und Kultur der Hurriter in Ugarit,” in: Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung, Band I, Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, ed. by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1995, 7–42. DIETRICH & MAYER 1997 - M. DIETRICH & W. MAYER, “Ein hurritisches Totenritual für ῾Ammištamru III. (KTU 1.125),” in: Ana šadî Labnāni la allik, Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen, Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (AOAT 247), ed. by B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne, P. Xella, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1997, 79-89. VAN DIJK, HUSSEY & GÖTZE 1985 - J. J. A. VAN DIJK, M. I. HUSSEY & A. GÖTZE, Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals, Yale Oriental Series, 11, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985. DIJKSTRA 1974 - M. DIJKSTRA, “Ba῾lu and His Antagonists: Some Remarks on CTA 6:V.1-6,” JANES 6 (1974) 59-68. DIJKSTRA 1975 - M. DIJKSTRA, “Does the Verb HBT Occur in CTA 4:III.21?” UF 7 (1975) 563-565. DIJKSTRA 1987 - M. DIJKSTRA, “Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I),” UF 19 (1987) 37-48.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

371

DIJKSTRA 1990 - M. DIJKSTRA, “On the Identity of the Hittite Princess Mentioned in Label KTU 6.24 (RS 17.72),” UF 22 (1990) 97-101. DIJKSTRA 1994 - M. DIJKSTRA, “The Huntress (KTU 1.92). New Fragments,” UF 26 (1994) 113-126. DIJKSTRA 1998 - M. DIJKSTRA, “Astral Myth of the Birth of Shahar and Shalim (KTU 1.23),” in: Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70, Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 250), ed. by M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 265-287. DIJKSTRA 1999 - M. DIJKSTRA, “Ugaritic Stylistics I: Ugaritic Prose,” in: HUS 39 (1999) 140-164. DIJKSTRA & DE MOOR 1975 - M. DIJKSTRA & J. C. DE MOOR, “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Aqhâtu,” UF 7 (1975) 171-215. DOEDENS 2019 - J. DOEDENS, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4: Analysis and History of Exegesis (OTS 76), Leiden, Brill, 2019. DONNER 1967 - H. DONNER, “Ugaritismen in der Psalmenforschung,” ZAW 79 (1967) 322-350. DONNER & RÖLLIG 1962 - H. DONNER & W. RÖLLIG, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Band I: Texte, Wiesbaden, Verlag Harrassowitz, 1962. DONNER & RÖLLIG 1973 - H. DONNER & W. RÖLLIG, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften: mit einem Beitrag von O. Rössler. Band II: Kommentar, Wiesbaden, Verlag Harrassowitz, 1973. DROWER & MACUCH 1963 - E. S. DROWER & R. MACUCH, A Mandaic Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1963. DUPONT-SOMMER 1939 - A. DUPONT-SOMMER, “L’inscription de l’amulette d’ArslanTash,” RHR 120 (1939) 133-159. DURAND 1985 - J. M. DURAND, “La situation historique des Šakkanakku: nouvelle approche,” Mari 4 (1985) 147-172. DURAND 1989 - J. M. DURAND, “L’assemblée en Syrie à l’époque pré-amorite,” QdS 16 (1989) 27-44. DURAND 1990 - J. M. DURAND, “Documents pour l’histoire du royaume de HauteMésopotamie II,” Mari 6 (1990) 271-301. DURAND 1995 - J. M. DURAND, “La religión en Siria durante la época de los reinos amorreos según la documentación de Mari,” in: Mitología y Religión del Oriente Antiguo 2/1: Semitas Occidentale (Ebla, Mari), ed. by P. Mander, Barcelona, Sabadell: AUSA, 1995, 125-533. DUSSAUD 1931 - R. DUSSAUD, “Brèves remarques sur les tablettes de Ras Shamra,” Syria 12 (1931) 67-77. DUSSAUD 1933 - R. DUSSAUD, “Les phéniciens au Négeb et en Arabie: D’après un texte de Ras Shamra,” RHR 108 (1933) 5-49. DUSSAUD 1934 - R. DUSSAUD, “Ba῾al et Ben-Dagon dans les textes de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 15 (1934) 301-304. DUSSAUD 1936 - R. DUSSAUD, “Le vrai nom de Ba῾al,” RHR 113 (1936) 5-20. DUSSAUD 1941 - R. DUSSAUD, Les découvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l’Ancien Testament. 2nd edition, Paris, P. Geuthner, 1941 EBACH 1979 - J. EBACH, Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos (BWANT 108), Stuttgart, 1979.

372

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EBELING 1949 - E. EBELING, “Beschwörungen gegen den Feind und den Bösen Blick aus dem Zweistromlande,” ArOr 17 (1949) 172-211. EDZARD 1997 - D. O. EDZARD, Gudea and his Dynasty, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods, Vol. 3/1, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1997. EISSFELDT 1951 - O. EISSFELDT, El im ugaritischen Pantheon (BSAW 98 4), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1951. EISSFELDT 1963 - O. EISSFELDT, Kleine Schriften: Zweiter Band, ed. by R. Sellheim and F. Maass, Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1963. EISSFELDT 1968 - O. EISSFELDT, Kleine Schriften: Vierter Band, ed. by R. Sellheim and F. Maass, Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1963. ELMAN 1972 - Y. ELMAN, “Babylonian Echoes in a Late Rabbinic Legend,” JANES 4 (1972) 13-19. ENGNELL 1967 - I. ENGNELL, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Uppsala, 1943, 2nd edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 1967. EVANS 1958 - G. EVANS, “Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies–an Addendum,” JAOS 78 (1958) 114-115. FAUTH 1990 - W. FAUTH, “Das Kasion-Gebirge und Zeus Kasios: Die antike Tradition und ihre vorderorientalischen Grundlagen,” UF 22 (1990) 105-118. FENSHAM 1963 - F. C. FENSHAM, “Psalm 29 and Ugarit,” in: Studies on the Psalms, ed. by P. A. H. de Boer, Potchefstroom, Pro Rege, 1963, 84-99 FENSHAM 1977 - F. C. FENSHAM, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat,” PEQ 109 (1977) 113-115. FENSHAM 1984 - F. C. FENSHAM, “The Ugaritic Root ṯpṭ,” JNSL 12 (1984) 63-69. FENTON 1977 - T. L. FENTON, “The Claremont ‘mrzḥ’ Tablet: Its Text and Meaning,” UF 9 (1977) 71-75. FLEISHMAN 1992 - J. FLEISHMAN, “The Age of Legal Maturity in Biblical Law,” JANES 21 (1992) 35-48. FLEMING 1992a - D. E. FLEMING, “The Rituals from Emar: Evolution of an Indigenous Tradition in Second Millennium Syria,” in: New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (BM 25), ed. by M. W. Chavalas and J. L. Hayes, Malibu CA, Undena Publications, 1992, 51-61. FLEMING 1992b - D. E. FLEMING, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS 42), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1992. FLEMING 1993 - D. E. FLEMING, “Baal and Dagan in Ancient Syria,” ZA 83 (1993) 88-98. FOLEY 1987 - C. M. FOLEY, “Are the ‘Gracious Gods’ bn šrm?: A Suggested Restoration for KTU 1.23:1-2,” UF 19 (1987) 61-74. FORD 1992 - J. N. FORD, “The ‘Living Rephaim’ of Ugarit : Quick or Defunct ?” UF 24 (1992) 73-101. FORD 2002 - J. N. FORD, “The Ugaritic Incantation against Sorcery RIH 78/20 (KTU2 1.169),” UF 34 (2002) 153-211. FOSTER 2005 - B. R. FOSTER, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd edition, Bethesda MD, CDL Press, 2005. FOWLER 1988 - J. D. FOWLER, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (JSOTSS 49), Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

373

FRAHM 2000-2001 - E. FRAHM, “Wie ‘christlich’ war die Assyrische Religion? Anmerkungen zu Simo Parpolas Edition der assyrischen Prophetien,” WdO 31 (2000-2001) 31-45. FRAHM, FRAZER & JIMÉNEZ 2013 - E. FRAHM, M. FRAZER & E. JIMÉNEZ, “Commentary on Sîn ina tāmartīšu 6 (?) (CCP 3.2.6.B.a),” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (E. Frahm, E. Jiménez, M. Frazer, and K. Wagensonner), https:// ccp.yale.edu/P393729, 2013. FRAME 1995 - G. FRAME, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157-612 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods Volume 2, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 1995. FRANKFORT 1944 - H. FRANKFORT, “A Note on the Lady of Birth,” JNES 3 (1944) 198-200. FRANTSOUZOFF 1998 - S. FRANTSOUZOFF, “A Parallel to the Second Commandment in the Inscriptions of Raybūn,” in: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Vol. 28, Papers from the Thirty-first meeting of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Held in Oxford, 17-19 July 1997, Oxford, Archaeopress Publishing Ltd., 1998, 61-67. FRANTSOUZOFF 2007 - S. FRANTSOUZOFF, Raybūn. Kafas/Na῾mān, Temple de la déesse dhāt Ḥimyan, Fascicule A: les documents, avec une contribution archéologique d’Alexander V. Sedov et de Jurij Vinogradov; inventaire des inscriptions sudarabiques 6, Paris, de Boccard; Rome, Herder, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 2007. FREILICH 1986 - D. FREILICH, “Is there an Ugaritic Deity Bbt?” JSS 31 (1986) 119-130. FRONZAROLI 1964 - P. FRONZAROLI, “Studi sul lessico comune semitico. II. Anatomia e Fisiologia,” Academia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Serie 8, vol. 19, fasc. 7-12 (1964) 243-280. FRONZAROLI 1984a - P. FRONZAROLI, Studies on the Language of Ebla (QdS 13), Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze, 1984, 117-157. FRONZAROLI 1984b - P. FRONZAROLI, “Materiali per il lessico Eblaita, 1,” StEb 7 (1984) 145-190. FRYMER-KENSKY 1992 - T. FRYMER-KENSKY, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York NY, The Free Press, 1992. GAJDA 2005 - I. GAJDA, “The Earliest Monotheistic South Arabian Inscription,” in: Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen, Band X. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Ṣan῾ā᾿, Mainz Am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2005, 21-29. GAJDA 2009 - I. GAJDA, Le royaume de Ḥimyar à l’époque monothéiste: l’histoire de l’Arabie du sud ancienne de la fin du IVe siècle de l’ère chrétienne jusqu’à l’avènement de l’Islam, Vol. 40 de Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2009. GALLAGHER 1994 - W. R. GALLAGHER, “On the Identity of Hêlēl ben Šaḥar of Is. 14:12-15,” UF 26 (1994) 131-146.

374

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GASTER 1932 - T. H. GASTER, “The Combat of Death and the Most High: A ProtoHebrew Epic from Ras-Shamra Transcribed from the Cuneiform Original with Translation,” JRAS 64 (1932) 856-896. GASTER 1935 - T. H. GASTER, “The Combat of ᾿Aleyan-Ba῾al and Mot. A ProtoHebrew Epic from Ras-Shamra: The Second Tablet: Transliterated from the Cuneiform Original with Introduction, Provisional- Translation, Argument, and Commentary (Continued from 1934, p. 714.),” JRAS 67 (1935) 1-44. GASTER 1937 - T. H. GASTER, “Groupings of Deities in the Ritual Tariffs from Ras Shamra-Ugarit,” AfO 12 (1937) 148-150. GASTER 1938a - T. H. GASTER, “The ‘Graces’ in Semitic Folklore: A Weddingsong from Ras Shamra,” JRAS 70 (1938) 37-56. GASTER 1938b - T. H. GASTER, “The Harrowing of Baal: A Poem from Ras Shamra,” AcOr 16 (1938) 41-48. GASTER 1938c - T. H. GASTER, “On a Proto-Hebrew Poem from Ras Shamra,” JBL 57 (1938) 81-87. GASTER 1942 - T. H. GASTER, “A Canaanite Magical Text,” OrNs 11 (1942) 41-79. GASTER 1944 - T. H. GASTER, “Folklore Motifs in Canaanite Myth,” JRAS 76 (1944) 30-51. GASTER 1946a - T. H. GASTER, “A King without a Castle. Baal’s Appeal to Asherat,” BASOR 101 (1946) 21-30. GASTER 1946b - T. H. GASTER, “A Canaanite Ritual Drama: The Spring Festival at Ugarit,” JAOS 66 (1946) 49-76. GASTER 1946-1947 - T. H. GASTER, “The Canaanite Epic of Keret,” JQR 38 (1946-1947) 285-293. GASTER 1947 - T. H. GASTER, “The Magical Inscription from Arslan Tash,” JNES 6 (1947) 186-188. GASTER 1950 - T. H. GASTER, “Ugaritic Philology,” JAOS 70 (1950) 8-18. GEERS 1934 - F. W. GEERS, “Die Gebetsbeschwörung an Ischtar Nr. 1,” ZA 42 (1934) 220-222. GELB 1944 - J. I. GELB, Hurrians and Subarians (SAOC 22), The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago IL, The University of Chicago Press, 1944. GELB 1958 - J. I. GELB, La lingua degli Amoriti, Atti Della Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, Serie Octava, Rendiconti, Classe Di Scienze Morali, Storiche E Filologiche, 1958. GELB 1961 - J. I. GELB, Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, MAD 2, 2nd edition, revised and enlarged, 1961. GELLER 2007- M. J. GELLER, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations, State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, v. 5, Helsinki, NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, 2007. GELLER 2015 - M. J. GELLER, Healing Magic and Evil Demons; Canonical Udug-Hul Incantations, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen, 8, Boston, De Gruyter, 2015. GESE, HÖFNER & RUDOLPH 1970 - H. GESE, M. HÖFNER & K. RUDOLPH, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer. Die Religionen der

BIBLIOGRAPHY

375

Menschheit, 10/2, Stuttgart/Berlin /Köln/Mainz, Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1970. GEORGE 1993 - A. R. GEORGE, House Most High: the Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia (MC 5), Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1993. GEORGE 2003 - A. R. GEORGE, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 Vols., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003. GEORGIOU 1979 - H. GEORGIOU, “Relations Between Cyprus and the Near East in the Middle and Late Bronze Age,” Levant 11 (1979) 84-100. GIMARET 1988 - D. GIMARET, Les noms divins en Islam: exégèse lexicographique et théologique. Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988. GINGRICH 2006 - A. GINGRICH, “Ländliche Sternenkalender aus dem südlichen Ḥijāz,” in: Tribale Gesellschaften der südwestlichen Regionen des Königreiches Saudi Arabien, Sozialanthropologische Untersuchungen, ed. by A. Gingrich, J. Lambert et al., Österreich, Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006, 407-467. GINSBERG 1932-1933 - H. L. GINSBERG, “‫בעל‬-‫לעלית אלאין‬,” Tarbiz 4 (19321933) 106-119. GINSBERG 1933 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Zu OLZ 1933, SP. 8,” OLZ 36 (1933) col. 594. GINSBERG 1935 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Notes on ‘the Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods,’” JRAS (1935) 45-72. GINSBERG 1936a - H. L. GINSBERG, “Ba῾lu and his Brethren,” JPOS 16 (1936) 138-149. GINSBERG 1936b - H. L. GINSBERG, “The Rebellion and Death of Ba῾lu,” OrNS 5 (1936) 161-198. GINSBERG 1938a - H. L. GINSBERG, “Women Singers and Wailers among the Northern Canaanites,” BASOR 72 (1938) 13-15. GINSBERG 1938b - H. L. GINSBERG, “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21,” JBL 57 (1938) 209-213. GINSBERG 1939 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Two Religious Borrowings in Ugaritic Literature: I. A Hurrian Myth in Semitic Dress,” OrNS 8 (1939) 317-327. GINSBERG 1944 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Baal’s Two Messengers,” BASOR 95 (1944) 25-30. GINSBERG 1946 - H. L. GINSBERG, The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age, BASOR Supplementary Studies 2/3, New Haven CT, American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946. GINSBERG 1958 - H. L. GINSBERG, “An Unrecognized Allusion to Kings Pekah and Hoshea of Israel,” EI 5 (1958) 61*-65* GINSBERG 1967 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Lexicographical Notes,” in: Hebräische Wortforschung Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VT Sup 16), Leiden, Brill, 1967, 71-82. GINSBERG 1968 - H. L. GINSBERG, “Reflexes of Sargon in Isaiah after 715 B.C.E,” JAOS 88 (1968) 47-53. GIORGIERI 2013 - M. GIORGIERI, “Diffusion et caractéristiques de la culture écrite d’origine hourrite dans le Proche-Orient asiatique et à Ougarit,” in: Les écritures mises au jour sur le site antique d’Ougarit (Syrie) et leur déchiffrement: 1930-2010 Commémoration du quatre-vingtième anniversaire du

376

BIBLIOGRAPHY

déchiffrement de l’alphabet cunéiforme de Ras Shamra-Ougarit, Colloque international tenu au Collège de France le jeudi 2 décembre 2010, et à l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres le vendredi 3 décembre 2010, ed. by P. Bordreuil et al., Paris, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2013, 157-185. GLASER 1885 - E. GLASER, “Die Sternkunde der südarabischen Kabylen,” SBAWW 91 (1885) 89-99. GOETZE 1941 - A. GOETZE, “The Nikkal Poem from Ras Shamra,” JBL 60 (1941) 353-374. GOETZE 1952 - A. GOETZE, “Hittite courtiers and their titles,” RHA 12/54 (1952) 1-14. GOLDSTEIN 2010 - R. GOLDSTEIN, “A New Look at Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 43 in Light of Akkadian Sources,” Tarbiz 79 (2010) 5-21. GOLLANCZ 1912 - H. GOLLANCZ, The Book of Protection, London, 1912. GOOD 1978 - R. GOOD, “Cloud Messengers?” UF 10 (1978) 436-437. GORDON 1937 - C. H. GORDON, “A Marriage of the Gods in Canaanite Mythology,” BASOR 65 (1937) 29-33. GORDON 1966 - C. H. GORDON, Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of their Texts on the Origins of Western Culture, New York NY, W. W. Norton, 1966. GORDON 1984 - C. H. GORDON, “The Three Graces,” NUS 31 (1984) 11. GRABBE 1976 - L. L. GRABBE, “The Seasonal Pattern and the ‘Baal Cycle,’” UF 8 (1976) 57-63. GRAY 1899 - G. B. GRAY, “Destroyer,” Encyclopaedia Biblica I, ed. by T. K. Cheyne & J. S. Balck, New York NY, 1899. GRAY 1949 - J. GRAY, “The Rephaim,” PEQ 81 (1949) 127-139. GRAY 1951 - J. GRAY, “The Hunting of Ba῾al: Fratricide and Atonement in the Mythology of Ras Shamra,” JNES 10 (1951) 146-155. GRAY 1952 - J. GRAY, “Dtn and Rp᾿um in Ancient Ugarit.” PEQ 84 (1952) 39-41. GRAY 1964 - J. GRAY, The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra: A Social Myth of Ancient Canaan, 2nd edition, Documenta et Monumenta Oriens Antiquus 5, Leiden, Brill, 1964. GRAY 1966 - J. GRAY, “Social Aspects of Canaanite Religion,” in: Volume du congrès, Genève, 1966 (VTS 15), Leiden, Brill, 1966, 170-192. GRAY 1971 - J. GRAY, “Ba῾al’s Atonement,” UF 3 (1971) 61-70. GRAY 1978 - J. GRAY, “Canaanite Religion and Old Testament Study in the Light of New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra,” Ug. VII (1978) 79-108. GRAYSON 1972 - A. K. GRAYSON, “Review of Simo Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6),” JNES 31 (1972) 215-220. GRAYSON 1991- A. K. GRAYSON, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods, 2, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1991. GREEN 1992 - T. M. GREEN, The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 114, Leiden, Brill, 1992. GREENE 1989 - J. T. GREENE, The Role of the Messenger and Message in the Ancient Near East, Brown Judaic Studies 169, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

377

GREENFIELD 1985 - J. C. GREENFIELD, “Ba῾al’s Throne and Isa. 6:1,” in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215) ed. by A. Caquot et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 193-198. GREENSTEIN 1979 - E. L. GREENSTEIN, “Trans-Semitic Idiomatic Equivalency and the Derivation of Hebrew ml᾿kh,” UF 11 (1979) 329-336. GRIMM 1973 - D. GRIMM, “Erwägungen zu Hosea 12 12 ‘in Gilgal opfern sie Stiere,’” ZAW 85 (1973) 339-347. GRONEBERG 1981 - B. GRONEBERG, “Philologische Bearbeitung des Agušayahymnus,” RA 75 (1981) 107-134. GRONEBERG 1997 - B. GRONEBERG, Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin (CM 8), Groningen, Styx Publications, 1997. GRUBER 1980 - M. I. GRUBER, Aspects of Non-verbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (StP 12/I), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1980. GRUBER 1989 - M. I. GRUBER, “Breast-Feeding Practices in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,” JANES 19 (1989) 61-83. GÜTERBOCK 1967 - H. G. GÜTERBOCK, “The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered,” JNES 26 (1967) 73-81. HAAS & WILHELM 1974 - V. HAAS & G. WILHELM, Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna (AOATS 3), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker; NeukirchenVluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. HACKETT 1984 - J. HACKETT, The Balaam Text from Deir ῾Allā (HSM 31), Chico CA, Scholars Press, 1984. HALAYQA 2008 - I. K. H. HALAYQA, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite (AOAT 340), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. HALDAR 1950 - A. HALDAR, The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions, Uppsala, Leipzig, Uppsala Universitets årsskrift, 1950. HALLO & MORAN 1979 - W. W. HALLO & W. L. MORAN, “The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the Anzu-Myth,” JCS 31 (1979) 65-115. HANDY 1988 - L. K. HANDY, “A Solution for Many Mlkm,” UF 20 (1988) 5759. HANDY 1990 - L. K. HANDY, “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible,” BR 35 (1990) 18-35. HANDY 1994 - L. K. HANDY, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1994. HANDY 1996 - L. K. HANDY, “The Appearance of the Pantheon in Judah,” in: The Triumph of Elohim: from Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. by D. V. Edelman, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1996, 27-43. HARAN 1972 - M. HARAN, “The Graded Numerical Sequence and the Phenomenon of ‘Automatism’ in Biblical Poetry,” VTS 22 (1972) 238-267. HART 1986 - G. HART, A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London/ Boston, Routledge & Kegan Pau, 1986. HAWLEY & PARDEE 2007 - R. HAWLEY & D. PARDEE, “Le texte juridique RS 16.382: nouvelle étude épigraphique,” Semitica 52-53 (2007) 15-35. HAYAJNEH 1998 - H. HAYAJNEH, Die Personennamen in den qatabānischen Inschriften: lexikalische und grammatische Analyse im Kontext der semitischen Anthroponomastik, Zürich & Hildesheim/New York, Georg Olms Verlag, 1998.

378

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HEALEY 1975 - J. F. HEALEY, “malku  : mlkm  : Anunaki,” UF 7 (1975) 235-238. HEALEY 1977 - J. F. HEALEY, “The Underworld Character of the God Dagan,” JNSL 5 (1977) 43-51. HEALEY 1978 - J. F. HEALEY, “Mlkm/Rp᾿um and the Kispum,” UF 10 (1978) 89-91. HEALEY 1984 - J. F. HEALEY, “The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the Psalms,” OrNS 53 (1984) 245-254. HEALEY 1985 - J. F. HEALEY, “The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ list from Ugarit,” SEL 2 (1985) 115-125. HEALEY 1988 - J. F. HEALEY, “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ugarit: Further Notes,” SEL 5 (1988) 103-112. HEIDEL 1963 - A. HEIDEL, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 2nd edition, Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 1963. HEIDER 1985 - G. C. HEIDER, The Cult of Molek: a Reassessment (JSOTSS 43), Sheffield, University of Sheffield, 1985 HEIMPEL 1982 - W. HEIMPEL, “A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities,” SMS 4/3 (1982) 9-22. HEFFELFINGER 2011 - K. M. HEFFELFINGER, “The Sick I will Strengthen for You. KTU 1.13 and Lyric Poetics,” UF 43 (2011) 229-256. HELD 1957 - M. HELD, Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style, A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philology, Baltimore MD, 1957. HELD 1959 - M. HELD, “mḫṣ/*mḫš in Ugaritic and Other Semitic Languages (a Study in Comparative Lexicography),” JAOS 79 (1959) 169-176. HELD 1968 - M. HELD, “The Root zbl / sbl in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” JAOS 88 (1968) 90-96. HELD 1969 - M. HELD, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” EI 9 (1969) 71-79. HELD 1970 - M. HELD, “Philological Notes on the Mari Covenant Rituals.” BASOR 200 (1970) 32-40. HELCK 1962 - W. HELCK, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1962. HELTZER 1990 - M. HELTZER, “Vineyards and Wine in Ugarit (Property and Distribution),” UF 22 (1990) 119-135. HERDNER 1938 - A. HERDNER, “Quelques remarques sur ‘la légende phénicienne de Danel’ II col. 1 et 2,” RES (1938) 120-127. HERDNER 1942-1943 - A. HERDNER, “Review of J. Aistleitner, Die NikkalHymne aus Ras Shamra, and H. L. Ginsberg, Two Religious Borrowings in Ugaritic Literature. I. A Hurrian Myth in Semitic Dress,” Syria 23 (19421943) 282-285. HERDNER 1956 - A. HERDNER, “Un nouvel exemplaire du rituel RS 1929, no. 3,” Syria 33 (1956) 104-112. HERDNER 1978 - A. HERDNER, “Nouveaux textes alphabétiques de Ras-ShamraXXIVe campagne, 1961,” Ug. VII (1978) 1-74. HERRMANN 1960 - W. HERRMANN, “Die Göttersöhne,” ZRGG 12 (1960) 242251.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

379

HERRMANN 1968 - W. HERRMANN, Yariḫ und Nikkal und der Preis der KuṯarātGöttinnen: Ein kultisch-magischer Text aus Ras Schamra (BZAW 106), Berlin, A. Töpelman, 1968. HERRMANN 1974 - W. HERRMANN, “Neue Belege für die Kuṯarāt,” ZÄS 100 (1974) 104-108. HERRMANN 1982 - W. HERRMANN, “Die Frage nach Göttergruppen in der religiösen Vorstellungswelt der Kanaanäer,” UF 14 (1982) 93-104. HERRMANN 1996 - W. HERRMANN, “Göttergruppen erneut bezeugt und bestätigt,” UF 28 (1996) 275-276. HESS 1999 - R. S. HESS, “The Onomastics of Ugarit,” HUS 39 (1999) 499-528. HESTRIN 1987 - R. HESTRIN, “The Cult Stand from Tell Ta῾anak and its Religious Background,” in: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of November 1985 (StPh5, OLA 22), ed. by E. Lipiński, Leuven, Peeters, 1987, 61-77. HETTEMA 1989-1990 - T. L. HETTEMA, “‘That it be Repeated.’ A Narrative Analysis of KTU 1.23,” JEOL 31 (1989-1990) 77-94. L’HEUREUX, 1974 - C. L’HEUREUX, “The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim,” HTR 67 (1974) 265-274. L’HEUREUX, 1979 - C. L’HEUREUX, Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba῾al, and the Repha᾿îm (HSM 21), Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1979. HILLERS 1972 - D. R. HILLERS, Lamentations (AB 7A), Garden City NY, Doubleday, 1972. HINKE 1907 - W. J. HINKE, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadrezzar I from Nippur, Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series D: Researches and Treatises 4, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 1907. HOCH 2014 - J. E. HOCH, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 2014. HOFFNER 1968 - H. A. HOFFNER, “Birth and Name-Giving in Hittite Texts,” JNES 27 (1968) 198-203. HOFFNER 1998 - H. A. HOFFNER, Hittite Myths, ed. by G. Beckman, Writings from the Ancient World 2, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1998. HOFFNER 2009 - H. A. HOFFNER, Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, ed. by G. Beckman, Writings from the Ancient World 15, Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. HOFTIJZER & VAN SOLDT 1991 - J. HOFTIJZER & W. H. VAN SOLDT, “Texts from Ugarit Concerning Security and Related Akkadian and West Semitic Material,” UF 23 (1991) 189-216. HOFTIJZER & VAN DER KOOIJ 1976 - J. HOFTIJZER & G. VAN DER KOOIJ, Aramaic Texts from Deir ῾Alla (DMOA 19), Leiden, Brill, 1976. HOLLADAY 1969 - W. L. HOLLADAY, “᾿Ereṣ -‘Underworld’: Two More Suggestions,” VT 19 (1969) 123-124. HOLMES 1971 - Y. L. HOLMES, “The Location of Alashiya,” JAOS 91 (1971) 426-429. HORNUNG 1996 - E. HORNUNG, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, translated from the German by John Baines, Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press, 1996.

380

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HOROWITZ 1998 - W. HOROWITZ, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (MC 8), Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1998. HOROVITZ & GARDET 1978 - J. HOROVITZ & L. GARDET, “Kawthar,” in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 4., 2nd edition, ed. by E. van Donzel et al., Leiden, Brill, 1978, 805-806. HROZNY 1932 - B. HROZNY, “Les Ioniens à Ras-Šamra,” ArOr 4 (1932) 169-178. HÜBNER & REIZAMMER 1985 - B. HÜBNER & A. REIZAMMER, Inim kiengi: sumerischdeutsches Glossar, Marktredwitz, Selbstverlag, 1985. HUEHNERGARD 1987 - J. HUEHNERGARD, “Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology,” in: Working with No Data. Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. by D. M. Golomb, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1987, 181-193. HUEHNERGARD 1991 - J. HUEHNERGARD, “Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon,” in: Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau: on the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday November 14th, 1991, Vol. 1, ed. by A. S. Kaye, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1991, 690-713. HUFFMON 1965 - H. B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study, Baltimore MD, Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. HUNDLEY 2013 - M. HUNDLEY, “Here a God, There a God: An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia,” AoF 40 (2013) 68-107. HUNGER & PINGREE 1989 - H. HUNGER & D. PINGREE, MUL.APIN: An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform (AfOB 24), Horn, Austria, Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Gesellschaft M.B.H., 1989. HUSSER 1996 - J.-M. HUSSER, “The Birth of a Hero: Form and Meaning of KTU 1.17 i-ii,” in: Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion and culture, Edinburgh, July 1994: essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (UBL 12), ed. by N. Wyatt et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1996, 85-98. HUSSER 2017 - J.-M. HUSSER, “What if the goodly gods were bonnie princes? An integration rite for royal princes in KTU 1.23,” UF 48 (2017) 685-694. HVIDBERG 1962 - F. F. HVIDBERG, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion, Leiden, Brill, 1962. HVIDBERG-HANSEN 1979 - F. O. HVIDBERG-HANSEN, La Déesse TNT: Une étude sur la religion canaanéo-punique (2 Vols.), translated by F. Arndt, Copenhagen, 1979 HVIDBERG-HANSEN 2007 - F. O. HVIDBERG-HANSEN, ᾿Arṣû and ῾Azîzû: A Study of the West Semitic ‘Dioscuri’ and the Gods of Dawn and Dusk, Historiskfilosofiske Meddelelser 97, Det kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2007, 97 IBNU KAṮĪR 2011 - ᾿A-F. I. IBNU KAṮĪR, as-sīratu n-nabawiyyatu lil᾿imāmi ᾿Abī l-Fidā᾿i ᾿Ismā῾īl B. Kaṯīr (701-774 hiǧriyya). l-ǧuz᾿ l-᾿awwal, taḥqīq M. ῾Abd l-Wāhid. Miṣr, Dār s-Salām, 2011. ICHISAR 1981 - M. ICHISAR, Les archives cappadociennes du marchand Imdīlum, Recherches sur les grandes civilisations 3, Paris, Éditions A.D.P.F., 1981. ISBELL 1975 - C. ISBELL, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBL 17), Missoula MT, 1975 AL-᾿IṢFAHĀNI 2009 - R. AL-᾿IṢFAHĀNI, Mufradāt l-Qur᾿ān: ta᾿līf al-῾allāma R-rāġib l-Aṣfahāni. Ḥaqqaqahu wa-῾allaqa ῾alayh A.῾Abdi-Llāh Musṭafa

BIBLIOGRAPHY

381

Ben l-῾Adawi. ḥaqqaqqa nuṣuṣahu N. ᾿Aḥmad Ben N-naǧǧār D-dimyāṭi, rāǧa῾ahu luġawiyyan A. Muḥammad Mu῾awwaḍ, Maktabat Fayyāḍ li T-tiǧāra wa-T-tawzī῾, 2009. IZRE᾿AL 1997 - SH. IZRE᾿AL, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets (CM 9), Groningen, Styx Publications, 1997 JACOBSEN 1943 - T. JACOBSEN, “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JNES 2 (1943) 159-172. JACOBSEN 1970 - T. JACOBSEN, Toward the Image of Tammuz (HSS 21), Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1970. JACOBSEN 1973 - T. JACOBSEN, “Notes on Nintur,” OrNS 42 (1973) 274-298. JACOBSEN 1976 - T. JACOBSEN, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven CT, Yale University Press. JÄNDL 2009 - B. JÄNDL, Altsüdarabische Inschriften auf Metall, Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 4, Norbert Nebes, Orient-Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Tübingen/Berlin, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2009. JASTROW 1950 - M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim: the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 Vols.), New York NY, 1950. JIRKU 1950 - A. JIRKU, “The Problem of Alashiya,” PEQ 82 (1950) 40-42. JIRKU 1953 - A. JIRKU, “᾿Ajjelet haš-Šaḥar (PS 22,1),” ZAW 65 (1953) 85-86. JIRKU 1973 - A. JIRKU, “Neue Götter und Dämonen aus Ugarit,” ArOr 41 (1973) 97-103. JOHNSON 1961 - A. R. JOHNSON, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1961. JOHNSTON 2004 - S. I. JOHNSTON, Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, USA, Harvard University Press Reference Library, 2004. JUSTEL 2008 - J. JUSTEL, La posición jurídica de la mujer en Siria durante el Bronce Final: estudio de las estrategias familiares y de la mujer como sujeto y objeto de derecho, Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo, Zaragoza, 2008. KAISER 1959 - O. KAISER, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 78), Berlin, Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1959. KAISER 1970 - O. KAISER, “Zum Formular der in Ugarit gefundenen Briefe,” ZDPV 86 (1970) 10-23. KAPELRUD 1952 - A. S. KAPELRUD, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, Copenhagen, G.E.C. Gad, 1952. KAPELRUD 1968 - A. S. KAPELRUD, “The Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts,” VT 18 (1968) 494-499. KAPELRUD 1969a - A. S. KAPELRUD, The Violent Goddess Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts, Oslo, Scandinavian University Books, Oslo Universitetsforlaget, 1969. KAPELRUD 1969b - A. S. KAPELRUD, “Baal and the Devourers,” Ug. VI (1969) 319-332. KEEL 1978 - O. KEEL, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. T. J. Hallett, New York NY, The Seabury Press, 1978. KIENAST 1979 - B. KIENAST, “Rechtsurkunden in Ugaritischer Sprache,” UF 11 (1979) 431-452.

382

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KLOOS 1986 - C. KLOOS, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel, Leiden, Brill, 1986. KOCH 1993 - K. KOCH, “Ḫazzi-Ṣafôn-Kasion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten,” in: Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17 -21. März 1990 (OBO 129), ed. by B. Janowski et al., Fribourg, Éditions universitaires de Fribourg, Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1993, 171-223. KÖCHER 1971 - F. KÖCHER, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 4, Babylon, Nippur, Sippar, Uruk und unbekannter Herkunft, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen, 4, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1971. KOGAN 2015 - L. KOGAN, Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses, Boston/Berlin, Walter de Gruyter Inc., 2015. KOGAN & MILITAREV 2002 - L. KOGAN & A. MILITAREV, “Akkadian Terms of Genitalia: New Etymologies, New Textual Interpretations,” in: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6 2001, ed. by S. Parpola and R. M.Whiting, Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002, 311-319. KOITABASHI 1998 - M. KOITABASHI, “Music in the texts from Ugarit,” UF 30 (1998) 363-396. KOMORÓCZY 1971 - G. KOMORÓCZY, “Zum mythologischen und literaturgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der ugaritischen ‘Dichtung ŠŠ,’” UF 3 (1971) 75-80. KORPEL 1990 - M. C. A. KORPEL, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. KORPEL 2005 - M. C. A. KORPEL, “Unit Delimitation in Ugaritic Cultic Texts and Some Babylonian and Hebrew Parallels,” in: Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets (PSWRA 5), ed. by M. Korpel and J. Oesch, Assen, Koninklijke Van Gorcum, 2005, 141-160. KORPEL & DE MOOR 1988 - M. C. A. KORPEL & J. C. DE MOOR, “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” in: The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (JSOTSS 74), ed. by W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1988, 1-61. KRAUS 1966a - H. J. KRAUS, Psalmen. 1. Teilband, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XV/1, Neukirchener Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1966. KRAUS 1966b - H. J. KRAUS, Psalmen. 2. Teilband, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XV/2, Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1966. KREBERNIK 1983 - M. KREBERNIK, “Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 2 (Glossar),” ZA 73 (1983) 1-47. KREBERNIK 1987-1990 - M. KREBERNIK, “Malik,” RIA 7 (1987-1990) 305-307. KREBERNIK 1992 - M. KREBERNIK, “Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6, and ARET 5,7,” in: Literature and Literary Language at Ebla (QdS 18), ed. by P. Fronzaroli, Florence, Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenza, 1992, 63-149. KREBERNIK 1993a - M. KREBERNIK, “Mumugaba,” RIA 8 (1993) 417. KREBERNIK 1993b - M. KREBERNIK, “Muttergöttin. A. II,” RIA 8 (1993) 502516.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

KREBERNIK 2003-2004 - M. KREBERNIK, “Altbabylonische Hymnen an die Muttergöttin (HS 1884),” AfO 50 (2003-2004) 11-20. KREBERNIK 2013 - M. KREBERNIK, “Jenseitsvorstellungen in Ugarit,” in: Jenseitsvorstellungen im Orient: Kongreßakten der 2. Tagung der RVO (3./4. Juni 2011, Tübingen), ed. by P. Bukovec and B. Kolkmann-Klamt, Religionen im Vorderen Orient, Band 1, Hamburg, Verlag Dr. Kovač, 2013, 183-215. KRISTENSEN 1977 - A. L. KRISTENSEN, “Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas: A Comparative Study of the Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas in the Context of the Contemporary Akkadian Formulas in the Letters from Ugarit and Amarna,” UF 9 (1977) 143-158. KUHNIGK 1974 - W. KUHNIGK, Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch (BibOr 27), Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974. LACKENBACHER 1985 - S. LACKENBACHER, “Une nouvelle attestation d’Ištar Ḫurri dans un contrat trouvé à Baniyas (Syrie),” in: Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Mauricee Birot, ed. by J. M. Durand and J. R. Kupper, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985, 153-160. LACKENBACHER 2002 - S. LACKENBACHER, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit: Textes provenant des vingt-cinq premières campagnes (LAPO 20), Paris, Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002. LAM 2006 - J. LAM, “The Hurrian Section of the Ugaritic Ritual Text RS 24.643 (KTU 1.148),” UF 38 (2006) 399-413. LAMBERT 1957-1958 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Two Texts from the Early Part of the Reign of Ashurbanipal,” AfO 18 (1957-1958) 382-387. LAMBERT 1964 - W. G. LAMBERT, “The Creation of Man in Sumero-Babylonian Myth (résumé),” in: Comptes rendus de l’onzième rencontre assyriologique internationale, Leiden, CRRAI 11, 1964, 101-102. LAMBERT 1967 - W. G. LAMBERT, “The Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi,” OrNS 36 (1967) 105-132. LAMBERT 1968 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Literary Style in First Millennium Mesopotamia,” JAOS 88 (1968) 123-132. LAMBERT 1969 - W. G. LAMBERT, “A Middle Assyrian Medical Text,” Iraq 31 (1969) 28-39. LAMBERT 1975 - W. G. LAMBERT, “The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: a Study in Sophisticated Polytheism,” in: Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, 191-200. LAMBERT 1984 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Studies in Marduk,” BSOAS 47 (1984) 1-9. LAMBERT 1985 - W. G. LAMBERT, “The Pantheon of Mari,” MARI 4 (1985) 525-539. LAMBERT 1987 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Goddesses in the Pantheon: a Reflection of Women in Society?” in: La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique, ed. by J.-M. Durand, Paris, Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1987, 125-30. LAMBERT 1988 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Old Testament Mythology in its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in: Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (VTSup 40), ed. by J. A. Emerton, Leiden, Brill, 1988, 124-143. LAMBERT 1990 - W. G. LAMBERT, “The Name of Nergal Again,” ZA 80 (1990) 40-52.

384

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LAMBERT 1991 - W. G. LAMBERT, “Metal-Working and its Patron Deities in the Early Levant,” Levant 23 (1991) 183-186. LAMBERT 2013 - W. G. LAMBERT, Babylonian Creation Myth (MC 16), Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2013. LANGE 2008 - CH. LANGE, Justice, Punishment and the Medieval Muslim Imagination, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, University of Edinburgh, 2008. DE LANGHE 1945 - R. DE LANGHE, Les textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de l’ancien Testament (2 Vols.), Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis, Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae II/35, Gembloux, J. Duculot; Paris, Declée de Brouwer, 1945. LAPINKIVI 2010 - P. LAPINKIVI, The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection: Introduction, Cuneiform Text, and Transliteration with a Translation, Glossary, and Extensive Commentary, State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, v. 6. Helsinki, Winona Lake IN, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Eisenbrauns, 2010. LARGEMENT 1949 - R. LARGEMENT, La Naissance de L’Aurore: Poème mythologique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, Gembloux/Louvain: J. Duculot, E. Nauwelaerts, Leuven University Press, 1949. LAROCHE 1948 - E. LAROCHE, “Teššub, Ḫebat et leur cour,” JCS 2 (1948) 113136. LAROCHE 1968 - E. LAROCHE, “Documents en langue Hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra,” Ug. V (1968) 447-544. LAROCHE 1976-1977 - E. LAROCHE, “Glossaire de la langue hourrite,” RHA (19761977) 34-35. LAROCHE 1980 - E. LAROCHE, Glossaire de la Langue Hourrite, Études et commentaires 93, Paris, Klincksieck, 1980. LEIBOVICI 1971 - M. LEIBOVICI, “Génies et démons en Babylonie,” in: Génies, anges, et démons: Égypte, Babylone, Israël - Islam - Peuples Altaïques Inde - Birmanie - Asie du Sud-Est - Tibet - Chine, Sources Orientales VIII, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1971, 85-113. LEICHT 2011 - R. LEICHT, “Planets in Ancient Hebrew Literature,” in: Giving a Diamond: Essays in Honor of Joseph Yahalom on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by W. van Bekkum and N. Katsumata, Leiden/ Boston, 2011, 15-38. LEICHTY 2011 - E. LEICHTY, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011. LEICHTY, FINKELSTEIN & WALKER 1988 - E. LEICHTY, J. J. FINKELSTEIN & C. B. F. WALKER, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Volume 8: Tablets from Sippar 3, London, British Museum, 1988. LEMAIRE 1982 - A. LEMAIRE, “Trois Notes de Grammaire Phénicienne,” GLECS 28 (1982) 133-145. LENZI 2011 - A. LENZI, Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: an Introduction, Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near East Monographs, vol. 3, ed. by A. Lenzi, Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

385

LESLAU 1966 - W. LESLAU, “The Origin of Geez ῾Awati’ Herald,” JSS 11 (1966) 226-227. LESLAU 1987 - W. LESLAU, Comparative Dictionary of Ge῾ez (Classical Ethiopic), Wiesbaden, O. Harrassowitz, 1987. LEVINE 1981 - B. A. LEVINE, “Review of Le culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques, by J.-M. de Tarragon,” RB 88 (1981) 245-250. LEVINE & DE TARRAGON 1984 - B. A. LEVINE & J.-M. DE TARRAGON, “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty,” JAOS 104 (1984) 649-659. LEVINE & DE TARRAGON 1993 - B. A. LEVINE & J.-M. DE TARRAGON, “The King Proclaims the Day: Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87).” RB (100) 76-115. LEWIS 1989 - T. J. LEWIS, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1989. LICHTENSTEIN 1972 - M. H. LICHTENSTEIN, “Psalm 68:7 Revisited.” JANES 4 (1972) 97-112. LINDENBERGER 1983 - J. M. LINDENBERGER, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar, Baltimore MD, 1983. LINDER 1970 - E. LINDER, The Maritime Texts of Ugarit: A Study in Late Bronze Age Shipping. A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Mediterranean Studies, Brandeis University, 1970. LIPIŃSKI 1965a - E. LIPIŃSKI, La royauté de Yahwé dans la poésie et le culte de l’ancien Israël, Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, Jaarg. XXVII, Nr 55, 1965. LIPIŃSKI 1965b - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Les conceptions et couches merveilleuses de ῾Anath,” Syria 42 (1965) 45-73. LIPIŃSKI 1967 - E. LIPIŃSKI, Le poème royal du Psaume LXXXIX 1-5, 20-38 (CRB 6), Paris, Gabalda, 1967. LIPINSKI 1971a - E. LIPINSKI, “El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to Mount Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia,” OLP 2 (1971) 13-69. LIPIŃSKI 1971b - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Épiphanie de Baal-Haddu,” UF 3 (1971) 81-92. LIPIŃSKI 1973 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Recherches Ugaritiques,” Syria 50 (1973) 35-51. LIPIŃSKI 1974 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “From Karatepe to Pyrgi Middle Phoenician Miscellanea,” RSF 2 (1974) 45-61. LIPIŃSKI 1978 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Ditanu,” in: Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Y. Avishur and J. Blau, Jerusalem, E. Rubenstein, 1978, 91-110. LIPIŃSKI 1981 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Aḫat-Milki, reine d’Ugarit et la guerre du Mukiš*,” OLP 12 (1981) 79-115. LIPIŃSKI 1983 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Recension. Jean-Michel de Tarragon, O.P. Le Culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques. (CRB19), J. Gabalda et Cie, Paris, 1980,” IEJ 33 (1983) 137-139. LIPIŃSKI 1984 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Recension. Paolo. Xella, I testi rituali di Ugarit – I. Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981. Pubblicazioni del Centro di Studio per la Civiltà fenicia e punica 21 (Studi semitici 54),” BiOr 41 (1984) col. 437-439.

386

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIPIŃSKI 1986 - E. LIPIŃSKI, “Fertility Cult in Ancient Ugarit,” in: Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta 2-5 September 1985, ed. by A. Bonanno, Amsterdam, Grüner, 1986, 207-216. LITKE 1998 - R. L. LITKE, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists: AN: dA-nu-um and AN: Anu šá Amēli, Texts from the Babylonian Collection, 3, New Haven CT, Yale Babylonian Collection, 1998. LIVERANI 1962 - M. LIVERANI, Storia di Ugarit: Nell’età degli archivi politici (StS 6), Roma, Università di Roma, Centro di Studi Semitici, 1962. LIVERANI 1979 - M. LIVERANI, “Ras Shamra II. Histoire,” SDB 9 (1979) col. 12951348. LIVINGSTONE 1989 - A. LIVINGSTONE, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, State Archives of Assyria 3, Helsinki, 1989. LIVINGSTONE 2007 - A. LIVINGSTONE, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2007. LLOYD 1994 - J. B. LLOYD, The Goddess Anat: An Examination of the Textual and Iconographic Evidence from the Second Millennium B.C., Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1994. LOEWENSTAMM 1965 - S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, “The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature,” IEJ 15 (1965) 121-133. LOEWENSTAMM 1978 - S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, “Ugarit and the Bible II,” Bib 59 (1978) 100-122. LOEWENSTAMM 1980 - S. E. LOEWENSTAMM, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (AOAT 204), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1980. LØKKEGAARD 1953 - F. LØKKEGAARD, “A Plea for El, the Bull, and Other Ugaritic Miscellanies,” in: Studia Orientalia Iaonni Pedersen Septuagenario A.D. VII Id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII a Collegis Discipulis Amicis Dicata, Hauniae, 1953, 219-235. LØKKEGAARD 1955 - F. LØKKEGAARD, “The House of Ba῾al,” AcOr 22 (1955) 10-27. LÓPEZ-RUIZ 2010 - C. LÓPEZ-RUIZ, When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2010. LORETZ 1976 - O. LORETZ, “Der kanaanäisch-biblische Mythos vom Sturz des Šaḥar-Sohnes Hêlēl.” UF 8 (1976) 133-136. LORETZ 1980 - O. LORETZ, “Vom Baal-Epitheton ADN zu Adonis und Adonaj,” UF 12 (1980) 287-292. LORETZ 1984 - O. LORETZ, “adn come epiteto di Baal e i suoi rapporti con Adonis e Adonaj,” in: Adonis: relazioni del colloquio in Roma, 22-23 maggio 1981 (CSF 18), Roma, Consiglio Italiano delle Ricerche, 1984, 25-33. LORETZ 1992 - O. LORETZ, “Die Teraphim als ‘Ahnen-Götter-Figur(in)en’ im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit: Anmerkungen zu ilānū/ilh, ilhm/ ᾿lhym und DINGIR.ERÍN. MEŠ/inš ᾿ilm,” UF 24 (1992) 133-178. LORETZ 2003 - O. LORETZ, Götter – Ahnen – Könige als gerechte Richter: der “Rechtsfall” des Menschen vor Gott nach altorientalischen und biblischen Texten (AOAT 290), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

MACDONALD 1979 - J. MACDONALD, “An Assembly at Ugarit,” UF 11 (1979) 515-526. MAIER 1986 - W. A. MAIER, ᾿Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1986. MALAMAT 1989 - A. MALAMAT, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1984, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989. MANN 1971 - W. TH. MANN, The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90 (1971) 15-30. MANN 1977 - W. TH. MANN, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions, The Typology of Exaltation, Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies, Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press, 1977. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1972a - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “The Kôšārôt / Kṯrt: Patroness-Saints of Women,” JANES 4 (1972) 53-61. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1972b - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “Of Brides and Birdes: A Reply to M. Lichtenstein,” JANES 4 (1972) 113-117. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1980 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, Matter of “Life” and “Death”; a Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6) (AOAT 206), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1980. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1981 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “The Geographical Setting of the AQHT Story and Its Ramifications,” in: Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, ed. by G. D. Young, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1981, 131-158. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1983 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “Lexicographical Notes on the Aqht Epic (Part I: KTU 1.17-18),” UF 15 (1983) 65-103. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1984 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “Lexicographical Notes on the Aqht Epic (Part. II: KTU 1.19),” UF 16 (1984) 119-179. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1989a - B. MARGALIT & B. Margulis, The Ugaritic Poem of Aqht: Text. Translation. Commentary (BZAW 182), Berlin/New York, W. de Gruyter, 1989. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1989b - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “KTU 1.92 (Obv.): A Ugaritic Theophagy,” AuOr 7 (1989) 67-80. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1995 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “K-R-T Studies,” UF 27 (1995) 215-315. MARGALIT & MARGULIS 1996 - B. MARGALIT & B. MARGULIS, “Ugaritic ῾ṯtr ῾rẓ and DAPT (I 14) šgr. w῾štr᾿,” in: Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (UBL 12), ed. by N. Wyatt et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1996, 179-203. MARSMAN 2003 - H. J. MARSMAN, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East, Leiden/New York/Koln, Brill, 2003. MATOÏAN & VITA 2018 - V. MATOÏAN & J. P. VITA, “The Administration of Wine in Ugarit,” WdO 48 (2018) 299-318. MAUL 1994 - S. M. MAUL, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen Bd. 18, Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994.

388

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAYS 1985 - J. L. MAYS, “Psalm 29,” Interpretation 39 (1985) 60-64. MCCARTER 1997 - P. K. MCCARTER, “The Religious Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah,” in: Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One, Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, October 19, 1996, W. G. Dever, P. Kyle McCarter, John J. Collins, Donald B. Redford, Jack Meinhard, Washington, Biblical Archeological Society, 1997, 57-80. MCGEOUGH & SMITH 2011 - K. M. MCGEOUGH & M. S. SMITH, Ugaritic Economic Tablets: Text, Translation, and Notes, Leuven, Peeters, 2011. MCKANE 1976 - W. MCKANE, “Review: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament von Ludwig Koehler und Walter Baumgartner, Dritte Auflage, by W. Baumgartner, B. Hartmann, and E. Y. Kutscher, 2 vols.: I: pp. liv+352; II: pp. xxxviii+353-624. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967 and 1974. N. P.,” JTS 17 (1976) 148-151. MCKAY 1970 - J. W. MCKAY, “Helel and the Dawn-Goddess. A Re-Examination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 12-15,” VT 20 (1970) 451-464. MEIER 1988 - S. A. MEIER, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM 45), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1988. MEIER 1992a - S. A. MEIER, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible, VTS. vol. 46, Leiden/New York/Köln, Brill, 1992. MEIER 1992b - S. A. MEIER, “Women and Communication in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 111 (1992) 540-547. MEINHOLD 2009 - W. MEINHOLD, Istar in Assur: Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 V. Chr. (AOAT 367), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2009. MENDENHALL 1973 - G. E. MENDENHALL, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1973. MERLO 1996 - P. MERLO, “Über die Ergänzug in KTU 1.23:59,” UF 28 (1996) 491-494. MERRILLEES 1987 - R. S. MERRILLEES, Alashia Revisited (CRB 22), Paris, Gabalda, 1987. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1939 - R. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, “Une tablette magique de la région du Moyen Euphrate,” in: Mélanges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, Vol. 1, Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939, 421434. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1970 - R. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, Études sur les dieux phéniciens hérités par l’empire romain (EPROER 14), Leiden, Brill, 1970. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1973 - R. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, Nouvelles études sur les dieux et les mythes de Canaan (EPROER 33), Leiden, Brill, 1973. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON 1978 - R. DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, “L’explication mythique des saisons en Phénicie: Ba῾al tue ses frères taureaux de la chaleur,” Berytus 26 (1978) 55-84. METTINGER 1995 - T. N. D. METTINGER, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. MICHALOWSKI 1987-1990 - P. MICHALOWSKI, “Lisin (dLi9-si4),” RlA 7 (1987-1990) 32-33. MICHAUX-COLOMBOT 1997 - D. MICHAUX-COLOMBOT, “La gat de Gédéon, pressoir ou fief?” UF 29 (1997) 579-598.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

MICHEL 1987 - W. L. MICHEL, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Volume 1: Prologue and First Cycle of Speeches Job 1:1-14:22 (BibOr 42), Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1987. MILIK 1978 - J. T. MILIK, “Quelques tablettes cunéiformes alphabétiques d’Ugarit,” Ug. VII (1978) 135-146. MILLER 1965 - P. D. MILLER, “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965) 256-261. MILLER 1970a - P. D. MILLER, “Ugaritic ġzr and Hebrew ῾zr II,” UF 2: (1970) 159-175. MILLER 1970b - P. D. MILLER, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1970) 177-186. MILLER 1973 - P. D. MILLER, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. MILLER 1987 - P. D. MILLER, “Aspects of the Religion of Ugarit,” in: Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. by P. D. Miller, Jr. et al., Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1987, 53-66. MILLER 1988 - P. D. MILLER, “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel,” in: Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham (JSOTSS 48), ed. by W. T. Claassen, Sheffield, JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1988, 139-155. MINUNNO 2013 - G. MINUNNO, Ritual Employs of Birds in Ancient Syria-Palestine (AOAT 402), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2013. MOLINA 2003 - M. MOLINA, Testi amministrativi neosumerici del British Museum: BM 13601-14300, Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico 22, Roma, Bonsignori Editore, 2003. MONTGOMERY 1908 - J. A. MONTGOMERY, “The Holy City and Gehenna,” JBL 27 (1908) 24-47. MONTGOMERY 1913 - J. A. MONTGOMERY, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, Philadelphia PA, published by the University Museum, 1913. MONTGOMERY 1933 - J. A. MONTGOMERY, “Notes on the Mythological Epic Texts from Ras Shamra,” JAOS 53 (1933) 97-123. MONTGOMERY 1935 - J. A. MONTGOMERY, “Ras Shamra Notes III,” JAOS 55 (1935) 89-94. MONTGOMERY 1936 - J. A. MONTGOMERY, “Ras Shamra Notes V. A Myth of a Spring,” JAOS 56 (1936) 226-231. DE MOOR 1969 - J. C. DE MOOR, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra I,” UF 1 (1969) 167-188. DE MOOR 1970a - J. C. DE MOOR, “The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit,” UF 2 (1970) 187-228. DE MOOR 1970b - J. C. DE MOOR, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts From Ras Shamra II,” UF 2 (1970) 303-327. DE MOOR 1971 - J. C. DE MOOR, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba῾lu according to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT 16), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1971. DE MOOR 1972 - J. C. DE MOOR, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, Vol. 2, Kamper Cahiers 21-22, Kampen, J. H. Kok N. V., 1972. DE MOOR 1980 - J. C. DE MOOR,“An Incantation Against Infertility (KTU 1.13)” UF 12 (1980) 305-310.

390

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MOOR 1986a - J. C. DE MOOR, “῾Athtartu the Huntress (KTU 1.92),” UF 17 (1986) 225-230. DE MOOR 1986b - J. C. DE MOOR, “The Ancestral Cult in KTU 1.17:I.26-28,” UF 17 (1986) 407-409. DE MOOR 1986c - J. C. DE MOOR, “Ugaritic Lexicographical Notes I,” UF 18 (1986) 255-261. DE MOOR 1990 - J. C. DE MOOR, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, Leuven, University Press, 1990. DE MOOR 1994 - J. C. DE MOOR, “Ugarit and the Origin of Job,” in: Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992 (UBL 11), ed. by J. G. Brooke et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1994, 225-257. DE MOOR 1996 - J. C. DE MOOR, “Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus,” in: Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture Edinburgh, July 1994, essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (UBL 12), ed. by N. Wyatt et al., Münster, UgaritVerlag, 1996, 213-247. DE MOOR 1997 - J. C. DE MOOR, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, 2nd edition, revised and enlarged, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1997. DE MOOR & SANDERS 1991 - J. C. DE MOOR & P. SANDERS, “An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and its Old Testament Parallels,” UF 23 (1991) 283-300. DE MOOR & SPRONK 1982 - J. C. DE MOOR & K. SPRONK, “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (II),” UF 14 (1982) 173-190. DE MOOR & SPRONK 1984 - J. C. DE MOOR & K. SPRONK, “More on Demons in Ugarit (KTU 1.82),” UF 16 (1984) 237-250. MORGENSTERN 1939 - J. MORGENSTERN, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939) 29-126. MORALDI 1956 - L. MORALDI, Espiazione sacrificale e riti espiatori nell’ambiente biblico e nell’Antico Testamento (AnBib 5), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1956. MORAN 1970 - W. L. MORAN, “The creation of Man in Atrahasis I 192-248,” BASOR 200 (1970) 48-56. MORAN 1987 - W. L. MORAN, Les lettres d’El-Amarna: Correspondance diplomatique du Pharaon, traduction de W. L. Moran avec la collaboration de V. Haas, G. Wilhelm, traduction française de D. Collon et H. Cazelles, Paris, Les Editions du CERF, 1987. MUHLY 1980 - J. D. MUHLY, “Review: Bronze Figurines and Near Eastern Metalwork (review article),” IEJ 30 (1980) 148-161. MULLEN 1980 - E. T. MULLEN, The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24), Chico CA, Scholars Press, 1980. MÜLLER 1980 - H.-P. MÜLLER, “Religionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den Texten von Ebla,” ZDPV 96 (1980) 1-19. MULTHOFF & STEIN 2008 - A. MULTHOFF & P. STEIN, “VI. Sabäische Texte,” in: TUAT.NF 4: Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen, ed. by B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008, 393-416. DE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

MÜNNICH 2013 - M. M. MÜNNICH, The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 11, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2013. MURATA 1987 - S. MURATA, “The Angels,” in: Islamic Siprituality: Foundations, ed. by H. Nasr, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987, 324-344. MUSS-ARNOLT 1892 - W. MUSS-ARNOLT, “The Names of the Assyro-Babylonian Months and Their Regents,” JBL 11 (1892) 72-94. NA᾿AMAN 2004 - N. NA᾿AMAN, “The ṣuḫāru in Second Millennium BCE Letters from Canaan,” IEJ 54 (2004) 92-99. NAVEH & SHAKED 1985 - J. NAVEH & S. SHAKED, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem/Magnes, Leiden, Brill, 1985. NEUBERG 1950 - F. J. NEUBERG, “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew dôr,” JNES 9 (1950) 215-217. NEWSOM 1985 - C. NEWSOM, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1985. NIEHR 1990 - H. NIEHR, Der höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kanaanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Berlin, De Gruyter, 1990. NIEHR 1996 - H. NIEHR, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects,” in: The Triumph of Elohim: from Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. by D. V. Edelman, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1996, 45-72. NIELSEN 1936 - D. NIELSEN, Ras Šamra Mythologie und biblische Theologie, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXI/4, Leipzig, Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1936. NIELSEN 1938 - D. NIELSEN, “Die altsemitische Muttergöttin,” ZDMG 92 (1938) 504-551. NOONAN 2019 - B. J. NOONAN, Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 14, University Park PA, Eisenbrauns, 2019. NOUGAYROL 1955 - J. NOUGAYROL, “Nouveaux textes acadiens du palais d’Ugarit (campagne 1954),” CRAI (1955) 141-146. NOUGAYROL 1957 - J. NOUGAYROL, “Nouveaux textes d’Ugarit en cunéiformes babyloniens (20e campagne, 1956),” CRAI (1957) 77-86. NOUGAYROL 1968 - J. NOUGAYROL, “Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit,” Ug. V (1968) 1-446. OBERMANN 1946 - J. OBERMANN, How Daniel Was Blessed with a Son: An Incubation Scene in Ugarit, Maryland, JAOSS, 1946. O’CALLAGHAN 1952 - R. T. O’CALLAGHAN, “The Word ktp in Ugaritic and Egypto-Canaanite Mythology,” OrNS 21 (1952) 37-46. OLDENBURG 1969 - U. OLDENBURG, The conflict between El and Baʼal in Canaanite religion, Leiden, Brill, 1969. DEL OLMO LETE 1978 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Notes on Ugaritic Semantics IV,” UF 10 (1978) 37-46. DEL OLMO LETE 1981 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Le mythe de la vierge-mère ῾Anatu: une nouvelle interprétation de CTA/KTU 13,” UF 13 (1981) 49-62. DEL OLMO LETE 1982 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Notes on Ugaritic Semantics V,” UF 14 (1982) 55-69.

392

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OLMO LETE 1984 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Ritual regio ugarítico de evocación/ adivinación (KTU 1.112),” AuOr 2 (1984) 197-206. DEL OLMO LETE 1986a - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Liturgia funeraria de los reyes de Ugarit (KTU 1.106),” SEL 3 (1986) 55-71. DEL OLMO LETE 1986b - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “The ‘Divine’ Names of the Ugaritic Kings,” UF 18 (1986) 83-95. DEL OLMO LETE 1986c - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “The Cultic Literature of Ugarit. Hermeneutical Issues and their Application to KTU 1.112,” in: Keilschriftliche Literaturen, ed. by K. Hecker, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1986, 155-164. DEL OLMO LETE 1986d - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “La estructura del panteón ugarítico,” in: Salvación en la palabra: Targum-Derash-Berith en memoria del profesor Alejandro Díez Macho, ed. by D. Muñoz León, Madrid, Ediciones Cristianidad, 1986, 267-304. DEL OLMO LETE 1986e - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Ritual procesional de Ugarit (KTU 1.43),” Sefarad 46 (1986) 363-371. DEL OLMO LETE 1987a - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Catálogo de los festivales regios de Ugarit (KTU 1.91),” UF 19 (1987) 11-18. DEL OLMO LETE 1987b - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Los nombres ‘divinos’ de los reyes de Ugarit, AuOr 5 (1987) 39-69. DEL OLMO LETE 1987c - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Liturgia ugarítica del primer mes (KTU 1.41/1.87,” AuOr 5 (1987) 257-270. DEL OLMO LETE 1988a - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “El sacrificio de Ṣapānu y otros sacrificios de Ugarit (KTU 1.148),” AuOr 6 (1988) 11-17. DEL OLMO LETE 1988b - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Typologie et syntaxe des rituels ugaritiques,” in: Essais sur le rituel, Vol. 1, ed. by A.-M. Blondeau and K. Schipper, Paris, Peeters, 1988, 41-63. DEL OLMO LETE 1989 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Liturgia sacrificial y salmodia en Ugarit (KTU 1.119),” AuOr 7 (1989) 27-35. DEL OLMO LETE 1990a - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Dos rituales regios hurritas de Ugarit (KTU 1.132/ 1.111),” AuOr 8 (1990) 21-31. DEL OLMO LETE 1990b - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Pervivencias cananeas (ugaríticas) en el culto fenicio - II : el culto ‘mlk,’” Semitica 39 (1990) 67-76. DEL OLMO LETE 1990c - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Textos ugaríticos y su crítica literaria: A propósito de dos obras recientes,” AuOr 8 (1990) 183-195. DEL OLMO LETE 1991 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Yarḫu y Nikkalu: La mitología lunar sumeria en Ugarit,” AuOr 9 (1991) 67-75. DEL OLMO LETE 1992 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Receta mágica para un infante enfermo (KTU 1.124),” Sefarad 52 (1992) 187-192. DEL OLMO LETE 1993 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Royal Aspects of the Ugaritic Cult,” in: Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: proceedings of the international conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991 (OLA 55), ed. by J. Quaegebeur, Leuven, Peeters/Department Orientalistiek, 1993, 51-66. DEL OLMO LETE 2001-2002 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “De los 1.000 y más dioses al Dios único. Cuantificación de los panteones orientales de Egipto a Cartago,” in: El mundo púnico. Religión, antropología y cultura material, ed. by A. González Blanco, G. Matilla Séiquer and A. Egea Vivancos, Murcia, Estudios Orientales 5-6, 2001-2002, 19-32. DEL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

393

OLMO LETE 2004 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts: A New Edition and Commentary. A Critical Assessment,” UF 36 (2004) 539648. DEL OLMO LETE 2007a - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Mito y magia en Ugarit: recetas médicas y conjuros,” AuOr 25 (2007) 155-168. DEL OLMO LETE 2007b - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “gdlt/dqt: ¿ganado o pan como materia sacrificial?” AuOr 25 (2007) 169-173. DEL OLMO LETE 2007c - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “La ambivalencia de lo divino en Ugarit: A propósito de un estudio reciente sobre KTU 1.23,” AuOr 25 (2007) 311-318. DEL OLMO LETE 2012 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Ugaritic and Old(-South)-Arabic: Two WS Dialects?” in: Dialectology of the Semitic Languages: proceedings of the IV meeting on Comparative Semitics, Zaragoza 11/6-9/2010 (AuOr Supp. 26), Sabadell/Barcelona, Editorial AUSA, 2012, 5-23. DEL OLMO LETE 2013 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “KTU 1.107: A Miscellany of Incantations against Snakebite,” in: Ritual Religion and Reason. Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella (AOAT 404), ed. by O. Loretz et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2013, 193-204. DEL OLMO LETE 2014 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts from Ugarit, with a contribution by Ignacio Márquez Rowe, SANER Vol. 4, Boston/Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014. DEL OLMO LETE 2018 - G. DEL OLMO LETE, “Glosas Ugaríticas IX. rḥ gdm w᾿anhbm (KTU 1.3 II 2). El perfume de una diosa,” AuOr 36 (2018) 191197. DEL OLMO LETE & SANMARTÍN 1998 - G. DEL OLMO LETE & J. SANMARTÍN, “Kultisches in den keilalphabetischen Verwaltungs und Wirtschaftstexten aus Ugarit,” in: Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf» Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70 Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 250), ed. by M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, Münster, UgaritVerlag, 1998, 175-197. OLYAN 1988 - S. M. OLYAN, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1988. OPPENHEIM 1943 - A. L. OPPENHEIM, “Akkadian pul(u)ḫ(t)u and melammu,” JAOS 63 (1943) 31-34. OPPENHEIM 1974 - A. L. OPPENHEIM, “A Babylonian Diviner’s Manual,” JNES 33 (1943) 197-220. PANIKKAR 1987 - R. PANIKKAR, “Deity,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 4, ed. by M. Eliade, New York NY, Macmillan; London, Collier Macmillan, 1987, 264-276. PARDEE 1977 - D. PARDEE, “A New Ugaritic Letter,” BiOr 34 (1977) 3-20. PARDEE 1978 - D. PARDEE, “Ypḥ ‘Witness’ in Hebrew and Ugaritic,” VT 28 (1978) 204-213. PARDEE 1980 - D. PARDEE, “The New Canaanite Myths and Legends,” BiOr 37 (1980) 269-291. PARDEE 1983 - D. PARDEE, “Visiting Ditanu: The Text of RS 24.272,” UF 15 (1983) 127-140. PARDEE 1984 - D. PARDEE, “ Ugaritic: Further Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography,” AfO 31 (1984) 213-230. DEL

394

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PARDEE 1986a - D. PARDEE, “Review of E. T. Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature; B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel; R. E. Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative; R. E. Friedman, ed., The Creation of Sacred Literature,” JNES 45 (1986) 64-67. PARDEE 1986b - D. PARDEE, “Ugaritic: The Ugaritic šumma izbu Text,” AfO 33 (1986) 117-147. PARDEE 1987 - D. PARDEE, “Epigraphic and Philological Notes,” UF 19 (1987) 199-217. PARDEE 1988a - D. PARDEE, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (῾nt I and Proverbs 2) (VTS 39), Leiden/New York/Kobenhavn/Köln, Brill, 1988. PARDEE 1988b - D. PARDEE, “An Evaluation of the Proper Names from Ebla from a West Semitic Perspective: Pantheon Distribution According to Genre,” in: Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving: Papers of a Symposium held in Rome July 15-17, 1985 (ARES I), ed. by A. Archi, Rome, Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, 1988, 119-151. PARDEE 1988c - D. PARDEE, “Troisième réassemblage de RS 1.019,” Syria 65 (1988) 173-191. PARDEE 1990 - D. PARDEE, “Reviewed Work: The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment by George C. Heider,” JNES 49 (1990) 370-372. PARDEE 1991 - D. PARDEE, “The Structure of RS 1.002,” in: Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, Vol. 2, ed. by A. S. Kaye, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1991, 1181-1196. PARDEE 1992 - D. PARDEE, “RS 24.643: Texte et Structure,” Syria 69 (1992) 153-170. PARDEE 1993 - D. PARDEE, “RS 1.005 and the Identification of the gṯrm,” in: Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: proceedings of the international conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April, 1991 (OLA 55), ed. by J. Quaegebeur, Leuven, Peeters/Department Orientalistiek, 1993, 301-318. PARDEE 1996a - D. PARDEE, “L’ougaritique et le hourrite dans les textes rituels de Ras Shamra-Ougarit,” in: Mosaïque de langues Mosaïque culturelle: Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organisée par l’URA “Études Sémitiques”, ed. by F. Briquel-Chatonnet, Antiquités Sémitiques 1, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1996, 63-80. PARDEE 1996b - D. PARDEE, “Marziḥu, Kispu, and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist View,” in: Ugarit, Religion and Culture: proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994, essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (UBL 12), ed. by N. Wyatt et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1996, 273-287. PARDEE 2004 - D. PARDEE, “La fête de la pleine lune à Ougarit (XIIIe s. av. J.-C.),” in: La fête, la rencontre des dieux et des hommes. Actes du 2e Colloque International de Paris, ed. by M. Mazoyer et al., Collection KUBABA, Séries Actes IV, Paris/Budapest/Turin, Harmattan, 2004, 67-75. PARDEE 2007a - D. PARDEE, “RS 15.039 remis sur pied,” JANER 7 (2007) 67-85.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

395

PARDEE 2007b - D. PARDEE, “Review: Smith, Mark S. The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 51, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Leiden, Brill, www.sblcentral.org, 2007. PARDEE 2008 - D. PARDEE, “Deux tablettes ougaritiques de la main d’un même scribe, trouvées sur deux sites distincts: RS 19.039 et RIH 98/02,” SemClas 1 (2008) 9-38. PARDEE 2009 - D. PARDEE, “Two Epigraphic Notes on the Ugaritic Šaḥru-waŠalimu Text (RS 2.002 = CTA 23),” SemClas 1 (2009) 219-222. PARDEE 2010a - D. PARDEE, “Un chant nuptial ougaritique (RS 5.194 [CTA 24]). Nouvelle étude épigraphique suivie de remarques philologiques et littéraires,” SemClas 3 (2010) 13-46. PARDEE 2010b - D. PARDEE, “RS 94.2168 and the Right of the Firstborn at Ugarit,” in: Society and Administration in Ancient Ugarit, ed. by W. H. Van Soldt, Leiden, PIHANS CXIV, 2010, 94-106. PARDEE 2011 - D. PARDEE, “Nouvelle étude épigraphique et littéraire des textes fragmentaires en langue ougaritique dits ‘Les Rephaïm’ (CTA 20-22),” OrNS 80 (2011) 1-65. PARDEE & WHITING 1987 - D. PARDEE & R. M.WHITING, “Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian,” BSOAS 50 (1987) 1-31. PARKER 1976 - S. B. PARKER, “The Marriage Blessing in Israelite and Ugaritic Literature,” JBL 95 (1976) 23-30. PARPOLA 1970 - S. PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6), NeukirchenVluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1970. PARPOLA 1993 - S. PARPOLA, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA 10), Helsinki, 1993. PARPOLA 1997 - S. PARPOLA, “Monotheism in Ancient Assyria,” in: One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. by B. N. Porter, New York NY, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1997, 165209. PASQUALI 2005 - J. PASQUALI, Il Lessico della’artigianato nei testi di Ebla (QdS 23), Università di Firenze, 2005. PASQUALI 2006 - J. PASQUALI, “Eblaita dgú-ša-ra-tum = ugaritico kṯrt,” NABU (2006) 61-63 . PAUL 1972 - S. M. PAUL, “Psalm 72:5 - A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King,” JNES 31 (1972) 351-355. PAULUS 2014 - S. PAULUS, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit: Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen (AOAT 51), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2014. PEDERSEN 1940 - J. PEDERSEN, “Canaanite and Israelite Cultus,” AcOr 18 (1940) 1-14. PENAR 1975 - T. PENAR, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr28), Rome, Biblical Institution Press, 1975. PITARD 1992 - W. T. PITARD, “A New Edition of the ‘Rāpi᾿ūma’ Texts: KTU 1.2022,” BASOR 285 (1992) 33-77. PITARD 1999 - W. T. PITARD, “The Rpum Texts,” HUS 39 (1999) 259-269.

396

BIBLIOGRAPHY

POMPONIO & XELLA 1997 - F. POMPONIO & P. XELLA, Les dieux d’Ebla: Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire (AOAT 245), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1997. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 1994 - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Ina Sulmi Īrub: die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der ‘akītu’-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1, Jahrtausend v. Chr., Baghdader Forschungen 16, Mainz am Rhein, von Zabern, 1994. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2003 - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “When the Gods are Speaking: Toward Defining the Interface between Polytheism and Monotheism,” in: Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT 201), ed. by M. Köckert and M. Nissinen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003, 132–168. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2009 - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “Reflections on the Translatability of the Notion of Holiness,” in: Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, ed. by M. Luukko et al., Studia Orientalia 106, Helsinki, Finnish Oriental Society, 2009, 409–427. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2011a - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. by B. Pongratz-Leisten, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, electronic version, 2011, 1-56. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2011b - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “A New Agenda for the Study of the Rise of Monotheism,” in: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. by B. Pongratz-Leisten, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011, 1-40. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2011c - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “Comments on the Translatability of Divinity: Cultic and Theological Responses to the Presence of the Other in the Ancient Near East,” in: Les représentations des dieux autres, Supplemento a Mythos 2, Rivista di Storia delle Religioni, ed. by C. Bonnet et al., Caltanisseta, Salvatore Sciascia Editore, 2011, 83-111. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 2015 - B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Religion and Ideology in Assyria, SANER Vol. 6, Boston/Berlin/Munich, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2015. POPE 1971 - M. H. POPE, “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed. by H. Goeticke, Baltimore MD, 1971, 393-405. POPE 1977a - M. H. POPE, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7C), Garden City NY, Doubleday, 1977. POPE 1977b - M. H. POPE, “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit,” in: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. by M. de Jong Ellis, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19, Hamden, Archon Books, 1977, 163-182. POPE 1979 - M. H. POPE, “Ups and Downs in El’s Amours,” UF 11 (1979) 701708. POPE 1994 - M. H. POPE, “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit,” in: Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature, Collected Essays (UBL 10), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1994, 17-27. POPE & TIGAY 1971 - M. H. POPE & J. H. TIGAY, “A Description of Baal,” UF 3 (1971) 117-130.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

PORTER 1997a - B. N. PORTER, “One God or Many? A Brief Introduction to a Complex Problem,” in: One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. by B. N. Porter, New York NY, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1997, 1-8. PORTER 1997b - B. N. PORTER, “The Anxiety of Multiplicity Concepts of Divinity as One and Many in Ancient Assyria,” in: One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. by B. N. Porter, New York NY, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1997, 211-271. POSTGATE 1995 - J. N. POSTGATE, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad,” CANE Vol. 1 (1995) 395-411. PRIEBATSCH 1976 - H. Y. PRIEBATSCH, “Afer, Sohn der Katura und König der Afri/῾Apiru,” UF 8 (1976) 327-336. PRIOLETTA 2012 - A. PRIOLETTA, “A New Monotheistic Inscription from the Military Museum of Ṣan῾ā᾿,” in: New Research in Archaeology and Epigraphy of South Arabia and Its Neighbors: Proceedings of the ‘Rencontres Sabéennes 15’ Held in Moscow, May 25th-27th, 2011, ed. by Alexander Sedov, Moscow, The State Museum of Oriental Art, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, 315-332. PROVAN 1990 - I. PROVAN, “Feasts, Booths and Gardens (Thr 2,6a),” ZAW 102 (1990) 254-255. PUECH 1991 - E. PUECH, “La tablette cunéiforme de Beth Shemesh premier témoin de la séquence des lettres du sud-sémitique,” in: Phoinikia Grammata. Lire et écrire en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque de Liège, 15-18 novembre 1989, ed. by Cl. Baurain et al., Namur, 1991, 33-47. PUECH 2008 - E. PUECH, “Bala‛am and Deir ‛Alla,” in: The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, ed. by G. H. van Kooten and J. van Ruiten, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions, Vol. 11, Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2008, 25-47. DE PURY 2008 - A. DE PURY, “Wie und wann wurde der Gott zu Gott? im Spannungsfeld von Sprache, Schrifft un Textgramatik,” in: Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. by I. U. Dalfertch and P. Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35, Tübingen, 2008, 121-141. RAHMOUNI 2005 - A. RAHMOUNI, “The Term prz in Ugaritic-Hurrian Texts: A Possible Ugaritic-Hurrian ‘Epithet Component,’” in: Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians Vol. 15, General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 11/1, ed. by D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm, Bethesda MD, CDL Press, 2005, 101-107. RAHMOUNI 2007 - A. RAHMOUNI, “Religion at Ugarit,” Religion Compass 2 (2007) 18-37. RAHMOUNI 2008 - A. RAHMOUNI, “Une étude comparée de l’épithète rbt ᾿aṯrt ym ‘la dame ᾿Aṯiratu de La mer,’” RB 115 (2008) 161-173. RAHMOUNI 2012 - A. RAHMOUNI, “The Epithets of the Kôṯarātu Goddesses at Ugarit,” AuOr 30 (2012) 55-73. RAHMOUNI 2015 - A. RAHMOUNI, Storytelling in Chefchaouen Northern Morocco: An Annotated Study of Oral Performance with Transliterations and Translations (SPAL 1), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015. RAINEY 1966 - A. F. RAINEY, “LÚMAŠKIM at Ugarit,” OrNS 35 (1966) 426-428. RAINEY 1973a - A. F. RAINEY, “Gleanings from Ugarit,” IOS 3 (1973) 34-62.

398

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RAINEY 1973b - A. F. RAINEY, “Ilānu rēṣūtni lillikū,” in: Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (AOAT 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1973, 139-142. RAINEY 1974 - A. F. RAINEY, “The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5,” JAOS 94 (1974) 184-194. RAINEY 1975 - A. F. RAINEY, “Institutions: Family, Civil, and Military,” RSP II (1975) 69-107. RAINEY 1987 - A. F. RAINEY, “A New Grammar of Ugaritic,” OrNS 56 (1987) 391-402. RAINEY 1995 - A. F. RAINEY, “Review of Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O., Mantik in Ugarit, Keilalphafetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – Necromantie, Mit Beiträgen von Duerbeck, H. W. et al.,” UF 27 (1995) 704-706. REDFORD 1973 - D. B. REDFORD, “New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Ḥoremheb,” BASOR 211 (1973) 36-49. RENAUT 2009 - L. RENAUT, “Recherches sur le henné antique,” JNES 68 (2009) 193-212. RENDTORFF 1966 - R. RENDTORFF, “El, Ba῾al und Jahwe. Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion,” ZAW 78 (1966) 277292. RENDTORFF & STOLZ 1979 - R. RENDTORFF & J. STOLZ, “Die Bedeutung der Gestaltungsstruktur für das Verständnis ugaritischer Texte: Ein Versuch zu CTA 24 [= KTU 1.24] [NK] 5-15,” UF 11 (1979) 709-718. RENFROE 1986 - F. RENFROE, “Methodological Considerations Regarding the Use of Arabic in Ugaritic Philology,” UF 18 (1986) 33-74. RENGER 1974 - J. RENGER, “Hofstaat,” RlA 5 (1974) 435-446. RIBICHINI 1981 - S. RIBICHINI, Adonis Aspetti “orientali” di un mito greco (StS 55), Pubblicazioni del Centro di Studio per la Civiltà fenicia e punica 22, Rome, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981. RIBICHINI 1985 - S. RIBICHINI, Poenus advena: Gli dei fenici e l’interpretazione classica (CSF 19), Roma, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1985. RIBICHINI & XELLA 1979 - S. RIBICHINI & P. XELLA, “Milk῾aštart, Mlk(m) e la tradizione siropalestinese sui Refaim,” RSF 7 (1979) 145-158. RIBICHINI & XELLA 1984 - S. RIBICHINI & P. XELLA, “Il dio Pdr,” UF 16 (1984) 267-272. RIBICHINI & XELLA 1985 - S. RIBICHINI & P. XELLA, La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit (CSF 20), Rome, Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, 1985. RICHTER 2012 - TH. RICHTER, Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2012. RIN & RIN 1996 - S. RIN & SH. RIN, Acts of the Gods: The Ugaritic Epic Poetry, Revised and Expanded Edition, Philadelphia PA, Inbal, 1996 [in Hebrew]. ROCHE-HAWLEY 2012 - C. ROCHE-HAWLEY, “Procédés d’écriture des noms des divinités ougaritaines en cunéiforme mésopotamien,” in: Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone, ed. by C. Roche-Hawley and R. Hawley, Orient & Méditerranée 9, Paris, De Boccard, 2012, 149-178. ROBIN 1997 - CH. ROBIN, “Les religions païennes de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique,” in: Arabie heureuse, Arabie déserte: les antiquités arabiques du Musée du

BIBLIOGRAPHY

399

Louvre, ed. by Y. Calvet et al., Paris, Éditions de la Réunion des Musées nationaux, 1997, 60-76. ROBIN 2012 - CH. ROBIN, “Matériaux pour une typologie des divinités arabiques et de leurs représentations,” in: Dieux et déesses d’Arabie: Images et représentations. Actes de la table ronde tenue au Collège de France (Paris) les 1er et 2 octobre 2007, ed. by I. Sachet en collaboration avec Ch. Julien Robin, Orient & Méditerranée no. 7, Paris, De Boccard, 2012, 7-118. ROBIN 2015 - CH. ROBIN, “Quel judaïsme en Arabie?” in: Le judaïsme de l’Arabie antique, Actes du colloque de Jérusalem (février 2006), ed. by Ch. J. Robin, Turnhout, Brepols, 2015, 15-295. ROBIN 2017 - CH. ROBIN, “Les évolutions du calendrier dans le royaume de Ḥimyar: quelques hypothèses,” in: Religious Culture in Late Antique Arabia. Selected Studies on the Late Antique Religious Mind, ed. by K. Dmitriev and I. Toral-Niehoff, Piscataway NJ, Gorgias Press, 2017, 281-373. RÖMER 2014 - T. RÖMER, L’invention de Dieu, Paris, Éd. du Seuil, 2014. ROUGEMONT & VITA 2010 - FR. ROUGEMONT & J. P. VITA, “Les enregistrements de chars à Ougarit et dans le monde mycénien: Approche comparative sur l’administration au Bronze Récent,” in: Society and Administration at Ancient Ugarit: Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 13-14 December 2007, ed. by W. H. van Soldt, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2010, 123-150. ROTH 1962 - W. M. W. ROTH, “The numerical sequence x/x + 1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962) 300-311. ROSENSOHN JACOBS 1945 - V.- I. ROSENSOHN JACOBS, “The Myth of Môt and ᾿Al’eyan Ba῾al,” HTR 38 (1945) 77-109. ROSS 1970 - J. F. ROSS, “Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari,” HTR 63 (1970) 1-28. ROWE 1993 - M. ROWE, “KTU 3.7 reconsidered. On the ilku-service in Ugarit,” AuOr 11 (1993) 250-252. ROWE 1999 - M. ROWE, “The Legal Texts from Ugarit,” HUS 39 (1999) 390422. RUBIO 2011 - G. RUBIO, “Gods and Scholars: Mapping the Pantheon in Early Mesopotamia,” in: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. by B. Pongratz-Leisten, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011, 91116. SANDERS 2001 - S. L. SANDERS, “A Historiography of Demons: Preterit-Thema, Para-Myth, and Historiola in the Morphology of Genres,” in: Historiography in the Cuneiform World, proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. by T. Abusch et al., Bethesda MD, CDL Press, 2001, 429-440. SALLABERGER 2001 - W. SALLABERGER, “Nin-MAR.KI,” RlA 9 (2001) 463-468. SANMARTÍN 1977 - J. SANMARTÍN, “Ug. ᾿uzr und Verwandtes,” UF 9 (1977) 369370. SANMARTÍN 1980 - J. SANMARTÍN, “Zu den ῾d(d)-Denominierungen im Ugaritischen,” UF 12 (1980) 346-348. SANMARTÍN 1986 - J. SANMARTÍN, “Review: Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques, Paris, J. Gabalda et Cie, 1980 (= CRB 19),” AfO 33 (1986) 102-104.

400

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SANMARTÍN 1989 - J. SANMARTÍN, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (VI),” UF 21 (1989) 335-348. SANMARTÍN 1991 - J. SANMARTÍN, “Isoglosas morfoléxicas eblaítico-ugaríticas: la trampa lexicográfica,” AuOr 9 (1991) 165-217. SAPIN 1983 - J. SAPIN, “Quelques systèmes socio-politiques en Syrie au 2o millénaire avant J.-C. et leur évolution historique d’après des documents religieux (légendes, rituels, sanctuaires),” UF 15 (1983) 157-190. SARACINO 1982 - F. SARACINO, “Il letto di Pidray,” UF 14 (1982) 191-199. SAYCE 1932 - A. H. SAYCE, “Etruscan Affinities in a Ras Shamra Tablet,” JRAS (1932) 43-46. SCHAEFFER 1933 - C. F. A. SCHAEFFER, “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de RasShamra, Quatrième campagne (printemps 1932), Rapport sommaire,” Syria 14 (1933) 93-127. SCHAEFFER 1938 - C. F. A. SCHAEFFER, “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Neuvième campagne (printemps 1937). Rapport sommaire,” Syria 19 (1938) 313-334. SCHAEFFER 1954 - C. F. A. SCHAEFFER, “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Quinzième, seizième et dix-septième campagnes (1951, 1952 et 1953). Rapport Sommaire,” Syria 31 (1954) 14-67. SCHACHERMEYR 1935 - F. SCHACHERMEYR, Hethiter und Achäer, MAOG Band 9, Heft 1/2, Leipzig, 1935. SCHAUDIG 2001 - H. SCHAUDIG, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik (AOAT 256), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. SCHLOEN 1993 - J. D. SCHLOEN, “The Exile of Disinherited Kin in KTU 1.12 and KTU 1.23,” JNES 52 (1933) 209-220. SCHLOEN 2001 - J. D. SCHLOEN, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2001. SCHMIDT 1994 - B. B. SCHMIDT, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (FAT 11), Tübingen, Mohr, 1994. SCHMIDT 1996 - B. B. SCHMIDT, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” in: The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms, ed. by D. V. Edelman, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, 75-105. SCHMIDT 1966 - W. H. SCHMIDT, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel: Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes (BZAW 80.2) Auflage/Berlin, Töpelmann, 1966. SCHOTT 1934 - A. SCHOTT, “Zu meiner Übersetzung des Gilgameš-Epos,” ZA 8 (1934) 92-143. VON SCHULER 1965 - E. VON SCHULER, Wörterbuch der Mythologie, Band I: D. O. Edzard, W. Helck, M. Höfner, M.H. Pope, W. Röllig, E. von Schuler, Götter und Mythen im vorderen Orient, ed. by H.W. Haussig, Stuttgart, Klett, 1965. SCHWALLY 1898 - F. SCHWALLY, “Über einige palästinische Völkernamen,” ZAW 18 (1898) 126-148. SCHWEMER 2007 - D. SCHWEMER, “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies: Part I,” JANER 7 (2007) 121-168.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

401

SCHWEMER 2008 - D. SCHWEMER, “The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies: Part II,” JANER 8 (2008) 1-44. SCOTT 1952 - R. B. Y. SCOTT, “Meteorological Phenomena and Terminology in the Old Testament,” ZAW 64 (1952) 11-25. SCURLOCK 2005 - J. SCURLOCK, Magico-Medical Means of Treating GhostInduced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Magic and Divination III, Leiden/Boston, Brill, STYX, 2005. SCURLOCK 2011 - J. SCURLOCK, “Death and the Maidens: A New Interpretive Framework for KTU 1.23,” UF 43 (2011) 411-434. SEGERT 1960 - S. SEGERT, “Book Reviews: Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit publié sous la direction de Claude F. A. Schaeffer. II. Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des Archives Est, Ouest et Centrales par Charles Virolleaud. (= Mission de Ras Shamra, Tome VII). Paris, Imprimerie Nationale et C. Klincksieck 1957, etc.,” ArOr 28 (1960) 151-153. SEGERT 1985 - S. SEGERT, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language with Selected Texts and Glossary, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, University of California Press, 1985. SEGERT 1986 - S. SEGERT, “An Ugaritic Text Related to the Fertility Cult (KTU 1.23),” in: Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean. University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985, ed. by A. Bonanno, Amsterdam, Grüner, 1986, 217-224. VAN SELMS 1954 - A. VAN SELMS, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature, Pretoria Oriental Series 1, London, Luzac, 1954. VAN SELMS 1970 - A. VAN SELMS, “Yammu’s Dethronement by Baal: An Attempt to Reconstruct Texts UT 129, 137 and 68,” UF 2 (1970) 251-268. VAN SELMS 1971- A. VAN SELMS, “CTA 32: A Prophetic Liturgy,” UF 3 (1971) 235-248. VAN SELMS 1979 - A. VAN SELMS, “The Root k-ṯ-r and its Derivatives in Ugaritic Literature,” UF 11 (1979) 739-744. VAN SELMS 1982 - A. VAN SELMS, “The Expression ‘the Holy One of Israel,’” in: Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979 überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (AOAT 211), ed. by W. C. Delsaman et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1982, 257-269. SERJEANT 1988 - R. B. SERJEANT, “A Socotran Star Calendar,” in: A Miscellany of Middle Eastern Articles: in Memoriam Thomas Muir Johnstone 192483, ed. by K. Irving et al., London, 1988, 94-100. SEUX 1967 - M. J. SEUX, Épithètes Royales: Akkadiennes et sumériennes, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1967. SEUX 1976 - M. J. SEUX, Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie: Introduction, traduction et notes (LAPO 8), Paris, Éditions du Cerf, 1976. AL-SHEIBA 1987 - A. H. AL-SHEIBA, “Die Ortsnamen in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften (Mit dem Versuch ihrer Identifizierung und Lokalisierung),” in: Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen, Band IV, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Ṣan῾ā᾿, Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987, 1-62.

402

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SIMA 2002 - A. SIMA, “Neue Möglichkeiten der altsüdarabischen Namenforschung,” in: Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik (AOAT 296), ed. by M. P. Streck und S. Weninger, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2002, 195207. SINGER 1948 - A. D. SINGER, “The Vocative in Ugaritic,” JCS 2 (1948) 1-10. SINGER 1994 - I. SINGER, “‘The Thousand Gods of Hatti’: The Limits of an Expanding Pantheon,” in: Concepts of the Other in Near Eastern Religions (IOS14), ed. by I. Alon et al., Leiden, Brill, 1994, 81-102. SINGER 1999 - I. SINGER, “A Political History of Ugarit,” in: HUS 39 (1999) 603-733. SIVAN 1984 - D. SIVAN, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th c. B.C. from Canaan and Syria (AOAT 214), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1984. SIVAN 1999 - D. SIVAN, “Some Unusual Doublets in Ugaritic / ‫כמה כפולי צורה‬ ‫יוצאי דופן באוגריתית‬.” EI 26 (1999) 123-128. SKINNER 1963 - J. SKINNER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1963. VAN DER SLUIJS 2009 - M. A. VAN DER SLUIJS, “Hll: Lord of the Sickle,” JNES 68 (2009) 269-282. SMITH 1984 - M. S. SMITH, “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank,” UF 16 (1984) 359. SMITH 1985 - M. S. SMITH, Kothar wa-Ḫasis, the Ugaritic Craftsman God, PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1985. SMITH 1986 - M. S. SMITH, “Mt. Ll in KTU 1.2 I 19-20,” UF 18 (1986) 458. SMITH 1995 - M. S. SMITH, “The God Athtar in the Ancient Near East and His Place in KTU 1.6 I,” in: Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. by Z. Zevit et al., Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1995, 627-640. SMITH 2001 - M. S. SMITH, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. SMITH 2002 - M. S. SMITH, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd edition (1st edition 1990), Dearborn MI, Dove Booksellers, 2002. SMITH 2004 - M. S. SMITH, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2004. SMITH 2006 - M. S. SMITH, The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 51, Atlanta GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. SMITH 2008 - M. S. SMITH, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (FAT 57), Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2008. SMITH 2012 - M. S. SMITH, “The Problem of the God and His Manifestations: The Case of the Baals at Ugarit, with Implications for Yahweh of Various Locales,” in: Die Stadt im Zwölfprophetenbuch (BZAW 428), ed. by A. Schart and J. Krispenz, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2012, 205-250.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

403

SMITH 2014a - M. S. SMITH, Poetic Heroes: Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World, Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 2014. SMITH 2014b - M. S. SMITH, “῾Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian Texts,” in: Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite (OBO 263), ed. by D. T. Sugimoto, Fribourg, Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 2014, 33-85. SMITH 2015 - M. S. SMITH, “The Three Bodies of God in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 134 (2015) 471-488. SMITH 1972 - W. R. SMITH, The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions, New York NY, Schocken, 1972. VON SODEN 1933 - W. VON SODEN, “Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen,” ZA 41 (1933) 90-183. VON SODEN 1938 - W. VON SODEN, “Altbabylonische Dialektdichtungen,” ZA 44 (1938) 26-44. VON SODEN 1957-1958 - W. VON SODEN, “Die Hebamme in Babylonien und Assyrien,” AfO 18 (1957-1958) 119-121. SOKOLOF 1992 - M. SOKOLOF, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Ramat-Gan, Bar Ilan University, 1992. SOKOLOF 2009 - M. SOKOLOF, A Syriac lexicon: a translation from the Latin, correction, expansion, and update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns; Piscataway NJ, Gorgias Press, 2009. VAN SOLDT 1989a - W. H. VAN SOLDT, “Labels from Ugarit,” UF 21 (1989) 375-388. VAN SOLDT 1989b - W. H. VAN SOLDT, “Tbṣr, Queen of Ugarit?” UF 21 (1989) 389-392. VAN SOLDT 1990 - W. H. VAN SOLDT, Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung, Heft XII, Leiden/New York, Brill, 1990. VAN SOLDT 1994 - W. H. VAN SOLDT, “The Topography and the Geographical Horizon of the City-State of Ugarit,” in: Ugarit and the Bible: proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992 (UBL 11), ed. by J. G. Brooke et al., Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1994, 363-382. VAN SOLDT 1996 - W. H. VAN SOLDT, “Studies in the Topography of Ugarit(1): the Spelling of the Ugaritic Toponyms,” UF 28 (1996) 653-692. VAN SOLDT 2005 - W. H. VAN SOLDT, The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit (AOAT 324), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. SOLLBERGER 1969 - E. SOLLBERGER, “Samsu-Ilūna’s Bilingual Inscriptions C and D,” RA 63 (1969) 29-43. SOMMER 2009 - B. D. SOMMER, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009. SOMMER 2016 - B. D. SOMMER, “Monotheism,” in: The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion, ed. by J. Barton, Princeton University Press, 2016, 239-270. SPENCER 2015 - L. A. SPENCER, The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal, and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East, SANER Vol. 5, Boston/Berlin/Munich, Walter de Gruyter, 2015. SPERLING 1981 - S. D. SPERLING, “A šu-íl-lá to Ištar,” WdO 12 (1981) 8-20. SPERLING 1982 - S. D. SPERLING, “An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretations and Implications,” HUCA 53 (1982) 1-10.

404

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SPIEGEL 1945 - S. SPIEGEL, “Noah, Danel, and Job: Touching on Canaanite relics in the legends of the Jews,” in: Louis Ginsberg Jubilee Volume: On the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, New York NY, American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945, 305-355. SPRONK 1986 - K. SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 219), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1986. STADELMANN 1970 - L. I. J. STADELMANN, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study (AnBib 39), Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. STADELMANN 1967 - R. STADELMANN, Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten, Leiden, Brill, 1967. STAMM 1968 - J. J. STAMM, Die akkadische Namengebung, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchergesellschaft, 1968. STAMM 1979 - J. J. STAMM, “Erwägungen zu RS 24.246,” UF 11 (1979) 753758. STARR 1983 - I. STARR, The Rituals of the Diviner (BM 12), Malibu CA, Undena Publications, 1983. STEIN 2003 - P. STEIN, Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen, Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel Band 3, Rahden/Westf, Verlag Marie Leidorf, GmbH, 2003. STEIN 2008 - P. STEIN, “The ‘Ḥimyaritic’ Language in pre-Islamic Yemen: A Critical Re-evaluation,” SemClas 1 (2008) 203-212. STEIN 2010 - P. STEIN, Die altsüdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstäbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München. Band 1: Die Inschriften der mittel- und spätsabäischen Periode. 2. Teil: Verzeichnisse und Tafeln, Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 5, Tübingen/Berlin, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010. STEIN 2012 - P. STEIN, Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache. 2. Teil: Chrestomathie (SILO 4,2), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012. STEIN 2013 - P. STEIN, Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache. 1. Teil: Grammatik (SILO 4,1), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013. STEINKELLER 1987 - P. STEINKELLER, “The Name of Nergal,” ZA 77 (1987) 161168. STEINKELLER 1990 - P. STEINKELLER, “More on the Name of Nergal and Related Matters,” ZA 80 (1990) 53-59. STIEGLITZ 1981 - R. R. STIEGLITZ, “The Hebrew Names of the Seven Planets,” JNES 40 (1981) 135-137. STIEGLITZ 1990 - R. R. STIEGLITZ, “Ebla and the Gods of Canaan,” in: Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, Vol. 2, ed. by C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, Publications of the Center for Ebla Research at New York University, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1990, 79-89. STIVALA 2014 - G. STIVALA, “Ein Join zu dem Vertrag zwischen Šuppiluliuma I. von Ḫatti und Šattiwazza von Mittani KBo 1.1,” NABU 2014/4 (2014) 149150. STOL 2000 - M. STOL, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: its Mediterranean Setting (CM 14), Groningen, Styx, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

405

STOLZ 1970 - F. STOLZ, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem: Studien zur altorientalischen, vor und frühisraelitischen Religion (BZAW 118) Berlin, de Gruyter, 1970. STONE 1987 - M. STONE, “Goddesses Worship: Goddess Worship in the Ancient Near East,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 6, ed. by M. Eliade, New York NY, Macmillan; London, Collier Macmillan, 1987, 45-49. STRECK 2000 - M. P. STRECK, Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band I: Die Amurriter. Die onomastische Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie (AOAT 271/1), Münster, UgaritVerlag, 2000. STRECK 2010 - M. P. STRECK, “Notes on the Old Babylonian Hymns of Agušaya,” JAOS 130 (2010) 561-571. STRECK & WASSERMAN 2012 - M. P. STRECK & N. WASSERMAN, “More Light on Nanaya,” ZA 102 (2012) 183-201. STRUGNELL 1960 - J. STRUGNELL, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumrân-4Q Serek Šîrôt ῾Ôlat Haššabbǎt,” in: Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTS 7), Leiden, Brill, 1960, 318-345. STUART 1976 - D. STUART, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter (HSM 13), Missoula MT, Scholars Press, 1976. SUTER 2000 - C. E. SUTER, Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image (CM 17), Groningen, Styx Publications, 2000. AṬ-ṬABARī 2001 - A.-J. M. B. J. AṬ-ṬABARī, Ğāmi῾ al-bayān ῾an ta᾿wı̄li ᾿āyāti al-qur᾿ān: Vols. 1-15, Lebanon, 2001. TALON 1978 - PH. TALON, “Les offrandes funéraires à Mari,” AIPHOS 22 (1978) 53-75. DE TARRAGON 1980 - J.-M. DE TARRAGON, Le culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques (CRB 19), Paris, J. Gabalda, 1980. TEIXIDOR 1979 - J. TEIXIDOR, The Pantheon of Palmyra, Leiden, Brill, 1979. THEUER 2000 - G. THEUER, Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24 (OBO 173), Freiburg, Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. TIGAY 1973 - J. H. TIGAY, “Toward the Recovery of *poḥar, ‘Company’, in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 92 (1973) 517-522. TIGAY 1986 - J. H. TIGAY, You Shall have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31), Atlanta GA, Scholars Press, 1986. VAN DER TOORN 1991 - K. VAN DER TOORN, “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible,” BiOr 48 (1991) 40-66. VAN DER TOORN 1995 - K. VAN DER TOORN, “Theologies, Priests and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE Vol. 3 (1995) 2043-2058. VAN DER TOORN 1996 - K. VAN DER TOORN, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (SHCANE 7), Leiden/New York/Köln, Brill, 1996. TROMP 1969 - N. J. TROMP, Primitive conceptions of death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (BibOr 21), Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. TROPPER 1989 - J. TROPPER, Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (AOAT 223), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1989.

406

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TROPPER 1993 - J. TROPPER, “Morphologische Besonderheiten des Spätugaritischen,” UF 25 (1993) 389-394. TROPPER 1994a - J. TROPPER, “Zur Grammatik der ugaritischen Omina,” UF 26 (1994) 457-472. TROPPER 1994b - J. TROPPER, “Die enklitische Partikel -y im Ugaritischen,” UF 26 (1994) 473-482. TROPPER 1997 - J. TROPPER, “Aktuelle Probleme der ugaritischen Grammatik,” UF 29 (1997) 669-674. TROPPER 1999 - J. TROPPER, “Ugaritic Grammar,” HUS 39 (1999) 91-121. TROPPER 2001 - J. TROPPER, “Brot als Opfermaterie in Ugarit. Eine neue Deutung der Lexeme dqt und gdlt,” UF 33 (2001) 545-565 TROPPER 2003 - J. TROPPER, “Ein Haus für Baal: Schwierige Passagen in KTU 1.4 IV-V,” UF 35 (2003) 649-656. TROPPER 2008 - J. TROPPER, Kleines Wörterbuch des Ugaritischen, Elementa Linguarum Orientis 4, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008. TROPPER & VITA 2003 - J. TROPPER & J. P. VITA, “Der Gott des Hauses. Ugaritisch il bt und hurritisch in ṯl(n),” UF 35 (2003) 673-680. TSEVAT 1978a - M. TSEVAT, “Comments on the Ugaritic Text UT 52,” EI 14 (1978) 24*-27*. TSEVAT 1978b - M. TSEVAT, “A Window for Baal’s House: The Maturing of a God,” in: Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Y. Avishur and J. Blau, Jerusalem, E. Rubinstein’s Publishing House, 1978, 151-161. TSEVAT 1986 - M. TSEVAT, “Eating and Drinking, Hosting and Sacrificing in the Epic of Aqht,” UF 18 (1986) 345-350. TSUMURA 1974 - D. T. TSUMURA, “A Ugaritic God Mt-w-Šr and His Two Weapons (UT 52: 8-11),” UF 6 (1974) 407-413. TSUMURA 1991 - D. T. TSUMURA, “Vowel Sandhi in Ugaritic,” in: Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (BMECCJ 5), ed. by M. Mori et al., Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1991, 427-435. TSUMURA 2005 - D. T. TSUMURA, “‘Misspellings’ in Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit: Some Cases of Loss or Addition of Signs,” in: Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard, ed. by P. Bienkowski et al., New York/London, 2005, 149-153. TSUMURA 2007 - D. T. TSUMURA, “Revisiting the ‘Seven’ Good Gods of fertility in Ugarit: Is Albright’s emendation of KTU 1.23, 64 correct?” UF 39 (2007) 629-641. TSUMURA 2019 - D. T. TSUMURA, “Is IL a Proper Noun in the Phrase BT IL and in the Ugaritic Pantheon Lists?” UF 50 (2019) 377-395. TUGENDHAFT 2016 - A. TUGENDHAFT, “Gods on clay : Ancient Near Eastern scholarly practices and the history of religions,” in: Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices A Global Comparative Approach, ed. by A. Grafton et al., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016, 164-182. AL-῾UBAYD AS-SALMI 1990 - A. B.-S. AL-῾UBAYD AS-SALMI, ῾an ῾alāqati l-malā᾿ikati bi l-᾿insāni, Doctoral Thesis, Saudi Arabia, l-Ǧāmi῾a l-Islāmiyya bi l-madīna l-munawwara, Kuliyyat l-Qur᾿ān l-Karim, Qism t-Tafsīr, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

407

UEHLINGER 2008 - C. UEHLINGER, “Arbeit an altorientalischen Gottesnamen: Theonomastik im Spannungsfeld von Sprache, Schrift und Textpragmatik,” in: Gott Nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, ed. by I. U. Dalferth and Ph. Stöllger, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 23-71. UNGNAD 1925 - A. UNGNAD, “Sumerisch m i (m) ‘Weib,’” ZA 36 (1925) 107-108. URIE 1948 - D. M. L. URIE, “Officials of the Cult at Ugarit,” PEQ 80 (1948) 42-47. VARISCO 1993 - D. M. VARISCO, “The Agricultural Marker Stars in Yemeni Folklore,” Asian Folklore Studies 52 (1993) 119-142. VATTIONI 1965 - F. VATTIONI, “Review of Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache, by J. Aistleitner,” OrAn 4 (1965) 145-148. DE VAUX 1958 - R. DE VAUX, “Les sacrifices de porcs en Palestine et dans l’Ancien Orient,” in: Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung: Otto Eissfeldt zum 1, September 1957 dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern (BZAW 77), ed. by Hempel et al., Berlin, Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1958, 250-265. VEENHOF 1982 - K. R. VEENHOF, “Observations on Some Letters from Mari (ARM 2, 124; 10, 4; 43; 84; 114) with a Note on ‘Tillatum,’” RA 76 (1982) 119-140. VERREET 1984 - E. VERREET, “Beobachtungen zum ugaritischen Verbalsystem,” UF 16 (1984) 307-321. VERREET 1988 - E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen (OLA 27), Leuven, Peeters, 1988. VERSNEL 1997 - H. S. VERSNEL, “Thrice One: Three Greek Experiments in Oneness,” in: One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, ed. by B. N. Porter, New York NY: Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 1997, 79-163. VIROLLEAUD 1931 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Un poème phénicien de Ras-Shamra: La lutte de Môt, fils des dieux, et d’Aleïn, fils de Baal,” Syria 12 (1931) 193224. VIROLLEAUD 1933 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “La naissance des dieux gracieux et beaux: Poème phénicien de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 14 (1933) 128-151. VIROLLEAUD 1934 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Fragment nouveau du poème de Môt et alêyn-Baal (I AB),” Syria 15 (1934) 226-243. VIROLLEAUD 1935 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Les chasses de Baal: Poème de RasShamra,” Syria 16 (1935) 247-266. VIROLLEAUD 1936a - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Anat et la génisse: Poème de RasShamra (IV AB),” Syria 17 (1936) 150-73. VIROLLEAUD 1936b - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Hymne phénicien au dieu Nikal et aux déesses Kôšarôt provenant de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 17 (1936) 209-228. VIROLLEAUD 1936c - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “La déesse ῾Anat: Poème de Ras-Shamra (V AB) (Premier article),” Syria 17 (1936) 335-345. VIROLLEAUD 1936d - CH. VIROLLEAUD, La légende phénicienne de Danel (BAH 21), Mission de Ras Shamra 1, Paris, Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1936. VIROLLEAUD 1938 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, La déesse ῾Anat (BAH 28), Mission de Ras Shamra 4, Paris, Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1938.

408

BIBLIOGRAPHY

VIROLLEAUD 1940a - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Les Rephaim,” RES-Bab (1940) 77-83. VIROLLEAUD 1940b - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Lettres et documents administratifs: Provenant des archives d’Ugarit,” Syria 21 (1940) 247-276. VIROLLEAUD 1941 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Le roi Kéret et son fils (II K), 1re partie: Poème de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 22 (1941) 105-136. VIROLLEAUD 1942 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Le mariage du roi Kéret (III K). Poème de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 23 (1942) 137-172. VIROLLEAUD 1944-1945 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Fragments mythologiques de RasShamra,” Syria 24 (1944-1945) 1-23. VIROLLEAUD 1949 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, Légendes de Babylone et de Canaan, L’Orient Ancien Illustré 1, Paris, A. Maisonneuve, 1949. VIROLLEAUD 1963 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Notes de lexicographie ougaritique,” GLECS 9 (1963) 90. VIROLLEAUD 1968 - CH. VIROLLEAUD, “Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (XXIVe campagne, 1961),” Ug. V (1968) 545-595. VITA 1996 - J. P. VITA, “La herramienta katinnu en el texto de Ugarit RS 19.23,” Sefarad 56 (1996) 439-443. VITA 1998, J. P. VITA, “Datation et genres littéraires à Ougarit,” in: ProcheOrient Ancien: Temps vécu, temps pensé, ed. by F.Briquel-Chatonnet & H.Lozachmeur, Antiquités sémitiques III, Paris, 1998, 39-52. VITA 2007 - J. P. VITA, “Two Hurrian Loanwords in Ugaritic Texts,” AoF 34 (2007) 181-184. VITA 2008 - J. P. VITA, “Le texte administratif ougaritique RS 15.115,” SEL 25 (2008) 47-55. WACHSMANN 1986 - SH. WACHSMANN, “Is Cyprus Ancient Alashiya? New Evidence from an Egyptian Tablet,” BA 49 (1986) 37-40. WAKEMAN 1973 - M. K. WAKEMAN, God’s Battle with the Monster: a Study in Biblical Imagery, Leiden, Brill, 1973. WALLS 1992 - N. H. WALLS, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (SBLDS 135), Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1992. WALLS 1996 - N. H. WALLS, “Ugaritic Documents from Ugarit,” in: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Vol. II, ed. by A. B. Knapp, Sources for the History of Cyprus, 1996, 36-40. WALTKE & O’CONNOR 1990 - B. K. WALTKE & M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1990. WANSBROUGH 1987 - J. WANSBROUGH, “Antonomasia : the Case for Semitic ᾿ ṮM,” in: Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. by M. Mindlin et al., London, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1987, 103-116. WARD 1961 - W. A. WARD, “Comparative Studies in Egyptian and Ugaritic,” JNES 20 (1961) 31-40. WATSON 1977 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic and Mesopotamian Literary Texts,” UF 9 (1977) 273-284. WATSON 1978 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic,” UF 10 (1978) 397-402. WATSON 1983 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Lexical Notes,” NUS 30 (1983) 12. WATSON 1990 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic Onomastics (1),” AuOr 8 (1990) 113-127.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

409

WATSON 1992 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Final -m in Ugaritic,” AuOr 10 (1992) 223252. WATSON 1993a - W. G. E. WATSON, “The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey,” SEL 10 (1993) 47-59. WATSON 1993b - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic Onomastics (3),” AuOr 11 (1993) 213-222. WATSON 1994 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Aspects of Style in KTU 1.23,” SEL 11 (1994) 3-8. WATSON 1995a - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic Onamastics (4),” AuOr 13 (1995) 217-229. WATSON 1995b - W. G. E. WATSON, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon,” UF 27 (1995) 533-558. WATSON 1996 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Comments on Some Ugaritic Lexical Items,” JNSL 22 (1996) 73-84. WATSON 1999 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Wonderful Wine (KTU 1.22 I 17-20),” UF 31 (1999) 777-784. WATSON 2007 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Notes on the Use of Epithets in the Ugaritic Mythological Texts,” in: ‘He unfurrowed his brow and laughed’: Essays in Honour of Professor Nicolas Wyatt (AOAT 299), ed. by W. G. E. Watson, Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2007, 313-334. WATSON 2008 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic cqq: an Enigma,” in: Semito-Hamitic Festschrift for A. B. Dolgopolsky and H. Jungraithmayr, ed. by G. Takács, Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 24, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 2008, 361-365. WATSON 2017 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Ugaritic Military Terms in the Light of Comparative Linguistics,” in: At the Dawn of History: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J. N. Postgate, Vol. 2, ed. by Y. Heffron et al., Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2017, 699-720. WATSON 2018 - W. G. E. WATSON, “Updates for the Ugaritic Lexicon: New Meanings and Overlooked Cognates,” UF 49 (2018) 379-398. WEIDNER 1957 - E. F. WEIDNER, “Ausgrabungen und Forschungsreisen: Neue Entdeckungen in Ugarit,” AfO 18 (1957) 167-223. WEINFELD 1983a - M. WEINFELD, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Sources Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in: Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981, Bible Studies and Hebrew Language, World Union of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, The Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, 1983, 95-129. WEINFELD 1983b - M. WEINFELD, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in: History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. by H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1983, 121-147. WEIPPERT 1964 - M. WEIPPERT, “Joseph Aistleitner, Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Herausgegeben von Otto Eissfeldt. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist, Klasse 106, H. 3, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1963. 8o. VIII und 362 S,” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 216 (1964) 182-195. WEIPPERT 1968 - M. WEIPPERT, “Elemente Phönikischer und Kilikischer Religion in den Inschriften vom Karatepe,” in: XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag

410

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vom 21. Bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzburg vorträge teil 1 (ZDMGSupp 1), ed. by Wolfgang Voigt, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1968, 191-217. WEIPPERT 1969 - M. WEIPPERT, “Ein ugaritischer Beleg für das Land ‘Qadi’ der ägyptischen Texte?” ZDPV 85 (1969) 35-50. WEIPPERT 1991 - M. WEIPPERT, “The Balaam Text from Deir ῾Allā and the Study of the Old Testament,” in: The Balaam Text from Deir ῾Alla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held in Leiden 21-24 August 1989, ed. by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, Leiden, New York/København/Köln, Brill, 1991, 151-184. WEIPPERT & WEIPPERT 1982 - M. WEIPPERT & H. WEIPPERT, “Die “Bileam”Inschrift von Tell Dēr ῾Allā,” ZDPV 98 (1982) 77-103. WELLHAUSEN 1927 - J. WELLHAUSEN, Reste arabischen Heidentums: Gesammelt und Erläutert. Zweite Ausgabe, Berlin und Leipzig, Verlag Walter De Gruyter, 1927. WENINGER 2002 - S. WENINGER, “More Sabaic Minuscule Texts from Munich,” PSAS 32 (2002) 217-223. WESLEY 2009 - W. WESLEY, “A Body Unlike Bodies: Transcendent Anthropomorphism in Ancient Semitic Tradition and Early Islam,” JAOS 129 (2009) 19-44. WESTBROOK 1988 - R. WESTBROOK, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (AfOB 23), Horn, Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Gesellschaft M.B.H., 1988. WESTENDORF 1974 - W. WESTENDORF, “Zweiheit, Dreiheit und Einheit in der altägyptischen Theologie,” ZÄS 100 (1974) 136-141. WESTENHOLZ 2013 - J. G. WESTENHOLZ, “Plethora of Female Deities,” in: Goddesses in Context: On Divine Power, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources (OBO 259), ed. by J. AsherGreve and J.G. Westenholz, Fribourg, Göttingen, 2013, 29-134. WICKHAM 1974 - L. R. WICKHAM, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis VI, 2 in Early Christian Exegesis,” OTS 19 (1974) 135-147. WIGGERMANN 1995 - F. A. M. WIGGERMANN, “Theologies, Priests and Worship in Mesopotamia,” CANE 3 (1995) 1857-1870. WIGGINS 1991 - S. A. WIGGINS, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” UF 23 (1991) 383-394. WIGGINS 1993 - S. A. WIGGINS, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT 235), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1993. WIGGINS 1998 - S. A. WIGGINS, “What’s in a Name? Yariḫ at Ugarit,” UF 30 (1998) 761-779. WIGGINS 2000 - S. A. WIGGINS, “The Weather under Baal: Meteorology in KTU 1.1-6,” UF 32 (2000) 577-598. WIGGINS 2003 - S. A. WIGGINS, “Pidray, Tallay and Arsay in the Baal Cycle,” JNSL 29 (2003) 83-101. WILCKE 2007 - C. WILCKE, “Das Recht: Grundlage des sozialen und politischen Diskurses im Alten Orient,” in: Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient, ed. by C. Wilcke, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2007, 209-244. WILHELM 1999 - G. WILHELM, “Reinheit und Heiligkeit: Zur Vorstellungswelt altanatolischer Ritualistik,” in: Leviticus als Buch, ed. by H. J. Fabry and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

411

H. W. Jüngling, Berlin und Bodenheim b. Mainz, Philo Verlagsgesellschaft mbh, 1999, 197-217. WILSON 1945 - J. A. WILSON, “The Assembly of a Phoenician City,” JNES 4 (1945) 245. WILSON-WRIGHT 2016 - A. M. WILSON-WRIGHT, Athtart: The Transmission and Transformation of a Goddess in the Late Bronze Age, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2, Reihe 90, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016. WRIGHT 2001 - D. P. WRIGHT, Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat, Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 2001. WRIGHT 1934 - R. R. WRIGHT, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology by Abu al-Rayḥān Muḥammad Ibn Aḥmad Al-Bīrūnī, translated by R. Ramsay Wright, London, Luzac & Co, 1934. WYATT 1976 - N. WYATT, “Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel,” UF 8 (1976) 415-430. WYATT 1977 - N. WYATT, “The Identity of Mt wŠr,” UF 9 (1977) 379-381. WYATT 1985 - N. WYATT, “Killing and Cosmogony in Canaanite and Biblical Thought,” UF 17 (1985) 375-381. WYATT 1987a - N. WYATT, “Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Religious Thought,” UF 19 (1987) 375-389. WYATT 1987b - N. WYATT, “Baal’s Boars, ” UF 19 (1987) 391-398. WYATT 1992a - N. WYATT, “The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God,” UF 24 (1992) 403-424. WYATT 1992b - N. WYATT, “The Pruning of the Vine in KTU 1.23,” UF 24 (1992) 426-430. WYATT 1994 - N. WYATT, “The Theogony Motif in Ugarit and the Bible,” in: Ugarit and the Bible (UBL 11), ed. by G. J. Brooke et al., Münster, UgaritVerlag, 1994, 395-419. WYATT 1995 - N. WYATT, “Le centre du monde dans les littératures d’Ougarit et d’Israël,” JNSL 21 (1995) 123-142. WYATT 1996 - N. WYATT, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL 13), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. WYATT 1998 - N. WYATT, “Understanding Polytheism: Structure and Dynamic in a West Semitic Pantheon,” JHC 5 (1998) 23-63. WYATT 2004 - N. WYATT, “Androgyny as a Theological Strategy in West Semitic Thought: Some Preliminary Reflections,” in: Teshûrôt la-Avishur, Studies in the Bible and Ancient Near East, in Hebrew and Semitic Languages: Festschrift Presented to Prof. Yitzhak Avishur on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. by M. Heltzer and M. Malul, Tel Aviv, Archeological Center, 2004, 191-198. WYATT 2005 - N. WYATT, The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, Bible World Series, London/ Oakville, Equinox, 2005. WYATT 2007 - N. WYATT, “The seventy sons of Athirat, the nations of the world, Deuteronomy 32.6b, 8–9, and the myth of divine election,” in: Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VTS 113), ed. by R. Rezetko et al., Leiden, Brill, 2007, 547-556, reprinted in: The Archaeology of Myth: Papers on Old Testament Tradition, Bible World, London, Equinox, 2010, 69-77.

412

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WYATT 2020 - N. WYATT, “The Rumpelstiltskin factor: explorations in the arithmetic of pantheons,” in: Some Wine and Honey for Simon, ed. by H. B. Huffmon et al., Winona Lake MT, Eisenbrauns, 2020, 88-128. XELLA 1973 - P. XELLA, Il mito di ŠḤR e ŠLM: Saggio sulla mitologia ugaritica (StS 44), Roma, Università di Roma, 1973. XELLA 1978 - P. XELLA, “Recensioni: M. Dietrich - O. Loretz - J. Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit. Einschliesslich der keilalphabetischen Texte ausserhalb Ugarits, Teil I Transkription (= AOAT 24/I), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1976. xix + 507 pp. Verlag Butzon & Bercker,” OrAn 17 (1978) 227-230. XELLA 1979a - P. XELLA, “Remarques sur le vocabulaire sacrificiel d’Ougarit,” GLECS 24-28 (1979) 467-487. XELLA 1979b - P. XELLA, “KTU 1.91 (RS 19.15) e i sacrifici del re,” UF 11 (1979) 833-838. XELLA 1979-1980 - P. XELLA, “Le dieu Rashap à Ugarit,” AAAS 29-30 (19791980) 145-162. XELLA 1981a - P. XELLA, “Recensioni. W. J. Fulco, S.J., The Canaanite God Rešep (AOS 8), New Haven 1976, 71 pp., 2 tavv.,” RSF 9 (1981) 121-124. XELLA 1981b - P. XELLA, “db ‘soglia’ in Ras Ibn Hani 77/2B:4,” UF 13 (1981) 309-311. XELLA 1981c - P. XELLA, “Rezensionen: de Tarragon, Jean-Michel, Le culte à Ugarit d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques (CRB 19), Paris 1980,” UF 13 (1981) 327-332. XELLA 1982a - P. XELLA, Gli antenati di dio: divinità e miti della tradizione di Canaan, Verona, Essedue, 1982. XELLA 1982b - P. XELLA, “QDŠ Semantica del ‘sacro’ ad Ugarit,” MLE I (1982) 9-17. XELLA 1982c - P. XELLA, “L’influence babylonienne à Ougarit, d’après les textes alphabétiques rituels et divinatoires,” in: Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique, 1978, ed. by H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger, Berlin, Dietrich Reimer, 1982, 321-338. XELLA 1983 - P. XELLA, “Aspekte Religiöser Vorstellungen in Syrien nach den Ebla-und Ugarit-Texten,” UF 15 (1983) 279-290. XELLA 1986 - P. XELLA, “‘Le grand froid’: le dieu Baradu madu à Ebla,” UF 18 (1986) 437-444. XELLA 1987 - P. XELLA, “Baal Safon in KTU 2.23. Osservazioni epigrafiche,” RSF 15 (1987) 111-114. YAMASHITA 1975 - T. YAMASHITA, “Professions,” RSP II (1975) 41-68. AL-YASIN 1952 - ῾I. D. AL-YASIN, The Lexical Relation Between Ugaritic and Arabic (ShSMS 1), New York NY, 1952. YON 1984 - M. YON, “Sanctuaires d’Ougarit,” in: Temples et Sanctuaires: Séminaire de recherche 1981-1983, sous la direction de G. Roux, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 7, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 1984, 37-50. ZADOK & WALKER 2006 - R. ZADOK & C. B. F. WALKER, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum III, London, The British Museum, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

413

ZAMMIT 2002 - M. R. ZAMMIT, A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur᾿anic Arabic (HdO 61), Leiden/Boston/Köln, Brill, 2002. ZAMORA 2003 - J. A. ZAMORA, “El ‘ánfora cananea’ y las medidas de capacidad en el oriente mediterráneo de la edad del bronce final,” SPAL 12 (2003) 231-257. ZATELLI 1991 - I. ZATELLI, “Astrology and the Worship of the Stars in the Bible,” ZAW 103 (1991) 86-99. ZGOLL 2003 - A. ZGOLL, Die Kunst des Betens: Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten zu Ištar (AOAT 308), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2003. VAN ZIJL 1972 - P. J. VAN ZIJL, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1972.

INDEX

I. INDEX OF SACRED TEXTS OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1:3-5 6:1-2 6:1-4, esp. 2, 4 9:13-14 9:20-27 11:31 16:7, 9, 10, 11 16:7-12 18-19 19:1-22 19:13 21:10, 12, 13 21:17 22:11 24:7 24:40 28:12 32:25-31 37:9 38:11,16, 24

53 175-176n31 175, 175-176n31, 330 253n8 165n9 220 239, 331 239n26 249n9 242 239n26 69, 329 239, 331 239, 331 239, 331 239, 331 239, 331 242 124n25, 329 220

Exodus 3:2 236n14, 331 3:2-4 239n26 12:12 55n266 12:16-23 258, 331 13:21-22 236n14, 331 14:19, 24 236n14, 253n8, 331 15 58n277 15:11 182n20 18:11 152, 329 19:3-6 239n26 20:4 124n25, 329 23:20 239, 240, 331 24:1-11, esp. 1-2, 12 86, 329 32:4 102, 329 33:9-10 236n14, 331 Leviticus 1:14 12:6

160n41 160n41

14:4ff., 49 160n41 16:7-13, esp. 8, 10 65, 329 15:14 160n41 18:15 220 20:26 182, 330 Numbers 6:10 9:15ff 11:25 12:5 27:21

160n41 236n14, 331 236n14, 331 236n14, 331 150n31

Deuteronomy 5:8 4:12, 15, 36 4:19 17:3 22:13-21 28:22-25 32:8 32:8-9 33:1 33:2-3 33:3

124n25, 329 117n13 124n25, 329 124n25, 329 223n55 264n15 175, 330 175-176n31 158n32, 159, 330 182n20 182n21

Joshua 14:6 18:1 22:29 24:19

159, 275, 275, 182,

330 332 332 330

Judges 2:1 239n26 9:5 167n15 13:3-23, esp. 6 242 13:6 242-243n35 13:12 150n31 Ruth 1:6-8, 22 2:20, 22 4:15

220 220 220

418

I. INDEX OF SACRED TEXTS

1 Samuel 3:11-14 4:8 9:6-10 28:13

239n26 35 159, 330 117, 320, 329

2 Samuel 13:17-18 24:16

266n25 239n26

1 Kings 1 1:4 3:5 11:2ff. 12:28 13:1 22:19

314n52 266n25 239n26 58n277 102, 329 86, 329 124n25, 329

2 Kings 5:1 6:33 6:15 10:1 17:29-31 18:4 21:3-5 23:4-5

144n81 239n26 266n25 167n15 58n277 240n27 124n25, 329 124n25, 329

1 Chronicles 7:10 8:26 16:25 16:27 21:12 21:12-30

139n57 139n57 152, 329 193, 330 239, 331 258, 331

2 Chronicles 18:18 124n25, 329 32:21 239n26 33:3-5 124n25, 329 Ezra 5:8 Nehemiah 1:4-5 4:8 8:6 9:6

Esther 2:9

285, 332

Job 1:6 2:1 6:10 9:13 15:15 31:26 34:17 36:5 38:7 40:29 41:11 41:11-13

175, 330 175, 330 182n21 94, 329 182n20, 209, 331 124n25, 329 152, 330 152, 330 124, 175, 329, 330 232n108 236n12 236n12

Psalms 2:4 2:6 2:7 7:8 8:4 20:19 29 29:1 29:3, 3-4 34:8 35:5 46:5 48:2 68 68:7 71:22 72:17 77:14 78:49 82 82:1 82:6-7 86:10 89:6-9

152, 329

117n13 152, 329 152, 329 124n25, 329

89:7 89:20-38 90:1 91:11 93:3 93:5

117n13 86, 329 174n24 248n5 212 290n14 176n33 175, 330 201, 201n11, 330 239n26 239n26 181n17 181n17 107n24 107n24 182, 330 55n267 182n20 239, 331 176n31, 248n5 248, 331 176n31 152, 329 124n25, 182n18, 183, 209, 248n5, 329, 330, 331 175, 330 174n24 159, 330 239n26 201, 201n11, 330 182n20

419

I. INDEX OF SACRED TEXTS

96:6 97:2-3 97:32 99:2 99:3, 5, 9 99:7 104:4 105:39 110:1 115:2-3, 16 135:5 147:5 148:2

193, 330 236n14, 331 253n8 152 182, 330 236n14, 331 236, 331 236n14, 331 174n24 117n13 152 152 240

Song of Songs 1:5 285, 332 1:16 130n19 2:7 285, 332 3:5 285, 332 4:8-12 220 5:1 220 5:8 285, 332 5:16 285, 332 7:7 130n19 8:4 285, 232 Isaiah 2:10 193, 193n49, 330 5:16 182, 330 5:24 182, 330 6 239 6:2 236n14, 331 6:3 182, 330 7 319n65 8:7 201, 330 8:16 288 8:20 288 9:19 50n244 12:6 152, 329 13 65 14:12 139, 139n57, 195, 196n11 14:12-13, esp. 13 124, 208n9, 275, 329, 332 28:10 278n6 35:2 193, 193n49, 330 40:25 182n21 47:13 122n10, 124n25, 329 51:17-18 165n9 57:9 18n88 57:15 182n21 60:1-3 193, 330

61:10 62:5 Jeremiah 1 2:32 7:34 9:16 10:2 10:6 14:22 16:9 25:10 33:11

220 220 240n26 220 220 109n30 124n25, 329 152, 329 124n25, 329 220 220 220

Lamentations 2:6 274-275, 332 Ezekiel 1-3 1:28 10:4 23:3-8 32:7 43:7

239-240n26 193, 330 193, 330 223n55 122n10 18n88

Daniel 2:45 3:25 3:25-28 8:9-11 8:15 10:6 11:36

152, 329 176, 330 176n32 124n25, 329 242, 331 242, 331 182n20

Hosea 12:5

239n26

Amos 5:26 9:1

124n25, 329 86, 329

Nahum 1:3

253n8

Habakkuk 3:3

182n21

Zechariah 14:5

182n20

420

I. INDEX OF SACRED TEXTS

NEW TESTAMENT Mark 16:9 Luke 11:26

264n15 264n15

Rev. 4:5 Rev. 19:15

237 236n12

QU’RAN Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q.

2:34 3:6 5:3 5:27 6:76 7:11 7:54 8:42 9:80 11:17 11:31 12:18 17:95 18:60 20:6 20:12 20:59 20:130 21:56 24:43 34:18 37:48-49

242, 334 189n28 48n232 176, 333 125, 333 189n28 53 275, 334 167n15 274n7 242, 334 94, 332 241-242, 334 286n14, 335 119, 332 181n17 274n7 53 118, 332 190, 333 88n5 226, 334

Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q.

38:66 41:37 42:7 43:77 44:54 52:20 52:24 53:19ff. 55:15 55:72 56:17 56:22 56:22-24 56:77-78 62:1 76:5 82:7-8 88:2 88:8 96:18 108:1-3 113:1

118, 33 125, 209, 333 88n5 19, 20 226n78 226n78 226, 266, 334 232n108 237n16 226n78 266, 334 226n78 226, 334 226n77 183, 333 281n2 189n28 131n26 131n26 237n16 107n25 53

II. INDEX OF APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS ᾿aklm, the eaters 61-65, 105n15, 136n46, 256, 257n6, 304, 320, 321, 322, 323, 329, 332 ᾿amht, the maidservants 66-69, 314, 315, 320, 321, 323, 329, 332 ᾿il bldn, the gods of the land 70-73, 79, 89, 311, 320, 323 ᾿il ddmm, the gods (of) Dadmima 74-76, 78, 81, 82, 303, 311, 320, 324 ᾿il ḫyr, the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru 77-80, 303, 320 ᾿il lb[-]n, the gods of Lab[a]na 74, 76, 78, 81-82, 303, 311, 320, 324 ᾿il ṣpn, the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapān 28, 71, 79, 83-86, 294, 302-303, 309-310, 320, 329 ᾿il qrt, the gods of the city 87-89, 299, 311, 320, 324 ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l, the helper-gods of Ba῾lu 4n17, 15n65, 16n70, 86, 90-95, 204n11, 205n12, 206, 255n19, 278n6, 3 ᾿ilhm, ᾿Ilāhūma 96-102, 153, 206, 302, 329, 335 ᾿ilht kṯrt, the Kôṯarātu goddesses 1n1, 5, 6-7n26, 7n29, 103-111, 185, 186n 6, 194, 299, 312, 320, 323, 324, 335 ᾿ily ᾿ugrt, the gods of Ugarit 54, 55, 73, 89, 112-114, 299, 310-311, 320, 322, 325, 335 ilm ᾿arṣ, the gods of the underworld 6, 115-119, 320, 325, 329, 332, 335 ᾿ilm kbkbm, the star-gods 120-125, 208, 211, 271n4, 316-317, 320, 321, 325, 329, 332 ᾿ilm n῾mm, the gracious gods 37, 49, 50n244, 51, 52, 53, 126-144, 317, 320, 321, 323, 325, 333, 335 ᾿ilm rbm, the great gods 145-152, 280, 296, 297, 317, 318, 320, 321, 326, 329, 333, 335 ᾿inš ᾿ilm, ᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma 100-101n20, 153-161, 309, 320, 326, 330, 335 bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt, children of ᾿Aṯiratu, the seventy / children of ᾿Aṯiratu 5, 7, 40, 41, 110, 142, 162167, 173, 176, 199, 200-201, 276,

277, 279, 280, 305, 306, 307, 318, 320, 321 bn ᾿il(m), the children of ᾿Ilu 4, 101, 110, 121n7, 123, 13n44, 148, 165n9, 166, 168-176, 181, 195n3, 204n7, 204n8, 206, 207, 208, 269, 270, 283, 284n5, 299-300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 313, 318, 321, 326, 330 bn qdš, the children of the holy one 7, 148, 166, 177-183, 297, 299, 306-307, 318, 321 bnt hll snnt, the daughters of Hll, the radiant ones 103, 104, 111n46, 184193, 194, 195n5, 284n8, 307, 319, 321, 322, 323, 326, 330, 333, 336 bnt hll b῾l gml, the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff 103, 104, 184, 185, 186, 187, 194-198, 222n48, 284n8, 307-308, 321, 323, 327 dkym, the crushers 163, 164n6, 199201, 276, 277, 279n4, 280, 318, 320, 321, 323, 330 dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l, the circle of ᾿Ilu / the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu 96, 97n2, 101, 171n12, 174n22, 202-206, 300-301, 321 dr dt šmm, the circle of (those in) heavens 121, 122, 124-125n25, 169n7, 174, 207-209, 211, 212, 270, 271, 301, 302, 305, 316, 321, 323, 330, 332, 336 kbkbm knm, the fixed stars 210-212, 317, 321, 323, 327, 336 klt knyt, the honored brides 1n1, 6, 213-232, 308, 319, 321, 323, 327, 333 ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym, the messengers / messengers of Yammu 176n32, 233-243, 265n21, 287, 288, 291n19, 313, 314, 320, 321, 331, 334, 336 ngrt ᾿ilht, the herald-goddesses 6, 104, 244-246, 315, 321, 323, 328 ῾dt ᾿ilm, the assembly of the gods 3n9, 247-250, 268n4, 301, 302, 321, 331, 336 ῾nn ᾿ilm, attendants of ᾿Ilu 69n13, 93n10, 205, 234n6, 235n8, 236n11,

422

II. INDEX OF APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS

251-255, 265, 266n25, 277n5, 299, 313, 321, 328 ῾qqm, the devourers 61-65, 105n15, 136n46, 256-258, 304, 320, 321, 322, 323, 329, 332 ġlmm, the lads (messengers) 24n122, 93n9, 234n6, 235n8, 236n11, 253n8, 254, 259-266, 277n5, 282, 290, 299, 313, 320, 328, 334 pḫr ᾿ilm, the assembly of the gods 6, 267-269, 300, 301, 321, 328 pḫr kkbm, the assembly of the stars 121n6, 122, 123, 169n7, 174, 204, 207,

208n3, 211, 270-271, 300, 301, 302, 305, 316, 321, 323, 328, 330 pḫr m῾d, the great assembly 248, 259n2, 272-275, 300, 301, 302, 321 Ṣġrm, the youngsters 163, 164n6, 199, 200n6, 201, 276-278, 279, 280, 318, 320, 323, 329 rbm, the mighty 164n6, 199, 200n6, 201, 276, 277, 278, 279-280, 318, 320, 323 šb῾ bnt, the seven maids 281-286, 314, 315, 321, 332 t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr, the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu 287-292, 313, 321, 323, 336

III. GENERAL INDEX Abraham 69, 239n26, 329 abundant abundant virtue 108n25 numerous 107n25 abuse abuse of handmaids 67n4 scorned 173n18 acropolis temples of Baal/Ba῾lu and Dagan/ Dagānu 149, 318 Adam bow before 242, 334 sons of 176, 333 adolescent 266 adorn, to 285 adornments 220 Aegean 57n274 aesthetic, poetry 67n4 use Ugaritic n ̔m // ysmm 130n19 affection 235 affectionate 150n30 agriculture 143n77 Akkad 70n3, 75n12 Alašia 56-57, 57n274 Allāh epithets of 36, 132, 134n38, 152n38, 333 functions of 53, 190-191, 319 God is beautiful and loves beauty 132133 grammatical analysis of 100n14 El (see ᾿Ilu) El-Amarna 14, 46n223 Ammurru 23n110, 73n19, 113n6, 114, 196, 200n8, 324-325 Amorite dadmun 76 malikum 18n88, 19, 19n97 personal names 99n14, 134n38 amulet 48n232 Anatolia 45n219 ̔Anatu 23n115, 24n122, 29, 34, 35, 40, 46, 48, 56, 72, 90, 93n10, 96, 128129, 141n69, 149, 165n8, 165n10, 166, 181, 195, 202-203, 205, 216-217, 222-223, 228, 235-236, 249n9, 258n12,

260, 261n9, 262, 264, 265n20, 276n3, 283n5, 284, 284n5, 285, 293, 307, 311-314, 318-319 ancestral (spirits, deities), 32n156, 145n4 ancestry 223 angel angels from heaven Angelos kyriou 176n32 angel Mālik in the Qur᾿ān 20, 20n99 fire 237n16 holy angels in Aramaic 151 Jewish angelology 161 messengers, divine realm, agency 236, 238, 239, 239n26, 240, 240n27, 241, 241n30, 242, 242n34, 243, 298, 315, 331, 334-336 animal 29n143, 41, 42, 42n207, 48n232, 143n77, 158n28, 200n8, 259n5, 263n15, 282n3 announce, to 122n10, 238, 285, 332 anonymous 41, 56n271, 62, 85, 92, 98, 105n15, 138n53, 142, 161, 245, 249, 268, 301, 309 anthropomorphic 193, 255, 304, 319 Apocalypse 176n33 appellations and epithets appellations and epithets not discussed in this study 11-21 appellations or epithets that might refer to a single deity or a group of deities 21-28 doubtful dual/group divine appellations 28-36 reconstructed or textually uncertain appellations or epithets for groups of gods 36-40 common nouns incorrectly classified as epithets or appellations of a deity group 40-44 divine names of “double divinities,” referring to double deities rather than appellations or epithets for groups of deities 44-45 divine names of multiple manifestations of single deity incorrectly interpreted as appellations or epithets for groups of deities 45-46

424

III. GENERAL INDEX

appellations or epithets of dual deities incorrectly classified as Ugaritic deity groups 46-53 deity group epithets and appellations of foreign divinities 53-58 appetite 52n251, 135, 138n53, 317 appoint, to 273n3, 274, 274n6, 314, 314n52, 326, 332 appointment 274n7, 275, 334 ̓Aqhatu, Ahqat 128, 130, 174, 181, 261n9, 317, 319 Arab 25n124, 134, 134n38, 257, 257n10 Arabia 51n249, 65n27, 141, 141n66, 151, 335 Arabian South Arabian 9, 51n249, 99n14, 118, 118n17, 132, 132n30, 133, 133n36, 134, 140, 140n64, 141, 141n66, 196n11, 204n8, 232n108 237n17, 253n7, 307 Arabic 8-9, 9n34, 25n124, 31n150, 35, 26n174, 37n182, 42n210, 47-48, 48n232, 50n244, 61n1, 66n2, 68n11, 69, 72, 72n13, 78n4, 80n21, 88n4, 94, 95n17, 99n14, 100n14, 107n25, 108n25, 109n30, 116, 118, 121, 131, 131n27, 132, 134, 134n38, 137n51, 152, 158, 158n28, 162n1, 163n2, 165n8, 167n15, 176, 177n2, 179n5, 181n16, 183, 186-187, 189-190, 190n36, 190n37, 195, 198, 200, 218, 218n27, 225-226, 229, 229n92, 230, 237, 240, 241, 241n33, 245, 253, 253n7, 254, 257, 257n10, 263n15, 266, 266n29, 274, 274n7, 275, 276n3, 278n6, 281n2, 283-284n5, 285-286, 288-289n6, 290, 315, 319, 323, 332 Aramaic 48, 48n232, 66, 99n14, 101, 107, 107n24, 114, 121, 151, 158, 175-176, 176n33, 190n36, 193n49, 226, 237-238, 245, 252, 274, 289290, 335 aromatic 134n38, 281n2 Araṣyu 6, 45, 86, 214-215, 231, 235, 303, 323 Artemids 110, 335 Artemis 193n50 assembly of the gods, ῾dt ᾿ilm 3n9, 247250, 268n4, 301, 302, 321, 331, 336 assembly of the gods, pḫr ᾿ilm 6, 267269, 300, 301, 321, 328

assembly of the stars, pḫr kkbm 121n6, 122, 123, 169n7, 174, 204, 207, 208n3, 211, 270-271, 300, 301, 302, 305, 316, 321, 323, 328, 330 Assyria 75n12, 118n14 Assyrian 65n26, 76n15, 118n14, 122, 150n30, 151, 151n31, 182n21, 190, 255n18, 271, 293n1, 294n4, 295n8, 313n48 astrological 122, 122n11, 188, 212, 316 astronomical 122, 255n18, 271 ᾿Athirat 122, 142n71, 144n78, 163n3, 164n6, 166n13, 180n11, 199n6, 249, 249n10, 252n3, 276n3, 279n3 ῾Athtar 122, 140, 140n64, 140n66 ῾Aṯtartu 33, 72, 90, 92, 120, 123, 137, 149, 174, 181, 228n85, 265n20, 271, 302, 311, 316, 318 attendants of ᾿Ilu, ῾nn ᾿ilm 69n13, 93n10, 205, 234n6, 235n8, 236n11, 251-255, 265, 266n25, 277n5, 299, 313, 321, 328 attractiveness 130, 317 Baal (Ba῾lu) assembly of Ba῾lu 96, 96-97n2, 101, 174n22, 202, 202-203n2, 204, 204n7, 204n11, 205, 300-301, 321 Ba῾lu-Ṣapuni 56 brothers of Ba῾lu, circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu (see also circle) 96, 96-97n2, 101, 174n22, 202, 202203n2, 204, 204n7, 204n11, 205, 300-301, 321 city 26n129, 27, 27n132, 54n259, 75, 88, 88n5, 89, 89n7, 89n9, 188, 221, 227n85, 239n26, 299, 311, 320, 324 daughters of Ba῾lu 93, 213, 215, 216, 216n9, 217-218, 218n25, 219, 219n35, 223, 225, 227n83, 227n85, 228n85, 229n92, 230, 231n106, 263n15, 308 helper-gods of Ba῾lu (see also ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l), 4n17, 15n65, 16n70, 86, 9095, 204n11, 205n12, 206, 255n19, 278n6, 303, 314, 321, 324, 329, 332, 335 herald of the house of 105n6, 244 loveliest of (among) the sisters of

III. GENERAL INDEX

Ba῾ lu 130, 317 Ba῾lūma 5, 97n3 babies 48n232, 136 baby 224 Babylon 65 Babylonia 75n12, 141n66 Babylonian, Old Babylonian 17, 22n110, 55n267, 69n13, 76n15, 99n14, 100n14, 108, 182n21, 225, 237, 239, 255n18 banish, to 142 banishment 278n6 banquet 40, 41n205, 67n4, 120, 165, 238, 247n1, 249-250, 285 banquets 42 Bathsheba 314n32 beam, to 191, 326, 237n16 beauty 43n215, 90, 130n19, 131n27, 132, 132n27, 132n28, 317, 333 physical beauty 130, 130n19, 131n26, 317 beloved 63n10, 150n30, 221, 223-224, 289n8, 308, 326-327 biological 142, 172, 198, 216-218, 305, 308 bird 160, 160n40, 236, 283 birds 97, 143, 153-155, 218, 262 birth 39-40, 49, 50n243, 52n251, 61, 61n1, 62-64, 68, 104-105, 105n15, 106, 106n16, 107n24, 108-109, 209n31, 109n32, 110n34, 111, 111n43, 122, 126, 128n11, 134, 136, 138n53, 138n54, 141n70, 142, 142n71, 143, 144n78, 144n79, 144n80, 189, 189n32, 192-193, 193n50, 196, 198n27, 211, 224, 256, 297, 304, 312-313, 324 bless, to 39, 61n1, 202, 250, 286n13-14, 302 blessing 54n263, 55n265, 56, 56n271, 131n25, 250, 302 bride 1n1, 6, 186n6, 213, 214, 214n3, 214n5 honored brides, klt knyt 1n1, 6, 213232, 308, 319, 321, 323, 327, 333 bride of Kirta 265 bridesmaids 104, 312 bright 52n255, 132n30, 133, 190, 192, 192n43, 327 brightness 37n182, 52, 185, 185n3-4, 187, 190, 190n35-36, 191, 192, 237n16, 276n3, 319, 333

425

brilliant 190, 192, 193n50, 199n4, 200, 327 brother 63, 63n10, 68n10, 130n19, 164n8, 165n8, 166, 167n15, 172n15, 223n56, 283n5 brothers 6, 40-41, 63, 162, 165, 165n8, 167n15 bull 40-41, 41n207, 64n19, 96, 164, 165n9, 184, 193n50, 250, 272n2, 273, 302 304n32 Byblos 182, 197, 307, 335 calf 41n206, 52n251 Canaanite 3n14, 46n223, 107n24, 130n18, 161n41, 176, 176n33, 252n3, 254, 274, 307 canonical 84, 205n12, 295n6, 303, 310 celestial 2n5, 38-40, 137, 137n52, 138n53, 138n54, 188-190, 192n43, 192n47, 211-212, 231, 240-241, 316, 316n59, 317 celestial/astral characters epithets and appellations describing 38-40, 190, 240-241, 317 ceremonial 75n12, 86, 179n5 ceremony 84, 105, 128n11, 160, 178n5, 225n72 child 48n232, 105, 106n16, 111n43, 141n69, 197n19, 224-225, 266, 278n6, 327 childbirth 61n1, 105n15, 111n43, 188189, 193n50 children children of ᾿Aṯiratu / the seventy children of ᾿Aṯiratu, bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt 5, 7, 40, 41, 110, 142, 162-167, 173, 176, 199, 200-201, 276, 277, 279, 280, 305, 306, 307, 318, 320, 321 children of ᾿Ilu, bn ᾿il(m), 4, 101, 110, 121n7, 123, 135n44, 148, 165n9, 166, 168-176, 181, 195n3, 204n7, 204n8, 206, 207, 208, 269, 270, 283-284n5, 299-300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 307, 313, 318, 321, 326, 330 children of the holy one, bn qdš, 7, 148, 166, 177-183, 297, 299, 306307, 318, 321 circle circle of (those in) heavens, dr dt šmm 121, 122, 124-125n25, 169n7, 174, 207-209, 211, 212, 270, 271, 301,

426

III. GENERAL INDEX

302, 305, 316, 321, 323, 330, 332, 336 circle of ᾿Ilu / the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu, dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l 96, 96-97n2, 101, 174n22, 202, 202-203n2, 204, 204n7, 204n11, 205, 300-301, 321 encompass 288n6 classic 3, 40, 133n7, 134, 134n38, 163n2, 167n15, 241n33 classical 11, 23n111, 48n232, 74, 113n5, 188, 204n8, 237n16, 282n3 cloud 66, 93, 93n10, 122n10, 190, 231, 251, 252n3, 253, 253n8, 253n9, 254, 254n13, 289n14, 290n14, 333 cognate 34, 65, 67n6, 69, 78n10, 80n21, 128, 134n38, 149, 151, 158, 175, 179n5, 188, 190n35, 190n36, 191n39, 219-220, 223, 223n56, 228n85, 245, 253, 257, 262, 277n5, 278, 289, 290n14, 304, 315, 323 colour, see dust-colour column 34, 105, 130, 130n18, 173n18, 207, 254, 270, 273, 302 communication 2n7, 14, 18n87, 26n128, 38n189, 79, 87, 110n40, 148n16, 178n5, 187n13, 237n17, 238, 253n8, 304 consort 110, 151n35, 165, 167, 180181, 188, 221, 265n20, 305-306, 312 constellation 106n17, 137n53, 188, 192n47, 193n50, 255n28, 316 controversial 11, 38, 41n207, 51n246, 78, 97, 102, 111n46, 127, 134, 142n74, 155-156, 216, 231n106, 249, 282, 284n5, 285, 289, 301, 303 cosmological 111, 171, 230, 305, 310, 313 council 3, 11, 151, 170, 170n9, 182, 202n2, 205, 208-209, 267n2, 273, 273n3, 299, 299n21, 300, 300n23, 301, 305-306, 330-332 cow 40, 41, 46, 96-97, 153-154, 160, 193n51, 202, 206 creation 39-40, 110-111, 165-166, 171, 305-306, 312-313 creator 110, 148n16, 151, 151n35, 165n9, 170n7, 175, 189, 312-313, 335 creatress 7, 109-110, 151, 151n35, 165n9, 192, 192n45, 313, 326-327

cult 2n7, 12n44, 17, 20, 21n105, 27n132, 32n156, 33, 44n218, 78, 124, 149n21, 227n85, 255n18, 271n4 crushers, dkym 163, 164n6, 199-201, 276, 277, 279n4, 280, 318, 320, 321, 323, 330 cultural 9-10, 57, 84n4, 249n9, 293 culture 9, 9n33, 135n45, 136n45, 188, 263n15, 296, 298n17 cuneiform 10, 14, 15n67, 16n70, 17, 44, 74, 77n2, 79, 81, 84, 91n2, 92, 114n8, 123n19, 197, 295n7, 301-303, 309-310 cycle of Ba῾al 134n40, 142, 143, 164, 166n13, 173n18, 200, 205n12, 215, 219, 228, 230, 230n95, 231n106, 232, 234-35, 252, 254, 258n12, 265, 273, 277, 279, 288, 290, 293, 295, 301302, 306, 308, 310, 313, 314, 317, 318, 320 Cyprus 56n270, 57, 57n274, 94 Dagānu 72, 85, 90, 92, 138, 166n14, 172, 172n15, 195, 195n3, 198, 222, 231, 252n3, 307, 318 darkness 49, 52n255, 191, 232, 320, 326 darling 150n30, 224-225, 289, 326, 328 daughters 184, 184n2, 185, 185n3, 185n4, 194n1, 195, 195n3, 195n6, 197, 197n19, 198, 220-222, 228n86, 236n12, 239n26, 282, 282n4, 283n5, 284, 284n6, 284n8, 285, 285n8, 299, 308-309, 329 daughter-in-law 22-221, 221n43, 221n46, 226, 327 of Anu 167, 326 of Ba‘lu 93, 213, 215, 216, 216n9, 217-218, 218n25, 219, 219n35, 223, 225, 227n83, 227n85, 228n85, 229n92, 230, 231n106, 263n15, 308 of Hll the radiant ones, bnt hll snnt 103, 104, 111n46, 184-193, 194, 195n5, 284n8, 307, 319, 321, 322, 323, 326, 330, 333, 33f6 of ’Ilu 14, 14n58, 263n15, 264 of the king of Qatna 89, 324 of y‘bdr 6, 214, 228, 229n87, 235 pre-Islamic Arabia 232n108 day 29-31, 33, 49-50, 50n243, 51-55, 79, 105, 125-126, 131n26, 135,

III. GENERAL INDEX

137n51, 137n53, 144, 154, 212, 274n7, 299, 324n5, 333 dead 7n26, 11-12, 12n44, 12n46, 12n48, 13, 19, 20n100, 32, 35, 93, 99n14, 116, 118, 122, 147, 147n11, 147n13, 149, 157, 161, 224, 282n83 deadly 239, 331 deified 7n26, 11-13, 15, 17n86, 20, 20n100, 21, 23, 23n110, 32, 32n156, 33, 35, 41n206, 42n208, 42n209, 86n22, 99n14, 115n1, 118, 120n3, 122, 137n52, 139, 147n10, 147n13, 157, 159, 161, 320n66 demon 17-19, 48-49, 64-65, 192, 237, 304 demonic 4, 48, 48n232, 49, 160, 175, 283n5 demons 18-19, 21, 48-49, 63, 65, 192, 192n42, 192n46, 236, 249, 263-264, 278, 298, 304, 332 denomination 4, 10, 28n136, 41n205, 100, 101n20, 271n4 devourers 50n243, 50n244, 61-62, 62n2, 62n3, 64-65, 105n15, 136n46, 256, 256n2, 257-258, 304, 320-23, 329, 332 dexterous dexterous hand(s), 5n20, 107, 195n5, 208 dexterous one 107 divine status 12n45, 15n67, 16n70, 21, 68, 68n11, 94, 140n64, 160n39, 166, 171, 213, 222, 228, 231-232, 255, 263n15, 264, 300, 306, 309, 314317 divinized 15, 18n86, 21n105, 32n156, 157, 161, 236n12 dust-colour 276 Ea 108n26, 167, 195, 221, 238-239, 266, 285, 327-329 earth 18, 39n202, 42, 42n209, 43, 51, 63n10, 129, 135, 135n44, 144, 163n2, 175, 183, 193n49, 229-231, 231n103, 232n108, 240, 242, 334, 336 earth divinities, gods of the underworld 33n162, 115n1, 116, 116n4, 117, 138n53, 320, 329 ghosts of the earth 11 heaven and earth 44, 44n218, 45, 118n14, 118n17, 119, 218, 238n22, 328, 332-333, 335

427

East 10, 27n132, 46n223, 54n263, 57-58, 140, 212, 263, 274, 274n7, 293n1, 313n49, 323 Eastern 9n33, 10, 13, 14n66, 64, 89, 181, 190, 211, 223, 282n3, 293, 298n17, 306, 310, 319, 323 eaters, ᾿aklm 61-65, 105n15, 136n46, 256, 257n6, 304, 320, 321, 322, 323, 329, 332 Egypt 1, 35, 53, 54, 54n261, 54n263, 193n50, 299, 299n18, 310 Egyptian 3n12, 10, 36n174, 41n206, 54n263, 56, 110, 111n43, 165n8, 181, 181n17, 193n51, 232n108, 263n15, 274, 277n5, 294n2, 307, 310, 335 Elohim 14-15, 15n64, 53, 98n9, 176n33 Emar 34n166, 80n21, 101, 167, 167n16, 179n5, 186, 196, 196n16, 261n10, 335 embassy 288, 288n4, 290, 313 Enki/Ea 108, 108n26, 110n34, 167, 238n22, 324, 326, 328 Enkidu 64n19, 131, 325 Enlil 151n34, 175, 175n27, 185n4, 186, 187n16, 190, 192n47, 196, 198, 224n68, 225, 271, 308, 327 Enūma Eliš 150, 212, 326-327 envoys 233-235, 239, 249, 287-288, 288n4, 290-291, 313-314, 321 envoys of judge (ruler) Naharu, t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr 287-292, 313, 321, 323, 336 epic 3, 3n10, 13, 39, 110, 116, 121n10, 122n11, 130n17, 174, 174n24, 179n6, 203, 235n6, 239n26, 242, 261, 264, 297, 302, 306, 312, 317 epigraphic 29n143, 36n177, 39n198, 40, 40n204, 88n3 116n5, 145n2, 163n5, 253n7 epistolary 33, 54, 54n262, 54n263, 56, 56n272, 89, 112, 114, 114n7, 310-311 eponym 30n144, 32, 35 equivalence 7n26, 69n15, 85n14, 86n18, 173, 205n12, 257 eternal 21, 26n130, 27n130, 39n202, 41n207, 55n267, 56, 118n16, 175, 335 Ethiopic 47, 121, 237-238 faithfulness

182-183, 209, 330-331

428

III. GENERAL INDEX

familial (relationship, status, circle), 149, 171, 171n9, 172, 172n16, 187, 195, 219, 221-222, 284, 285, 305, 308 father 7, 23, 106, 134, 134n40, 172, 191n37, 216-217, 220-221, 278n8, of the bull 41n207 of the children/sons of ̓Ilu 101, 110, 147n10, 148, 168, 171n10, 171n11, 195n3, 300, 302, 305, 318 of mankind 110, 165n9 of the gods 63, 63n10, 110, 147, 147n, 169n5, 172, 174 175, 175n27, 180, 312, 326, 335 of raptors 41n207 our/my/his/their 41n207, 51n251, 57, 64, 100n14, 105n15, 151, 164165, 165n9, 272n2, 273, 284n5, 304, 306 father! father! 218n24 feminine 7, 23, 41, 51n266, 67n4, 98, 99n13, 106-107, 107n24, 167, 191n37, 216, 227n85, 238, 255, 264, 266n25, 278, 285, 312 fertility 12n48, 105, 195n8, 231n103, 317 fiancée 215n5, 219, 219n32, 223 fiery 236, 236n12, 237, 331 filial 195, 195n3, 222, 285n9, 307 fire 41, 52n251, 64, 65n25, 190, 190n35, 192n43, 236, 236n12, 237, 237n16, 253n8, 274n7, 304 fixed stars, kbkbm knm 210-212, 317, 321, 323, 327, 336 food 42, 143n77, 177n2, 178, 178n5, 218 foreign 2n6, 53, 56-57, 113, 311 fruit 79, 223n57, 324n5 gamlu-staff, see Hll, daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu staff gender 30n143, 139n60, 299, 306n37, 315 genealogical 264, 313 genealogy 172, 253 gentilics 76n15 Gilgamesh 130-131, 325 girl 66-67, 67n4, 68, 68n10, 216, 219n108, 254, 263n15, 266n25, 281-282, 282n4, 284, 284n6, 285-286, 314, 334 glorious 131, 135n44, 193n49, 214, 215n5, 223, 308, 325, 336 glory 37n187, 152, 175, 193n49, 330, 333

glossary Glossary of the Appellations and Epithets of deity Groups, Appendix 1 Glossary of the Components of the Appellations and Epithets of Deity Groups, Appendix 2 gods-lists 14 gods assembly of, see individual deity names assembly, great, pḫr m῾d 248, 259, 272-275, 300, 301, 302, 321 gods of Ba῾lu – see helper-gods of Ba῾lu gods of the city, ᾿il qrt 87-89, 299, 311, 320, 324 gods of Dadmima, ᾿il ddmm 74-76, 78, 81, 82, 303, 311, 320, 324 gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru, ᾿il ḫyr 77-80, 303, 320 gods of Lab[a]na, ᾿il lb[-]n 4, 76, 78, 81-82, 303, 311, 320, 324 gods of the land, ᾿il bldn 70-73, 79, 89, 311, 320, 323 gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu, ᾿il ṣpn 28, 71, 79, 83-86, 294, 302-303, 309-310, 320, 329 god of Ugarit, ᾿ily ᾿ugrt 54, 55, 73, 89, 112-114, 299, 310-311, 320, 322, 325, 335 gods of the underworld, ilm ᾿arṣ, 6, 115-119, 320, 325, 329, 332, 335 gracious gods, ᾿ilm n῾mm 37, 49, 50n244, 51, 52, 53, 126-144, 317, 320, 321, 323, 325, 333, 335 great assembly, pḫr m῾d 248, 259n2, 272-275, 300, 301, 302, 321 great gods, ᾿ilm rbm 45-152, 280, 296, 297, 317, 318, 320, 321, 326, 329, 333, 335 gold 107n25, 121n5, 190n36, 252n3 gracious 37n186, 49, 52n253, 53, 126, 126n4, 128-130, 130n18, 134n38, 135, 135n45, 136, 138n53, 138n54, 143, 143n77, 317, 320-321, 325 Greek 10, 47, 48n232, 75n11, 110, 134n38, 138n54, 193n50, 216, 230n98, 232n108, 293n1, 297n15, 319, 335 Hadith 132, 152n36, 237n16, 333 handsome 7, 129-130, 131n18, 131n19, 132n27, 144, 144n78, 144n81, 181n16, 264, 317, 325

III. GENERAL INDEX

hapax, hapax legomenon 24, 78, 201n11, 303 Ḫasīsu 5, 5n20, 123, 138, 247, 302 healing 109n31, 111n43, 148, 188 health 107n24, 114, 114n8, 310, 325 heaven 38, 39n197, 43n214, 44, 44n218, 45, 51, 63n10, 117, 118n14, 118n17, 119, 121, 121n8, 121n10, 122, 122n10, 122, 124n25, 125n25, 135, 135n44, 137n52, 139, 144, 168, 174, 174n23, 182-183, 189, 191, 191n38, 192n47, 193, 207, 207n2, 208, 209, 211-212, 218, 238n22, 239, 241n30, 242, 270, 271, 301-302, 305, 316-317, 321, 325-335 heavenly 121n10, 171n9, 209, 236n12, 268n5, 331 Hebrew 1n2, 8-10, 33, 35, 39, 47, 50n244, 58n277, 64-65, 66n2, 67n6, 68-69, 69n15, 92, 92n5, 94, 99n14, 100, 100n15, 100n17, 107, 107n24, 108n27, 109, 109n30, 116-117, 117n11, 122n10, 124, 124n25, 130n19, 134n38, 137n52, 137n53, 139-140, 149, 152, 156, 158, 158n32, 159, 163n2, 167n15, 175n30, 176n33, 179n5, 181, 181n17, 182, 182n20, 186187, 190n36, 192, 193n49, 195n9, 196, 200, 200n8, 201, 203, 203n3, 212, 218, 218n27, 220, 222-223, 225, 225n74, 226, 230, 237, 238n19, 239-240, 241n30, 245, 248, 252n3, 253, 253n5, 253n8, 258, 262n10, 266n25, 274, 274n9, 275, 277n5, 278, 278n6, 279n3, 281n2, 284n7, 285, 288-289, 290n14, 296, 304, 306, 315, 319n65, 323, 329 hero 7n26, 12n45, 13, 26n130, 27n130, 93, 118n16, 130, 142, 174, 197n19, 231, 231n103, 236, 242, 261, 264, 289n8, 320n66 hemistich 39, 39n197, 40n204, 187, 200, 277, 280, 318 henna 281n2, 282n4, 284n6 herald herald goddesses, divine herald ngrt ᾿ilht 6, 104, 244, 244n2, 244n3, 245, 245n9, 246, 315, 321, 323, 328 hidden 12n44, 47, 225-226, 242, 266, 334 hierarchy 8, 293n1, 296 Hittite 3n11, 7n29, 10, 45n219, 55, 65n24, 87n2, 106n16, 109n32, 110,

429

110n40, 113, 114n8, 160, 160n41, 167n15, 175n27, 177n2, 182n21, 263n15, 306n37, 307n35, 311, 335 Hll 103, 103n1, 104, 111n46, 184, 184n1, 185, 185n4, 186, 187, 187n13, 187n16, 188-189, 191, 193-194, 194n1, 195, 195n5, 196, 196n12, 196n13, 197-198, 222n48, 284n8, 307-308, 319, 321-323, 326-327, 330, 333, 336 daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlustaff 194-198, 284n8, 307, 321 Holy/holy 7, 86, 148, 151, 166, 174, 174n24, 175, 177-178, 179n6, 180182, 182n20, 182n21, 183, 209, 238, 297, 299, 306-307, 318, 321, 329-331, 333, 335-336 honor 44n218, 224, 224n67, 225, 235, 261n10 honored 1n1, 2n7, 6, 214, 215, 215n5, 217, 218, 219, 223-224, 230, 231, 232, 308, 319, 321, 328 honored brides, klt knyt 1n1, 6, 213232, 308, 319, 321, 323, 327, 333 horned 255n18, 257 horns 64, 132n30, 304 horse 52n251, 122, 131n25, 133 household 171n9, 217-221, 223, 246, 285, 308, 312, 314, 328 humanity 155, 157-159, 294, 319 humankind 111, 157-161, 189, 189n32, 191n38, 309, 326, 335 humans 109, 156-158, 175n31, 239n26, 242, 304, humble 252n3, 253, 302 husband 38, 217, 218n24, 219n35, 220, 223 hydrological 229-230 hymn 188, 191, 225 hypothesis 42n209, 43, 55n265, 107108, 216-217, 229 iconographic 47, 193n51, 255n18 iconographical 193n51 ᾿Ilāhūma, ᾿ilhm 96-102, 153, 206, 302, 329, 335 ᾿Ilu 2n4, 4, 12n46, 13, 13n56, 14, 21n105, 22n108, 25n123, 33n157 of ᾿Ilu 36, 36n181, 37, 39, 41, 41n207, 49, 52n251, 53, 55n267, 62, 63n10, 64, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78n4, 83, 83n1, 83n3, 85, 85n12, 90, 96, 97n2, 99n11, 100, 100n15, 101,

430

III. GENERAL INDEX

104n5, 105, 105n15, 110, 113n5, 117, 121, 123, 126-128, 130, 134, 135n40, 144, 144n76, 144n81, 145n4, 146, 147n10, 147n13, 148, 148n14, 148n16, 149-151, 151n35, 152, 160, 162, 164-165n9, 166, 166n14, 167, 167n15, 168, 169, 169n4, 169n7, 170, 170n7, 171, 171n10, 171n11, 171n12, 172, 172n12, 172n16, 173, 174, 174n24, 175, 179, 179n6, 180, 180n10, 181, 195, 195n3, 195n6, 196n12, 197, 197n19, 200n8, 202, 202n2, 203, 204n7, 204n8, 205, 205n11, 206, 206n16, 207, 208, 208n6, 211, 214215, 216n9, 217-219, 221-223, 232, 236n11, 242, 245, 249, 249n9, 249n10, 250, 251, 264, 265n20, 268-272, 273, 283n5, 284n5, 285, 289n8, 293-294, 297, 300-306, 306n36, 307-309, 311-313, 316318, 321, 323, 325, 327 Ilu᾿ibi 70, 72, 77, 83 ᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma, ᾿inš ᾿ilm 100-101n20, 153-161, 309, 320, 326, 330, 335 Inanna 141n66, 196n16, 255n18 incantation 48, 68, 146n5, 175, 237, 282n5 inhabitants 17, 135, 147, 161 inscription 26n129, 46n223, 48, 48n232, 51n249, 55n267, 82n9, 94, 94n15, 94n116, 100n14, 114, 117-118, 118n14, 118n17, 125n25, 129, 133, 133n37, 134, 134n38, 140, 140n64, 175, 178n5, 182, 204n8, 208n4, 219, 238, 248, 277n5, 288n5, 289, 296, 335 invocation 53, 54n263, 55n265, 55n267, 56, 56n272, 128, 143, 143n77, 310 invocations 53, 55n267 Israel 137n53, 152, 175n30, 182, 193n49, 209, 239, 239n26, 296, 298n17, 304, 315n55, 330 Israelite 12, 248n5, 254 Išḫara 196n16 Ištar 7n29, 23n110, 46n223, 75n12, 124, 130, 139, 191-192, 192n46, 193, 196, 196n16, 197n19, 198, 198n25, 224, 224n64, 224n66, 229n88, 239n24, 255n18, 308, 313n48, 319, 323, 325328 Ištu 52

Jerusalem 165n9, 181n17, 285, 332 joy 110n33, 124, 324, 329 joyful 131n26, 184n2, 185n2, 186, 194n1 judge 63, 150, 167, 233-234, 234n6, 239, 242-243, 287-288, 288n4, 291, 291n19, 313, 321, 331 judgment 248, 319, 331 kindred 41, 162, 165-166 kingdom 56n271, 89, 140n64, 299 kingship 11, 56, 191, 327 kinship 165n8, 300 Kirta 13, 128, 130, 174, 242, 248-250, 264, 264n15, 265, 302, 315, 317 Epic of Kirta 128, 265, 317 Kôṯarātu goddesses, ᾿ilht kṯrt 1n1, 5, 6, 7n26, 7n 29, 103-111, 185, 186n6, 194, 299, 312, 320, 323, 324, 335 Kôṯaru wa-Ḫasīsu, see Ḫasīsu lads (messengers), ġlmm 24n122, 93n9, 234n6, 235n8, 236n11, 253n8, 254, 259-266, 277n5, 282, 290, 299, 313, 320, 328, 334 Lady 24n120, 117, 188, 325 lady 41n207, 130-131, 143n77, 151, 197n19, 199n6, 201n12, 210-211, 214, 219, 221, 325, 327, 335 law 195n6, 278n6 Lebanon 81n2, 82, 82n9, 311 lewdness 67n4, 68 lightning 190, 190n35, 191, 191n39, 229, 242, 319, 327, 331, 333 logical 33, 54n259, 69, 82, 148n14, 170n7, 173, 238, 305, 309, 314, 318 loincloth 178, 179n5 luminosity 188, 190n37, 191, 191n40, 192n46, 193n50, 319, 327 luminous 191-192, 193n49, 196n11, 327 lunar 26, 122n11, 132n30, 133, 196, 198 magic 48, 264 magical 10, 49 maiden 66n1, 67n4, 220, 222, 226, 226n76, 226n78, 227n85, 236, 264, 264n19, 265, 265n20, 282n4, 285, 286, 299, 315, 319, 332, 334 maidservant 62, 66, 67, 67n5, 68, 68n10, 68n11, 69, 195n6, 245, 254, 314, 320-321, 323

III. GENERAL INDEX

maidservants, ᾿amht 66-69, 314-315, 320-323, 329, 332 majesty 98n10, 99, 193n49, 336 mankind 42n210, 76n15, 110, 165n9, 180, 312-313 many/multiple/numerous (beings, deities, roles, epithets), 1, 2n7, 4, 16, 45-46, 105, 203, 231, 294, 297 Marduk 23n110, 118n14, 124, 130, 191, 192n42, 192n46 Mari 18, 18n86, 19, 19n91, 20, 20n100, 34n166, 87n2, 92n6, 99n14, 106 marriage 105, 109n32, 216, 220, 221n43, 223, 223n55, 226n78, 227n85, 265, 319 masculine 41, 67n4, 104, 106-107, 139n60, 181, 187n13, 245, 264, 285, 306, 315 master 4, 54, 114, 118, 140n64, 221, 223, 235n6, 262n11, 325, 335 Mediterranean 282n3, 298n17 Mesopotamia 2n4, 9n33, 42n208, 42n209, 52, 64n19, 89, 109n32, 188, 193n50, 196, 196n16, 198, 198n27, 238-239, 295n8, 296, 298n17, 300n23, 308, 318n61 message 57, 103, 139, 234n6, 235, 236, 236n12, 239, 240, 240n27, 240n30, 241, 241n30, 242, 242n33, 266, 273, 288-289, 289n6, 301-302, 334 messengers, messengers of Yammu, ml᾿akm, ml᾿ak ym 176n32, 233-243, 265n21, 287, 288, 291n19, 313, 314, 320, 321, 331, 334, 336 Messianism 319n65 metathesis 163n2, 237, 240, 240n30 Midrash 212, 336 midwife 108, 109, 109n30, 110, 189, 192, 196, 313, 313n48, 315, 324 midwives 104-106, 109, 109n30, 110, 111, 186n6, 189, 192 312, 315, 324 mighty 164n6, 199, 200n6, 201, 276, 277, 278, 279-280, 318, 320, 323 Milku 15n67, 16, 19n97, 21n105, 26n130, 30n143, 32n156, 33, 118, 118n16, 147n11, 147n13, 241n30, 320 militaristic 93, 253, 253n7, 255n19, 314 military 87n2, 92n6, 94, 205, 205n12, 218n27, 262, 263n15, 277n5, 314 monotheism 1n4, 3, 3n8, 140n65, 151n32, 243n36, 293n1, 294, 294n3, 297n14, 299n21

431

monotheistic 9n33, 151n32, 240, 240n27, 243, 293n1, 297n14, 298, 298n17, 323 moon 26, 79, 122, 122n10, 125, 132n30, 137n51, 185, 185n3, 185n4, 186-188, 192n43, 194, 194n1, 195, 195n8, 196, 196n16, 198, 198n27, 211, 212, 249n9, 324, 333 morning 37n182, 51n249, 124, 137, 137n51, 137n52, 137n53, 139, 139n59, 141n66, 196n11, 274, 329 Moses 239n26, 274n7, 275, 286n14, 335 Mount ṣpn/Ṣapānu 28, 62, 83n1, 83n2, 84, 84n4, 85, 85n14, 86, 86n18, 181, 181n16, 303-304, 309310, 310n41, 320 mother 7, 48n232, 50n244, 55, 63n10, 108, 109n32, 110, 112, 139, 142, 142n74, 151, 164, 165, 165n8, 165n9, 166, 189n32, 196n18, 197n19, 199n6, 211n5, 217, 218n24, 220, 266, 306, 311, 313, 313n48, 314n52, 318, 324 Môtu 50n244, 128, 135n44, 143, 165n9, 166n14, 195n3, 249, 251, 263n15, 267n3, 277, 289n8, 306, 306n36, 326-327, 334 mountain 13, 44-45, 82n9, 83n2, 84n4, 85, 85n16, 86, 86n19, 86n22, 129, 170n7, 181, 181n17, 191, 191n38, 192n47, 260, 275, 275n16, 309-310, 320, 326, 329 multiple (beings, deities, roles, epithets), see many/multiple/numerous myth 1n1, 5, 105n11, 128, 139n57, 143n75, 167n15, 180, 232n108, 258n12, 264n15, 273, 301, 317, 319 Nabû 124, 139, 221, 325 Naharu 149n21, 233-234, 235n6, 287, 288, 288n4, 289, 291, 291n19, 313, 321 narrative 52n253, 128n11, 135n45, 142n71, 144n80, 260, 261n9 nature 53, 84n4, 136, 138n53, 156, 160, 176n33, 192, 197, 230, 230n94, 230n95, 294, 295n7, 304 Nergal 16-17, 130, 225, 263n15, 278 netherworld 11, 13, 15, 18, 18n87, 18n90, 63n10, 93, 117, 117n11, 230, 255, 263n15, 264n15, 320, 325, 328329 newborn 40, 50n244, 52, 52n251, 109n31, 109n32

432

III. GENERAL INDEX

Nikkal/Ningal 153, 155, 226n78, 227n85, 264 Ninlil 151, 151n34 Ninurta 52n254, 192n47 nipples 49, 52, 126, 142 noble 199, 199n4, 200, 214n3, 215n5, 223, 226n77, 235n6 nominal 49, 51, 72, 91-92, 107n24, 141n69, 238n19, 288 northern 57n274, 141n66, 167n15, 188, 188n23, 266n29, 271, 311 nubile 216, 219, 223, 308, 319 Nudimmud (Ea) 221, 327 nymphs 65n27, 138n54, 226 obscure 62, 217, 222, 264n15, 265n20 offspring 63n10, 137n53, 144n80, 169n4, 174, 200n6, 249, 249n10, 268, 268n6 oxen 63n10, 64, 257, 304 Palestine 82n9, 160n40 pantheon 2n6, 3, 4n16, 11-12, 16n78, 18n86, 21n105, 26n130, 27, 46n223, 56, 63n10, 69, 71, 77-78, 84, 84n6, 85, 100-101, 110, 113, 114n8, 121-123, 128, 134, 134n40, 139n60, 141, 148149, 151, 151n34, 166, 166n13, 167, 169n4, 171, 171n10, 171n11, 171n12, 172, 172n12, 172n16, 173-174, 180181, 197, 203n5, 204n7, 204n11, 205, 205n112, 206, 208, 213n2, 242, 249, 249n10, 264, 268, 269, 271, 274, 285, 293, 295, 295n6, 296-297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 307, 307n38, 309-310, 312-314, 316-318 paradise 107-108n25, 225, 281n2 parallelism 322-336 parallels Akkadian parallels to deity group appellations and epithets 323-329 Biblical parallels to deity group appellations and epithets 329-332 deity group parallels a divine name or epithet of an individual or group of deities 323 epithet parallels the name of the deity group to which it refers 322 epithet parallels a different epithet of the same or different deity group 322 epithets and appellations in poetic parallelism 322, 323

Qur᾿anic and Classical Arabic parallels to deity group appellations and epithets 332-335 patronage/ownership, epithets and appellations expressing 320 Philo of Byblos 101n21, 197, 307 Phoenician 3n12, 9, 33, 47, 66n2, 94, 94n16, 125n25, 134n38 158n32, 159, 175, 182, 197, 238, 289, 306 Pidrayu 6, 14n58, 72, 93, 115n1, 118, 123, 213, 213n2, 214-215, 215n8, 216-217, 219n35, 223, 225n72, 226, 226n78, 227n85, 228, 228n85, 229, 229n88, 230-231, 231n106, 232n106, 235, 262, 263n15, 264-265, 308, 311, 314, 319-320 planet 37n182, 121, 137, 211-212, 316, 336 poetic 5, 9, 37n186, 136, 143, 241n30, 260, 263n15, 322 epithets and appellations in poetic parallelism 260, 263n15, 322-323 polytheism 1, 1n4, 2n4, 4, 249n9, 293n1, 294n3, 297n14 polytheistic 5, 151n32, 176n33, 243, 254, 293, 293n1, 294n3, 295, 296, 298n17, 323 praised 152, 182, 209, 330, 331, 333 prayer 55, 55n267, 56, 155, 203, 211, 224, 294, 309 preposition 156, 184n1, 216n9, 261, 283n5 priests, priestesses 156, 285 prince 19-20, 37-39, 39n202, 117, 128n11, 130, 131n25, 182, 231, 231n103, 247, 259, 335 professional expertise, epithets and appellations describing 312-316 prophet 53, 108n25, 156, 159, 159n16 237n16, 239n26, 240n27, 241, 242n33, 286n13, 289, 333 Qdš w-᾿Amrr 236n11, 254 queen 63n10, 139, 192, 246, 327-328 Qur᾿ān 9n34, 10, 19-20, 20n99, 48n232, 53, 65, 88n5, 94, 107n25, 108n25, 118, 125, 131n25, 132n28, 152, 167n15, 176, 181n17, 189-190, 190n37, 190n55, 209, 226, 226n77, 226n78, 226n80, 237, 237n17, 240-241, 266, 274n7, 275, 281n2, 286, 286n14, 289n6, 323, 332

III. GENERAL INDEX

radiance 190, 191n38, 192, 192n46, 193, 193n49, 319, 327, 330 rank 20, 235, 238, 249, 249n9, 255n18, 262n10, 290, 298, 313 Raphaim/Rephaim (rp᾿um), 11-12, 12n45, 12n47, 12n48, 13, 13n56, 17, 17n86, 18n86, 19-20, 20n100, 21, 21n105, 22, 26n130, 27n130, 32, 32n156, 34n163, 98n9, 100n20, 101, 101n20, 106n21, 115n1, 118n16, 147n12, 147n13 religion 1, 1n1, 2, 3n12, 3n14, 9, 9n33, 10, 11, 39, 42, 51n249, 57, 68, 77, 89, 92, 140n65, 143n75, 176, 181, 208, 240n27, 243, 249n9, 265n21, 282n3, 293, 293n1, 294n2, 295-296, 297, 297n14, 298, 298n17, 299, 311, 312, 315, 317, 323 ritual 2, 3, 3n10, 3n11, 4, 6, 9, 19n91, 20, 21, 23, 24, 24n119, 25n123, 26n128, 26n129, 27, 28, 31, 31n149, 33, 44-46, 49, 54n263, 70, 72, 75, 77-79, 81, 83, 88-89, 91-94, 97-99, 99n11, 101, 105, 105n11, 106, 128, 128n11, 138, 141, 141n69, 149n21, 155, 159-160, 160n40, 173-174, 178n5, 179n5, 198n27, 200n8, 203, 205-206, 213n2, 232n106, 261n10, 267, 269, 271n4, 285n8, 293-295, 297-298, 300-303, 309-312, 314, 317, 322 river 107n25, 108n25, 133, 201, 330 robe 179n5, 255n18 royal 12n45, 12n47, 13, 20-21, 23n111 25n123, 29, 33, 37n182, 52n251, 118, 118n14, 124n22, 128n11, 129, 130n17, 144n78, 147n10, 147n13, 148, 150n30, 151, 161, 190, 192, 192n42, 271n4 Rašpu 5, 22, 32n156, 39n202, 45, 45n223, 46, 46n224, 47, 54n259, 78, 78n12, 80, 86, 90-91, 93, 96-97, 154155, 202, 206, 247, 250, 267-268, 303 ruler 14, 15n67, 17-18, 20, 20n100, 118n14, 233-234, 287-288, 288n4, 291, 313, 321 Sabaic 51n249, 118, 131n27, 133, 133n37, 134n38, 140n64, 187n13, 190n37, 191n37 sacrifice 2, 2n7, 15, 15n66, 16-17, 24, 25n123, 29n143, 31, 33, 34, 46, 67n4, 70-71, 78-79, 84-85, 87n2, 91, 93, 96n2,

433

98, 107n25, 113, 121n10, 129, 141, 141n69, 153, 155-156, 159-160, 160n40, 168, 178n5, 186n6, 204, 206, 211, 267, 297, 297n15, 298, 301, 303, 309 sacrificial 79, 86, 155, 178n5, 196n12, 197, 205n12 scribal 7n26, 44n218, 67n4, 113n5, 115n2, 155, 164n7, 309 scribe 16n70, 18, 25n124, 44n218, 246, 328 servant 54, 66-69, 159, 236, 252-254, 264, 266, 277, 286, 299, 328, 332, 334-335 servants 66n1, 67n4, 68, 236, 236n12, 246, 251n1, 252n3, 254, 261n9, 264, 266, 266n25, 277n5, 283n5, 285-286, 286n14, 291, 294, 299, 312, 314, 328, 331, 335 sexual 67-68, 179n5, 189, 218, 222-223, 225, 225n72, 266n29, 305, 315, 317 seven maids, šb῾ bnt 281-286, 314, 315, 321, 332 Šaḥru wa-Šalimu 49, 51, 51n248, 52-53, 62, 64, 105n15, 134, 134n38, 135, 135n44, 136, 136n48, 137, 137n50, 137n51, 137n52, 137n53, 138, 138n53, 139, 141, 141n70, 142-144, 149, 211, 317 Šamaš 18, 18n90, 35, 35n172, 52, 53n256, 94, 117, 130, 139n60, 159, 191, 192n47, 193n49, 221, 324-325, 327, 336 Sîn 26, 68, 188, 192n42, 192n47, 196, 196n16, 197, 197n19, 198, 308, 323, 327 maidservant-of-Sîn 68, 323 Šapšu/Shapsh 7, 32-35, 35n171, 37-38, 46-47, 54, 55n265, 122-123, 138-139, 139n60, 149, 174, 210-211, 211n5, 228, 271, 276n3, 302, 310, 316-318 sisters 129, 130, 193n50, 227n83, 227n85, 317 sister-in-law 220-221, 223, 236, 284n5 seven 30n144, 41, 45, 93, 106, 110, 110n39, 111, 111n43, 119n18, 120n3, 121n5, 122, 128n11, 138n54, 142, 143n77, 150, 167n15, 193n50, 195, 197, 205, 227n83, 234, 237, 238n22, 261, 262, 262n14, 163n15, 264n15, 281, 282, 282n4, 283, 284n6, 285, 288, 312-315, 321, 326, 332

434

III. GENERAL INDEX

seventy 41, 41n205, 137n51, 142, 148, 162-163, 165-166, 166n13, 167, 167n15, 306, 318, 320-321 skies 118, 124, 182, 190, 209, 212, 271, 329, 330-331, 333, 335 slave 68, 68n10, 69, 252n3, 254, 286, 286n14, 299, 329, 332 society 2, 20, 68, 68n11, 128n11, 143n77, 223, 278, 294n3, 296, 299, 311, 315, 319 sorceress 239, 328 spirits 13, 17-19, 33n157, 64-65, 93, 147n13, 149, 224, 237, 264n15, 304 spouse 217, 224, 226, 327 staff 103-104, 155n5, 157, 157n19, 158n33, 159n33, 184, 190, 194-196, 235n6, 255n18, 284n8, 307, 314, 321 star 37n182, 43, 43n214, 43n215, 44n215, 51n249, 120, 120n3, 121, 121n5, 121n6, 121n10, 122, 122n10, 122n11, 123, 123n19, 124, 125, 125n25, 132, 132n30, 133-134, 135n44, 137, 137n51, 137n52, 137n53, 139, 139n59, 141n66, 168, 174, 174n22, 188-190, 192, 192n43, 193, 193n50, 196n11, 207-209, 210, 210n2, 211, 211n5, 212, 249n10, 255n18, 270, 270n2, 271, 300302, 305, 316-317, 320-321, 325, 327, 329, 333, 335, 336 star-gods, ᾿ilm kbkbm 120-125, 208, 211, 271n4, 316-317, 320, 321, 325, 329, 332 strength 35, 35n169, 38-29, 39n197, 40, 152, 175, 241, 241n30, 277, 278n6, 310, 317, 330 Sumerian 34, 85n14, 93n7, 101, 109, 150n26, 157, 159, 159n34, 182n21, 188-189, 192n47, 193n50, 196n16, 221, 221n44, 225n73, 263n15, 307, 326 supernatural 62, 65n27, 192, 239-240, 242, 258, 261n9, 294, 304 supremacy 35, 35n109, 231, 240, 293 supreme 35n169, 68, 110, 128, 222, 271, 294, 297, 309, 324 sword 162, 162n1, 164n6, 199, 236, 236n12, 276-277, 279 synonym 13n56, 88n5, 129-130, 189, 224, 241, 253, 257, 286 Syria 22n130, 57n274, 160n40, 311 Syriac 48n232, 121, 158, 226

tablet 37, 54, 54n262, 55, 63, 79, 79n13, 111n45, 115n2, 123n19, 145n2, 150, 177n2, 233, 235, 255, 255n18, 273, 287, 326 Ṭallayu 6, 14n58, 93, 115n1, 213-217, 219, 219n35, 225n72, 226, 227n83, 227n85, 228, 228n85, 229-231, 231232n106, 235, 262, 263n15, 264, 313314, 319-320 temple 21, 22n108, 22n110, 23n115, 24n122, 75n12, 83n2, 89, 100, 121, 123, 124, 133n37, 134n37, 145, 147n10, 149, 152, 156, 178n5, 181n17, 193n50, 204n11, 221, 235, 255n18, 275n11, 277n5, 285, 294-295, 317-318, 327 terminology 9, 41, 270, 284n5, 300302, 305-306 textual 4, 5n19, 18n86, 23, 52n251, 72, 79-80, 101, 111, 135n44, 136, 193, 201n11, 211n5, 214n3, 217, 223, 275n16, 283n5, 301, 313 theological 2n4, 11, 63, 167n15, 171, 176, 176n33, 226n79, 237n17, 239n26, 264, 265n21, 295n6, 297, 298n17, 300301, 305 theory 35, 151n32, 156n8, 159, 161, 166n13, 166n14, 240n30, 243, 311n45 thunder 192n47, 201, 231, 330 toponym 26, 26n129, 27, 27n132, 28, 57, 70n2, 72, 75-76, 76n15, 82, 82n9, 82n10, 88n5, 89n7, 134n38, 141n69, 188, 309-310 Ugaritian 1-2, 8, 18, 56, 166, 294-295, 297, 310-311, 320 Ugaritians 13, 98, 108, 114, 294, 298, 310, 321 underworld 6, 17, 17n86, 18-19, 34n166, 115-116, 116n4, 117, 117n10, 118, 118n14, 147, 147n10, 160-161, 189, 202n1, 230-231, 309, 320 unidentified 24n122, 76n15, 132, 143144 Venus 51n249, 121-122, 137, 137n51, 137n52 verb 31, 40n204, 41, 49, 62n3, 67, 67n4, 91n1, 94, 107n23, 116, 157, 163n2, 166n13, 168n1, 177n3, 178n5, 179n6, 189, 190n35, 190n37, 191n39, 200n8, 210n1, 212n2, 224, 224n67, 225, 225n73, 237-238, 238n19, 252n3,

III. GENERAL INDEX

259n5, 262n10, 266n25, 283n5, 289290 verbal 31, 48n232, 94, 141n69, 200n6, 235, 252n3, 254n13, 280n4, 321-322 virgin 226, 283n5, 319 virginity 216, 221-222, 319 warrior 93n10, 130, 131, 224, 261n10, 277n5, 325, 327 water 44n218, 107n25, 108n25, 149n22, 201, 228n85, 253 waters 44, 149, 201, 330 wedlock 105, 312 wine 40, 72, 137n52, 143n77, 145, 281n2 winged 47-48, 64n19, 192n47, 304n32 wise 107, 108, 108n27, 109, 109n29, 224n68, 324 witch 18, 48n232 women 13, 14n59, 49, 53n1, 68-69, 69n13, 88n3, 109, 109n30, 126, 132n27, 142, 142n71, 143, 213n2, 217-218, 220, 224, 226, 239, 282n4, 284, 284n5, 285, 314, 315n54, 316, 319, 322 worship 42n210, 58n277, 124-125, 209, 297, 333

435

Yahweh 45n223, 46n223, 174n24, 176n32, 182, 239, 239n26, 254, 274n11, 306, 331 Yammu 14n60, 39n202, 50n203, 63, 91, 218, 147n11, 166n14, 173n18, 199n33, 199n4, 201, 219n35, 233-234, 234n4, 235, 236n12, 249, 253n8, 259n5, 261, 262, 262n11, 264-265, 267, 272n2, 273, 276n4, 283n5, 287-288, 291, 291n19, 301, 312-313, 320-321 Yariḫ u 30n143, 32-35, 35n171, 39n202, 46-47, 62, 68, 72, 122-123, 129, 147n10, 149, 174, 195-196, 196n12, 197-198, 217, 219, 223, 226n78, 227n85, 245, 249n9, 271, 302, 307-308, 311, 314, 316-318 young 131, 143n77, 165n8, 216, 219221, 223, 226, 227n85, 261n9, 264265, 266n25, 276n4, 277, 277n5, 278, 278n6, 282n4, 284-286, 299, 314, 319, 319n65, 325, 334 youngsters, ṣġrm 163, 164n6, 199, 200n6, 201, 276-278, 279, 280, 318, 320, 323, 329 youths 226, 260n7, 261n9, 266, 277n5, 334

CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

THE APPELLATIONS AND EPITHETS

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI.

᾿aklm “the eaters” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿amht “the maidservants” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il bldn “the gods of the land” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il ddmm “the gods (of) Dadmima” . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il ḫyr “the gods (of the month) Ḫiyyāru” . . . . . . . . . ᾿il lb[-]n “the gods of Lab[a]na” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il ṣpn “the gods of (Mt.) Ṣapānu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il qrt “the gods of the city” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿il t῾ḏr b῾l “the helper-gods of Ba῾lu” . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilhm “᾿Ilāhūma” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilht kṯrt “the Kôṯarātu goddesses” . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ily ᾿ugrt “the gods of Ugarit” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilm ᾿arṣ “the gods of the underworld” . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilm kbkbm “the star-gods” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilm n῾mm “the gracious gods” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿ilm rbm “the great gods”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ᾿inš ᾿ilm “᾿Ināšu ᾿Ilīma” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bn ᾿aṯrt / šb῾m bn ᾿aṯrt “the seventy / (the) children of ᾿Aṯiratu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bn ᾿il(m) “the children of ᾿Ilu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bn qdš “the children of the holy one” . . . . . . . . . . . bnt hll snnt “(the) daughters of Hll, the radiant ones”. . . bnt hll b῾l gml “the daughters of Hll, possessor of the gamlu-staff” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dkym “the crushers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dr ᾿il / dr ᾿il w pḫr b῾l “the circle of ᾿Ilu / the circle of ᾿Ilu and the assembly of Ba῾lu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dr dt šmm “the circle of (those in) the heavens” . . . . . . kbkbm knm “the fixed stars” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 66 70 74 77 81 83 87 90 96 103 112 115 120 126 145 153 162 168 177 184 194 199 202 207 210

438

CONTENTS

XXVII. klt knyt “the honored brides” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXVIII. ml᾿akm / ml᾿ak ym “(the) messengers / messengers of Yammu” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIX. ngrt ᾿ilht “the herald-goddesses” . . . . . . . . . . . . XXX. ῾dt ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods”. . . . . . . . . . . XXXI. ῾nn ᾿ilm “attendants of ᾿Ilu”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXII. ῾qqm “the devourers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIII. ġlmm “the lads (messengers)” . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIV. pḫr ᾿ilm “the assembly of the gods” . . . . . . . . . . XXXV. pḫr kkbm “the assembly of the stars” . . . . . . . . . XXXVI. pḫr m῾d “the great assembly”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXVII. ṣġrm “the youngsters” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXVIII. rbm “the mighty” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIX. šb῾ bnt “the seven maids”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XL. t῾dt ṯpṭ nhr “the envoys of judge (/ruler) Naharu” . . .

213 233 244 247 251 256 259 267 270 272 276 279 281 287

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Appendix 1: A Glossary of the Appellations and Epithets of Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (with listings of all epithets and appellations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Appendix 2: A Glossary of the Components of the Appellations and Epithets of Deity Groups in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (with listings of all appellations and epithets in which each component occurs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Appendix 3: A Table of the Number of Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (in descending order of frequency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 Appendix 4: A List of Dubious Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Appendix 5: A List of the Common Nouns or Divine Names Incorrectly Classified as Deity Group Appellations and Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415