Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone

WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF
STONE
GORGIAS UGARITIC STUDIES
1
General Editor
N. Wyatt
Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone
And Other Papers on Ugaritian Thought
N. WYATT
GORGIAS PRESS
2007
First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re-
trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani-
cal, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written
permission of Gorgias Press LLC.
Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey
ISBN 978-1-59333-716-2
ISSN 1935-388X
GORGIAS PRESS
46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
<CIP Info Here>
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standards.
Printed in the United States of America

For Wilfred Watson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents v
Preface vii
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations xi
1 A New Look at Ugaritic Šdmt 1
2 The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God 7
3 The Pruning of the Vine in KTU 1.23 41
4 Understanding Polytheism: Structure and Dynamic in a West Semitic
Pantheon 47
Introduction ..................................................................................................47
The Experience of Polytheism ...................................................................49
The Experience of Divine Images.............................................................57
Polytheism as a Religious Norm ................................................................59
Dynamics of the Pantheon .........................................................................62
Terms for the Pantheon of Ugarit, and Possible Divisions within it...63
The Existence of Demons in a Polytheistic Culture...............................79
The Theory of a “Crisis of Polytheism” ...................................................81
The Problem of the Origins of Monotheism...........................................83
5 Religion at Ugarit: an overview 85
1 Introduction .........................................................................................85
2 Cosmology............................................................................................87
3 Theology ...............................................................................................93
4 Mythology...........................................................................................106
5 The Royal Ideology of Ugarit..........................................................115
6 Ritual ..................................................................................................119
7 Family Life and its Religious Expression.......................................123
8 Other Religious Manifestations.......................................................125
9 Sickness ...............................................................................................131
10 Death and its Rites ............................................................................133
11 Non-Literary Dimensions in Ugaritian Religion ..........................136
v
VI WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE
12 Conclusion 141
6 Epic in Ugaritic Literature 143
Introduction ................................................................................................143
Poems concerning Baal .............................................................................145
The Story of Keret .......................................................................................147
The Story of Aqhat .....................................................................................149
Ilimilku’s Motives .......................................................................................150
7 “May Horon Smash Your Head!”: a Curse Formula from Ugarit 155
Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone: El’s Oracle to King Keret (Kirta),
and the Problem of the Mechanics of its Utterance 167
I Introduction .......................................................................................167
II The Oracle in Keret (Kirta) ................................................................170
III An Oracular Formula in Baal and its Implications for
Ugaritian and Biblical Thought .......................................................181
Bibliography of Works Cited 193
Index 227
PREFACE
I have Steve Wiggins to thank for the acceptance of this volume not only by
Gorgias Press, but in a new monograph series of which I have also been
invited to serve as honorary editor. It is the fourth in a series of collections
I have made (the others being Wyatt 2005a, 2005b and 2008). In these, as in
the present volume, I have sought to bring to a wider readership past pa-
pers of mine which I consider to have been important stages in my intellec-
tual development, and which I hope have also offered something of value
to scholarship. The present volume is devoted entirely to Ugaritic matters,
but in my view shows the relevance of what may appear to many to be a
rather arcane discipline, to both biblical and classical scholarship, and
through these and their heritage, to the wider field of the history of human
culture, with reference to the contribution of the ancient Near East to our
own traditions.
N. Wyatt
London
July 2007
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges with gratitude the generosity of the editors of the
following periodicals and publishing houses for permission to reprint vari-
ous chapters, as follows:
Journal of Semitic Studies, chapter 1; Ugarit-Verlag, Münster, chapters 2, 3
and 7; Journal of Higher Criticism, chapter 4; Basil Blackwell, chapter 5; Aula
Orientalis, chapter 6; and Koninklijke Brill N. V., chapters 5 and 8.
ix
ABBREVIATIONS
AAAS Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes

AB Anchor Bible
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
AEPHE Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Section des sci-
ences religieuses)
AHw W. von Soden Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 3 volumes (Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz 1965–81).
AION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages
ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt—Syrien—Palästinas und
Mesopotamiens
ALBO Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia
ANET J.B. Pritchard (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 19693 )
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités d’Egypte
AuOr Aula Orientalis
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAH Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient
BDB F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon 1906).
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BJS Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California,
San Diego
BLS Bible and Literature Studies
BRA Beiträge zum Religionsgeschichte des Altertums
BS Biblical Studies
BVSAWL Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-Historische Klasse
xi
XII WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD I. J. Gelb et al. (eds) The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute
of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Chicago Oriental Institute;
Glückstadt: J. and J. Augustin Verlag, 1956—).
CDA J. Black, A. George and N. Postgate (eds), A Concise Dictionary
of Akkadian (SANTAG 5, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2nd cor-
rected imprint, 2000).
CPU J.-L. Cunchillos and J.-P. Vita Concordancia de palabras ugaríticas en
morfología desplegada. Banco de datos filológicos semíticos noroccidentales
(BDFSN). Datos ugaríticos (3 vols, Madrid: CSIC, Institución
Fernando el Católico 1995).
CRRAI Comptes Rendus du Rencontre Assyriologique International
CRAIBL Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres
CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique
CSSA Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology
CTA A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques décou-
vertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 2 volumes (BAH 79,
MRS 10, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Geuthner 1963).
DDD K. Van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst (eds)
Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill 1995). 2nd
edition 1999.
DMOA Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui
DUL G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (ET by W.G.E. Watson, Lei-
den: Brill, second edition 2004).
EPROER Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire
romain
FARG Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religions-geschichte
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FTL Forum Theologicae Linguisticae
GM Göttinger Miszellen
HALOT L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament (rev. W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm. ET
M.E.J. Richardson Leiden: Brill 1994–2000, 5 vols.).
HCANE (Studies in the) History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik
ABBREVIATIONS XIII
HS Horae Soderblomianae
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IR Iconography of Religions
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JEOL Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JS Journal des Savants
JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements
JSSM Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs
KTU KTU 1 = M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín Die keilalpha-
betischen Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker
1976). KTU 2 = The Cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn
Hani and other places (ALASP 8, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 1995).
KTU (Roman) used for text references.
LBA Late Bronze Age
LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient
MARI Mari: Annales des Recherches Interdisciplinaires
MÄS Münchner Ägyptologische Studien
MCAAS Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences
MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschungen
MRS Mission de Ras Shamra
MS Melammu Symposia
NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
POLO Proche-Orient et Littérature Ougaritique
POS Pretoria Oriental Series
PRU Palais royal d’Ugarit
PRU 2. C. Virolleaud Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives est,
ouest et du petit palais (MRS 7, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klinksieck 1965).
XIV WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE
PRU 3. J. Nougayrol Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et cen-
trales (MRS 6, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klinksieck 1955).
PRU 4. J. Nougayrol Textes accadiens des archives sud (MRS 9, Paris: Im-
primerie Nationale, Klinksieck 1956).
PRU 5. C. Virolleaud Textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques des archives sud,
sud-ouest et centrales (MRS 11, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klinksieck 1965).
PRU 6. J. Nougayrol Textes en cunéiformes babyloniennes des archives du
grand palais et du palais sud d’Ugarit (MRS 12, Paris:Imprimerie Nationale,
Klinksieck 1970).
RA Revue d’Assyriologie
RB Revue Biblique
RBL Review of Biblical Literature
RdE Revue d’Egyptologie
RES Revue des Etudes Sémitiques
RHR Revue de l’Histoire des Religions
RS Ras Shamra
RSO Ras-Shamra—Ougarit
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies
SANTAG SANTAG Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde
SBLRBS SBL Resources for Biblical Study
SBLSS SBL Symposium Series
SBLWAW SBL Writings from the Ancient World
SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok
SEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici
SMSR Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni
SO Studia Orientalia
SPIB Scripta Pontifici Instituti Biblici
SS Studi Semitici
SSLL Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
SSR Studi Storico-Religiosi
ST Studia Theologica
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TMO Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient
ABBREVIATIONS XV
UBL Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur

UCOP University of Cambridge Oriental Publications
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38, Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute 1969).
VT Vetus Testamentum
WA World Archaeology
WO Die Welt des Orients
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZRGG Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
1 A NEW LOOK AT UGARITIC ŠDMT
First published in JSS 37 (1992) 149–53.

I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the inconclusive position
obtaining with regard to the interpretation of the Ugaritic term šdmt, com-
monly treated as a cognate or Hebrew šdmh (plural šdmwt ), with the assump-
tion that in all instances where this phoneme occurs the same etymon is
involved. This may be the case, but must be shown, not assumed, to be so.
The term appears twice in the Ugaritic corpus. In KTU 1.2 i 42 we
read: šdmt bg[ ]. While the context in which this occurs is clear enough—
Baal’s angry outburst against the messengers of Yam restrained forcibly by
Anat and Attart—the line is strange enough in context to warn us against
too facile a reconstruction. I am prepared to agree tentatively with de
Moor’s proposal to complete bg[ ] as * bg[ pn(m)], which he proposes in
translating the formula as “the terraces with the vin[es ]”,1 but am reluctant
to fill in the adjacent gaps any further. The translation of šdmt by “terraces”
or the like does not appear to me to be a happy choice, however, for rea-
sons which will become clear if we consider the other Ugaritic occurrence
and some of the Hebrew ones. KTU 1.23.9–11 contain the following trico-
lon:
yzbrnm zbrm gpn
yṣmdnn ṣmdm gpn
yšql šdmth km gpn
This has the following sense:
those who prune the vine pruned him,
those who bind the vine bound him,
1 De Moor 1971, 125; id. 1987, 54. J.C.L. Gibson also has “terraces”—1978, 42, 158; and S.
Segert 1986, 218, has “vineyard terraces”. Other translations are as follows: “fields”, Gordon
1977, 72; id. 1969, 488, §2588, also “vinevard(s)”, del Olmo Lete 1981, 175, 627, “fallow
fields”, Aistleitner 1964, 50; cf. id. 1974, 505 §2587 (root šdm): “I am sorry”. Many transla-
tors take refuge in the damaged state of the text.
1
2 WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE
they caused his šdmt to fall like a vine.2

De Moor took this also to mean “terrace”, the final h having the value of h
locale (“on to”).3 However, this then leaves the verb (Š form of ql ) without
a direct object. If the verb has an object, as required, šdmt must be it, the h
then having the value of a 3rd masculine singular possessive suffix. In this
case, it cannot be a terrace, but must be something which can “fall like a
vine”.4 Common sense leads us to search for the name of a plant or of part
of a plant.
There are several words or phrases pertaining to vine cultivation. The
meaning of most of them is clear enough. Thus gpn (Hebrew gpn) denotes
the whole plant, the vine. Utkl (Hebrew ʾškl ) means a bunch of grapes, the
individual fruit being gnb (ʿnb). The product of the grape becomes trš (trš )
which matures into yn ( yyn). (The term mr, pace de Moor,5 does not mean
“new wine” or “foaming wine”.) There are two further terms in use, which
are commonly taken to be quite independent, but which may in fact be re-
lated. The first of these is dm ʿṣm (cf. the expression dm ʿnbym in Deuteron-
omy 32:14 and Genesis 49:11) commonly translated “blood of grapes”, but
perhaps to be understood less graphically as simply “juice of grapes”. The
other term is the problematic šdmt (šdmh ). I wonder whether we should not
see this as a formation on the root dm, meaning that part of the plant which
produces (causes to grow?—a Š-stem formation?) the juice. Since both the
individual grapes and their bunches have their own terminology, I propose
that šdmt may denote the shoot (“bine”—the French word is “sarment”)
from which the bunches grow. (The bine, also called dlt in Ugaritic—see
KTU 1.23.25 on Gaster’s understanding—corresponding to *dlyt in He-
brew, is to be distinguished from the tendril by which the bine clings to any
supporting structure: this is srq in Hebrew, e.g. in Isaiah 16:8: cf. srqh—read
2 Translation modified in accordance with Wyatt 2002, 327.

3 De Moor 1987, 120; Tsumura 1975, 408: “Mot’s Field”; Cutler and Macdonald 1982, 42:
“fields of death” (cf. the Hebrew form below).
4 Cf. Gaster 1946, 51, 56 n. 16: “rotten grape”. At least Gaster recognized the strict equiva-
lence suggested by the parallelism šdmt || gpn. Gaster’s interpretation in 1961, 421 is altogether
too free to be useful. Cf. also Caquot et al., 1974, 570 n. j: “vineyard”; so also Driver 1956,
121.
5 De Moor 1971, 75. See the discussion in Lloyd 1990.
1 A NEW LOOK AT UGARITIC ŠDMT 3
as masculine singular with suffix?—in Genesis 49:11.) If we now apply this

to the interpretation of the two occurrences of the word šdmt in Ugaritic, we
have in KTU 1.2 i 43 “the shoots (bines) of the vine(s)”, and in 1.23.10–11
“they caused his shoot(s) (bine[s]) to fall like a vine”. This latter phrase I
take to be an allusion to the crawling nature of a vine, which will simply
flop over the ground if its lengthy shoots are not controlled with a trellis.
The pruners, in cutting off various parts of the plant which are not re-
quired, naturally allow these cuttings to fall to the ground.
We may consider the Hebrew form šdmh (plural šdmt ), which has to be
treated independently, since it may denote exactly the same thing, may have
undergone semantic development, and may even cover more than one lex-
eme, by way of a control on the Ugaritic data. It occurs in clearly viticultural
contexts in the following passages:
Deuteronomy 32:32 :
ky mgpn sdm gpnm
wmšdmt ʿmrh
ʿnbmw ʿnby-rwš
ʾšklt mrrt lmw
For from the vine of Sodom is their vine,
and from the šdmt of Gomorrah:
their grapes are grapes of poison,
their clusters are made venomous, forsooth.
Isaiah 16:8:
ky šdmwt hšbwn ʾmll
gpn šbmh
bʿly gwym himw srwqyh
For the šdmt of Heshbon is blighted
(and) the vine of Sibmah:
the rulers of the nations have smashed its tendrils.
To translate šdmt (šdmwt ) in either of these passages as “field” or “ter-
race” is to lose the semantic link between the parallel terms. In the Isaiah
passage it is to be noted that the pointing suggests a feminine singular in -ôt,
and this is confirmed both by the singular form gpn following and by the
suffix of srwqyh. Furthermore, since the tendrils are also a part of the plant
(the Ugaritic equivalent has not thus far been encountered), and belong
equally to the šdmt and the gpn, the former cannot in this context be other
than part of the plant.
Habakkuk 3:17 is a more complex passage in terms of its contextual
guidance:
ky-tʾnh lʾ-tpr
wʾyn ybwl bgpnym

k š mʿsh-zyt
wšdmwt lʾ-ʿsh ʾkl
gzr mmklh ṣʾn
wʾyn bqr brptym
For the fig tree will not bear fruit,
and there will be no produce on the vines;
the growth of the olive will fail,
and the šdmwt will not yield food.
The sheep will be cut off (internal passive) from the fold,
and there will be no cattle in the stalls.
It is not immediately obvious that the same value must be given to
šdmh here, since a variety of sources of fruit are mentioned. But perhaps the
passage serves to indicate that šdmh is not specific to the vine, but is in fact
a more general term for the new growth on any fruit-bearing plant, from
which the fruit will blossom and grow. Alternatively we should see an abcb
arrangement in the first four lines quoted above, so that within the complex
unit gpnm and šdmwt are in synonymous parallelism as in the examples
above.
The use of the term in Isaiah 37:27 (= 2 Kings 19:26) is at first glance
problematic, in that there is in the version in 2 Kings an alternative reading
šdph (“a blighted thing”) which may be regarded as satisfactory. But the
Isaianic version is equally acceptable, and may be construed entirely in ac-
cordance with our findings:
hyw ʿsb sdh
wyrq dšʾ
ṣyr ggwt
wšdmh lpny qmh
They are grass of the open country,
and green herbage,
plants (growing on) roofs,
and new shoots before they have grown tall.
Here the wider range of meaning for šdmh suggested as a possible
meaning in Habakkuk 3:17 seems to apply. The final instances of šdmwt in
the Hebrew Bible are two references to a feature in the Kidron Valley, im-
mediately outside the city wall of Jerusalem to the east. These occur at 2
Kings 23:4 and Jerermiah 31:40. The former passage has the expression
bšdmwt qdrwn, where the pointing also suggests a singular, but LXX reads ™n
1 A NEW LOOK AT UGARITIC ŠDMT 5
tJ ™mpeurismJ, clearly interpreting the Hebrew to mean a burning-ground.

In Jeremiah 31:39 the text reads wkl-hšrmwt ʿd-n l qdrwn, with the Qere
šdmwt. The pointing indicates a plural. For these two passages alone, in my
view, can a case be made for taking the term to mean “Fields of Mot”6 and
having some connection with the cult of the god of death evidently prac-
tised in the area down into Hellenistic times.7 And even then, there is a dif-
ficulty in simply taking the element šd(h ) as a Hebrew version of Ugaritic šd,
since the sibilant changes in Hebrew (sdh ).8 This remains a problem, but
one which has no bearing on, and does not weaken my argument with re-
gard to, all the other Ugaritic or Hebrew uses of the word.
6 As commonly understood in the biblical context, and argued in detail in Lehmann 1983.
Cf. also Croatto and Soggin 1962.
7 See J.B. Curtis 1937; Lewis 1989, 145–58; Heider 1985; Day 1989.
8 Day 1989, 40–41.
2 THE TITLES OF THE UGARITIC STORM-GOD
First published in UF 24 (1992) 403–24.

In a thriving cultic and mythological context, it comes as no surprise
to find deities given a number of cult titles, reflecting their status, antece-
dents and theology. More often than not the background to such titles will
remain fairly opaque, unless the context is particularly well documented.
For all the wealth of information that has been gleaned from the Ugaritic
textual and iconographic remains, we cannot claim to know much about the
cult or theology of the storm-god. Perhaps the latter aspect has been more
thoroughly analysed than the former, which can hardly be said to have had
much light thrown on it from our primary sources, the Baal myths of KTU
1.1–6 and the fragments of KTU 1.7–11 and 1.13. While de Moor and oth-
ers who have espoused the same “seasonal” interpretation of the mythology
have indeed offered some very penetrating insights into theological matters,
it must be admitted that the comprehensive hermeneutical key they employ
has jammed very tightly in the lock, proved nothing concerning the theory,1
and offers no convincing insights into the cult.
Given the limited bulk of the Ugaritic texts, and the restricted scope of
most of the divine titles employed, the considerable range applied to Baal is
remarkable (more than for El, for instance, as well as for all the other dei-
ties), and is an indication of the relative importance of the god, which is
generally recognized on any interpretation of the texts. Indeed, the only
point of contention here is perhaps the relative importance of Baal and El,
with scholars divided on whether El is in reality a deus otiosus, deposed and
displaced as chief deity in the pantheon by Baal, as argued by M.H. Pope
and a small number of others,2 or is not rather the supreme deity, control-
1 For the most developed forms of the theory, see Gaster 1961 and de Moor 1971, and more
recently 1987. For a succinct demolition of de Moor’s argument see Grabbe 1976. See also
Smith 1986; Wyatt 1996, 144–55.
2 Pope 1955; Oldenburg 1969. See the reaction of L’Heureux 1979.
7
ling the macrocosmic universe, with Baal in control of a subordinate sphere,

as argued by others.3 I think it fair to say that the honours are at present
with the latter scholars, though Pope restated his position before his death.4
Perhaps we may say that the Baal mythology is bound to present Baal him-
self in the primary role simply in terms of his literary place in the poems,
which deal with his destiny, and should not necessarily be taken as a reflec-
tion of his overall theological status. That needs to be assessed in conjunc-
tion with the rest of the material, both literary, cultic and iconographical. If
we take it that the pantheon lists have some broad hierarchical significance,
then three of them place El before Baal (KTU 1.47, 1.118, RS 20.24), a fact
given cultic application in KTU 1.148 (though this depends in part on res-
toration), and not only interpose Dagan, but also precede even El by the
ancestral god(s) ilib ! 5 Furthermore, what appear to be lists in KTU 1.102
and KTU 1.123 show that priorities in such matters were by no means
fixed.
The fact remains that the titles accorded to Baal in Ugarit reflect his
importance as well as something of his theology. The following list is
probably more or less accepted among scholars, though perhaps one or two
may be regarded as still open to question. In considering them briefly, I
propose to add a further one which has hitherto not been recognized. Fig-
ures following the titles indicate frequency, estimated from the data in
Whitaker.6
1 aliy(n)
While this certainly appears in formulae §§2 and 3, there may be two unrec-
ognized instances in which it appears independently. The first of these is
KTU 1.4 iv 43–4, where the final n of the supposed aliy[n] is missing, and is
usually restored along with a word-divider (after KTU 1.3 v 32–3). This is
towards the end for the line (bʿl appears afterwards, on the edge) and the
tablet surface is poor, though without the certainty of lost signs. There is
the possibility that the n is not to be restored, in which case we have a title
3 See for instance Petersen and Woodward 1977; Parker 1977; Wyatt 1989.
4 See Pope 1987.
5 On the significance of ilib see most recently Lewis 1989, 56–59.
6 Whitaker 1972. See also Cunchillos and Vita 1995.
2 THE TITLES OF THE UGARITIC STORM-GOD 9
independent of §2, though I would not press this.7 If we restore the n, then
it is an independent use of the first element of §3.
The passage is normally read as a bicolon, with three words in each co-
lon:
mlkn aliy[n] bʿl Our king is Valiant Baal,
tpṭn win d ʿlnh our ruler, and there is none above him!
I suggest that it may instead be a tricolon, which produces a more ele-
gant stichometry than the above:
mlkn aliy[n] Our king is Valiant,
bʿl tpṭn Baal is our ruler,
win dʿlnh and there is none above him!
This alternative stichometry is to be entertained even if the new title is
not accepted, though it is anomalous in dividing the two parts of the bino-
mial aliyn bʿl between the cola. On the usual bicolonic interpretation, we
have two titles of Baal in the first colon—one a binomial—balancing, or
rather failing to balance, the single title of the second colon. On my pro-
posal, two titles balance two titles, in cola without verbs, and also have a
chiastic structure, the first and fourth (both titles of office carrying a pos-
sessive suffix) framing the divided binomial; the pseudo-verbal third colon
then summarizes the theological implications of this fourfold naming of
Baal: he is supreme. This use of four titles appears elsewhere with reference
to Baal (cf. KTU 1.2 i 18–19, 34, 1.5 vi 23–24, 1.6 i 6–7, all with four differ-
ent titles, and 1.10 iii 32–36, 1.12 i 38–41, involving three titles, discussed
below). The same stichometry would also hold true for the second instance,
1.3 v 32–33, which is substantially identical with our present passage (only
having the n and lacking the w). It could be argued that this other passage
has the n because of scribal carelessness, expecting the much commoner
formula aliyn bʿl, just as readily as simply solving the present problem with
the provision of the n. But since the independent form is hypothetical, and
is part of the following two, we need say no more of it here. If it be re-
jected, we still have aliyn appearing independently in the poetic division of
the binomial, on my understanding of the stichometry. If it be argued that
7 Gordon read aliy b ʿl at KTU 1.5 v 17, Gordon 1969, §1342, though in the text section he
read it as aliyn(!)bʿl. A Herdner read aliy bʿl, 1963 i 36 n. 2, but corrected it to aliyn bʿl in the
text. KTU 1, 2 simply read it with the n . A textual error seems more probable here than a
variant.
my stichometry presupposes an anomalous shift to a staccato rhythm, it

may be countered that this is quite possibly a snatch of a hymn quoted from
the cult.
2 aliy qrdm
This title, containing the above element without the post-formative n of §3,
occurs seven times. There has been some debate concerning the term qrdm,
which in this context is generally agreed to be a plural form related to Ak-
kadian qarradu or quradu, meaning “hero” or “warrior”.8 The title is to be
translated as “Mightiest (most valiant) of Heroes”, or similarly. Clearly this
is an honorific alluding to Baal’s mythological role in overcoming Yam and
Mot, the chaotic powers who would irrupt into the world and destroy its
stability. Even an acceptance of the etymology cited need not involve a re-
jection of associations with the term qrdm, “axe”, since this may well be an
intentional overtone. As in many ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, the
theme of conflict is dominant, which is probably due as much to political
ideologies—the perpetual warfare of rival kings—as to cosmological con-
siderations, though the two themes are inseparable.9
3 aliyn b‛l 10
This title occurs sixty-eight times (seventy if §1 be rejected). It is the com-
monest title of the weather-god after the simple bʿl. Despite early doubts as
to the identity of Aliyan Baal and Baal, Kapelrud demonstrated their iden-
tity. 11 The first element is usually explained as elative from √lʾy “be
8 I reexamined this term and the problem of qrdm = “axe”, and proposed a further occur-
rence of the latter, in Wyatt 1990c.
9 See in particular Wyatt 1990c, and also 1998 = 2005b, 151–89, and literature cited.
10 Kapelrud 1952, 47–50; van Zijl 1972, 341–45; Cooper 1981, 428–31.
11 Virolleaud 1931; id., 1934; Dussaud 1932; id., 1935; Kapelrud 1952, 47–50; van Zijl 1972,
342. The sole reference to aliyn bn bʿl in KTU 1.5 ii 17 is to be explained most satisfactorily
as a scribal error, as against the arguments of Eissfeldt 1951, 21 n. 5; Hvidberg 1962, 60; and
de Langhe 1945, 34 n. 90. J. Gray’s use of it, 1965, 164, to argue that there was an assimila-
tion of a vegetation deity Baal with the weather god Hadad, is unnecessary.
strong” 12 (cf. §16 below). As with aliy qrdm, the title alludes to Baal’s charac-
teristically violent nature and victory in conflict. It is to be noted that this
idea of Baal as the “cosmic policeman”, perhaps creating 13 and certainly
maintaining the cosmos against hostile disruptive powers, far outweighs in
literary significance his role as storm-god. That is not to be played down,
but we are warned against unifunctional views of the gods. We are constitu-
tionally in constant danger of underestimating the complexity and subtlety
of polytheistic thought!14
4 il hd
This occurs seven times. On hd see §12 below. The identification of hd with
Baal is clear from the parallelism of KTU 1.4 vii 35–36, 1.5 i 22–23, ii 22
(restored), iv 6–7, 1.12 i 40–1 and 1.101.1–2. The purpose of the title ap-
pears to be prosodic rather than conveying any distinctive theological point.
5 bn il
In KTU 1.17 vi 28–29 the following bicolon occurs:
ašsprk ʿm bʿl šnt
ʿm bn il tspr yr m
The form bn may conceivably be construct plural or singular. The par-
allelism requires the latter sense,15 in spite of claims to the contrary.16 Ac-
cordingly, it is to be translated in this way:
I shall make you count with Baal the years;
with the son of El will you count the months.
Since on purely linguistic grounds plural or singular translations are
possible, the issue must be resolved on other grounds. I see the parallelism
12 See del Olmo Lete 1981, 513. Note however the caution of van Zijl 1972, 343, with dis-
cussion of other proposals.
13 There has been a lively debate on the issue of whether, or in what sense, Baal is a creator-
deity. Cf. Fisher 1965; Wakeman 1973; Clifford 1984; Day 1985; Wyatt, 1985c; Kloos 1986.
14 See now chapter 4.
15 So Driver 1956, 55; de Moor 1987, 238 (he cross-referred to 15, n. 75, where he insisted
that Baal is El’s son-in-law—thus implicitly retaining his filial relation with Dagan—see bn
dgn ); Aitken 1990, 45. Del Olmo Lete 1981, 377, hedged his bets, allowing either translation.
16 See for instance Caquot 1974, 432; Gibson 1978, 109 (though with n. 4 he allowed the
singular as a possibility).
as sufficient reason, but clearly those taking the plural line do not accept the
force of this. The real issue may be the matter of parentage of Baal, as rec-
ognized by Driver.17 This will be dealt with more fully in §6, but we may
here note that my provisional translation18 is consonant with KTU 1.4 iv
47–48, which employs the following formula and appears to allude to Baal:
[an] y lyṣ tr il abh
il mlk dyknnh
In spite of the lack of a dative l before il—and before atr in the follow-
ing line in this and other occurrences of the plea formula, we should trans-
late this, as is generally agreed, in this fashion:
[Groan]ing he cries to Bull El his father,
to [E]l the king who begot 19 him.
In this one passage it is certain that it is Baal who is crying out. The
same may be true in KTU 1.4 i 4–5, though the language is formulaic,20 and
may apply here rather to Kothar, who was summoned in 1.3 vi 1–25. It de-
pends on what we are to make of forty missing lines in between. I do not
think that we are to construe the bicolon as meaning that El cries out,
though this is grammatically possible.21 Such an interpretation would clash
with the contextual point that El is being petitioned. But even were such an
17 Driver 1956, 6 n. 3.
18 Cf. Wyatt 2002, 273:
I shall make you number (your) years with Baal:
with the son of El you shall number months.
19 The parallel with ab requires the sense of “begetting” for kwn here, and not “establishing”.
(Cf. HALOT ii 465, of Hebrew kwn, polel form, sense d),“to create”, following Aistleitner
and Gordon, recognized in Job 31:15, where the overtone “procreate” is implicit:
h al ōʾ-babbeṭen ʿōśēnî ʿāśā hû Did not he who made me in the womb make him,
way ekunennû bāre em ʾe ād and did (not) one create us ( both)? *
(*or possibly “did he [not] create us in one womb?”—sc. that of Mother Earth: cf. Job 1:21,
10:9, 10:18–19, 32:14–15; Genesis 2:7 and Wyatt 2005a, 254. The sense is of paternity.)
20 The formula refers to Anat in KTU 1.1 ii 18–19, 1.3 v 10, 35–36, to Kothar in 1.1 iii 5f., as
well as perhaps 1.4 i 4–5, and to Shapsh in 1.6 iv l0–11. But its conventional nature can
hardly be used to deny El’s paternity of Baal.
21 So for example Gordon 1977, 83.
interpretation conceded, the fact would remain that the language treats El
as Baal’s father. The only objection to this would be the supposition, ex-
pressed by many, that the title bn dgn (§6) means that Baal is not among the
sons of El.
Before we turn to this issue, there is a further point to make about the
expression bn il. Let us consider the following formulations in KTU 1.40
(with reconstructions, occurring in lines 7–8, 16–17, 25, 33–34 and 42–43):
ab bn il... dr bn il... mp rt bn il .
I am not concerned here with the theological niceties of these expres-
sions,22 but with the significance of the phrase bn il. While the expressions
mean literally “Father of the sons of El” (sc. a title of El), “family of the
sons of El” and “assembly of the sons of El” respectively, the first is clearly
tautologous in Ugaritic just as in English, and is more appropriately trans-
lated as “Father of the gods”. The other two are similarly to be translated
respectively as “the family of the gods” and “the assembly of the gods”.
While the familial image is present, it has become something of a dead
metaphor. Perhaps we too often read ancient texts au pied de la lettre, without
acknowledging the idiomatic ordinariness of some expressions. I am pre-
pared to accept its literal meaning, that is, as stating that Baal is El’s son, in
a mythological passage like KTU 1.17 vi 28–29—and even here we are up
against problems of genre as soon as we incautiously use such language23—
but would not press it, and am happy to accept a “reduced” sense. This is
all the more interesting a prospect for the use of the phrase with regard to
kings, such as Keret in KTU 1.16 i 20, ii 48. While on the level of poetic
construction we have to balance the terms bn and šp , bn il nevertheless
does constitute a unity, as is clear from the formulae cited, and just means
“god”. Ergo, the possibility that Keret is or is not a god is at issue.24
22 See Hermann 1960; id., 1982.

23 Cf. the cautions of Parker 1979–80, with regard to classifying the Ugaritic literary texts.
(For my hesitation in applying genre categories at all to myth, see Wyatt 2001a = 2005a,
151–88, id. Forthcoming a chapter 7 (also forthcoming in SJOT ).
24 This is of some importance in that when the image of the king as the deity’s son occurs in
the biblical tradition, it is all too often dismissed as purely metaphorical. That is, the idea that
it may actually be claiming a kind of divinity for the king is not addressed. ( We have become
locked in ontological categories of our own which we import into ancient texts). Similarly,
the expression benê ʾēlîm occurring in Psalms 29:1 and 89:7 (EVV 6) or benê ʾ elōhîm occurring
in Genesis 6:1, 2, Job 2:1 and 38:7, does not mean “angels”—a typical gloss put on it by a
In terms of the combination of words to develop more complex ideas,

we may say that the lexeme bn is used in relation to another, probably by
way of using the idea of sonship as a metaphor of subordination to the
other, to express a generic formula, “a member of class x”, where x is the
class of which the individual bn x is a member.25 Thus a bn il is a god, just as
a ben hann ebiʾîm (lit. “a son of the prophets”, or if n ebiʾîm be taken as an old
genitive singular, a “son of a/the prophet”) means simply “member of the
genus ‘prophet’”. We may here speak of the “functional” use of bn, in dis-
tinction from its familial use. In poetry, of course, which is not bound by
the logical constraints of prose—prose also often seems singularly free—
the mind may toy with other possibilities, and revive the metaphor, con-
structing whole families, whole pantheons, out of functional groups. My-
thology merely gives the richest scope.
6 bn dgn26
I have considered this title in a previous discussion.27 My conclusion then,
which I have seen no reason to change, was that this is not a statement of
filiation, but uses bn in the functional sense just discussed, the title having
the sense “Rainy One”, or more prosaically, “member of the category
‘rain(y)’”. There is reason to suppose that Baal and Dagan are actually di-
vergent forms of the common Semitic storm-god. If its usual understand-
ing, “son of Dagan”, be retained, we have not only a doublet of another
supposed filiation term, tk dgn, for which another explanation is also avail-
able and preferable—see §14 below—but a contradiction of both bn il and
its correlative tr il abh, discussed at §5 above. If it be objected that Baal and
Dagan appear as distinct deities in the pantheon lists KTU 1.47, 1.118 and
RS 20.24, then it may be countered that Baal himself appears under a num-
ber of apparently distinct hypostases (§7). But Baal and Dagan appear in-
deed to have become distinct in Ugarit, just as we also discern the process
later insistence on a pan-biblical monotheism—but “gods”, ʾēlîm is to be construed not as

plural, even of majesty, but as an archaic genitive singular (with the m perhaps as intensive),
the precise Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic bn il .
25 Cf. Cooper 1981, 432 (extended discussion and bibliography 431–41).
26 Kapelrud 1952, 52–56; van Ziji 1972, 337–39.
27 Wyatt 1980. (See however my policy in Wyatt 2002, 59 n. 106.)
of mergence of Anat with Athtart. All our texts are merely synchronic
cross-sectional slices through Ugarit’s religious history, and appear, under
their glass cover-slips, to have frozen what in reality was an unceasing proc-
ess of modifications, amalgamations and differentiations. But nowhere do
we have any evidence which independently corroborates Baal’s alleged son-
ship of Dagan.28 On the other hand, there are numerous expressions of the
role of El (ab) and Athirat (qnyt ilm) in the extended metaphor of the pan-
theon as their children (šbʿm bn atrt, dr bn il ).
7 bʿl 29
By far the commonest designation of the storm-god, this title means “mas-
ter”, “owner”, “husband” or “lord”. Its application to him is to be inferred
from the context, with either the theme of a narrative, as in the Baal cycle,
or the use of other epithets in parallel, such as bʿl ||hd, confirming the sup-
position that this is indeed the deity concerned. But it must not be assumed
that it always has this reference. There is certainly no evidence at all from
the numerous biblical passages in which the Canaanite cult of Baal is pillo-
ried that it is always a question of the weather-god. The issue has gone by
default. But within the restricted area of Ugarit and its dependent territory,
there is more likelihood of the title, where not otherwise specified, being
applied to the same god, and given the weather-god’s prestige in Ugarit, it is
probable that bʿl normally, if not always, denotes him.
There is an interesting question which arises from the various pan-
theon lists. They all list seven Baals, the first distinguished by the genitive
ṣpn as bʿl ṣpn, in the Akkadian version (RS 20.24.5) in the extended form
dAdad bel uršan azi. There is a partial explanation of this if we consider
the provenance of Baal,30 but for the present we may note simply the idea
of a single god having multiple forms, perhaps as a figure for his wide-
ranging activities and epiphanies. Since the Akkadian text enumerates them,
after the first, as dAdad II–VII, it is clear that they are different forms of the
28 Fontenrose cut the Gordian knot of the problem by identifying Dagan and El: 1957, 277–
79.
29 Kapelrud 1952, 43–47; Cooper 1981, 347–61.
30 See Wyatt 1987a and 1988a for arguments concerning an Indo-European contribution to
the person of Baal. There is ample evidence of Indo-European presence in the Near East in
the Late Bronze Age, not least in Ugarit, which may even allude to Baal’s Vedic counterpart
Indra in the personal name bn idr .
same god, and not merely a group of similar gods. Since bʿl, like bn, may
have a functional sense in Ugaritic, as in Hebrew, there always remains the
possibility that any individual form “bʿl x” may be quite independent of the
multiple manifestations of the storm-god. In most, if not all, such cases, we
simply cannot be sure. On the other hand, if Egypt may be used for com-
parison, there are many “Horus gods”, that is gods with the element r as
part of the name, such as the ram-headed god Heryshef ( ry-š.f : “the One
over his Lake”), whose only real connection with Horus the falcon god is
the word-play of r( y) “on” with r(w) “exalted”. Mere phonetic fancy may
often lead to profound theological consequences (as with Exodus 3:13).
8 bʿl ugrt
The hesitation expressed in §7 above relates to titles such as this, occurring
in KTU 1.41.[42] and 1.46.[16*] (restored), 1.65.10, 1.105.19*, 1.109.1*, 16,
35–36, 1.119.3, 12, and 21–22, where it is most likely that the storm-god is
meant. In the asterisked cases the wording is bt bʿl ugrt, which may alterna-
tively be translated as “the temple of Baal (in) Ugarit”, while in 1.109.16 bʿl
ugrt is followed immediately by bʿl lb, “Baal of Aleppo”, showing that we
are dealing with a city god, who may or may not be the storm-god, though
in the case of Ugarit he probably was, given that the latter had a temple
there. It appears that in West Semitic usage, bʿl functions rather like dIštar in
Akkadian, which may denote goddesses in general, as well as Ishtar herself,
and even in her case has many distinct hypostases, such as Ishtar of
Niniveh and Ishtar of Arbela. In KTU 1.47 and parallel texts we have seen
a number of Baals, who appear to be distinct forms of the god, perhaps for
liturgical purposes (cf. KTU 1.65.10).
9 bʿl ṣpn 31
Baal is in this title declared to be the lord or master of the sacred mountain,
ṣpn, lying some miles to the north of the city.32 We should note that because
31 Kapelrud 1952, 57–58; van Ziji 1972, 332–36.

32 Van Zijl listed the following as variants, 1972, 332. il ṣpn , occurring in KTU 1.3 iii 29 and
iv 19, must be understood in the broader context of the tricolon of 29–30:
btk ǵry il ṣpn in the midst of my divine mountain, Saphon,
of the significance of the mountain in Ugaritic religious thought—it is ap-

parently deified in its own right in KTU 1.47.15 (restored) = 1.118.14 = RS
20.24.15—we have in this title a statement of Baal’s paramountcy in the
region. This is all the more interesting in view of the fact that El is in many
respects the chief deity in Ugaritic thought. But perhaps the title should be
interpreted not in the sense of implying a contradiction of this proposition,
but rather as declaring Baal’s primacy under the overall control of El. It also
makes a territorial statement about Baal, implying that he is the foremost of
the il ṣpn (KTU 1.47.1, an expression occurring only in this list, and mean-
ing “the gods of Saphon” 33 . While the mountain undoubtedly features
within the real geography inhabited by the people of Ugarit, this theological
pragmatism cannot be divorced from the over-arching cosmology in which
the mountain is so important.
We should note that KTU 1.65.10 distinguishes bʿl ṣpn from bʿl ugrt,
though if our analysis so far is correct, the two deities were recognized as
both aspects of Baal the weather god.
10 gmr hd
This apparent title of Baal appears in one instance, in the damaged passage
KTU 1.2 i 46. De Moor translates it as “Haddu the champion”,34 Dahood
as “Avenger”.35
bqdš bǵr n lty in the sanctuary, the rock of my inheritance,

bnʿm bgbʿ tliyt in the delightful place, the hill of victory.
(On reflection, I think that this analysis of the prosody is preferable to that of Wyatt 2002,
78.) bʿl ṣrrt ṣpn , occurring in KTU 1.6 vi 12–13, should be construed in accordance with 1.6 i
16, 57, 62 (bṣrrt ṣpn , without the bʿl ) with 1.4 v 55 (btk ṣrrt ṣpn ) and 1.3 i 21 ( ʿl bʿl bṣrrt ṣpn);
these other contexts show that we are dealing with a place where Baal dwells, but not with a
title of the god.
The same is true for bʿl mrym ṣpn , occurring in KTU 1.3 iv 1, 37–38, 1.4 v 23 and 1.5 i 10–11,
where prepositions ʿm , “to”, or b , “from”, show that we are dealing with a place to or from
which he performs an action. In none of the three cases is a divine title involved, ṣpn exists
independently as a deity in 1.47.15 (restored) = 1.118.14 = RS 20.24.15 uršan azi . See fur-
ther at §22.
33 On the vocalization of ṣpn and the philological issues surrounding it, see Wyatt 1995a =
2005a, 102–24. Cf. DUL ii 788, ṣapunu .

34 De Moor 1987, 34; cf. id., 1971, 125, 133: “Haddu the Accomplisher”.
35 Dahood 1965–70, ii 49, 51. So also Del Olmo Lete 1981, 173; Gibson 1978, 43. Cf.
Gordon 1969, §592; Cooper 1981, 444–45; van Zijl 1972, 346–47.
11 dmrn
This word occurs once or twice: in KTU 1.92.30 it may appear, if the initial
d is to be restored, as by de Moor,36 though the context remains too dam-
aged for any certain interpretation; and once in the Baal cycle, in KTU 1.4
vii 39, where the reading is secure, but interpretation has been less so, and it
has only with some reluctance been accepted as a title of Baal.37 The whole
section is difficult, but for the moment we are concerned simply with the
bicolon in 38–39:
ib hd 38 m t š Enemies of Hadd, why do you fear,
lm t š ntq dmrn why do you fear the weapons of dmrn?
The clue to the reference of the term dmrn has been recognized as the
divine name Demarous (Δη ο ) occurring in Eusebius’ Praeparatio
Evangelica 1.10 (§§15, 19, 21 [37a, 38a, c]).39
In the first of these passages we read that a concubine of Ouranos
(Epigeios), who is already pregnant, is given to Dagon (“ό έ ω ”)
and subsequently bears Demarous. In the second Demarous is said to be
the father of Melkathros (sc. Melqart) who is also called Herakles, and is
said, in alliance with Ouranos, to have fought Pontos (sc. Yam). In the third
a triad of deities, Astarte (sc. Athtart), Zeus Demarous and “Adodos king
of (the) gods” (sc. Hadad) are said to rule the country (sc. Phoenicia) with
the consent of Kronos.40
36 Herrmann 1969, 9, 14; he took it to be a title of Baal. De Moor 1985, 228, translated it as
“place of perdition”. KTU did not attempt to fill the lacuna. KTU2, 110 confidently read the
whole phrase, and in Wyatt 2002, 373 I translated “the Mighty One would possess her (Ath-
tart’s) beauty”.
37 See discussion in Pope 1955, 47 n. 95; Dahood 1965, 483; Astour 1967, 40, 387; Olden-
burg 1969, 59 n. 1; de Moor 1971, 166–67; Margalit 1980, 65; Gibson 1978, 65 n. 10; del
Olmo Lete 1981, 537. Among these scholars de Moor and Margalit resist the consensus.
38 Omit the t of the text (CTA, KTU) with de Moor 1971, 166, or read it as hdm with Margalit
1980, 63. Driver 1956, 100, interpreted the t as deictic with vocative force, or as an error for
d (so also del Olmo Lete 1981, 209), while Gibson 1978, 65, just ignored it.
39 The linking of Demarous with Baal-Hadad was already made by Gruppe, 1887, 360, and
linked with the dmrn of KTU 1.14 vii 39 by Cassuto 1949, 65–67; both cited with approval
by Pope 1955, 47 n. 95.
40 Gifford 1903, i 41–43.
It is difficult to match the confusing genealogies of Eusebius’ account,

based on the account Philo of Byblos had in turn given of Sanchuniaton’s
work,41 as it appears to be an adaptation of the Ugaritic and other early Ca-
naanite traditions through a Hesiodic filter. But for present purposes it is
clear from the first reference that the genealogy of Demarous appears to
make Dagon (sc. the ancient Dagan) his step-father, which on Demarous’
identification with Baal appears to take up a literal, familial understanding of
bn dgn, while also allowing for El’s paternity. The reference to Melqart in
the second is impossible to square with Albright’s proposal that he is a
form of Mot,42 but the allusion to an alliance of Ouranos and Demarous
against Pontos, on the supposition that Ouranos and Kronos are differenti-
ated forms in this tradition of El, makes excellent sense of the view I have
taken of an ancient combat between El and Yam. 43 The third reference
compares directly with nothing we know from Ugarit, but can reasonably
and legitimately be harmonized with it by recognizing in Astarte the late
form (commonly Atargatis) who is a fusion of Athtart and Anat, a syncrasia
already in process in the Ugaritic texts, and in Demarous and Adodos two
hypostases of the same deity, viz. dmrn and hd as epithets of Baal, a further
example of the sort of differentiation I suppose to have occurred between
Dagan and Baal, the three making a triad.44 The association of Demarous
with Pontos confirms this identification. While it is clear that the evidence
of late writers such as Eusebius must be used with great caution in elucidat-
ing Ugaritic problems, the undoubted similarities between the late Dema-
rous and the early Baal make it fairly certain that dmrn is a title of Baal.
There remains the question of the meaning of dmrn. A range of op-
tions have been explored. Aistleitner took it to be a title of Baal, related to
Arabic damara = “annihilate”.45 Driver considered the link with Demarous a
41 Cf. Løkkegaard 1954; Barr 1974–75; Baumgarten 1981.

42 Albright 1957, 307.
43 Wyatt 1987a, 189–90. See Exodus 15:2b, where ʾēl(î ) and ʾ el ōhê ʾābî (read originally ʾēl ʾābî:
see Wyatt 1978), show that El, here identified with Yahweh, is the combatant of Yam. The
same is true of Psalm 106:21.
44 Oldenburg’s translation of Ζ Δη ο Α ω ο by “Zeus Dema-
rous, even Adodos, the King of the Gods”, (1969, 59—contrast the translation he offered
on p. 43!) while correct in its results, seems to me unwarranted, and disguises the fact that
Eusebius is specifically referring to a triad, including the preceding Astarte, even if he is
expanding a dyad.
45 Aistleitner 1974, §762.
possibility, but translated it as “our onset” in his text, relating it to Arabic

damara, “intruded”, “broke in”, dammara, “destroyed”. 46 De Moor under-
stood it to be a name for the netherworld, cognate with Arabic damara =
“perish” and damar = “perdition”.47 Margalit cited two possibilities, Arabic
damara, “perish” and d + mr(n) (< mara < √mwr “move from side to side”):
“he that side winds” (introducing a gratuitous serpentine motif ).48 He took
dmrn to refer to Mot, who is not a serpent. Gibson took it to be Baal, but
offered no etymology.49 Van Zijl translated it as “the strength”, construing it
as relative d+ mr, meaning “to strengthen”, but rejected Aistleitner’s con-
nection of it with Demarous.50 Del Olmo Lete, taking it to be a title of Baal,
relating to Demarous, and meaning “el Potente”, nevertheless ignored van
Zijl’s etymology, preferring Arabic dammara. 51 Caquot et al. accepted the
equivalence with Demarous, but explained the Ugaritic title with reference
to √dmr (cf. Akkadian and Hebrew zimri, Arabic dimr) meaning “brave”,
“hero”.52 The weakness in this seems to lie in the distinction between d and
d, and the likelihood that on their etymology we should expect the Greek
form to be *Zemarous. Van Zijl’s explanation appears the most likely in my
view, and is to be compared to such forms as zeh sinai ( Judges 5:5, Psalm
68:9 [EVV 8]), or El’s title dpid. However, as is common in the choice of
cult titles, there may well have been overtones of various word-associations,
conscious or otherwise.
46 Driver 1956, 101, 154 n. 24.

47 De Moor 1971, 167.
48 Margalit 1980, 65. He also compared šmrr in KTU 1.100.4 (Gordon 1969, §1516: < mrr ,
“venomous”: “a kind of serpent”). DUL ii 830: “poisoning”, “poison”.

49 Gibson 1978, 65, 145.
50 Van Zijl 1972, 151. For this sense of mr(r) see Gordon 1969, §1556. For general treat-
ments of the meanings of mr (r ) see also Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1973, 119–122;
Pardee 1978.
51 Del Olmo Lete 1981, 537.
52 Caquot et al . 1974, 217.
12 hd , hdd 53
With or without il, this title appears twenty-two times as hd, and twice as
hdd. These appear to be variants of one another, though the former may
represent a West Semitic form *had(du)54, the latter to be vocalized hadad(u),
and representing the Akkadian form adad (sc. Adad). It also appears three
times in the form add, presumably a straight transcription of the Akkadian
form, in KTU 1.65.9 (il add )55 and KTU 1.70.5, 17.56 All these forms are
perhaps best explained as an onomatopoeic formation imitating the sound
of thunder.57 The use of this title, in whatever form, may well be a deliberate
poetic device to evoke the wider associations of Adad as an international
deity, but we need not go so far as Kapelrud in supposing that two distinct
gods are being identified in such usage. We are speaking of different cult
titles of the same deity. While the text is too damaged for a coherent trans-
lation, we have in one fragment the juxtaposition of hdd ( pn hdd: “the face
of Had[ad]”?58), ṣ ǵ r hd (“the youth Hadad”, “the young Hadad”59) and zbl
bʿl ǵlm (“Prince Baal the young god”60) (KTU 1.9.13, 18, 17, respectively).
53 Kapelrud 1952, 50–52; van Zijl 1972, 346–51.

54 Corresponding to Addu in the Amarna and some Mari letters.
55 See Xella 1981, 213–14. This form is perhaps a mechanical transcription of dAdad . Cf.
Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975, 524.

56 So Kapelrud 1952, 50.
57 Cf. Arabic hadda , “to thunder”, “crash”, “make a big noise . . . ” ( Pope 1965, 254; van Zijl
1972, 350).
58 ( In Wyatt 2002, 153, I translated this as “... before Hadd...”.)
59 Van Zijl 1972, 347. ( But see now Wyatt 2002, 154 and n. 11. My revised translation is “a
youngster of Hadd”, that is, another person independent of the storm-god himself.)
60 The term ǵlm needs further analysis. It is always used, with divine reference, of attendants
on the chief deities. With human reference it is used of kings, heirs to the throne, and in the
feminine (ǵlmt ) of a figure performing a sacred marriage, where the reference is ritually hu-
man but mythologically divine. Cf. also theʿalmâ in Isaiah 7:14. It appears to have associa-
tions of youth and (sexual) vigour (cf. BDB’s explanation—761). I have tentatively associ-
ated it with ṣelem : Wyatt 1990, 23 = 2005b, 63. (See now Wyatt 2002, 58 n. 99. On p. 154, I
translated this as “ Prince Baal [ ] an heir”, implicitly differentiating between Baal and his
heir.)
13 hmlt
It is a new proposal of mine to recognize in some cases of the occurrence
of this phoneme a further title of Baal. It is dependent on two factors: a
new stichometry for KTU 1.5 vi 23–25 (in which El speaks—we have sub-
stantially the same words by Anat [with nrd for ard ] in KTU 1.6 i 6–8) and
the recognition of lim (§17 below) as a divine title. We shall leave this latter
point till then. As for the former, let us consider the following passage (ini-
tially arranged as on the tablet):
bʿl mt my lim bn dgn
my hmlt atr bʿl nrd
arṣ...
This is a well-known crux. Let us cite a few examples of modern trans-
lations. The majority view is typified by Coogan’s version:
Baal is dead: what will happen to the peoples?
Dagon’s son: what will happen to the masses?
I will go down into the earth in Baal’s place.61
Caquot read:
Baʿal est mort!
Que va devenir le peuple du Fils de Dagan?
Que va devenir la multitude?
Sur les traces de Baʿal, je vais descendre en terre.62
Gaster had:
Baal is dead!
What will now become of the clan of Dagan’s son?
What will now become of the multitudes of Baal’s posterity?
I will go down into the earth.63
If the possibility is considered that lim is a divine title, then a spanner is
thrown into the works of the passage, which is perhaps not a bad thing,
given the problems scholars have obviously faced. I propose the following
stichometry and translation:
61 Coogan 1978, 109. Substantially the same line was taken by Jirku; Aistleitner; Clear; del
Olmo Lete 1981, 222, Ginsberg, ANET 139; van Zijl 1972, 177.
62 Caquot 1974 i 251. He was followed by Gibson 1978, 73–74.
63 Gaster 1961, 213. De Moor 1971, 190, id., 1987, 81, took the same approach.
bʿl mt Baal is dead!

my lim bn dgn What has become of64 the Potent65, the Rainy One,
my hmlt atr bʿl What of Tempest of the shrine of Baal?
nrd arṣ I shall descend into the netherworld!
I have construed this as two monocola framing a bicolon, and integrat-
ing well with it. Alternatively, on a different stichometry, with the verbal or
epithetal mt understood as doing double duty, and with atr taken as a prepo-
sition, it may have the following sense:
bʿl mt Baal is dead!
my lim What has become of the Potent?
bn dgn the Rainy One (is dead)!
my hmlt What has become of Tempest?
atr bʿl nrd arṣ After Baal I shall descend into the netherworld!
We have seen from the proposals above that it is usual for scholars to
take lim and hmlt as an a, b word-pair, both referring to people: lim is related
to Hebrew l eʾum, Akkadian limu.66 For an alternative explanation see below
at §17.
If we reject the view that lim means “people” in this passage, we are
free to explore other possibilities for hmlt. The Hebrew h amullâ appears in
Jeremiah 11:16 and Ezekiel 1:24. It is translated by modern versions in the
respective passages as follows: “tempest”, “tumult” (RSV), “wind”,
“storm” ( JB), “roaring noise”, “crowd” (REB). BDB gives “rainstorm(?)”67
as the primary meaning. Rin thought that as with hamon, the application of
the term to people is an extension of the basic sense of noise—crowds be-
ing above all talkative! 68 We may propose then that √hml would be a by-
64 Or: “Who is . . . ? ” The bicolon looks as though it may have an independent origin from
the formula bʿl mt ||ard barṣ . On the liturgical question, to which the response is the acclama-
tion of the divine name, cf. Psalm 24:8, 10. If this is the sense here, then the poet has skil-
fully interlocked cultic formulations of different genre. This would have less effect in the
context of the common interpretation of the bicolon rejected above.
65 For this translation see §17 below.
67 BDB 242b. (Cf. HALOT i 251a, “(tumultuous) crowd”, while classifying under Arabic
√hamala , “rain heavily”). A case of disjointed thinking? See also DUL i 342, referring to this
paper.
68 Rin 1963, 27 = 1976 xv.
form of √hmh (< √*hmy), meaning “murmur”, “roar”. Del Olmo Lete
linked the Ugaritic and Hebrew terms with Akkadian amelutu, 69 sc. “peo-
ple”, while W.G.E. Watson has suggested to me orally that the Akkadian
cognate is perhaps not this, but ummilu (√[w]amalu) = “disturber”.70 Perhaps
the best test of an alternative theory for the usage in KTU 1.5 vi 24 and 1.6
i 7 is to consider other contexts in which the phoneme occurs. Let us there-
fore consider KTU 1.2 i 18–19 and its repetition at 34–35:
tn ilm dtqh
dtqyn hmlt
tn bʿl wʿnnh
bn dgn artm pdh
Gibson understood this as follows:
Give up, gods, him whom you protect,
him whom you protect, O multitude,
give up Baal and his lackeys,
the son of Dagan, that I may possess his gold.
This at least preserves the parallelism implicit in ilm, hmlt, but makes
the latter term refer to gods. Note too that Gibson translated the two forms
dtqlh and dtqyn as having substantially the same syntax. This may be con-
trasted with del Olmo Lete’s approach:
Entregad, dioses, a quien rendís pleitesia,
a quien rinden pleitesía las multitudes,
entregad a Baʿlu y a sus servidores,
al hijo de Daganu de cuyo oro pueda apoderarme.71
In preserving the human reference of hmlt, he construed the two verbs
as second person plural and third person plural forms respectively, but
thereby introduced a further element into the passage (a tetracolon devel-
oped from two constituent bicola) which is unnecessary on Gibson’s ap-
proach, and as we shall see, on mine, and is best therefore avoided. I take it
to mean this:
Give up the god whom you obey, 72

70 He referred to AHw 1459a and CAD M, 2, 196: “describing a storm”.
the one whom you obey, 73 Tempest!

Give up Baal and his Clouds, 74
the Rainy One: I shall seize his gold ! 75
In the case of the first bicolon, we have a perfect match between the
parts on chiastic principles—the form is abc:cb—which would be lost on
Del Olmo Lete’s different persons of the verb. The second bicolon picks
up the initial imperative, then providing two further divine titles, and on the
translation above extends the person of the deity to be imprisoned into his
associates and the gold which symbolizes his power. The entire structure
then looks like this: abc:cb::abd:bef, and contains a further example of four
divine names used together:
il(m) || hmlt || bʿl || bn dgn
While artm is not the last word, which would have been most elegant,
it nevertheless rather satisfyingly mirrors the double imperative, tn, tn.
It may be objected that it is not convincing to interpret a feminine
noun (whether singular or plural) as an epithet of a god (that is, a male fig-
72 The radical is √yq y . Gibson looked to Arabic waqa ( y) = “protect”, 1978, 148, as did
Gordon 1969, §1143; I prefer to see the term related to Hebrew √yqh (< √* yq y ) = “obey”.
Del Olmo Lete referred to both cognates, 1981, 561.
73 I construe dtqh in the previous colon as d relative with 2nd. pl. G form yqtl , with h 3rd. m.
sg. object suffix, and dtqyn in the same way, mutatis mutandis ; n is also a 3rd. m. sg. object
suffix, and I take it that it is the phonetic influence of this which has caused the y to be re-
tained with the verb. Both verbs could also be contrued as 3rd. f. sg. or pl.
74 Far better than “retinue” or the like, though this may be alluded to through paronomasia.
ʿnn appears to mean “cloud” in KTU 1.10 ii 33. Cf. Hebrew ʿnn, which BDB 778a noted is
used “esp. of theophanic cloud (58 t.)”. Cf. HALOT ii 857–58. The clouds are not inani-
mate, being in effect subordinate manifestations of the god, and numbered as seven in 1.5 v
6–9.
75 Following Gaster 1950, 12; Gordon 1969, §2023; del Olmo Lete 1981, 609. Discussion by
Sasson 1972, 437 (§III 97 ). I am uneasy about this, and would be happier if we could detect
in pd an equivalent to the mythological figures lurking in ʿnn . Thus “clouds” could be seen as
Baal’s possession, which Yam would seize. In the Vedic tradition, clouds are seen as cattle,
property par excellence . The seizure of gold is however also perhaps a figure for victory over
an enemy. (Cf. Wyatt 2002, 59 [and nn. 104–07 ]:
Give up the god whom you obey,
the one whom you obey, Tempest!
Give up Baal [and his retinue],
the Son of Dagan, whose gold I shall seize!’”)
ure). If this is felt to be a problem, we may posit an earlier form such as

*dhmlt, “the One of the Tempest”, like the *ʾl dʿlm which probably under-
lies the biblical El Olam.
On the first etymology discussed above, we have the application of the
same theme to a crowd of people, as opposed to a gathering of clouds, in
the expression hmlt arṣ which occurs six times (three of them restorations)
in the Baal cycle (e.g. KTU 1.3 iii 28) in parallel to nšm. On Watson’s ety-
mology, we should see two distinct lexemes in Ugaritic. A further instance
of hmlt in KTU 1.83.12 is in too broken a context for a decision on its
meaning to be taken.
14 ḥtk dgn
This epithet occurs once, in KTU 1.10 iii 32–36:
ql lbʿl ttnn She spoke to Baal:
bšrt il [bšr b]ʿl Receive wonderful tidings, Baal,
w bšr tk dgn yea, hear the good news, Ruler 76 of the Rain!
kibr lbʿl yld For a steer is born to Baal,
wrum lrkb ʿrpt and a wild bull to the Charioteer of the Clouds!
The double parallelism of the divine titles should be noted here:
bʿl || tk dgn, bʿl || rkb ʿrpt
In such an arrangement, we may expect a balance between the parts,
so that in effect bʿl= bʿl (obviously), but more informatively, tk dgn = rkb
ʿrpt ; that is, there should be some semantic balance between the two terms.
This would not be achieved if tk dgn were construed as “Scion of Da-
gan”—which in any case is not convincing if we reject bn dgn as meaning
“Son of Dagan”, discussed above,77 but is achieved if the former title means
“Ruler of the Rain”. Indeed it draws attention to the regal element which is
implicit in, if not generally recognized of, the corresponding rkb ʿrpt . This
puts Baal not merely in the martial sphere, but more particularly in the royal
76For explanation of this see Wyatt 1980, 378.

77Even if this translation is unsustainable, the parallelism of tk dgn || rkb ʿrpt invites an
interpretation in which the two titles are strictly complementary, that is, share a common
semantic field, as on my proposal in this discussion.
sphere (for which see § 20, and cf. §§18 and 21). The term tk is construed
on this understanding as relating to the verb of this form, occurring in He-
brew with the sense of “divide”, “determine”.78 A noun from the same base
may occur in KTU 1.108.23, 25, interpreted by de Moor as “sway”79 or “pa-
tronage”.80 The occurrence of this term in KTU 1.108 may have a bearing
on the problem of the identity of rpu, discussed below (§22).
15 zbl bʿl arṣ81

This title continues the epithet zbl shared with a number of deities, qualified
by the intriguing formula bʿl arṣ. It should perhaps be dealt with in two
stages.
The following gods are given the title zbl : Reshef (once), Yarih (four
times), Yam (eleven times) and Baal. The term zbl appears to have the basic
sense of exaltation (cf. Hebrew zabal , z ebul , and the tribal name z ebûlun 82),
while in the case of Reshef there was no doubt wordplay on the (unassoci-
ated? 83) lexeme zbln, “disease”.
The title bʿl arṣ , occurring only after zbl , is found on nine occasions.
With the exception of KTU 1.3 i 3 and 1.5 vi 10, all the occurrences are
within KTU 1.6. So it is never used until Baal’s victory over Yam is assured.
Although of course, with the large gaps in the earlier part of the cycle, no
final conclusions should be drawn, at least so far as the incidences remain-
ing are concerned, it appears to indicate that the conflict between Baal and
Yam is concerned with lordship of the earth, Baal attaining the title after
depriving Yam of the right to it. In the case of KTU 1.5 vi 10 it is uttered in
the context of a lament, undoubtedly drawn from the cult.84 KTU 1.5 vi 9–
78 Occurring only in the Niphal stem: BDB 367; Daniel 9:24.

79 De Moor 1969, 176.
80 De Moor 1972, ii 26; id., 1987, 189–90.
81 Kapelrud 1952, 60–61; van Zijl 1972, 340.
82 See BDB 259b(, HALOT i 261).
83 Gordon cited two lexemes, 1969, §§815, 816, as did Aistleitner 1974, §878, and del Olmo
Lete 1981, 544. To the second meaning, “disease”, cf. Tsevat 1954, 322.
84 I would reject any idea of the wholesale use of the Baal myths as they are narrated in
KTU1.1 to 6 within the cult, as envisaged for instance by Gaster and de Moor among recent
commentators. But given that the poet(s) are bound to have been dealing in stereotyped
language, traditional forms and cultic clichés, it should come as no surprise to find echoes of
the cult in odd snatches from time to time.
10 is repeated verbatim at 1.6 i 41–43 (mt aliyn bʿl, lq zbl bʿl arṣ ), and the
formula clearly belongs with the slight variations of 1.6 iii 2–3 (whm y aliyn
bʿl, hm it zbl bʿl arṣ ), 1.6 iii 8–9 = 1.6 iii 20–21 (k y aliyn bʿl, kit zbl bʿl arṣ ),
and 1.6 iv 4–5 = 15–16 ( iy aliyn bʿl, iy zbl bʿl arṣ) within some liturgical con-
text, presumably a rite of mourning Baal’s death and celebrating his resur-
rection. These latter passages all deal therefore with the mythological con-
flict between Baal and Mot. The contexts of both usages, these and that at
KTU 1.3 i 3, seem to me to support the view that the overall sense of the
conflicts is a cosmological rather than an agricultural one. The fight be-
tween the three gods concerns the lordship of the ordinary world of living
beings.
16 liy
In a number of administrative texts the element liy occurs in strings of per-
sonal names, appearing either as a hypocoristic, or in a full form as bn liy . In
the absence of other likely candidates, we are justified in understanding liy
provisionally as a further title of Baal, cognate with and corresponding to
aliy(n) dealt with in §§1–3 above.
17 lim
We noted above a problem with the understanding of lim in KTU 1.5 vi 23
and 1.6 i 6. Most scholars have understood it as the equivalent of Hebrew
leʾōm, meaning “people”.85 We have seen however (§13 above) that the par-
allel term hmlt is not to be interpreted in this way. We must of course avoid
a circular argument by making each word’s meaning dependent on the
other’s, and we intentionally left lim out of account in determining the
meaning of hmlt.
There is also a plausible alternative for lim. A deity by this name ap-
pears in the Mari texts, and it is interpreted by G. Dossin as the Amorite
translation of Dagan, which he took to be Sumerian.86 He was wrong on the
85 Driver 1956, 158: in the formula ybmt limm , he interpreted lim as “ruler”, translating the
expression as “the sister-in-law of rulers” (55 etc.).
86 Dossin 1950, 49–50. On Lim’s importance at Mari see Dahood 1958, 68. See also Röllig
1968, 126. Lipiński saw Lim as a form of the sun god: 1967, 151–60, cit. Margalit 1980, 134
n. 5.
latter point,87 but the important elements in his argument with which we
may agree are firstly the West Semitic nature of the divine name, and sec-
ondly his equivalence with Dagan. We have seen above (§6) that Dagan and
Baal appear to be divergent forms of the same deity, so that their equiva-
lence in Mari—anticipating for a moment that lim is a title of Baal—is to be
expected.
Recognition of lim in the Ugaritic texts as an allusion to a deity appears
to be to the credit of de Moor,88 though he rejected this explanation of limm,
that is, with a further m. Indeed he appears to have changed his mind on
the former immediately afterwards.89 I am happy however to accept his ini-
tial insight.
We cannot discuss lim without some consideration of the formula used
of Anat on a number of occasions. This is spelt in various ways: on five
occasions it appears as ybmt limm, on one as ymmt limm, and on four is re-
stored in broken contexts.90 While the spelling ybmt has the strongest sup-
port, it hardly has a monopoly, and so close are b and m phonetically (plo-
sive and fricative forms of the same voiced labial articulation91) that we may
credit either a scribal mishearing on one or more instances, if the texts were
dictated, or an etymological equivalence of two terms, to be seen as variants
of each other. As to meaning, we have some extraordinary offerings, from
“Sister-in-law of Peoples”92 to “Wanton Widow of the Nations”93. The very
implausibility of these ought to have encouraged further enquiries. But if lim
is a divine title, then it is at least possible that limm is a variant form, and de
87 See Wyatt 1980, 377.

88 De Moor 1969, 183. See also Margalit 1980, 134–35. Margalit plausibly explained the use of
lim in KTU 1.5 vi 23, 1.6 i 6 on grounds of alliteration.
89 De Moor 1971, 191, 197 (unexplained in the philological notes), and subsequently in id.,
1987, 81–82.
90 See Whitaker 1972, 395. The references in KTU are as follows: ybmt : KTU 1.3 ii 33, 1.4 ii
15–16, 1.10 iii 3, 1.17 vi 19, 25; ymmt : 1.3 iii 12; [ ]: 1.3 iv 22, (CTA 7 ii 13 left blank), 1.10 i
15, 1.101.15–16. (Cf. Cunchillos and Vita 1995, II.1 902–03, 959.)
91 Cf. Ugaritic špš with Hebrew šemeš , Akkadian šamaš , and in spite of the gutturals, the gen-
tilics ʾrm and ʿrb . Løkkegaard, 1953, 226, cautiously cited m and b, meaning “from”.
92 Albright 1938, 19 n. 6, explained the title as “ Progenitress of peoples”. Caquot et al . 1974,
e.g. 161, left the formula untranslated in their text, but had a preference for “ le vocabulaire
des relations de parenté ”, 91–92.
93 De Moor 1987, 7 and n. 35. In id., 1969, 183 and id., 1971, 97, he decided on “Nubile
Widow of the Li’mites”.

Moor’s protestation that this is unlikely, when he actually cited the analogue
of amrr, is unconvincing.94
The proposal of Obermann 95 and Løkkegaard 96 that ymmt is the pri-
mary form―though neither followed it up in this way―allows comparison
with Arabic yamamat, “pigeon”, “dove”, with which Sarna in turn 97 com-
pared Hebrew yemimah , name of a daughter of Job in Job 42:14. On the
basis of the equivalence of b and m, there is no reason why the same sense
should not be discerned in ybmt too. Accordingly, we may interpret Anat’s
title as “Dove of Limm”, where the overtones of all bird-language ad-
dressed to women are present. Anat is Lim’s (Baal’s) Beloved.98 In addition
to this there is the tradition of Anat as a bird, or at any rate as winged. Con-
sider for instance KTU 1.10 ii 10:
tšu knp btltʿn[t ] Virgin Anat lifted up her wing(s),
94 De Moor 1969, 183.

95 Obermann 1948, 35.
96 Løkkegaard 1953, 226.
97 Sarna 1957, 24, followed by Caquot et al . 1974, 91 n. 1.
98 Cf. de Moor 1972, ii 21 n. 91, writing of the rite in KTU 1.23:
It is obvious ... that the two women react to the double meaning of El’s perform-
ance: the stick ( penis) will enter the innocent bird (girl, almost universal imagery, e.g.
Hebrew yonâ ) ...
Note the English phrase “lovey-dovey”(!), and verbs like “billing and cooing”. Girls are
commonly birds, chicks, hens, ducks, “(dem)oiselles” etc. I am sure that some political car-
toonist has even portrayed Mrs Thatcher as a vulture! A remarkable passage in the Odes of
Solomon, 24.1, reads:
The Dove fluttered over the head of our Lord Messiah,
because he was her Head;
and she sang over Him
and her voice was heard ...
(Charlesworth 1983–85 ii 757)
While this is no doubt an allusion to the baptism of Jesus, the feminine nature of the dove
almost demands a recognition of a mythological dimension, and it is hard to escape the sense
that Anat hovering protectively over Baal lies in the remote past behind the present image.
(Cf. too avian imagery in the iconogram of Horus and Horon hovering protectively over the
Pharaoh. See chapter 7 below.)
tšu knp wtr bʿp she lifted up her wings and flew away.
There is also the following passage in KTU 1.108.8–9:
w ʿnt di<y> And Anat the kite, (read dit ?)
dit r pt [bšm] rm<m> the kite hovering in the high heaven.
and the goddess’ words in KTU 1.18 iv 21–22:
bn nšrm ar p ank between the falcons I shall myself hover.
There is also some circumstantial iconographic evidence.99 So the bird-
metaphor of ybmt (variant ymmt ) is consistent with a general conception of
the goddess.
As for the divine name lim, it is to be construed as a further example
of √lʾy , which appeared in aliy(n) (§§1–3) and liy (§16). So lim is to be under-
stood as “powerful” or “potent”, whence my translation as “the Potent”.
The additional m (limm instead of lim) may be explained as enclitic, mima-
tion,100 intensive, or plural of majesty.101
18 mlk
Three gods, El, Athtar and Baal are all called king, while Yam and Mot have
royal qualities, Yam being given coronation titles (KTU 1.1 iv 14–20102) and
Mot ruling a city (1.4 viii l0–14 103). Mot is also described as “the king of
terrors” in Job 18:14. We seem to have more than a plenitude of potentates.
Here we may note that becoming a king is in Baal’s case a corollary of his
victory over Yam, and that the need for the palace (sc. temple) is the logical
outcome of his declared kingship.
99 See Yon 1991, 291–93, 329 (fig. 9 c), for the stela of a goddess from Ugarit whose long
skirt is in the form of a wing. In the ivory panel from the royal bed, a winged goddess (sc.
Athirat?) suckles two sons (sc. Shahar and Shalem as royal gods). See Caquot and Sznycer
1980, pl. xxixb.
100 Gordon 1969, §8.2, claimed that the mimation is defunct in Ugaritic. But surely it sur-
vives, for instance, in the title of Mot, bn ilm , to which cf. biblical benê ʾēlîm , where the divine
name ( El) is genitive sg.?
101 So Gray 1965, 43, though he saw the term as meaning “prince”.
102 See Wyatt 1985b, 121–25 = 2005b, 18–22.
103 Cf. n. 42.
19 ʿly
This term, of which the familiar biblical and common West Semitic form
ʿelyôn is an extension, with post-formative n, appears twice, in KTU 1.16 iii
6, 8. Immediately following nearly forty lines of missing text at the end of
16 ii and the beginning of 1.16 iii, the title appears to come in the context of
a rite being performed by an unidentified person (perhaps Ilhu?) to over-
come an apparent curse on the land accompanying Keret’s sickness. We can
see from the context that the title belongs to Baal:
To the earth (may there come) the rain of Baal,
to the steppe the rain of the Most High!
Pleasant to the earth (would be) the rain of Baal,
and to the steppe the rain of the Most High! 104
This appears, like some other formulaic passages in the text, to be a
quotation from a liturgy, which would explain why the epithet is found no-
where else in the Baal cycle: that is, it belongs to the liturgical, but not the
broader poetic repertoire.
20 rkb ʿrpt105
This title is found sixteen times, ten times in the Baal cycle (KTU 1.1–6),
and three in 1.10, once in Aqhat (1.19), and twice in 1.92, which appears to
be a fragment of mythology. It seems to be a specifically poetic title, there-
fore, no doubt used in liturgical contexts—though there is no reason to
interpret any of these as such—but not to designate Baal in sacrificial lists.
104 Gordon 1949, 80; id., 1969, §1855; Kapelrud 1952, 62; Bronner 1968, 101, misconstrued
the title, which is followed in both instances by the word n ʿm , as ʿly n ʿm , “the exalted good
one”. Cf. van Zijl 1972, 282.
(Cf. Wyatt 2002, 231:
To the earth let the rain of Baal speak ,
and to the steppe the rain of the Most High!
Pleasant to the earth (would be) the rain of Baal ,
and to the steppe the rain of the Most High! )
105 Kapelrud 1952, 61–62.
Two senses have been proposed for the title: “Rider of the Clouds”106 or
“Charioteer of the Clouds”107. The precise form rkb gives no certain clue as
to which of these is to be preferred, since the basic sense appears to be “to
mount and ride”, that is, a mechanical or animal vehicle, or even, in effect,
“to climb”108. The nub is whether in the case of the title the riding is of an
animal (which is never specified or identified) or of a vehicle drawn by one
or more animals. There are two aspects to the problem: whether or not
people actually rode animals at the period in history from which the Uga-
ritic texts date, and the iconographic traditions concerning the storm-god.
The answer to the first issue is that they evidently did. We have the in-
ternal evidence of the Baal cycle, which describes the preparation of Athi-
rat’s donkey, and Qadesh-and-Amurru lifting the goddess bodily onto the
animal’s back (KTU 1.4 iv 1–15). In addition we have numerous illustra-
tions of Athtart riding bareback on a horse, all dating from the Late
Bronze. 109 Indeed, illustrations collected by Littauer and Crouwel 110 show
that the riding of animals was an ancient art, though horses (equus caballus
caballus) appear to have been used in this way only relatively recently. Early
horse-remains from the region belong, where identifiable, to other sub-
species (the hemippus, equus hemippus, the onager, equus hemionus onager and
the ass, equus asinus africanus 111). The earliest “true horse” remains belong to
the second millennium, and were apparently introduced from Asia. 112 They
106 Gaster 1961, 161; Cassuto 1970, 59; Driver 1956, 81; Jirku 1962, 24 (“Wolkenreiter”);
Gordon 1969, §2331; de Moor 1971, 98 (but see his discussion: “ The divine charioteer [sic]
could be designated as rakibu ʿurpati , ‘Driver of the Rain-clouds’ or as rakubu ʿurpati , ‘ Rider
on the Rain-clouds’ ...”; cf. the similar ambiguity in id., 1987, 7); Caquot 1974, 74
(“Chevaucheur”); Gibson 1978, 43; Margalit 1980, 37.
107 Aistleitner 1964, 15 (“der auf Wolken Einherfahrende”); del Olmo Lete 1981, 624
(“Auriga”); Xella 1982, 87 (“Auriga”); Wyatt 1980, 378. Cf. Kapelrud 1952, 62 (“Driver”).
108 Cf. the use of the verb by itself in KTU 1.14 ii 21 and 1.14 iv 3, meaning “to climb up to
the top of the temple”:

Go/he went up to the top of the tower,
mount/he mounted up to the summit of the wall.
(Wyatt 2002, 188, 198)
109 See Leclant 1960.
110 Littauer and Crouwel 1979.
111 See Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 23–25, 34–35 (early 3rd millennium), 41, 45–46 (later
third millennium).
112 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 56–57.
are to be associated primarily with the presence of Proto-Indo-Āryans in

the region.
So far as the iconographic question is concerned, we should look to
two traditions with regard to the weather-god. Firstly, we have early repre-
sentations of a deity identified by Vanel 113 as the Mesopotamian storm-god.
Early examples ride either in chariots or stand on the backs of animals, in
the earliest cases a lightning-spitting winged lion (also the animal drawing
the chariot), and later a bull.114 Examples such as these are dated to the third
millennium. This tradition, in which West Semitic and Mesopotamian influ-
ences interact upon each other, is quite independent, it would appear, of the
Āryans of the mid-second millennium.115 We may note that there are clear
Indo-European tradition introduced to the region by the Proto-Indo-
links between West Semitic Baal and Indra, who is not only clearly attested
in the Mittanno-Hittite treaty of the mid-fourteenth century, 116 but is
probably to be identified behind the idr appearing in some Ugaritic personal
names,117 and if so, is present himself in Ugarit. It follows that there may
well be Proto-Indo-Āryan elements in both the mythological and cultic, and
in the iconographic traditions of Baal. Indra appears commonly in Vedic
tradition as a chariot-rider,118 the Maruts (cf. the maryannu as a military caste,
and Baal’s helpers119) being his companions. The organization of the mili-
tary use of chariots which finds expression in the phrase occurs several
times in Keret,
tlt sswm mrkbt charioteers with horse-drawn chariots120
113 Vanel 1965. (See now Green 2003, 152.)

114 Cf. Vanel 1965, figs. 5 (chariot drawn by lion), 6, 8 (lion), 10, 11 (bull). To fig. 5 cf. Lit-
tauer and Crouwel 1979, figs. 13 and 17.
115 On the history of the movement and the choice of the designation “ Proto-Indoaryan”
(here “Proto-Indo-Āryan”) see Burrow 1973.

116 See ANET 205–06.
117 As bn idr . Cf. n. 27.
118 E.g. Rigveda 1.52.1, 1.53.9, 1.56.1 etc.
119 See Wyatt 1987b.
120 KTU 1.14 ii 2–3, etc. (Or “charioteers with chariot-horses”: Wyatt 2002, 185 [see n. 38 ad
loc.].)
and is best construed as indicating by tlt the third member of a team, the
archers tnnm, sc. “second men”) being mentioned with them in the descrip-
tion of Keret’s army:
tlt mat rbt a million charioteers,
pt dbl spr mercenaries without number,
tnn dbl hg archers beyond reckoning.121
The first member of such a team, and in control of it, was a spear-
wielding warrior, and it is in this guise that I believe Baal was imagined un-
der his title rkb ʿrpt. The argument relies on circumstantial evidence, to be
sure, but is clinched by two points. Firstly, a small bronze survives of a pair
of deities, a god and a goddess, in a chariot.122 The goddess has a quiver on
her back and wears the Atef crown, two features which allow us to identify
her with some confidence as Anat.123 It follows that her companion is most
probably Baal. Secondly, since in the later period the only animal on which
the god stands is a bull—as at Hazor 124—and the bull is never indicated as a
theriomorphic metaphor for clouds, it is clear that there is no evidence for
this particular epithet meaning riding on an animal, while there is evidence
for him riding in a vehicle. The clouds constitute the vehicle.
It is possible that we also have the seeds of another iconogram, of
great importance in later times, in the designation of Baal’s assistants, Gu-
panu and Ugaru—most scholars understand them to be a pair125—or assis-
tant Gupan-and-Ugar (“Vine-and Field”?). On the analogy of Qadesh-and-
Amurru and Kothar-and-Hasis, I see no reason to insist on the duality of
121 KTU 1.14 ii 36–38 etc. The “million” of the first colon is 100 ¯ 10,000. The tlt (“chario-
teer”) is the “third” member of the team. (On the philology see Wyatt 2002, 190, nn. 62–64.)
122 See Negbi 1976, pl. 5, fig. 22 (Louvre AO 22265). Negbi took the figure in the Atef
crown to be a god. It is rather this figure’s companion who is a god. Cf. Wyatt 1984, 332
(§5).
123 On the iconography of Anat see Wyatt 1984.
124 See Yadin 1975, 84–85.
125 The only clue from the syntax of the text is perhaps atm bštm in KTU 1.3 iv 33, which
appears to be second person plural or dual pronoun and verb, and y ʿdbkm in 1.4 viii 17 (tqrb
in this passage could be singular, dual or plural). If I am right on the matter of the analogy of
other binomials, then each of the m affixes above would need to be construed as enclitic,
which is by no means impossible. Against the pairing of the two gods we have the fact of
Baal’s seven cloud-companions (n. 69 above).
Gupan-and-Ugar. The point here is that the term ʿnn (see n. 68) is used to
designate him (them) on four occasions:126
tn bʿl w ʿnnh Give up Baal and his Cloud(s),
bn dgn artm pdh the Rainy One: I shall seize his gold!127
(KTU 1.2 i 18–19, 35)
lk lk ʿnn ilm Go, go, Cloud(s) of the god!

(KTU 1.3 iv 32)128
w nǵr ʿnn ilm but take care, Cloud(s) of the god!

(KTU 1.4 viii 15)129
It may mean no more than “assistant” (cf. nn. 128, 129), as seems
most likely in KTU 1.4 iv 59, where El protests that he is more than a mere
servant of Athirat. But given the use of ʿnn in theophany language in such
passages as Exodus 13:21–22, 14:20, 34:5, Job 37:15, and so forth, we are
entitled to see the same lexeme in connection with the weather-god. The
clouds are to be seen now as companions, now as vehicle for the god. The
very chariot is animate and divine.
21 tpṭ
The term most usually applied to the Ugaritic sea-god in his poetically
paired titles zbl ym, tpṭ nhr is applied to Baal twice in substantial repetitions
of the same formula in KTU 1.3 v 32–33 and 1.4 iv 43–44, noted above
under §1. In the first two lines of the tricolon,
mlkn aliy(n) Our king is Valiant,
bʿl tpṭn Baal is our ruler
the full political content of the term tpṭ is evident in its balance with mlkn in
the a b b a structure of the stich. As in its use in early Israel, attested in the
126 One is duplicated (KTU 1.2 i 18, 35). The same designation may occur in 1.10 ii 33,
though del Olmo Lete translated the word there as a verb: 1981, 470.
127See n. 75.
128 Wyatt 2002, 82: “Go, go! attendants of the gods!”
129 Wyatt 2002, 113: “But take care, attendants of the god...”
Book of Judges, and in later Carthage, where the Punic term “suffete” (sc.
šopeṭ) is frequently translated in Greek and Latin texts by their equivalents
for mlk , and rex. The formula partially quoted, together with the
attached line and the following bicolon, appears to be a quotation from a
hymn to the god. Neither mlk nor tpṭ is used absolutely with Baal, but with
the possessive suffix.
Other possible and dubious titles 130

There are various expressions in the Ugaritic texts which may be construed
as titles of the weather-god, but which remain uncertain. I list them here as
being of open status.
2 2 bʿl knp
Occurring once in KTU 1.46.6, this apparent divine title was mentioned by
Kapelrud in his treatment of Baal’s titles.131 He wondered whether it may
relate to Baal’s treatment of the eagles (that is, falcons) in the Aqhat story
(KTU 1.19 iii 1–45). There does not seem to me to be any strong reason to
link the two, and while Xella translated it as “‘winged’ Baal”,132 Kühne and
de Tarragon both treated knp as a toponym.133 On such an interpretation
the divine title would have the same formal quality as bʿl ugrt (§8 above).
But while “the Lord of Ugarit” may with some confidence be linked with
the storm-god who featured so prominently in the city’s mythology and
cult, in the case of a city of Kanap(u?), we know nothing of the place but its
name, and are hardly in a position to characterize its putative patron deity.
2 3 bʿl mrym ṣpn and bʿl (b)ṣrrt ṣpn

While these phrases are commonly translated as “Baal in the
heights/recesses of Saphon” or “Baal who dwells in the heights/recesses of
Saphon”, it is arguable that in the following instances they strictly mean
“the lord of the heights/recesses of Saphon”, that is a double construct and
genitive, thus constituting further titles, which would in effect be exten-
130 Cf. n. 29.

131 Kapelrud 1952, 59.
132 Xella 1981, 56.
133 Kühne 1975, 255; de Tarragon in Caquot et al. 1989, 165.
sions, or “superlatives”, versions of bʿl ṣpn (§9 above). The occurrences of

the various forms may be classified as follows:
bʿl mrym ṣpn KTU 1.3 iv 38, 1.4 v 22, 1.5 i 11, 1.100.9 (all “to”);
bʿl ṣrrt ṣpn KTU 1.6 vi 12–13 (“to”);
bʿl (b)ṣrrt ṣpn KTU 1.3 i 21–22 (b = “in”) .
Their construction may be contrasted with that of bʿl bmrym ṣpn, KTU
1.3 iv 1 (b = “from”)—where Baal is the direct object of a verb (trd ) which
is qualified by the adverbial phrase bmrym ṣpn (“of those/him who drove
Baal from the heights of Saphon”); and 1.4 iv 19, w bʿl tbʿ mrym ṣpn—where
Baal is the subject of a verb (tbʿ ) which is qualified by the same adverbial
phrase (“and Baal departed for the heights of Saphon”). In the instances
listed above, the adverbial phrase mrym/ṣrrt/ bṣrrt ṣpn may indeed be con-
strued as qualifying the verb of movement of which Baal is the indirect ob-
ject, but may equally be taken as a second construct and genitive (in the case
of bṣrrt ṣpn, bʿl would be absolute) as suggested. If this suggestion were ac-
cepted, we should envisage perhaps a hymnodic formula, used in addressing
the specific form of the deity bʿl ṣpn (for a ritual usage see the occurrence at
KTU 1.100.9), which has been taken over as a poetic formula when move-
ment to Saphon is understood, so that it would still have something of the
adverbial force of the usual translations.
24 rpu
Who is the deity designated by this title in text KTU 1.108? There is no
consensus and the evidence is such that no firm conclusion can be reached.
Among many proposals, Parker considered him to be an autonomous deity,
“Rapiu”,134 others have identified him with El,135 while de Moor took him to
be Baal in his healing role, thus providing a further epithet—indeed, a fur-
134 Parker 1972. On p. 104 he toyed with the equation Rapiu = Mot, but reached no deci-
sion. Cf. Pope 1977, 170–71, for an identity with Molek . Heider also discussed this option,
1985, 118–23.
135 See Parker 1972, 98 n. 15 for references (Virolleaud, Gese, Fisher, Blau and Greenfield).
ther hypostasis—of the storm-god.136 If we accepted the last view, mlk ʿlm,
the epithet of Rapiu in KTU 1.108.1, would be yet another title.
25 hdr‛y
In KTU 1.108.2–3 we have the following intriguing bicolon:
il ytb bʿttrt
il tpẓ bhdrʿy
B. Margulis (Margalit) proposed137 that there was a reference here to
two toponyms from Transjordan, Ashtarot and Edrei, cities of Og king of
Bashan.138 This view was challenged by C. L’Heureux139 and J.C. de Moor,140
who saw an allusion to Athtart (ʿttrt ) in the first colon, and to “Hadd the
shepherd” in the second, thus constituting a further title. However, de
Moor later changed his mind, and in 1987 141 he followed Margalit’s line.
This view may now be regarded as vindicated.142
We may therefore translate the bicolon as follows:
The god enthroned in Athtarat,
the god who rules in Edrei.143
It is therefore not a title after all.
136 De Moor 1987, 187 n. 1. Contrast id., 1969, 175–76, where in his translation he appeared
to distinguish the two deities:
the god who is sitting with Haddu,
the Shepherd who sings and plays ...
but in his commentary suggested that “it is possible that he represents the chthonic aspect of
Baal”. Cf. Margalit 1989, 251–60, who in analysing Danil’s epithets mt rpi and mt hrnmy con-
cluded that the former is a toponym (“ Man of [= from] Rapiʾu ” ), while the latter involves a
further epithet of Baal, sc. “Rainmaker” (√hr [r ] + my). The latter proposal in particular is
very attractive, and prompts the suggestion that, pace Margalit, mt rpi is in synonymous paral-
lelism with mt hrnmy , and therefore also designates Baal. ( However, Annus’ 1999 explanation
is to be preferred.)
137 Margulis 1970.
138 Deuteronomy 1:4, 3:1, 10; Numbers 21:33, Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 31, 19:37.
139 L’Heureux 1979, 172–74.
140 De Moor 1976, 326; id., 1972 ii 25 n. 105.
141 De Moor 1987, 187.
142See discussion in Heider 1985, 118–23.
143 Wyatt 2002, 395. See also Wyatt forthcoming.
Given the ingenuity of scholars and the continued trickle of textual

discoveries from both Ras Shamra and Ras Ibn Hani, the discussion above
has certainly not exhausted all the possibilities of epithets of the storm-god,
but I believe it has covered all those for which a prima facie case exists on the
evidence so far available. It has deliberately refrained from any attempt to
incorporate extraneous material. While Ugarit was particularly open to out-
side influences by virtue of its geopolitical and mercantile situation, we are
nevertheless able to catch a relatively cohesive and comprehensive glimpse
of its religious structures. With the extensive range of known epithets of
Baal and the myths concerning him, we are now in a position to outline a
theology. Its most striking feature is the sheer comprehensiveness of Baal’s
nature. Those studies which try to limit his role to an aspect of the local
climate are essentially reductionist, and fail to give a serious account of the
complexity of the mythological structures and the scope of the epithetal
repertoire.
3 THE PRUNING OF THE VINE IN KTU 1.23
First published in UF 24 (1992) 425–7.

Shortly before the interesting erotic activities begin in KTU 1.23, we
read in lines 8–11 that:
Mt-w-Šr sat enthroned,
in his hand the staff of bereavement,
in his hand the staff of widowhood.
The vine-pruners prune him,
the vine-binder bind him;
they cause his shoots to fall like a vine 1.
In an earlier discussion2 I suggested that the figure described in the
first tricolon above be identified with El, whose appearance here is in
marked contrast to, and antithetical anticipation of, his outburst of sexual
activity in the narrative that follows.
The following tricolon has generally been interpreted as descriptive of
the figure just mentioned, however his identity is understood. It is therefore
supposed to perpetuate the image of fertility.
Thanks to some very interesting observations of H. Eilberg-Schwarz,
in his recent book The Savage in Judaism,3 I believe we are now in a position
to revise our assessment of the latter tricolon, and indeed virtually to re-
verse its supposed meaning. In so far as it alludes to some ritual action per-
1 Cf. my slightly modified translation in Wyatt 2002, 326–27:

The lord and master sat enthroned,
in his hand the staff of sterility,
in his hand the staff of widowhood.
Those who prune the vine pruned him,
those who bind the vine bound him;
they let his tendril fall like a vine.
2 Wyatt 1977.
3 Eilberg-Schwarz 1990.
41
formed before the hieros gamos takes place between El and his wives, it is to
be understood as in some way preparatory to what ensues.
Running against the stream of modern studies of circumcision, which
have tended to look for edifying, spiritual meanings behind the Jewish rite,
far removed from any “pagan” associations and “fertility cult” elements,
Eilberg-Schwarz argued cogently for the rite’s overwhelming concern with
fecundity, 4 a view with which I have concurred in previous discussions. 5
One of his sharpest observations was that “the removal of the foreskin
symbolically readies the organ for reproduction”. 6 He then explored the
meaning of circumcision imagery as applied in biblical passages to plants.
Young fruit trees are referred to as “uncircumcised” (e.g. Leviticus 19:23), a
remarkable figure, whose purpose is to prevent farmers from overstraining
immature fruit trees by demanding maximal yield before the tree is capable
of producing it.7 The reverse of this imagery is that when the first “legiti-
mate” fruit is taken from the tree, or it is pruned in preparation for a fruit-
ful harvest, it is understood to be “circumcised”: “cutting away the foreskin
is like pruning a fruit tree”.8
It should be remembered in the context that Ugaritic uses the term
“tree” (ʿṣ) to denote the vine in the phrase “the blood of trees” (dm ʿṣm),
meaning the juice of (grapes from) vines. 9 The vine, Eilberg-Schwarz
noted,10 is also classified as a tree in Judges 9:13, Joel 1:12, 2:22 and Ezekiel
15:2 and 6. “We know”, he observed, “that Israelites regularly pruned at
least one kind of fruit ‘tree’ in order to maximize its yield”.11 While we are
4 Eilberg-Schwarz 1990, 141–48.

5 See Wyatt 1990a = 2005a, 55–71, and chapter 2 above. In the latter study I proposed that
circumcision in the Vorlage of Genesis 34 may be symbolically connected with, and under-
stood as a substitute for, human sacrifice.
6 Eilberg-Schwarz 1990, 148.
9 Read or restored at KTU 1.4 iii 44, iv 38, vi 59, 1.5 iv 16, 1.17 vi 6.
3 THE PRUNING OF THE VINE IN KTU 1.23 43
insufficiently informed about Canaanite (or Ugaritian) circumcision rites12

and their symbolism (see further below), I submit that the association of
ideas between circumcision and fruit-production in Israel and Judah, as at-
tested in the Bible, is probably not an innovation, but part of the traditional
metaphorical furniture of the West Semitic languages, and suggests the pos-
sibility that the pruning imagery of the passage cited above is also a figure
for circumcision, and that El himself is to be understood as undergoing the
rite in preparation for his subsequent marriage.
If this be accepted, it provides an incidental confirmation of my pro-
posal13 that the curious personage Mt-wŠr is to be identified with El, rather
than Mot14 or some similar figure. El as childless is an “uncircumcised tree”,
an “unpruned vine”, and the pruning rite symbolizes his initiation into a
state of fecundity. In Wyatt 1977 I translated the Ugaritic expression as “the
all too mortal lord”. Perhaps a revision may be offered. The first term may
be rendered simply “the husband”, understanding mt to be metu 15 rather
than *mawtu > mōtu,16 which suggests the alternative overall sense, “the lord
and master”, an expression used humorously in English of a husband. The
goddesses address El as mt (sc. metu) below in l. 40.
If we understand El’s title in this manner, and in the ritual context of
circumcision, we should also reconsider the significance of the following
description of him. It still allows puns and double-entendres between the staff
the god holds at this point and both the staff he later throws away, perhaps
the arrow he shoots at the bird, and certainly his own “staff”, that is, his
penis. Uncircumcised, he is infertile. What is about to be “pruned” is an
12 I take it as axiomatic that the Canaanites performed circumcision. The Philistines alone are
singled out as “uncircumcised” in biblical allusions (e.g. 2 Samuel 1:20, || “Philistines”, and
cf. 1 Samuel 18:25–27. On the Horites of Shechem see chapter 2. On the evidence of KTU
1.24, a text with Hurrian aspects, for the practice in Ugarit see Allan 1999.)
13 Wyatt 1977.
14 Thus Tsumura 1973, 407–08. Cf. de Moor 1987, 120. Del Olmo Lete 1981, 441, left the
phrase untranslated. Cutler and Macdonald 192, 40, remarked on the other hand that “there
is no reason why mt should not simply mean ‘death’ here”. Cf. Gaster 1961, “Death and
Rot”. This represents a change of view from his 1946 article.
15 Cf. Gaster 1946, 51, 56 n. 9.
16 I am happy to recognize a wordplay here too, in the light of my discussion in chapter 2: in
the story in Genesis 34 the point is the symbolic equivalence of death and circumcision.
infertile plant, transparently a metaphor for his penis,17 which after the ritual
he will address to its proper function. In addressing El as “husband” in l.
40, the goddesses also refer to his “staff”, ṭ, and perhaps significantly, the
word is used in synonymous parallelism with mṭ :
O husband, husband! Lowered is your staff ( ṭ ),
drooping the rod (mṭ ) of your penis/hand ( yd )18
The term mṭ is no doubt selected because of its assonance with mt
“husband”, but also plays cleverly on the association of ideas that the “rod”
(“sceptre”) is a phallus, the epitome of a husband. The Hebrew equivalent,
maṭṭeh, has a sociological meaning in addition to its phytological meaning, as
“tribe”. Furthermore, in Ezekiel 19:11–14 it is used of the branches of a
vine, in addition to possible overtones of rule, as suggested by (the
glossed?) ʾel šibṭê mōš elîm of v. 11. Whether either sense was present in the
Ugaritic word, we cannot of course tell with certainty, but it is a reasonable
supposition.
A final point is the matter of circumcision at Ugarit. We have so far no
further evidence of the performance of the rite, so that such an interpreta-
tion for the present text is a matter of inference from the context.19 If it was
an age-old practice universally performed, we should not expect to have any
mention of it in the genres of texts which survive, except by way of inciden-
tal reference. The reason for its constant appearance in biblical texts lies not
so much in an obsession with phallic imagery in the context, as on its im-
portant secondary symbolism, as a mark of covenant membership. The only
substantial argument that the Canaanites did not practise circumcision is
based on the common reading of Genesis 34. But I have argued20 not only
17 Gaster 1946, 59, though he does not proceed to the conclusion that circumcision is in-
volved, thinking rather in terms of castration. This would isolate the vine-pruning from any
ritual context in connection with the ensuing marriage.
18 The term yd must surely play on the double senses of “hand” and “penis” (cf. Wyatt 2002,
331 n. 40). Note that the expression is construct, mṭ ydk, though with the former nuance we
might expect “the rod in your hand”. Again, the wordplay cleverly evokes the ritual scene.
We may suppose that the initiant into circumcision holds his penis in his hand at the begin-
ning of the rite.
19 Though see now Allan 1999, noted above.
20 Wyatt 1990.
3 THE PRUNING OF THE VINE IN KTU 1.23 45
that the “Hivites” (= Horites) did practise the rite, but that they were not in
any case Canaanites. Whether the Ugaritians were Canaanites is another
problem! (See chapter 4, n. 1 below).
4 UNDERSTANDING POLYTHEISM: STRUCTURE
AND DYNAMIC IN A WEST SEMITIC PANTHEON
First published in JHC 5 (1998) 24–63.
INTRODUCTION
While our record of religious life in the Late Bronze Age city of Ugarit is far
from complete, it is immeasurably richer in many ways than our direct in-
formation concerning religious life in Iron Age Palestine. It allows the cor-
rection of many of the wilful distortions of “Canaanite”1 religious life put
out by biblical propagandists, which are still unfortunately taken at face
value by many scholars. In the following, I shall attempt a more considered
1 Ugarit is not itself strictly Canaanite, in that, as A.F. Rainey 1963, 43–45, 1965, 102–25 has
observed, “Canaanites” are regarded as foreigners in the Ugaritic texts. Be that as it may, the
religion of Ugarit is in many respects part of a continuum with not only the “Canaanite”
cultures to the south, but also with that of Iron Age Palestine beyond. Biblical tradition and
Ugaritic tradition are alike familiar with the sacral traditions of the Hauran (KTU 1.108.2–3,
Deuteronomy 3:10–11, for instance), while Shamak (Lake Hule) features in Ugaritic myths
(KTU 1.10 ii 9, 12, and possibly 1.17 vi 23 and 1.92), and biblical theology is heavily in-
debted to the tradition witnessed in the Ugaritic texts. Having said this, the Ugaritic texts are
not the “open sesame” to every biblical problem, any more than the Dead Sea scrolls are. At
first sight the Hebrew Bible gives us much more useful information about serious theologi-
cal matters than any other ancient documentation. It certainly appears to be the most self-
conscious and reflective. It is when attempts are made to reconcile the written accounts with
either the recoverable history of the region, or even the archaeological record, that the trou-
ble really starts. It becomes evident that the biblical documents are not only almost “sectar-
ian” in the bias against different estimates of what constitutes good religious practice, but
that they are in their present state from a fairly late period (which is increasingly lowered in
recent estimates into the post-exilic period), so that it becomes primarily a series of docu-
ments for the elucidation of the late period, rather than what they purport to be, or at any
rate are commonly understood to be, historical records of earlier practice.
47
approach to it, on the presupposition that any culture’s religious beliefs are
authentic within the culture, and that judgmental posturing by observers is
simply an inappropriate response.
A pantheon of deities, even while it may broadly symbolize a cultural
impact of the “transcendent”, at the same time represents a pluralistic re-
sponse to various pressures impinging on a society. We can distinguish, for
example, its social constituents, such as the presence of different groups
maintaining a distinctive identity, for instance the Hurrian population of
Bronze Age Ugarit. Also of undoubted significance would be its relations
with adjacent cultures, for instance Ugarit’s sensitive diplomatic relations
with both the great powers of the day, Egypt and Hatti, and no doubt until
its demise with Mittanni as well. Finally its own peculiar history, with differ-
ent ethnic constituents in the past, even if now more or less homogeneously
merged with other groups, would have brought religious traditions from
outside, subsequently incorporated into the larger whole. Thus Dagan and
Baal are often regarded as Amorite imports into the Ugaritic pantheon, the
former conceivably identified at least partially with El.2
While at first glance the evidence of the Ugaritian3 pantheon, like oth-
ers from the ancient Near East, looks pretty disorganized, we may be sure
that this is a result of the fragmentary state of the surviving evidence and of
the elementary state of our understanding of it rather than an intrinsic
chaos.4 Discerning order in surviving records, however, is likely to defy all
but the most determined efforts, and to remain at best provisional. Del
Olmo Lete’s analyses of the appearance of sub-groups in the various ritual
texts, while undoubtedly useful as a first stage in comprehension, is as much
indicative of difficulties to be overcome as a solution to any preliminary
2 See Fontenrose 1957, del Olmo Lete 1992, 56 n. 77 = 1999, 74 n. 78. Contrast my (earlier)
estimate, Wyatt 1980, though this has not found favour. See also Healey 1995. The matter of
the relation of Dagan to both El and Baal remains problematic.
3 By “Ugaritian” I refer to the cultural and ethnic group in Ugarit who evidently spoke and
wrote in Ugaritic (the linguistic term), and whose pantheon may be distinguished from the
Hurrian and Akkadian god-lists which may be constructed from the surviving evidence.
4 The most detailed and productive analysis offered so far is that of del Olmo Lete 1992, 35–
65 = 1999, 43–86. See also de Moor 1970; Mullen 1979; Healey 1985; Korpel 1990, 269–73;
Handy 1994 and Wyatt 1996, 323–30.
UNDERSTANDING POLYTHEISM 49
problems. It invites such further questions as the applicability of neurosci-

ence to the issue, in which the relative frequency of the use of divine names,
in terms not of their survival in different texts, but frequency of use in ritu-
als, might be explained in terms of the habituation of the community
through this means to the subliminal symbolic messages divine names, and
their concepts the gods, would communicate throughout the ritually-
engaged community, thus reinforcing ideological or moral values, bonding
different social groups, maintaining hierarchy, and so forth. Any useful
work in these areas lies in the future, however; it has barely begun in the
broader field of linguistics.5
I want to ask more answerable questions, here, however. Two prob-
lems are immediately apparent when we examine Ugaritian or any other
polytheistic religion: firstly the relativity that is inherent in the compartmen-
talization of “deity” into separate units, and secondly the tendency to con-
cretize them, so that some kind of identity is felt to exist between the deity
and its cult-image. We have from the start to try to rid ourselves of instinc-
tive feelings of aversion, superiority or scorn, which may be engendered by
the convention of our own culture, that monotheism is somehow inherently
superior to or more moral than polytheism as a conceptual form; or that
“idolatry” is somehow inherently evil. These prejudices are deeply embed-
ded not only in the western religious tradition, but also in the philosophical
tradition. I submit that ridding ourselves of such spurious reactions not
only must, but can be done on both counts; with a little imagination and
willingness to suspend disbelief, we can learn to apprehend in our imagina-
tion the vitality of each archaic experience, since in important respects they
are more natural,6 by which I mean more psychologically plausible, than our
highly conceptualized alternatives, especially if we consider minds develop-
ing religious awareness for the first time, without philosophical presupposi-
tions.
THE EXPERIENCE OF POLYTHEISM

Let us deal with the matter of relativity first. It becomes a problem only
when we have a monotheistic and philosophical agenda to serve, based on
an essentially conceptual approach. But this is the procedure of the theolo-
gian, not of the believer and experiencer in the context of the experience.
5 The bold attempt of Jaynes 1976 deserves mention.

6 On the intrinsic “naturalness” of religious experience and thought see Boyer 1994.
To insist on a perceived relativity as some kind of disqualification of the

reality is to put the cart before the horse, the intellectual reflection before
the emotional and spiritual experience.7 It is hard to imagine how the uni-
verse developed as a conceptual form except by way of the development of
many particularisms, and the belated recognition that they imply something
beyond themselves. It is also an argument based on a false premiss. It is like
saying that one person’s integrity is devalued because there are other people
in the world. Polytheistic deities are not concepts of a greater or lesser de-
gree of rational legitimacy, or philosophical realities which being infinite,
cannot be conceived as plural in number, or being demonstrably finite, can-
not be divine (the basis of Anselm’s ontological argument). They are essen-
tially persons encountered in the religious response to life. Just as the de-
vout monotheist may experience God in a numinous place or situation, and
will then use the cultural norm to interpret it as one and the same at all
times and in all places, so the polytheist will experience a divine presence
conditioned by his or her acculturation, and will then use the cultural norm
to interpret it as now one, now many, in different times and places.
We may take as axiomatic the necessity of a personal approach to the
external world, that is an approach ruled by a disposition to the personal, in
the early development of the human mind. There is an intrinsic tendency to
anthropomorphize, and this developed as a survival strategy,8 and has re-
mained useful ever since. It is therefore entirely natural that early religious
experience developed in a pluralistic manner. W. Schmidt’s attempt to re-
construct a primordial Ur-Monotheismus,9 however attractive to the modern
7 As an analogy we may compare it with the question of drawing cosmological conclusions

from common-sense observation and reason. The one tells us that the earth is flat, the other
that it is spherical. The one tells us that sun and moon are both the same size, smaller than
the earth at similar distances up in the sky, and revolve round the earth; the other that they
are vastly different in size from each other and the earth, are at hugely different distances,
and that while one revolves round the earth, the earth revolves round the other.
8 Guthrie 1993.
9 W. Schmidt 1912, 1931, 1934, Ringgren 1947 and Eissfeldt 1951, all attempted to see Uga-
ritic religion in similar vein. See remarks in Handy 1994, 69–70 and nn. 12 and 13. Ring-
gren’s somewhat caustic remarks (1947, 7) about “evolutionism” look very out-of-date to-
day, for it is precisely the new understanding of the development of the human mind among
reader, must be judged a failure in the light of recent palaeo-psychological

work. It is in our nature to think in this way. Even the Christian, Jew or
Muslim (whose appeal to revelation might appear to exempt them from
older psychological patterns) will experience God in culturally conditioned
form, and the authenticity of the experience will be determined ultimately
by peer-group pressure. The one person believed to reveal himself10 in dif-
ferent contexts in a monotheistic mindset will tend in a polytheistic context
to be experienced as different personalities, such and such a god habitually
revealing himself (that is, being experienced) in this situation, and such and
such a goddess revealing herself in another. There would even be a ten-
dency not merely for certain types of deity to be predictable as to their pre-
ferred loci of manifestation, but for specific deities to become associated
with particular spots.11 Deities who by repute were powerful in one locality
or situation might by virtue of their prestige, mediated through popular re-
port and poetic account,12 attain an altogether larger distribution, because in
a new situation the report might predispose the explanation of the new ex-
perience on the old norm; more practically, the divine image mediating ex-
evolutionary psychologists and palaeoanthropologists which promises us serious advances in

enquiries into the origins of religion. (And see now Clark 2006.) Any attempt at explanations
of early religious ideas which ignores the insights of these other disciplines is amateur. We
certainly should not take a religious explanation, as offered for instance by various passages in
the Bible, as a serious account, for the authors’ motives are partisan and propagandistic, and
are designed to reinforce a prejudice rather than clarify thinking. For an assessment of the
fundamental importance of Darwin and evolutionary theory for the social as much as the
zoological and physical sciences, see Dennett 1995.
10 The feminist may experience God as “herself”. In polytheism however there is a gender-
specific option. The sex of a deity may depend on the gender of a noun. While it is impossi-
ble to delve so far back into linguistic prehistory, the two-gender form of many languages
may owe something to the intrinsic anthropomorphism detected by Guthrie 1993. That is,
there may be a disposition to allocate gender to nouns on the basis of a preconceived an-
thropomorphic choice.
11 Cf. the classic loci of appearances of the Virgin in Christian tradition. The prestige of a
given cult generates pilgrimage fashions and local cults. Economic interests are aroused, and
in no time there is a thriving business.
12 Word of mouth carrying their repute as memes throughout a cultural zone.
traordinary power might be stolen or otherwise acquired by another cul-

ture.13
There is perhaps a case, viewed superficially, for the hypostatization
theory. It could be argued, for instance, that the treatment of deities as chil-
dren of El and Athirat is merely a figurative, preconceptual way of saying
that they are extensions of an originally unitary principle (Athirat as El’s
daughter can be accorded the same treatment). But a better explanation for
language of this kind is surely that it attempts to systematize, and to bring
together into a coherent whole beings who were originally quite distinct.
This is easily verified, for the gods of the Ugaritic pantheon are clearly of
quite varied origins, some being traceable back to Egyptian, Sumerian and
even Indo-European origins. It is in the nature of the Ur-Monotheismus claim
that it is unverifiable (and unfalsifiable) because it simply depends on pre-
historic data, where there is no language record. Having said this, hypostati-
zation undoubtedly does feature in religion, and the pantheon we view in
the Ugaritic texts is varied both in its antecedents and in its various descen-
dants, and reflects both centripetal and centrifugal processes.14
Polytheism thus provides appropriate contexts in which to have the
experience required or expected. A form of natural psychotherapy appears
to operate, and you go to the deity who will answer your particular need. If
a given deity, appearing say at a spring or sacred tree, drew people in large
numbers to the spot out of veneration or need, a settlement might well
grow around the place, the deity becoming the local patron. Indeed, reli-
gious history abounds in stories which serve as aetiological foundation-
myths, narrating how a city was founded when a deity revealed that such
and such a sign would appear to mark the spot. Many specialized deities
13 A striking mediaeval instance of this process is the stealing of the image of Sainte Foy by
the clerics of Conques (Aveyron). The taking away of divine images as booty by victorious
armies (such as from ancient Ur or Babylon, or Jerusalem in its various sackings) may have
been as much to appropriate the repository of divine power of the enemy as to show the
power of one’s own gods over him. (Deity and image in such procedures are inseparable.)
14 Ringgren 1947, 74–79, cited KTU 1.65 as an example of hypostatic forms, and went on to
consider Ugaritic references to the wisdom of El, and Pidray, Taliy and Arsiy as hypostases
of Baal (“originally nothing but functions of Baal”). Their prehistory is more complex than
this allows.
would have originated, we may surmise, as the spiritual (and therefore per-
sonal) powers which were believed to reveal themselves in the appropriate
phenomenon, as for instance Reshef as god of pestilence, he being the very
deification of pestilence, or Anat as goddess of war, she being as it were the
personification of the lack of restraint experienced in battle. But when they
appear in the historical record, such deities are never simply the manifesta-
tion of this function or that. Experienced as persons, they develop person-
alities and may combine a number of traits or “functions”, becoming the
more rounded as persons the more popular they are, thus reflecting the col-
lective psychological input of their devotees.
I have spoken of people evoking deities for specific functions. What of
the idea of deities who reveal themselves, unannounced and unprepared
for? Here too we cannot simply retreat into theology and state as axiomatic
that a god (or more probably in such discourse, God) reveals himself. We
must recognize that such events do not really happen unsolicited, but only
to a person already in some way predisposed (as Moses or Muhammad) to
hear and see things which tradition then describes in terms of a self-
revelation by God. It may be biographical details, the quality of a place;
somehow or other a sense of the numinous is aroused which theology then
interprets.15 That is, some psychological reality actually triggers off the ap-
parently spontaneous revelation.16 To call the event a “revelation” is in ef-
fect to accord a certain theological dignity to it in retrospect, to accept that
it is authentic and significant beyond its historical incidence. It is already to
accord it a mythic status.17 What we see as historically significant in the case
of a few important paradigmatic figures will have happened a thousand
15 For the classic analysis see Otto 1950.

16 Thus Moses, Jesus, Paul and Muhammad, to say nothing of the shadowy figures behind
the “canonical” prophets of the Hebrew Bible, or other cultic personnel throughout the
ancient world, were evidently already in a highly receptive state, whether on grounds of per-
sonality or biography, to the revelations subsequently experienced. And if we are reliant
upon literary tradition rather than history, for we have only the literary records on which to
rely, this is in no way diminished. The very survival of heroic traditions of this kind demon-
strates the mental processing at work, if only on the part of purveyors of tradition, and the
need to have such paradigm figures as the focus of attention, and as mediators between
lesser mortals and the gods.
17 It thus transcends the historically particular dimension, and becomes mythical, and para-
digmatic. The traditions about Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are all treated in this way.
times over in unsung or unrecorded situations, known only to the immedi-

ate circle of the subject.
We do see tendencies towards something more unitary by way of reli-
gious focus in particular historical situations, and this appears in Ugarit as
elsewhere to have exhibited itself in two classic ways, through the medium
of hierarchy, and the growth of henotheism.
Hierarchy is probably a universal feature of human societies. A truly
egalitarian society is hard to imagine, given human nature. Certainly by the
time of the rise of civilization,18 with the development of agriculture and
permanent settlement, we must surely think in terms of some sort of chief
person, almost certainly a man,19 who through personal prestige, and per-
haps physical force, controlled each local community. From the mid-third
millennium, building on a long prehistory of dominant groups and domi-
nant men within these groups, we have the formal institution of kingship,
validated and reinforced by complex symbolic, ritual and even theological
claims. Since it is entirely natural that the pantheon would broadly reflect
the structures of human society, we see, wherever we look, more or less
hierarchical divine structures, with a chief god who is represented as father
of the other gods, and of human beings too, who is often represented as
king of the gods. Handy’s (1994, p. 65) presentation of the pantheon as a
bureaucracy assumes a hierarchical structure. His observation that the Uga-
ritian pantheon is bound to be represented in bureaucratic form on account
of the interests of the priesthood who preserved the texts merely demon-
strates what may be regarded as the first rule of divine representation, that it
reflects human thought-structures.20 All the interrelationships of the deities
in the Ugaritic mythological texts presuppose hierarchy, and a number of
levels in which “higher” deities instruct “lower” deities. The various mytho-
logical struggles that take place seem always to be restricted to any one level
18 I use the term in the conventional sense of the rise of urbanism. No value judgment is
involved. We should certainly avoid the once fashionable term “savage” for non-urban cul-
tures.
19 The idea of a primordial matriarchy is a figment of wishful thinking, despite the efforts of
such scholars as M. Gimbutas to present it as archaeologically plausible. “Matriarchy” does

appear to exist in baboon and chimpanzee societies, however.
20 We put into God’s mouth the thoughts of our own minds.
in the hierarchy, though we also find evidence of role-reversal and inter-

rank tension, as in the case of Anat’s relation with El.
The clearest example of henotheism in Ugarit is a passage, possibly
cited from a hymn, in the body of the Baal mythology, occurring at KTU
1.3 v 30–4 and 1.4 iv 43–6:
Our king is Valiant,
Baal is our lord:
and there is none above him!
We should all bring his chalice,
we should all bring his cup.
At first reading this may appear to support the old theory of the depo-
sition of El by Baal, who allegedly usurped both his position and his wife,
as supposedly attested in the Hebrew Bible. This position is now however
no longer tenable.21 The immediate sequel to both occurrences of this pas-
sage at once sets it in a broader context: Baal deserves a palace (sc. a tem-
ple) on account of his rank as vanquisher of Yam and thus king among the
gods. But he does not have one, and representations must be made on his
behalf to El, who is the ultimate authority, and evidently the final arbiter of
divine as well as human destinies. So Baal is described in terms which sug-
gest a supreme god, and yet is not one. This is the literary and liturgical
phenomenon of henotheism, for it is in cultic contexts that it occurs (rather
than discursive theological ones). It is frequently described as “Hofstil ”
(“courtly style”). It attributes to the deity being hymned or invoked such
attributes as we might expect of a deity conceived in monotheistic terms,
yet found in polytheistic contexts. As a stylistic trait it is common in ancient
near eastern hymnody. We should be cautious in attributing too much theo-
logical content to it in terms of constructing larger arguments than the con-
text will bear.
The presence of a deity may reveal itself in surprising ways. Consider
for instance the following interesting observation of Bruno Bettelheim:
[The child] strikes the door that has slammed on him... he punishes the
door because he is certain that the door slammed deliberately, out of
evil intention... To the child, there is no clear line separating objects
21 Thisargument is presented by Pope 1955, id. 1987, and Oldenburg 1969. For the counter-
arguments see L’Heureux 1979. See also Smith 1994, i 117–31; Herrmann 1995, cols. 525–
26, and Wyatt 2002, 51 n. 59 for rejections of the deposition theory, which centres mostly on
the very damaged text at KTU 1.1 col. v.
from living things; and whatever has life has life very much like our
own. If we do not understand what rocks and trees and animals have to
tell us, the reason is that we are not sufficiently attuned to them.22
This observation may be compared with Guthrie’s (1993, p. 39) to the
effect that animism is a strategy among other non-human creatures too.23
Bettleheim’s observation does not describe merely childish reactions to ex-
ternal events, but echoes what was probably a universal reaction, surviving
still in the cry “Why me?”!
The psychological processing at work here is in my view strictly com-
parable to our present concern. We may compare too the need that is evi-
dently widely held by people, whenever any disaster, natural or otherwise,
occurs, to seek not merely an explanation, but someone to blame. We even
use the ancient religious term “scapegoat” if it is felt that the process is be-
ing carried too far, or some minor person in the organization concerned has
taken the rap while people in command, who ought to accept ultimate re-
sponsibility, get away with it. What is happening here is an instinctive proc-
ess of attributing personality to non-personal things. We give female names
to ships, and until the feminists turned the tables, American hurricanes were
given girls’ names. Rather than seeing these merely as a quaint or pictur-
esque ways of describing things, there is reason to think that it is a distinc-
tively human way of looking at the world. A graphic example is the list of
abstractions which are represented in Hesiod’s Theogony as begotten of prior
abstractions, a complex genealogy linking all aspects of the metaphysical
world. It is easy to dismiss these as dead metaphors, examples of poetic
license, or even as examples of primitive religion, now happily outgrown.
The degree to which the irrational still controls many features of modern
life, notably in politics, should warn us not to crow too soon that we are
emancipated from such “primitive” thought.24
22 Bettelheim 1976 (1986 imprint), 46.

23 Guthrie is using the term “animism” in a broader sense than Tylor, though he weaves his
discussion round Tylor’s animistic theory.
24 The term “irrational” should not be used of any aspect of behaviour that defies reason. As
our understanding of psychology advances, many seemingly irrational processes are demon-
strated to be strictly purposive or explicable. These are in particular such aspects of experi-
ence as are commonly called telepathic, parapsychological and so on. There is a huge range
Another element in the formation of a pantheon is probably a ten-

dency in ancient cultures to think not in terms of the individual, so dear to
all our values, but rather in terms of the clan, the small social unit, seen al-
most as a single organism. Thus the impression we have of fragmentation
and lack of coherent structure in a pantheon would seem to the participant
in an ancient belief-system a serious misreading of the situation. Our failure
to recognize and appreciate the inner dynamics of a pantheon is a function
of our failure to understand the structures of the society or societies which
developed it. In this respect Handy’s study must be judged a useful exercise.
THE EXPERIENCE OF DIVINE IMAGES

We have seen that there is a universal human tendency to attribute person-
ality to inanimate and even immaterial objects. We have just seen this in
conceptual terms. It is also the case in more basic, behavioural terms. The
use of images to mediate the divine is extremely widespread in human his-
tory, and I doubt if aniconism has anywhere been an original norm, even if
it has developed in some special circumstances.25 The only possible instance
of mental and bodily processes as yet only partially understood. I use the term “irrational”, as
in this sentence, to denote those areas of thought and behaviour where the rational and con-
scious structures of life, such as morality, or the use of modern medical or other technologi-
cal skill, conflict with the much older folk-beliefs and instinctive forces that can well up.
Thus the darker features of Nazi genocidal practice, or the deep hatreds leading to the vi-
ciousness of the Yugoslav wars are irrational, in that they conflict with the very ethical foun-
dations of all the belief-systems involved. The measure of irrationality is bad faith! There is
also a deliberate (even if unconsciously motivated) turning from mature participation in a
culture to the revival of its past, observed in the romantic German intellectual tradition out-
lined by Noll 1994, also typified in contemporary “New Age” thought. (Cf. the revival of
Olympian religion in Greece in the twenty-first century!) But irrational though these may
seem, they represent an emotional recidivism akin to the basic pattern outlined above, and
are at least not generally pursued in bad faith.
25 An interesting case is the question of, or perhaps the extent of, Jewish aniconism. In an
interesting discussion of the problem, Mettinger (1994) appealed among other source mate-
rials to the supposed aniconic form of Amun postulated by Wainwright 1928. Unfortunately
this hypothesis had already been disproved by Doresse 1971–79 and van der Plas 1987.
Where aniconism has developed, it undoubtedly serves as a special instance of iconism, since
the absence of the deity is itself a strikingly visual phenomenon, as in “hollow” Jain statues,
or conspicuously empty divine thrones.
from Ugarit is the vacant stone throne RS 90.1,26 but there is no means of
telling whether it was intended to represent an “aniconic presence” of a
deity, or was actually used for a portable image (unlikely, perhaps, in view of
its substantial size: it is 130 cm high), or even had any religious significance
at all. It may well have been a royal throne. The throne itself would evi-
dently carry symbolic value,27 but we can hardly press it into service of the
hypothesis under discussion. Ugarit otherwise offers no evidence of anicon-
ism. If the divine power experienced is regarded in personal terms, and is at
the same time an abstraction, it has been normal for devotees to give hu-
man form not merely in verbal but also in concrete terms, as a focus of at-
tention.28 Precious metals have been used, and even if a statue of a deity is
made of wood or clay, a covering or fitments of gold, silver, lapis lazuli and
ivory is frequently used. While in the field of art history the power of an
image has long been recognized and valued by critics, the same has not
been the case among theologians. So the iconoclastic outbursts of the He-
brew prophets are often represented as the emergence of true religion and
the death-knell of old, false beliefs. The debates that have raged on such
matters have nothing to teach us about human religiosity, since they are
merely the propaganda of one perspective. The sad feature of too much
contemporary scholarship is to have mistaken the old propaganda as the
26 Yon 1991, 350 fig. 1b.

27 This throne, perhaps significantly, has a high back-rest (n t ), which is plausibly to be un-
derstood against the background I sketched in Wyatt 2002, 50 n. 56, 92 nn. 91, 92. But this
could constitute an ideological rather than iconographic meaning.
28 Theriomorphic form, as in the use of bull-images, is rare in the Ugaritic repertoire. A
bronze bull has been discovered (fig. 5 in Schaeffer 1966, 9) which may be compared with
bulls from Tyre and Hazor. Schaeffer interpreted this as El, but I would distinguish its ico-
nography from the aurochs of fig. 10 (Tyre), which is more likely to be El. Baal is evidently
imagined in bovine form in KTU 1.5 v 17–21, perhaps in 1.9.11, and in 1.10 iii and 13.21–
36, where he may be envisaged as both anthropomorphous and bovine, while El is conven-
tionally given the title tr il, “Bull El”, which also occurs in Hosea 8:6 (see NEB), and evi-
dently refers to the “calf” images of Samaria, and perhaps those of Dan and Bethel in 1
Kings 12. For discussion of these Israelite instances see Wyatt 1992 = 2005a, 72–91. The
“Devourers” of KTU 1.12 appear to be caprid in form, and we encounter a mare-goddess in
KTU 1.100, while Yam is draconian and Athtar apparently leonine (KTU 1.24.30: see Wyatt
2002, 339 n. 21).
substance of the reality. But it is in the nature of religious beliefs that you
cannot falsify them, for they do not have a direct correspondence to the
real world, being rather a complex symbolic game designed to help people
deal with the real world. The picture of the Jews surviving through the most
unlikely and adverse historical circumstances is a measure not of their faith
and its intrinsic truth, but rather of the tenacity of any faith, the ultimate
function of which is survival.
POLYTHEISM AS A RELIGIOUS NORM

If religion develops in the manner which I have outlined above—a position
which remains to some extent hypothetical—then we should not expect any
deliberate, logical thinking to go into the constitution of a pantheon, any
more than we should expect it to underlie monotheism. We may even pro-
pose a principle, that the nature of deity in a given society is a function of
the sociology of that society. That is, it is the nature of the structure and
dynamics of a social group which will determine the formation of a pan-
theon or its narrowing down to a sole deity.29 But the forces which deter-
mine the origins and early development these features in a society are not
illogical, nor even prelogical in Lévy-Bruhl’s sense. I think “intuitive” is a
better term to use. The whole business is above all symbolic, and symbols
operate most powerfully and effectively when the business is carried on
unconsciously. The human mind is an immensely powerful machine, but it
does not operate solely at the level of conscious ratiocination and logic,
however much we might like to think that this is the case.30 It is as well to
remember that much of the mind’s activity in the course of our everyday
29 Thus the emergence of Jewish or Islamic monotheism is more a function of the centraliza-
tion of power and its self-assertion against rival power-claims, and a symbol for it, than any
“logical” extension of theological insights. They come later, as rationalization and substantia-
tion of the symbol. The intellectualization cannot of course be divorced from the organic
process of which it is an integral part.
30 It is arguable that the very discipline of theology, by concentration on logical structures,
cannot hope to recover the basis for its own subject-matter, so long as it adheres to logical
categories, as a system of conscious thinking. For the foundations surely lie deep within the
unconscious, in a dimension of the mind altogether more neurological. On the other hand,
theology is a classic form of rationalization (in the sense of auto-justification), which then
parades itself, through the convenient ambiguity of language, as rationalization (in the sense
of giving a reasoned, rational account). If this sounds rather dismissive, let any theologian
give an account of someone else’s theology!
life as animals is carried on subliminally and unconsciously. It could not be

otherwise. We cannot be conscious of every little stratagem that is required
even to survive the day, with thousands of signals given out by our fellows
communicating complex messages, warning, threatening, begging, demand-
ing, advising, and expressing deference or dominance appropriate to every
social context, many of these being communicated by bodily gestures not
even accompanying speech, and when doing so modifying, reinforcing or
even belying the speech. Even the environment “communicates” with us, as
we judge distances, speeds, colour signals, animal signals, the implications
of noises we hear, all without even being conscious of the fact. All this
processing of sensory data is carried on at a social level, and also at an envi-
ronmental level, in relation to animals and plants, sun, wind and rain, day
and night, season after season. All this is carried on at an unconscious level,
a fact we can appreciate as soon as we realize that all the other animal spe-
cies around us are doing the same thing. This is nature at work, and we are
part of it.
And yet human societies are radically different from all other forms of
life, not because any of this is, or can be, denied, but because on top of our
complex animal behaviour is superimposed a million years of hominid cul-
ture, with its own complex games and strategies, and the more recent de-
posit of Homo sapiens sapiens, with speech, in which we not only use symbols,
but invent them, and out of them construct and imagine ever more com-
plex worlds. Worlds, for the first time, in the evolution of life on earth, with
meaning. For we cannot just live biologically. We live in part in opposition
to nature, alienated from the world,31 and aware, as no other creatures are
aware, that we shall die, and that life is an unceasing struggle against disease
and war, famine and drought, involving perpetual oppositions between
wealth and poverty, power and oppression, good and evil. How, in such a
bleak world, can we find not only meaning and solace, but beauty and ful-
filment? For without these, the growing awareness of our mortality and the
futility of human endeavour can lead only to despair.
The first thing in the external world which begins to take shape in in-
fantile consciousness (and consciousness at a very shallow level) is the
shape of its mother’s face. This is deeply imprinted in incipient conscious-
31 See Berger 1973, 13–37.

ness, and remains with us to our graves. The man in the moon, the shapes
of clouds, the smiling sun, all around is a world which we personify. We do
it in the modern world even while we smile at its simplicity. Our ancestors
did it in deadly earnest, and probably entirely unconsciously, for how can
you come to terms with a blind force of nature? How do you accept the
rage of the storm, the power of the sea, the promise of bounty in soil and
live-stock and its withholding? In all places and times human societies have
seen deities in nature. And gods and goddesses, by their very nature, are
essentially human personalities imposed upon and recognized in the natural
world. There are of course monsters aplenty, and animal deities, and great
wild abstractions, but the common feature of them all is an imagined hu-
man mind, for it is felt that they can thus somehow communicate with peo-
ple. The social pattern in the pantheon which grows up in every culture is
by and large modelled on the social pattern of the imagining community.
We never see a pantheon except in an advanced, highly developed
stage. Behind each historical one lies an immense prehistory of which we
can say virtually nothing. Informed comment becomes possible when we
compare the panthea of neighbouring peoples, and of those speaking cog-
nate languages. If we find deities with foreign names in a pantheon, we can
postulate the way in which such and such a deity came to join the new
group. If the same divine names, or those with the same etymological basis,
appear in several different groups of a common linguistic background, we
can begin to reconstruct—at least in a tentative manner—the process of
development and diffusion.32 This will always remain hypothetical and pro-
visional, however, since each new piece of evidence may modify or disprove
earlier conclusions.
32 A good example is provided by the gods of the various panthea of communities speaking
Indo-European languages. Similar deities, linked now by name, now by mythology, occur
from Ireland to Bengal. The old Vedic sky-god Dyaus appears in Greek form as Zeus, in
Roman form as Iuppiter ( Jupiter: cf. Sanskrit Dyaus Pitar) and as Germanic Tiw (also Tyr).
It is even possible that the name underlies the Hebrew divine name Yahweh (< Yahu), by
way of Indo-European influence in the Near East in the Middle Bronze. The epithetal form
yw occurring at Ugarit in KTU 1.1 iv 14 is perhaps cognate with this. See Wyatt 1989a, 21–
25, id. 2002, 48 n. 51.
DYNAMICS OF THE PANTHEON

Certain deities appear in several Semitic panthea, as indicated in the table.
Their diffusion may have happened in historical times, but in some in-
stances at least we have reason to think that they formed a basic, proto-
Semitic pantheon. “Proto-Semitic” being a linguistic term, we are speaking
essentially in linguistic terms, and the diffusion strictly represents the dis-
persion of language rather than people. However, the “Amorite migrations”
from the third millennium, being a slow process of settlement in Mesopo-
tamia by an expanding and mobile population from the northwest was no
doubt typical of actual population movements accompanying the spread of
language.
The fact that certain deities are not attested in certain contexts is as
eloquent as the presence of others. It indicates that a rigid system was lack-
ing, that local considerations determined which gods were most prominent.
Indeed, while conventional listings by function are intended to give an over-
view, they are unsatisfactory in that the “functions” we tend to wish to ac-
cord to the deities, “the god of this, the goddess of that”, are frequently
ones we have imposed with systematization, or at best priesthoods have so
done when trying to make sense of an apparent confusion. Many deities
perform several functions, or one function in one location, but a different
one elsewhere. In some cases the name itself immediately identifies a func-
tion, such as Shamash, whose name in all the Semitic languages means
“sun”. However he is particularly involved in the maintenance of justice
and law in Mesopotamia. The sun is not the main function, but a symbol of
all the greater superstructures which developed from prehistoric times.
Even the gender of the name tells us something about a prehistorical proc-
ess, since in some languages the word is feminine. Nergal appears to be the
equivalent of both Mot (Death) and Reshef (Plague) in Ugarit, but like Re-
shef is also the planet Mars.
There is a constant tendency in the active cult of a particular deity to
accord him or her universal powers, the phenomenon we call henotheism,
as noted above, and this tendency is also found with the god Yahweh. Such
a process is probably an early stage in the development of a monotheistic
system, though in most cases it does not move to its logical conclusion. It
would be entirely wrong here to think of a universal tendency, frozen in its
tracks at various stages of development in the several instances that are, and
certainly not as an “advance”, if by this we mean leading towards a greater
acceptability to modern susceptibilities. As for “function”, we do well never

simply to equate the deities with the apparent function suggested by the
name, for the names, even where they can be explained, invariably serve as
symbols, and are intended (or have the effect of so doing, for this is not a
purposive, conscious processing of data) to work on the basis of the asso-
ciation of ideas. Thus the fashionable treatment of (so many!) near eastern
deities as “fertility gods” or “mother goddesses” tells us very little about the
deities, and a great deal about simplistic or prejudiced assessments by mod-
ern minds. In the case of the Ugaritian goddesses Anat and Athtart such an
assessment is wide of the mark. In the hierarchy of divine power in Ugarit,
Baal, as king among the gods (KTU 1.3 v 32–4 = 1.4 iv 43–6), serves to
mediate El’s supreme power at a practical level; he is the patron of the city
(KTU 1.119)33 and of the king;34 he wards off the forces of chaos (KTU 1.2
iv, 1.6 vi); he has a soteriological function (KTU 1.12), and also brings fer-
tilizing rain to the land. And these are just the roles he plays in the small
repertoire of surviving texts. We may be sure that in all probability some
devotees at least experienced an intense, emotionally satisfying relationship
with him in terms of personal “religious experience”, though no evidence
of this is found apart from personal names. We see therefore that Baal is far
more than a mere “fertility god”, whatever that description is supposed to
mean. He is a figure with a rich mythology, fully involved in the manage-
ment of cosmos, city, capital and throne, and yet remains transcendent, glo-
rious and worthy of hymns (KTU 1.101). He is in short not unlike Iron Age
Yahweh.35
TERMS FOR THE PANTHEON OF UGARIT, AND POSSIBLE DIVI-

SIONS WITHIN IT
The following expressions occur, evidently denoting all or some of the Uga-
ritian deities. They do not all necessarily have the same status as formal des-
ignations, because they sometimes emerge out of the exigencies of prosody,
33 We cannot be entirely certain that bʿl ugrt denotes the same god as the Baal (Hadd) of the
Chaoskampf tradition, but it is a reasonable surmise.
34 Wyatt 1998 = 2005b, 151–89.
35 Part of the shrillness of the anti-Baal rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible is perhaps in part due
to the similarity in character of the two gods. Very often it is a matter of theological nuance
that distinguishes the two. On the substantial debt of Yahweh-theology to that of Baal see
Day 1985 and de Moor 1997.
where one expression in poetry needs to be balanced by another. Perhaps

incipient differentiation of different groups is to be understood, though
without commentary to this effect, we may only draw the most tentative
conclusions. In KTU 1.65.1–3, for example, three of the following designa-
tions (§§1, 10, 13) occur, preceding the invocation of a number of individ-
ual deities. The liturgical context precludes the taking of this as some at-
tempt at classification of different sub-groups—no copula is used, which
might be construed as linking distinct sets—and the lines are best under-
stood as a condensed tricolon made up entirely of vocatives.36 But their oc-
currence in poetry, the classic medium of authoritative religious discourse in
Ugarit, could no doubt generate a new terminology out of serendipity, and
thus allow further refinement in the conceptualization of the pantheon.37 In
the case of groups in which the name of a specific deity in the genitive fol-
lows the construct of the group-term. The list below is given in alphabetical
order, and no particular hierarchy is to be inferred except when this is ex-
plicit in a formula.
1) il bn il (KTU 1.65.1): “the gods of the pantheon”. I think that this
is the sense to be understood at KTU 1.65.1, notwithstanding my remarks
at §7 below. But it is evidently the pantheon as subordinate to El himself,
and presumably excluding him, if the logic of the term is to be followed up.
Thus the filial sense is implicit in the term, and corresponds to the šbʿm bn
atrt (§§8, 19 below), El and Athirat being the parents of all the deities.
2) ilm 38 (KTU 1.1 iv 6 and passim in all categories of tablet): “(the)
gods”, or perhaps “deities”, since it undoubtedly covers goddesses too in
36 See the layout of my translation, Wyatt 2002, 363–65.

37 It is as well to recollect at all times that any given text reflects a theological reality only at
the time of composition. Inertia and tradition would mean that all beliefs and practices had a
certain life-span, but religion was in fact always changing over the generations. Even “tradi-
tion” has no fixity. On the other hand there is a remarkable persistence of broad motifs and
symbolic forms, as in the case of the Chaoskampf which despite all the variations can be
traced through a literature spanning nearly four thousand years, and an iconography that
persists to this day. (See Wyatt 1998 = 2005b, 151–89.)
38 This is the usual plural of il used in the generic sense. The form ilhm also appears (CPU ii
1. 218–19 gives nineteen instances). The feminine forms ilt (singular) and ilht (plural) are also
found.
many instances. The masculine form will have been used to cover both
genders in this and other instances.
3) ilm arṣ (KTU 1.19 iii 6!, [21,] 35): “chthonian gods”, probably to
be identified with the deities called ilnym 39 in §6.
4) ilm rbm (KTU 4.149.1): “the great gods”, in a list of jars, probably
of wine (cf. ll. 10, 14) the first one being for “the temple(s) of the great
gods”. This may denote Baal and Dagan, whose temples lie on the acro-
polis. “The great gods” are in any event probably a group of major deities
rather than the whole pantheon.
5) il ṣpn (KTU 1.47.1): “the gods of Saphon”. This term is inclusive,
since it embraces El himself as well as all the deities of the pantheon. The
term ṣpn, “Saphon”, appears to serve in KTU 1.47.15 and parallels as what I
have called an “umbrella deity”. As well as denoting the deified sacred
mountain itself, it surely includes all the inhabitants of the mountain, that is,
all the gods of the pantheon. We shall revert below to the incidence of both
terms in KTU 1.47.
6) ilnym (KTU 1.3 iv 35 etc.): “divinities”. Cf. §3.
7) bn il ([KTU 1.40.16, 24]): this term occurs in the expression ab bn
il (references given), denoting El as “the father of the pantheon” as well as
constituting part of formulae §§8–12. It should perhaps be translated in two
ways, depending on context. As a functional use of the term bn, it means
“members of the class ‘god’”, sc. “divine beings”, or collectively “pan-
theon”. When the mythological aspect is foremost, and it is the filial rela-
tion of the gods to El that is at issue, then “sons of El” is the appropriate
meaning. See also my remarks on KTU 1.65.1 (§1 above). De Moor’s (1970,
224) classification of them as “the son- or daughter-type” is in my view not
entirely helpful when numbers of gods are being considered (as also in §§8–
12, [14], 17 and 19), because we do not know for certain the constitution of
such groups. Are they all the deities other than El and Athirat? If so, then
many of the “great gods”, and presumably gods from various sources,
would be included. Such terminology is for purposes of classification, and
does not necessarily presuppose any serious degree of subordination, be-
yond the formal one of being under the ultimate control of the primal di-
vine couple.
8) bn atrt (KTU 1.3 iv 48, v 4 etc.): “the sons of Athirat” (or, “chil-
dren...”: cf. §18). Note also the expressions atrt wbnh and ilt w ṣbrt ary !h (both
39The form ilnm found at KTU 1.19 i 10, read as the equivalent of ilnym by some, is rather to
be understood as “terebinth”. See Wyatt 2002, 291 and n. 183.
KTU 1.3 v 36, 1.4 i [6]): “Athirat and her sons || the goddess and the band
of her kinsmen”. These offspring of Athirat are destroyed by Baal at KTU
1.6 v 1–4 (see Wyatt 2002, 140 and nn. 102–3) and are no doubt to be iden-
tified with Mot’s brothers of KTU 1.6 vi 10–11, 14–5. These references
must explain Athirat’s own anxiety as expressed at KTU 1.4 ii 24–6, and are
perhaps also to be linked to Anat’s victims at KTU 1.3 iii 38–46.40 We see in
such allusions material analogous to the mythologica of Hesiod’s Theogony,
fulfilling every aspiration of Guthrie (1993), but extremely difficult to pre-
sent in any systematic manner, perhaps because much of it was elaborated
in an ad hoc fashion, and was never formally related to other similar ad hoc
constructions.41
9) bn qdš (KTU 1.17 i 13 etc., all passages in the opening scene in
Aqhat): “the holy ones”. Again this may be construed with two nuances:
either as the generic use of bn with an abstract quality, “holiness”; or my-
thologically, meaning “the sons of the Holy One”. The term qdš may denote
El at KTU 1.2 iii 20, i 21 and 38, and certainly does at KTU 1.16 i 11, 22 [ii
49] (binomial lṭpn wqdš )42.
10) dr il (KTU 1.15 iii 19, 1.41.16 = [1.87.17–8]43): “the family of El”.
11) dr bn il (KTU 1.65.2): “family of the gods”.
12) dr dt šmm (KTU 1.10 i 5): “the generation(s) of heaven”.
13) kbkbm (KTU 1.19 iv 24, 31 etc., in both mythic and “epic” texts):
“stars”. There are a number of passages where “stars” are mentioned, and
may, but need not, have a divine reverence. See for example Pughat’s epi-
thet ydʿt hlk kbkbm, “she who knows the courses of the stars” (KTU 1.19 ii
3 etc.). The f. form kbkbt (KTU 1.92.28) probably denotes “star (god-
desses)”. Cf. Wyatt (2002, 373 n. 25). The expression ilm kbkbm, “the star
40 On these enemies, to be compared with the traditional foes of Ninurta, see Wyatt 2005c,
705-7.
41 On the other hand, the disorder we often discern in ancient texts may often be an instance
of our failure to comprehend the intended structure. For a useful example with regard to
Leviticus 18–20 see Carmichael 1997.
42 Binger’s recent championing of the old sense of a goddess “Qudshu” (1997, 56–60) is an
attempt to turn the clock back. See Wiggins 1991.

43 CPU ’s reference (ii 1, 619) to this expression as occurring in KTU 1.176.16, together with
p r bʿl , is erroneous.
gods”, occurring at KTU 1.43.3, is also to be noted. Since stars were widely
regarded as divine in the ancient world, it should come as no surprise to
find evidence in Ugarit. We know that the sun (Shapsh, and perhaps Athirat
and Rahmay)44, the moon (Yarih, and perhaps originally El)45, Venus (Ath-
tart and Athtar) and Mars (Reshef ) were members of the Ugaritic pan-
theon, but no evidence allowing us to identify any others has been found.46
14) mp rt bn il (KTU 1.40.42, and restored in several other lines of
this text, 1.65.3): “the assembly of the gods”. It qualifies the pantheon in
terms of the legal-political overtones of the epithetal mp rt, strictly a parti-
cipial form, meaning presumably “the assembled ones” or something simi-
lar.47 It also contrasts with the following usage, where ilm is generic, in high-
lighting the authority of El, who instructs the gods to meet.
15) p r ilm (KTU 1.47.29 = 1.118.28,48 1.148.9): “the assembly of the
gods”. The usage, particularly clear in the pantheon lists, indicates the group
of gods as a unity, like il ṣpn, though this collective term is distinguished in
KTU 1.47.1, where it heads the entire list. The occurrence at KTU 1.148.9
has the assembly receive a ram, and in a sequence surrounded by other in-
dividual deities who are presumably all members of the p r ilm. Perhaps the
term is useful when there is a need to be comprehensive, but not all the
gods can realistically be given. It may be to avoid inadvertent omissions,
which might be felt to be dangerous. However, its specific use in KTU 1.47
and parallels, in distinction from other sub-groups, evidently shows that in
some cases at least it has a narrower reference.
16) p r bʿl (KTU 1.39.7, 1.41.16, 1. 87.18, 176.17 ? 49): “the assembly
of Baal”. As a group distinct from §§14–15, this group may comprise the
seven Baals of KTU 1.47.5–11 = 1.118.4–10 = RS 20.24.4–10.
44 See the evidence of KTU 1.23, discussed in Wyatt 2002, 333 n. 50.
45 This is suggested by KTU 1.12 i 15–17, where amt yr and amt atrt are in parallel.
46 If the latter is solar, as KTU 1.23 suggests (and the theogonic traditions here are cognate),
then we may expect that Yarih (“Moon”) appears here as a form of El, who is evidently the
father of the Devourers. It is El who laughs at the news of the pregnancy in lines 12–13.
47 Cf. Gordon 1969, §§19.2036–37. Under the former entry ( p yr) Gordon suggested that in
the expression p yr bth (KTU 4.258.3) it means “members of a household” (citing Syriac
pu rā, Arabic fu r and Akkadian pu ru).
48 Cf. the parallel Akkadian text at RS 20.24.28, dpu ur ilâni m.
49 CPU ii 1, 1676 lists KTU 1.176.17, but this does not correspond to the text (= RIH
78/26) in KTU 2.
17) p r k<b>kbm || dr dt šmm (KTU 1.10 i 4): evidently a combination

of the terms of §§11 and 13.
18) p r mʿd (KTU 1.2 i 14–31, 6 times, only in this passage): “convo-
cation of the Council”. This term, it is clear from the narrative context, de-
notes the members of the pantheon in a formal assembly. They have met to
feast (sc. participate in an act of sacrifice), and Yam uses the opportunity to
challenge El to deliver Baal to him, presumably on the assumption that the
demand will have the greater weight in this formal context. The expression
evokes the motif of the divine council as a forensic medium for the opera-
tion of the divine will, and is widely attested throughout the ancient near
east (Wyatt 1996b, 338–47).
19) šbʿm bn atrt ( KTU 1.4 vi 46): “the seventy sons of Athirat”, or
perhaps “the seventy children...”, 50 though with the general emphasis on
sons as giving prestige (here to a fecund mother), the former probably cap-
tures the right nuance. Cf. §7.
20) šmym (KTU 1.19 iv 24, 30): “the heavenly ones”, an epithetal
form of šmm, “heaven(s)”.51
21) šp lṭpn (KTU 1.16 ii 43–4): “the offspring of the Wise One... ”.
Used of the gods in this passage, which is to be compared to KTU 1.16 i
22–3, where the expression šp lṭpn wqdš is used of Keret as a divine king.
I have left out of account here some further sub-groups identifiable in
forms that appear as though names of individual deities in KTU 1.47.
Many of these usages occur in a very limited repertoire, particularly
when confined to poetry, and are evidently constructed in part to fulfil the
requirements of parallelism. This feature alone should indicate that we must
be cautious about too much systematization in our analysis. Of course po-
ets spoke with authority, and their formulae might well become the stan-
dard theological categories of later ages. But when such poetic formulations
are not paralleled in the usage of ritual texts, we should see them primarily
as prosodic and liturgical embellishments rather than theologically distinct
forms, whatever might have happened later had the city not been destroyed.
In the background of the Ugaritians’ minds there was no doubt a convic-
50 See now my discussion of this formula in Wyatt 2006.

51 Šmm appears as a deity, paired with arṣ , in KTU 1.47.12 = 1.118.11 = RS 20.24.11 didim ù
idim .
tion of a universe populated by spirits, many of whom remained unknown

by name, and who would be propitiated in such expressions as p r ilm, de-
signed to avoid any offence by inadvertent omission. For cult was essen-
tially a diplomatic encounter, a negotiation, between the inhabitants of the
visible and invisible worlds.
The first thing to notice in these usages is their comprehensive nature,
even when they may have denoted only a part of the pantheon. By this I
mean that they evoke an underlying sense of unity, not in the sense of any
deliberate movement towards monotheism, but rather in the sense that the
pantheon is a cohesive, cooperative association of supernatural powers,
who may be described as working broadly in concert. It is brought out par-
ticularly clear in the expression il ṣpn, “the gods of Saphon”, since as we
have seen this includes El himself. This point is perhaps worth emphasizing
in view of Handy’s view, for instance, that tensions between deities some-
how represents a kind of malfunctioning, following his bureaucratic model
for understanding the workings of the pantheon. I think that this misreads
such tensions. It is in the nature of life that certain competing realities are in
tension, such as good and evil, life and death. This is after all how human
beings experience the world. As I see it, the purpose of such tensions, of
which the myth of conflict, the struggle between Baal and Yam is the most
graphic and developed example, is precisely to work out and resolve in nar-
rative terms such anomies and problems as were experienced in the real
world. This has always been the way in which problems are resolved, short
of actually resorting to violence.
The strongest impression emerging from this rather overstated variety
of terms is the simple sense of redundancy, as though different emotional
rather than theological motivations led to the emphasis now on one feature,
such as their collectivity and cooperation ( p r, mp rt ), now on another,
such as their clan identity (bn, dr). Such distinctions as appear to be made, as
for instance between a “Baal group” and an “El group”, is better seen as
one sub-division which is subsumed within the larger group.
Some classification appears to have been intended, however, and de
Moor (1970) made a number of useful observations. Firstly, chthonian
gods, apart from Reshef, are absent from offering lists, though they may
feature in poetry or are the objects of attention in exorcisms and for other
magical52 purposes. Secondly, he noted the following types (1970, 224–25),

classified by function, though I am reluctant to accord all these groups the
same formal status, partly because we have no evidence that the Ugaritians
classified them in this way, and in many cases we are quite unacquainted
with their roles:
a) the father god (ab, ab wilm, dgn, tk);
b) the mother-goddess (um ilm,53 atrt);
c) the son- or daughter-type (bn il, bn qdš, bt, tk dgn 54);
d) deities governing meteorological phenomena and fertility (il add, il hd, il
š, il š add, arṣy, bʿl, hd, hdd, ṭly, pdry);
e) goddesses of love, possibly also of war (nkl ?, ʿnt, ʿttrt 55);
f) goddesses of conception and childbirth (the ktrt and their individual
names—KTU 1.24);
g) gods of arts and crafts (ilš, ktr [w ss]);
h) deities responsible for diseases (mtm rb[m], iltm nqtm, ršp);
i) deities of death and the netherworld (ilm arṣ, ilnym, rn, mt, mt wšr,
nhr[m], rpu, rpum, tmq);56
j) deities belonging to specific social classes (ilt asrm, ršp ṣbi[m]);
52 I am reluctant to distinguish magic and religion in any absolute sense, as it is sometimes

done (e.g. still by del Olmo Lete 1992, 70 = 1999, 91, with reference to the exticispy text
KTU 1.127). After all, one man’s religion is another’s magic, and the latter term is widely
used more for polemical purposes rather than disinterested study or open enquiry. Perhaps if
magic is to be distinguished from religion at all it is on the basis of its tendency to be secre-
tive and private, concerned more with personal than public interests, and not infrequently
with a degree of malevolence. But an exorcism text like KTU 1.169 is by no means to be
classed as magic just because it does not conform readily to our susceptibilities. Even the
Book of Common Prayer allows for exorcism as a valid procedure. Religion in the ancient world,
as today in traditional (pre-industrial) societies, had a far broader scope than in the contem-
porary west.
53 Cf. Athirat’s mythic title qnyt ilm .
54 I have a different explanation for this title of Baal. See chapter 2 above, §14.
55 I do not think that either Anat or Athtart is a “goddess of love”, notwithstanding Anat’s
erotic encounters with Baal in KTU 1.10, 1.11 and 1.13, but rather of war and hunting.
56 I prefer to see mt wšr as an epithet of El (Wyatt 1977a).
k) deities belonging to geographic entities (il [y] ugrt, ilt ṣdnym, ilt ṣpn, atrt
ṣrm, bʿl ugrt, bʿl lb, bʿl ṣpn, bʿl šd, ʿnt ṣpn, ʿttrt šd, ršp gn);
l) deities belonging to buildings (il bt, ilt bt, ilt mgdl, bʿl bbt, bʿlt bhtm, bt bt,
ršp bbt);
m) deities governing celestial bodies or phenomena (dkbkbm, šmym);
n) animals (ilht ar t, ilht prt, ilm alpm, ilm krm, [uš r] lmṭ, dqt, p l, p lt, šgr
witm);
o) abstract concepts (il bldn, n bn il dn, nn il, mšr, ṣdq mšr, qdš, šlm);
p) cosmic localities (arṣ wšmm, šmm wthm);
q) celestial bodies or phenomena (hll,57 l ym, ym, yr , yr wksa, ngh wsrr, ʿrb
špš, ṣbu špš, š r wšlm, špš );58
r) geographic entities ([gpn w]ugr, gt mlk, gt ʿttrt, gt trmn, ym, nbk, nbk mr, ʿn,
ǵrm w[ʿmqt], ṣpn);
s) objects and phenomena in nature (abn, išt, gpn, ṭṭ, ʿṣ);
t) furniture (ilht ksat, ilm k tm, hdm il, k t il, mdb t bt ilt, tl n il, tl n bʿlt
bhtm);
u) vessels (ilht dkrt, ilm r bt, ut t, ṣʿil, ql );
v) musical instruments (knr);
w) weapons (mr il, nit il, ṣmd il ); and
x) beverages (trt).
This is a surprisingly extensive and diverse list. The most useful feature
to emerge from it is the ubiquity of areas in human life in which divine
power was experienced, and believed to be operative in a pluralistic way. It
may be usefully compared with the lists in Hesiod’s Theogony, and like it,
gives the impression of deifying most categories of human culture. Nor is
this an accident. Again, it illustrates in a compelling way the principle estab-
lished by Guthrie (1993) that the way in which early human beings dealt
with the external world was to anthropomorphize it. The theological corol-
lary to this principle is that they also deified it, and in a piecemeal fashion.
Another feature of this list is that there is no straightforward correspon-
dence between it and the pantheon-terms listed above. So while de Moor
has usefully indicated how we may systematize the pantheon, it is evidently
not the way in which the Ugaritians did so.
57 De Moor interpreted this as a “crescent”, sc. a lunar deity. It has alternatively been taken
to be Ellil = Enlil. See Gallacher 1994 and Wyatt 2002, 337 n. 6, for the usage at KTU
1.24.6.
58 It is not immediately clear to me why categories m) and q) require to be differentiated.
De Moor (1970, 225) noted an apparent difference between deities

“who govern rather than inhabit” certain of these categories. But some of
the examples he gave (e.g. Yarih, Shapsh) might arguably be the opposite of
what he said, and in any case, I suspect that the difference he noted, while
undoubtedly obtaining, was not consistently maintained. Is špš in KTU 1.15
v 18–9, 1.16 i 36–7, for example, to be translated as “sun” or as “Shapsh”?
On one level the text merely tells us that Keret will die at sunset. On an-
other level, however, we surely have here an echo in Ugaritic royal ideology
of the Egyptian motif of the dying king being assimilated to the sun-disc.59
In many such instances as this it is difficult to make a certain choice be-
tween two hermeneutical approaches, and we should always allow for the
possibility that the metaphorical language is already a mere convention. We
should however expect poetry to preserve more lively overtones.
Another feature to which de Moor (1970, 227–28) drew attention is
the remarkable number of paired deities (most of whom also appear inde-
pendently). Of the 238 DNs he isolated, no less than 33 are binomials of
the pattern š r wšlm. He suggested that while at first many of these were
probably ad hoc groupings, based on similarity of role or character, or more
incidental links, even allowing for reversal in the order in which they are
paired, some by their very appositeness did tend to gel into relatively fixed
pairs.60 Perhaps the classic instance of entirely distinct deities going through
the process before our eyes is the goddesses Anat and Athtart (de Moor
1970, 227–28). They are similar in character, similar in iconography, and
appear to have a similar mythology, though only that of Anat is given any
prominence in the Ugaritic evidence so far discovered. While not strictly
inseparable in the Ugaritic material, since Anat appears independently in
KTU 1.3, 1.10, 1.11 and 1.13, and Athtart in KTU 1.92, the goddesses also
59 Cf. my translation of the two passages and note on the second, Wyatt 2002, 217–18, 224–
25 and n. 216.
60 Given the number of examples of ancient triads and trinities in the Egyptian pantheon (on
which see Griffiths 1996), it is remarkable that no triads are attested in Ugarit. The thought-
processes illustrated by these numerical games are only partly religious, belonging rather to
another autonomous aspect of mental processing, in which the data of the world are firstly
analysed out as individual concepts (or perhaps “proto-concepts” at the inchoate stage I
have in mind)
act as a pair, as in KTU 1.2 iv and 1.114, and appear centuries later in the
syncrasia Atargatis. This process no doubt explains the absence from Anat
from the biblical evidence, in contrast to Ashtart’s prominence.61
It would be wrong to seize on these instances of divine fusion to make
claims of incipient monotheism. For that to develop a lot more is needed
than the ad hoc developments of this kind, since for every pair of deities who
fuse there are others who split apart into hypostases and independent dei-
ties.
The evidence noted here is of course restricted to an “Ugaritian pan-
theon” or Ugaritic pantheon in the narrower sense of the term, for we
know of many Hurrian deities, 62 and other “extraneous” deities such as
Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian are also attested in personal names and
other documents. Only a few of these were included by de Moor in his cov-
erage. Some of these, such as Nikkal (Sumerian NIN.GAL) and Kothar (=
Egyptian Ptah) were naturalized, while others retained their distinct identi-
ties. This is only to be expected in so cosmopolitan a community, and we
cannot hope to exhaust the complete range of deities who were actually
found. Any textual survivals, which provide the available evidence, can
never be more than a part of the whole reality. The number of surviving
lists do indicate attempts at systematization,63 though none of them corre-
sponds formally to either of the sets of divisions listed here. The closest
examples would be the list of divine weapons invoked in KTU 1.65, and the
sacrifices listed in KTU 1.4 vi 47–54, at the dedication of Baal’s palace-
temple, offered to the deities of various commodities.
Del Olmo Lete’s (1992) treatment of the pantheon lists and incidences
in the ritual texts was far more detailed than any previous discussion. Of
particular interest in our discussion is his treatment of the “canonical” pan-
theon-lists in terms of their grouping of deities. I have added lines to make
the theoretical divisions clear.
61 On Ashtart/Athtart see Wyatt 1995b. On Atargatis see Drijvers 1995.

62 See Laroche 1968, 518–27.
63 In addition to his treatment of the literary corpus de Moor (1970) analysed the following
texts: Ugaritic lists: KTU 1.47, 1.65 (not a list, but a liturgy: Wyatt 2002, 363–65), 1.74 (two
surviving names!), 1.102 (see also KTU 1.123); syllabic lists: RS 20.24, 20.123, 26.142. In
addition to these formal “pantheon texts” many ritual texts list large numbers of deities.
KTU 1.148 makes use of what is evidently a fixed (“canonical”) tradition witnessed by KTU
1.47 and parallels (Wyatt 2002, 427–29). A recent discovery is RS 1992.2004 (published by
Arnaud 2001, 323–36).
KTU 1.47 KTU 1.118 RS 20.24

Ugaritic Ugaritic Akkadian English
1 il ṣpn The gods of Saphon
ilib 1 ilib 1 DINGIR abi The god of the ancestor
il il ilumlum El
dgn dgn d dagan Dagan
5 bʿl ṣpn bʿl ṣpn d adad bel uršan azi Baal of Saphon
bʿlm 5 bʿlm 5 d adad II Baal

d adad III Baal
bʿlm bʿlm
d adad IV Baal
bʿlm bʿlm
d adad V Baal
bʿlm bʿlm
10 [b]ʿlm bʿlm d adad VI Baal
[bʿl]m 10 bʿlm 10 d adad VII Baal
[arṣ] wšmm arṣ wšmm d idim ù idim Earth and Heaven
[ktr]t ktrt d sasuratum Kotharat
[ yr ] yr d sîn Yarih
15 [ ṣpn] ṣpn d uršan azi Saphon
[ktr] 15 ktr 15 d ea Kothar
[ pdry] pdry d ebat Pidray
[ʿttr] ʿttr d aštabi Athtar
[ ǵrm w ʿmqt ] ǵrm w [ʿmqt ] d uršanum u Mountains and
amutu[m] Valleys
20 [atrt] [a]trt d ašratum Athirat
[ʿnt] 20 ʿnt 20 d anatum Anat
[šp]š špš dšamaš Shapsh
[a]rṣy arṣy d allatum Arṣiy
[u]š ry uš ry d iš ara Ishhara
25 [ʿ]ttrt ʿttrt d ištarištar Athtart
il tʿdr bʿl 25 il tʿdr bʿl 25 ilānum tillat dadad “the gods who help Baal”
ršp r[š ] p d nergal Reshef
ddmš ddmš d dadmiš Dadmish
p r ilm p r ilm dpu ur ilânim The assembly of the gods
30 ym ym d tâmtum Yam
ut t 30 ut t 30 d dug BUR.ZI. NÍ G.NA Censer
knr knr d is kinarum Kinnar (lyre)

mlkm mlkm d MA.LIK.MEŠ Kings
šlm šlm d salimu Shalem
The remarkable feature here is the apparent grouping of deities in sets:

il ṣpn (title of text)
Set 1: consisting of ilib, il and dgn; (3 GODS, 1 + 2);
Set 2: bʿl ṣpn,
consisting of bʿlm, bʿlm, bʿlm, bʿlm, bʿlm and bʿlm
(7 gods including bʿl ṣpn: 1 + 6);
Set 3: arṣ w šmm,
a merismic pair, containing ktrt, yr , ṣpn, ktr, pdry, ʿttr
(7 chthonian-astral deities including arṣ w šmm; 1 + 6);
Set 4: ǵrm w ʿmqt,
a further merismic pair, containing atrt, ʿnt, špš, arṣy, uš ry, ʿttrt
(7 goddesses including ǵrm w ʿmqt: 1 + 6);
Set 5: il tʿdr bʿl
(lit. “the gods who assist Baal), containing ršp, ddmš (a pair: 1 + 2);
Set 6: p r ilm,
containing ym, ut t, knr (a triad) and
Set 7: mlkm (taken as a plural form), typified by šlm.
The list is thus divided into seven sub-divisions. Del Olmo Lete him-
self (1992, 58) saw only six sets here, sets 5–6 as each containing 1 + 2 dei-
ties (the latter confusingly listed with “5” in parenthesis), whom he classi-
fied as “Baal” and “El” forms respectively. It seems to me that the final set
(mlkm, šlm) is better taken as a third group, perhaps representing the dead,
or dead kings, or some such sub-division. It is significant that Rapiu is miss-
ing from the list, and here, in set 7, is the group where we might expect his
function (deified kings) to be discerned. It is possible that mlk is an alterna-
tive designation of the same deity, so that mlkm has the value of rpum. Some
uncertainty about the precise groupings intended remains, but it is striking
that three sets of seven are to be identified in the middle of the lists, and
that a final total of thirty-three entries (excluding il ṣpn occurring in KTU
1.47 alone) is found.64
This figure features in an intermediate stage of the curious discussion in Bṛhad āraṇyaka
64
Upaniṣad 3.9.1–2. Del Olmo Lete (1992, 57 = 1999, 77) notes that KTU 1.148, which is
Perhaps we can attempt an explanation of the overall arrangement

along the following lines: group 1, summarized by ilib, which evokes the
theme of ancestral gods, involves a triad containing the senior deities. This
is followed by three sets of seven (groups 2–4), with a relative hierarchical
ranking, in which “Baal of Saphon”, one of the most active gods in the pan-
theon, and patron of Ugarit, dominates the first heptad, followed in turn by
a macrocosmic heptad under the control of “Earth-and-Heaven” and a mi-
crocosmic heptad under the control of “Mountains-and-Valleys”. As
though counterbalancing the descent in prestige thus far indicated, a rever-
sal then occurs, rising again through “the gods who help Baal”, a triad, to
the “assembly of the gods”, which appears to constitute an El-group in dis-
tinction from this Baal-group, culminating in the ancestral royal god-group
of “Kings”, forming a dyad. This final group brings us back to the initial
ilib, with its ancestral and chthonian connotations, reinforcing the sense of a
chiastic structure to the whole list. Its structure is thus seen to be tightly
organized, and not at all haphazard, as appears at first sight to the unfo-
cussed eye. It is surely significant too that the social deities (ilib and mlkm)
precede and follow the main body of the supernatural deities, and perhaps
reflect the actual organization of the parade of deities as forming up in cul-
tic processions. The king and his representative (Shalem) close the file, and
as it were anchor the past (ilib at the front) and the powers of the super-
natural world (the intermediate deities) in the present and down-to-earth
context of the city.
The precise membership of some of the groups remains elusive, and
the numberings, in which dyads form parts of triads, triads parts of quar-
tets, and hexads parts of heptads, suggests numerological games of the kind
found in some of the Egyptian enneads and smaller groups.65 These are to
structured on the pantheon lists, uses only six of the last nine, so that its “practical” total
consists of thirty deities. Is this a clue to the significance of the number? Is it perhaps based
on a lunation, with additional numbers in the pantheon lists as standbys or variants for par-
ticular months? Gordon (1995, 45) opined that the number of letters in the Ugaritic alphabet
(30) might be based partly on numerological and menological speculations. At present we
can only speculate on the ultimate significance of these numbers.
65 See Morenz 1973, 142–46, 255–57, and Griffiths 1996, 12–13.
be cited as analogues, however, rather than as strict parallels necessarily ex-

plaining the Ugaritic evidence.
Within the three consecutive sets of seven, which may form the skele-
ton of the pantheon, as consisting of similarly-sized groups, ṣpn appears as
the central deity of the central set, which appears to symbolize the centrality
of Saphon in Ugaritic cosmology. I have suggested in previous discussions
that the sacred mountain represents the ontological centre, to which all ac-
tion and movement in the Baal cycle refers.66 Here the same image appears
to be operative. An alternative location might have been as the seventeenth
in a set of thirty-three, but that would presumably have been more difficult
to achieve with sub-groups of different sizes. But to place it at the heart of
the three largest groups has the same effect, and in a sense “justifies” the
designation of the list as a whole in KTU 1.47.1 as il ṣpn. And this probably
operates at an entirely subliminal level until attention is drawn to it.
The result of this structuring, as noted above with reference to the be-
ginning and end of the list, is a chiastic form, in which the mirror-image of
a hierarchy of deities groups with a relative symmetry round its geographical
and cosmological centre (sc. Saphon). This strikes me as a powerful repre-
sentation of the intuition of an underlying unitary divine realm, which inter-
acts fruitfully with the pluralism of the surface language of polytheism, and
reinforces the cohesive nature of the pantheon, which is quite at odds with
many superficial judgments as to its incoherence. This static, structural rep-
resentation will in turn have interacted with the dynamic forms of the my-
thology, which articulated not only the broad values of society and of the
monarchy in particular,67 but explored and resolved broader issues of hu-
man ethics, freedom and duty. Theology thus underpinned the complexity
of Ugaritic society and validated its structures, which is precisely where any
sociological or anthropological analysis would lead us.
Explication of the significance of these groups within the pantheon is
in its infancy, though the number seven seems to be required de rigueur
(even when only six deities actually figure under a rubric) because of its
cosmological significance, and its tendency to represent in shorthand the
66Wyatt 1996, 34–38; id. 1996a.

67see Wyatt 1997, 1998 and chapter 6 on the ideological aspects of the Baal, Keret and Aqhat
corpora.
idea of totality.68 Note how on my classification we have seven sets making

up the pantheon as a whole. Set 7 illustrates an important principle: the
gods listed are representative of the groups, not necessarily all members.
The pantheon list thus represents the form rather than the full contents of
the pantheon. This of course removes the problem of inconsistency we
might otherwise feel, that the lists in no way correspond to the actual inci-
dence of deities occurring in texts. The “canonical pantheon” is a theoreti-
cal, representative construction.69 The texts we have (KTU 1.47 and paral-
lels) represent only a brief window into the history of Ugaritian theological
thought, and no doubt, although there was probably a conservative ten-
dency 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 circum-
stances.
68 Cf. the sevenfold nature of Anat’s destruction of Mot, represented in the heptacolonic
form at KTU 1.6 ii 31–35 and1.6 v 12–19. Each set of lines is required to correct scribal
deficiencies in the other. See Wyatt 2002, 135, 141 and nn. 83, 108:
With a knife she split him; Because of you I experienced winnowing with <a fan;
with a fan she winnowed him; because of you I experienced splitting with> a knife;
with fire she burnt him; because of you I experienced burning with fire;
with millstones she ground him; because of you I experienced grinding with millstones;
<with a sieve she sifted him,> because of you I experienced sifting with a sieve;
on the steppe <she abandoned because of you I experienced abandonment on the
him, steppe;
in the sea> she sowed him. because of you I experienced sowing in the sea.
69 Simon Wyatt has asked me whether there was a seven-note scale in Ugaritic music. The
eight-stringed lyre (tmnt) played by Keret’s youngest daughter (ttmnt : “the lyre-player) would
of course have seven intervals, and if on an actave, seven different notes, the eighth repeat-
ing the first an octave on. Thus theology would have been confirmed by musicology! For the
explanation of the daughter’s sobriquet see Wyatt 2002, 211–12, n. 155.
THE EXISTENCE OF DEMONS IN A POLYTHEISTIC CULTURE

If every source of anthropomorphic imagination, self-disclosure and power
is a potential deity, what is the point of demons? At first glance they are
simply superfluous, since everything of significance is already divinized. It is
too simple to say that they are merely the “bad gods”. We see in Anat (war),
Horon (an underworld god) and Reshef (pestilence) powerful deities of dis-
tinctly malign character, yet all firmly within the theological camp. So the
question of being a deity certainly has nothing to do with the character of
the deity. Yet it is clear that demons do exist in Ugarit, for we have texts
concerned with their exorcism (e.g. KTU 1.82, 1.169). So what experiences
give rise to a distinction between divine and demonic powers? The question
is better phrased in the past tense, “gave rise…”, because demons, like
gods, will have belonged to the mental furniture of a culture, and therefore
simply be accepted on trust from previous generations, because they had
always been there. I suspect that a number of factors may be cited, and
some would be very mundane. Here are some suggestions.
Any supernatural power that was not recognized as belonging to any
traditional members of the received pantheon might automatically be
branded as “demonic”, if only from the primary urge to classify it, and thus
contain it. So “new deities” might at first be experienced as unquantifiable
powers, and regarded provisionally as demonic, precisely because they dis-
rupted the status quo. A reclassification could always be attempted later, es-
pecially if it was deemed by dint of experience to be amenable to a fruitful
relationship. Thus Reshef appears to have become a widespread apotropaic
symbol: by assiduous cult he could be prevailed upon not to deliver disease,
which in a sense was his whole raison d’être, but to protect from it. This
sounds rather like a form of homoeopathic medicine.70 But Mot’s position,
for instance, is ambiguous. Though he is always identified as bn ilm, “son of
El” or “divine”, he is never given any cult in Ugarit, and may have been
70The medical analogy is perhaps more than incidental. Exorcism, however quaint in mod-
ern eyes, is precisely the use of religious techniques to effect a psychiatric healing: the wide-
spread use of herbal medicines along with incantations, to cure disease, inebriation (KTU
1.114), or snakebite (KTU 1.100, 1.107) shows a lively, if pre-scientific, appreciation of the
psychosomatic nature of many human disorders. A recent television programme (Equinox,
September 1997) argued that a positive mental disposition has been shown in clinical trials to
control physical disorders such as cancers. The basis for such confidence is essentially em-
pirical, whether ancient or modern.
seen as hovering on the border between divine and demonic. Bearing in

mind that any evidence we have from Ugarit gives us a cross-section
through a historical process, we may be seeing deities at various stages of
development, and have accordingly not to make too far-reaching claims
about their status, since a couple of generations either way could see a
complete transformation.
We see something of the fluidity of the situation if we consider the
status of the old gods in the Hebrew Bible. Most of them have been rele-
gated from divine to demonic status. This example is instructive, for we see
a nation in the making in the pages of the Bible, with a typical mythic con-
struction of their past, the creation of a history, and a wholesale revaluation
of ancient religious patterns, including spiritual reclassifications. The angels
which so populously inhabit the heavens in later days are themselves old
gods, and even new ones, controlled within a type of monarchism which far
exceeds El’s control of the pantheon. Suppose that Ugaritian society were
to have undergone similar patterns of social development? We have the
flourishing of a Late Bronze kingdom, dependent on adjacent great powers
and with a richly heterogeneous population. Perhaps we are to see in the
pantheon lists (especially in KTU 1.47 = 1.118 = RS 20.24, for the multipli-
cation suggests a form of canonicity) and in the various designations of
groups of gods, which perhaps had their own accompanying official lists,
attempts to define who are legitimate deities. Thus the three lists cited con-
tain those deities who are classified as il ṣpn, “the gods of Saphon” (KTU
1.47.1), which suggests that those deities not listed are not “the gods of Sa-
phon”, but some other gods, or perhaps in some instances demons. This
could always have been a fall-back position when the question of an un-
known supernatural power was discerned, notwithstanding my remarks
above on the representative nature of the pantheon lists. Various old dei-
ties, worshipped in the past but now surviving as memories, might be iden-
tified as the causes of some otherwise inexplicable accident or act of malice,
and in the hysteria of the moment become the focus of blame and explana-
tion. Through the apparent irrationality of it all we see minds at work trying
hard to explain, to bring order to experience.
We can see how the demons might be new gods, not yet officially rec-
ognized, or old ones no longer recognized, or simply “forces” encountered
which defied understanding. The very anomy of their existence indicates the
importance attached to order and organization. So while it is religious ex-
perience in the subjective and emotional encounter which accounts in prin-

ciple for the rise of deities, a social filtering process is constantly at work
classifying and reclassifying, accepting and rejecting, rather as a curial com-
mission scrutinizes all claims of visions or miracles to this day, and pro-
nounces an official judgment on their authenticity.
THE THEORY OF A “CRISIS OF POLYTHEISM”

De Moor, during his interesting reconstruction of the origins of the cult of
Yahweh, has taken up the view originating in Egyptological circles, and at-
tempting to give an adequate account of the upheaval caused by the reli-
gious policies of Akhenaten, of a “crisis of polytheism” throughout the
Near East, shock-waves from the supposed Egyptian experiment with
monotheism reaching out across the whole region.71 The real purpose of the
argument is to account for the existence of a monotheistic cult of Yahweh
in the time of Moses. But if we decline to accept that the cult of the Aten
was monotheistic, or that there ever was a historical, monotheistic cult of
Yahweh in the time of Moses, then the entire argument collapses. His por-
trayal of Ugaritian religion in terms of crisis is in my view entirely unten-
able. I have raised three objections to it:72 firstly, that it presupposes a relig-
ion working on the principle of bad faith, which is preposterous, and a con-
tradiction in terms; secondly that it is methodologically unsound to evaluate
one religion in terms of another; and thirdly that it gives no adequate ac-
count of the symbolic dimension in religion. Let us expand on these in turn.
Religion can certainly be used to justify the most appalling, inhuman
behaviour, as has been seen throughout the history of autocracy, slavery,
racism or genocide. And all these have been features of the history of the
Christian church and of Islam! But, amazing though it may seem when
looked at with hindsight, the most ardent advocates of such policies have
been the theologians, the ideologues, wholly caught up in the truth-claims
of their system. The history of Europe alone gives abundant evidence for all
these follies and obscenities.73 Once the chink appears in the armour, and
doubts creep in, the ideological basis can fall away with amazing rapidity.
71 De Moor 1997.
72 See Wyatt 1996, 327.
73 Norman Cohn’s fascinating, if depressing studies, 1957, 1967, 1975, and 1993 demonstrate
beyond peradventure that the same social forces, experienced in similar ways, are inexorably
at work down to the present.
Having said this, it is not credible that a religious system should be run on
the principle of bad faith, for when the doubts enter, when “faith goes
bad”, the system will collapse. We have no serious evidence for doubts, and
certainly not of collapse, of the old polytheistic economy of Ugaritian and
associated traditions. Ugarit was destroyed, but other West Semitic cultures
lived on, including an “Israel” that was polytheistic for centuries until finally
superseded by the expansion of Christianity. (And then Judaism sur-
vived...) There are certainly some interesting theological questions raised
by such texts as Keret (KTU 1.14–16), but it seems to me that the text ad-
dresses a problem and answers it in a satisfactory way. It may appear pessi-
mistic, but that is no bad thing. It certainly does not reflect a theological
breakdown. Human achievements are questioned, rather than the theologi-
cal system which underpinned them.
The second problem concerns the assessment of one religion by refer-
ence to another. This may be the classic form of rivalry between cults, and
is typical of the work of the Jewish writers, who fought for the survival of
their identity, and the Church fathers, who were waging a propaganda war
against the Graeco-Roman and Jewish traditions. Nor were these worthies
above misrepresentation and slander on a breathtaking scale. But their vin-
dictive style hardly justifies similar rhetoric today, unless it be felt that we
are still fighting the same wars. It strikes me as altogether healthier to take a
more relaxed attitude, and to try to identify what values ancient systems
had, for that surely contributes to our further understanding of ourselves,
who are the heirs to all previous traditions.
The third problem I identified was the failure to account adequately
for the symbolic dimension in Ugaritian religion. Korpel’s (1990) study on
metaphor, usefully comparing Ugaritic and Hebrew literary and theological
usage, shows that we are dealing with essentially the same symbolic universe
in the two cultures. Or perhaps part of the problem is the axiom that there
are two cultures and not one diverse cultural continuum throughout the
Levant before the common era. Those studies which so emphasize the
“uniqueness” of biblical thought as to effect a discontinuity between it and
the cultural matrix of the Levant do a disservice on both sides. The serious
task we still face is the adequate evaluation of the links and common
ground between them, and against these the distinctive features of each. To
evade these problems is not scholarship. One difference between them is
simply a function of the historical scale: in history, language develops. New
ideas are given expression, and old metaphors press against new frontiers in
an ever-expanding world of experience. Thus the later manifestation within
a cultural continuum is simply more developed than the earlier. There is no
need to see “progress” here, merely change, adaptation and expansion.
So the kind of theological hypersensitivity that Heidel, for instance, de-
tected74 in Genesis 1–3 (but which I think is already largely an importation
of later exegesis and eisegesis into the old texts) and then decried for its
absence from the Babylonian record, even if strictly justified,75 in no way
serves as a serious judgment on the old ways, other than emphasizing that
they are old. The texts of the Hebrew Bible, which have been scrutinized
for ever more subtle meanings in the history of the church and of scholar-
ship (indeed, the two are sometimes indistinguishable) reflect the history of
modern thought as much as a greater appreciation of what the texts origi-
nally meant. The way in which modern intellectual fashions batten on the
texts,76 ostensibly to squeeze new insights out, but in reality to find proof-
texts for modern views within, advises caution. The impression Heidel and
a host of Ugaritological imitators give is that such invidious comparisons,
selectively highlighting those distinctive elements which best support the
view of the superiority of the biblical moral and revelatory position, and of
course the corresponding intrinsic inferiority of the culture used in the
comparison, merely reflect the capacity of thought, in terms of historical
development, to split hairs ever more finely. 77 The kind of service
Albrektson did for serious scholarship in the field of historiography78 re-
quires to be done across the board of ancient cultures.
THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGINS OF MONOTHEISM

Since there is no evidence of anything approaching even an incipient mono-
theism in Ugaritian religion, this is not a problem that need detain us. How-
ever, since many scholars have argued for its existence in Egypt in the
Amarna period and in Israel from the late Bronze, it is worth making a few
74 Heidel 1942. Note his use of the term “crude polytheism” in describing the Babylonian
cosmogony (1963 edition, 96). This is not appropriate academic language. Why is it “crude”?
75 Such a position cannot be justified, of course. Heidel merely betrayed his insensitivity to
the subtleties of Babylonian thought.

76 Cf. however Hiebert 1996.
77 On cheating in history see Evans 1997, 78.
78 Albrektson 1967.
remarks here. Some interesting analyses of the dynamics of monotheism

should give us pause in seeing it everywhere, and should advise caution
even in spite of appearances. Thus Vorländer79 considered monotheism to
be the symbolic response to the exile, Michaels80 discussed “monotheism as
fundamentalism”, while W. Dietrich81 asked whether monotheism is a sym-
bol of political resistance. In either case, the issue is that a sociological
rather than a purely theological explanation has something to be said for it.
And for a shift from one world-view to the other we should expect a pretty
substantial social upheaval to take place, such as is the case with late Juda-
ism, early Christianity and nascent Islam, but is not evidently the case with
Ugarit or even with early Israel (whose historical origins are so elusive). We
should normally expect the reserves of a religion as a theological system to
come into their own precisely in times of social upheaval, and some histori-
cal examples have indeed seen wholesale revaluation of the cults, as they
were transformed from national management-systems into confessional
forms, without a move to monotheism.82 That is something further.
79 Vorländer 1981.
80 Michaels 1994.
81 Dietrich 1994. For recent assessment, see Smith 2001 (and review, Wyatt 2004), 2002.
82 Jonas 1963. (For an evaluation of Jonas’ approach, see Wyatt 2001, 329–32.)
5 RELIGION AT UGARIT: AN OVERVIEW
First published in W.G.E. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds) Handbook of Ugaritic

Studies (HdO, Series I vol. 39, Leiden: Brill, 1999), 529–85.
1 INTRODUCTION
While this is intended to be a general survey of the main features of Uga-
ritian 1 religion, in the following discussion I shall avoid reiterating the
points made by other contributors to this volume, except where I present
an alternative point of view. I should also state at the outset that this study
is treated in a phenomenological manner, undertaken on the basis of the
integrity and authenticity of the experiences, systematizations and practices
we shall be noting. It may seem odd to many readers that such an initial
position-statement should be necessary, but it is a fact that the interest
some scholars have shown in Ugarit, and in particular in its religious life,
appears to have been for purposes of comparison of an invidious kind with
biblical religion,2 where a theological agenda appears to have predetermined
the outcome. This does not appear to me to be a legitimate starting point
for serious research in this discipline. It certainly renders questionable any
conclusions that are drawn.
We should perhaps define our terms and the scope of this study. The
city of Ugarit has yielded texts in a number of languages. It is probable that
1 The term “Canaanite” is best avoided here, despite common usage. For recent treatment of
the issue on the cultural and linguistic levels, with references to earlier discussion, see Rainey
1965, Grabbe 1994, Tropper 1994 and see references in de Moor 1997, 42 n. 5 (bis!).
2 This is a largely artificial construct, having only a tenuous link with the historical religion of
Palestine, as a compendium of late critiques and revisionism, subsequently further removed

from its historical roots by its interpretation at the hands of theologians and interpreters of
the present common era.
85
people speaking Akkadian, Cypro-Minoan, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, Uga-

ritic and possibly other languages (such as Amorite and various “Canaanite”
forms) were resident in the city and its environs. The degree to which they
intermarried, and to which the city culture formed a mélange of these dif-
ferent traditions, is impossible to quantify with precision. When referring to
the witness of texts in Ugaritic, I propose to refer to “Ugaritic” religion, by
which I mean the broad synthesis which is apparent from the Ugaritic texts
themselves, leaving aside for the present the Hurrian texts,3 which appear to
reflect the interests and distinctive religious patterns of a fairly small minor-
ity, and the Akkadian texts, 4 which represent broad international cultural
influences, but do not appear to reflect any wholly independent “Akkadian”
tradition of any social sub-group. Where we may suppose that some degree
of synthesis has probably taken place, or I wish to speak more generally of
the population of the city or kingdom of Ugarit without isolating any one
language-group or social sub-group, it is better to use the term “Ugaritian”,
as denoting the broader amalgam of all the sub-groups, though the extent
of this is of its nature very hard to evaluate. But we would expect the royal
cultus, for example, performed in the name of the kingdom and all its citi-
zens, that is, the kingdom’s “political theology”, to fall into the latter cate-
gory, though almost all the relevant texts are in Ugaritic as the local domi-
nant vernacular.
Since it is inappropriate to approach the significance of one religious
tradition by reference to another (as is commonly done with Ugaritian relig-
ion, which seems almost inevitably to be evaluated in comparison with “Is-
raelite” religion 5 ), the following observations are offered from the broad
anthropological perspective that all religions are symbolic systems designed
to give meaning, coherence and purpose to a community, to deal with its
inherent alienation from and tension in the face of the experienced world.
3 See Laroche 1968, and Mayer 1996.

4 Published mostly in PRU 2, 3, 4 and 6, and Ugaritica 5. See also van Soldt 1991 and 1999;
Dietrich 1996.
5 Oldenburg 1969, Craigie 1983, de Moor 1997. To a lesser extent a similar treatment of
other ancient cultures through biblical eyes (or more correctly modern eyes claiming a bibli-
cal foundation for their prejudice) has beset many branches of Near Eastern study. This is
perhaps a sub-branch of “orientalism” in Edward Said’s meaning of the term.
5 RELIGION AT UGARIT: AN OVERVIEW 87
From this perspective, all religions are “true” in that they are authentic, and
offer both a legitimization and a critique of the community’s sense of iden-
tity. It is in this framework of understanding that I shall deal with the fol-
lowing issues: cosmology, theology (including the nature of the pantheon),
mythology, royal ideology, ritual, other religious manifestations (oracular
systems, vows, blessings, etc.), the place of religion in the experience of dis-
ease and death, and various non-textual dimensions.
2 COSMOLOGY
2.1 The Intellectual Construction of the World

There is no systematic exposition of the Ugaritian world view in any of the
texts. They take for granted, however, a certain number of presuppositions
to which incidental allusion is made from time to time, particularly in the
mythological texts, so that a provisional reconstruction is possible6. A dis-
tinction should of course be made between two modes of spatial thinking.
There is evidence of a lively awareness of a real geography, amply attested
in many of the non-religious documents, such as toponymic lists, as well as
the extensive diplomatic and commercial correspondence, and even imping-
ing on the religious consciousness in geographical allusions in mythological
and other narrative texts. On the other hand we should recognize their use
of a symbolic geography, used for the framing of specifically theological
constructions in terms of a broad Weltanschauung and the place of the divine
and human realms within it. The latter may even be said to be the idiom of
the interface between these realms. It is an “affective” construction, even a
subjective one in the strictest sense (on which see further below), used for
the articulation and authentication of the real world in terms of the ideal
world of mythology and cult. It is with the symbolic geography of this ideal
world that we are here concerned.
The binomial form of the name of the sea-god (zbl ym || tpṭ nhr), for ex-
ample, suggests that as elsewhere in the ancient world, the cosmic sea was
seen both as a sea stretching away from land, but at the same time as a river
6See Wyatt 1987, 1996 and 1996a. The studies of Tromp 1969, L.I.J. Stadelmann 1970, and
Johnston 2002, while devoted to the cosmology of the Bible, also contain much useful in-
formation. Wensinck 1916, 1918 give comprehensive accounts of our knowledge of West
Semitic cosmology before the discovery of Ras Shamra, which the Ugaritic material now
supplements. See also now Wyatt 2001, 2003.
encircling the land, and forming its cosmic boundary. While theologically
and mythologically this sea-cum-river was conceptualized as a god, probably
in human form, since he had a body described in anthropomorphic fashion
which Baal could injure with his weapons (KTU 1.2 iv), at other times it
was identified by the more neutral term thm (f.), though here another aspect
of its form was expressed in its dual expression thmtm. This suggests that
something akin to other ancient Near Eastern structures of the world was
envisaged, in which as well as having a “horizontal aspect” (surrounding the
earth) the sea had a “vertical aspect” (with waters above and below the
earth).7 The sea-god was also identified as ltn (cf. Heb. Leviathan), though
this view has been disputed,8 and was thus imagined in draconian or serpen-
tine form.
The cosmic waters served as boundary for the habitable world. The
term for this, arṣ, is ambiguous in Ugaritic, denoting both the surface and
the underworld below (cf. the ambiguity of Heb. ʾereṣ, though this term is
often contrasted with tēbēl, not thus far attested in Ugaritic). At Ugarit, as
everywhere else in the ancient world, the symbolic structure of the world
was maintained in religious practice and experience, which defined the reali-
ties of myth and cult. We may even legitimately extrapolate features in such
a view that are not explicit. Thus while the idea of the omphalos is not ex-
7 In Mesopotamian tradition we have the apsu (AB.ZU) above and the tiʾamat (temtum, tāmtu)
below. The former becomes ¥bussoj in Greek. In Genesis 1:6–9 the waters above are sepa-
rated from those below the firmament as dry land appears from the lower waters. In Egypt
the goddess Nut (nwt: “waters”), an allomorph of the primordial Nu(n) (nw[n]), forms both
the sky and a subterranean current, sometimes shown engraved or painted in both the lid
and the base of sarcophagi. This body of water is amorphous. Land, in the form of the bn-
stone (symbolized in all temple constructions) emerges from the latter, in an analogue of the
biblical account. On the other hand, Ra crosses a river by day (above) and by night (below)
in his solar bark. This similarity of mental structuring of the world between ancient cultures
should not allow local differences such as those mentioned to be glossed over, but should
also not be underestimated. For further discussions see Wensinck 1918, Kaiser 1959,
Neiman 1977, Wyatt 1996, 1996a, 2001, 2003.
8 Contrast Day 1985, 14–15 with Wyatt 1985c. A Greek reflex of this figure is found in
Ladon, the serpent who guards the golden apples of the Hesperides (Graves 1960, ii 145–52
§133: various classical sources cited; cf. Fontenrose 1959, 236, 370).
plicitly attested, it undoubtedly lies behind the conception of the cosmic

mountain, Saphon ( ṣpn, vocalized ṣapunu 9 ) which ontologically speaking
was the reference point of all reality in Ugaritian religious consciousness.
Here dwelt all the gods, probably not just Baal, but the entire pantheon, as
stated in the title to KTU 1.47 (il ṣpn). El’s throne stood at the centre, and
he remained immobile,10 in the idiom of the Baal cycle of myths, while the
divine conflicts whose outworkings form the narrative of the myth took
place all about, with constant reference back to him for purposes of validat-
ing the successive achievements of the plot. The kingship of each of the
successive gods was achieved by enthronement on El’s throne, a cipher also
of the role of the throne in royal ideology. El’s dwelling at the heart of real-
ity is expressed in the allusion to his “sevenfold palace” (KTU 1.3 v 10–2,
26–7):
El replied from within the seven chambers,
through the eight façades of the closed rooms.
This idiom of seven concentric boundaries surrounding a god’s shrine
appears to establish its central location; it corresponds to the notion of
seven barriers in the underworld of both Egyptian 11 and Mesopotamian
tradition,12 though this idiom is not independently attested at Ugarit. It may
also be compared with the seven boundaries represented architecturally in
Egyptian temples, most clearly at Edfu. The image of the god here resided
in the innermost chamber (the shrine-box) of the building. A similar sym-
bolism, though perhaps not so explicitly developed, probably lies behind
the construction of the temples at Ugarit.
Another recurrent description of El’s dwelling, where his tent is
pitched, reads as follows (KTU 1.2 iii 4, 1.3 v 6–7, 1.4 iv 21–2, 1.6 i 33, 1.17
vi 47–813): deities travel
towards El at the source of the rivers,
amidst the springs of the two deeps.
9 See Wyatt 1995a for discussion and references. See also Koch 1993.
10 Wyatt 1996, 36–43, 1996a.
11 See the gates (seven ʿrytw) in the scenes and texts of the Book of the Dead.
12 See the myths of the descent of Inanna (ANET 50–57) and Ishtar (ANET 106–09, CS i
381–84). The image of the centre of a sevenfold structure is perpetuated in the seven moradas
of Teresa of Avila.
13 Cf. KTU 1.100.
This has been interpreted14 as an underworld location, evidence of El’s

deposition by the younger, more vigorous storm-god Baal. But this inter-
pretation depends for its cogency on the restoration of KTU 1.2 iii 3, as
read by KTU 2, which is gratuitous.15 It also sits uneasily with the god’s un-
doubted authority in the narrative poems, and his evidently crucial role in
the management of kingship,16 since the king is portrayed mythically as his
son. A better understanding is to see El as the supreme deity, representing
the highest of a number of levels of divine authority.17 The spatial image of
the passage is that of the centre of the world, from which flow four rivers
(corresponding to the cardinal points) to water the earth, the whole sur-
rounded by the cosmic sea, the two aspects of which paradoxically meet at
the centre. This corresponds both to the Garden of Eden imagery of the
Bible, and the ritual significance of the Jerusalem temple, where the Gihon
spring supplied the water, while at the same time the river of the same name
flowed round Cush (Ethiopia = Abyssinia, “land of the abyss”)18. We have
evidence in our text of the same cosmological imagery at Ugarit. The scene
14 See Pope 1955, 1987, Kaiser 1959 and Oldenburg 1969.

15 The restored text reads [mtpdm.t t.ʿnt.arṣ.tlt.mt .ǵyrm]:
[two layers beneath the springs of the earth,
three expanses of the depths.]
This text occurs at KTU 1.1 iii 20 (partially restored) and at 1.3 iv 35. In the former passage
it clearly denotes the subterranean workshop of Kothar (his western analogues forge their
artefacts in volcanoes: was Kothar’s “Cretan” connection the volcanic island of Santorini?),
while in the latter it appears to denote Anat’s own dwelling underneath Mount Saphon. In
neither instance does it have any bearing on the location of El’s abode.
16 See Parker 1977.
17 Three, according to Petersen and Woodward 1977; four according to Handy 1994.
18 I am concerned not to evaluate one tradition in terms of another. But the cautious use of
analogies and comparisons between neighbouring cultures (and particularly between evi-
dently cognate ones such as the Ugaritian and Palestinian) in the area of tentative reconstruc-
tion of fragmented cosmologies is surely a valid procedure. I am happy to work in principle
within the constraints outlined by M. Smith (1952) 135–36, though he considerably over-
stated the lack of connections between Ugaritic and Hebrew literature. Many of the more
cautious studies of recent years have established extensive continuities between the two
cultures.
just described is widely attested in cylinder seal iconography, and may be

tentatively reconstructed for Ugaritic thought from the passages just cited.
A tension existed between the centre, represented by Mount Saphon
and its local allomorphs the city temples, and the boundary at the end of
the world. The important ideological myth-and-ritual complex KTU 1.23
plays on the paradox, mythic events on the sea-shore being apparently cele-
brated at the cosmic centre of the temple.19 The position of Saphon as a
symbolic centre in the Ugaritian mind (though displaced to the north in real
terms, and on the psychological principles outlined in my extended treat-
ment of orientation,20 on which see further below for a summary, belonging
to the “left side”, it was nevertheless architecturally replicated in the
acropolitan temples) will be shown below to be also presented in another
literary idiom in the pantheon list KTU 1.47 and parallels.
We should not attempt a harmonization of the details of these various
cosmological models. They are evidently of diverse origins, and probably go
far back into prehistory and into the diverse earlier worlds of the various
ethnic groups of Ugarit, and appear not to have caused any hermeneutical
problems to the theologians of LBA Ugarit. Such ideas were also undoubt-
edly held concurrently with perfectly empirical perceptions of the real world
in terms of its geography and practical application of agricultural and indus-
trial technologies.
2.2 The Experience of the World: Orientation

Relating to cosmological issues is the matter of orientation. All ancient re-
ligions, like modern ones, evidence a concern for exactitude in positioning
of the worshipping community (an extrapolation from individual experi-
ence), as a symbol of the community’s authentic location in the real world.
Temple alignments are always significant, for instance, even if we can no
longer identify the particular reasons for a given example, and the two
acropolitan temples at Ugarit, usually attributed to Baal and Dagan respec-
tively, were orientated north–south. Provisionally, we may note that storm-
deity temples at other sites also have a north–south orientation, as at Ebla
19 See Wyatt 1987 for Ugaritic and biblical passages illustrating this feature. The shrine in
question cannot be identified with precision, but may plausibly be identified with a royal
chapel at Ugarit, or some such installation at Ras ibn Hani (where the palace extends to
within a few metres of the seashore).
20 Wyatt 1996b.
and Hazor, so that a common tradition may have obtained. The “temple
aux rhytons” in the city-centre, perhaps associated with El (cf. KTU 1.114),
who was perhaps a lunar deity in origin, was orientated east–west. This may
be compared with later Palestinian shrines associated with Yahweh, as at
Jerusalem, Arad and Lachish (temple 106).
On the broader issue of personal orientation, from which these princi-
ples are developed, and the vocabulary used to express it, I have made a
comparison of the Ugaritic and Hebrew vocabulary, with interesting re-
sults.21 Summing up that discussion, it is worth noting the following “ca-
nonical” or religious vocabulary, which appears to be relatively constant:
DIRECTION LANGUAGE TERM MEANINGS
East Ugaritic qdm face, in front, past;
Hebrew qedem face, in front, past;
Akkadian qudmu front, past;
Arabic qadam qidm qidam precede, past, antiquity
West Ugaritic a r behind, after, later;.
Hebrew ʾa ar behind, after, later;
Akkadian a ru future;
Arabic dabūr west wind (√ turn one’s back)
North Ugaritic šmal left;.
Hebrew semôl left; ( ṣāpôn = north);
Akkadian šumêlu left;
Arabic šamāl, šimal north (wind), left
South Ugaritic ymn right;.
Hebrew yāmîn right, south;
Akkadian šaplitum lower;
Arabic yaman, yamin south, right hand
The same pattern also obtains in other languages such as Sanskrit, and
is probably widely attested. Facing into the past, since “east”, “past” and
“face” all employ the same terminology, indicates the enormous power of
memory in the construction of consciousness, and it is perhaps no accident
that we can speak of “canonical orientation”, for it is above all in religious
belief and practice, with its hallowing of tradition (the experienced and re-
21Wyatt 1996b. In Wyatt 2001, 33–52, I extended the coverage to include Akkadian, Arabic,
Egyptian, Greek, Latin, Sumerian and Sanskrit, the first two included here. The same princi-
ple also appears to be present in Japanese cosmology (Palmer 1991), reinforcing my suspi-
cion that it is universal.
constructed or invented past), and repetition in ritual of established, norma-

tive patterns of behaviour, that we discern the formal impact of accumu-
lated cultural experience on a society. The significance of the psychology to
which this evidence witnesses is as follows: it is clear that memory of the
past is a vital part in the life of a community. It is the past and the perpetua-
tion of its paradigms and values which legitimizes the present.22 Theology,
mythology and ritual are the means whereby this memory is reinforced by
constant repetition, and the unknown future can therefore be engaged with
confidence.
While orientation is an ultimately subjective experience, its psychologi-
cal foundations are universal, and consequently, through a shared vocabu-
lary, a measure of objectivity is obtained. Language being experienced as a
given, even as “god-given” in ancient psychology, the very articulation of
the experience in traditional forms serves to reify it as theological “fact”.
3 THEOLOGY
3.1 The Nature of the Pantheon 23

A useful place to start this section is with a brief treatment of the pantheon.
This term has two distinct senses. Firstly it may be used to denote the com-
plete number of deities worshipped in Ugarit, a number which can be quan-
tified only approximately, given the uncertainty of meaning of many words
in the texts, the incompleteness of the record, and other variables of this
kind. It is probably fair to say that no citizen of the kingdom could have
given a complete list. The modern scholar certainly cannot. Secondly we
have texts which give series of divine names, and are evidently deliberate
compositions, attempting to construct some kind of systematic theology.
Three tablets—KTU 1.47, KTU 1.118, and RS 20.24 (in Akkadian 24 )—
preserve the same list, and constitute as it were a canonical group of gods,
22 It is no accident that the etymological meaning of the Greek term for “truth” (¢lhqeia)
means “not-forgetting”. Tradition is “true”, and theology is “true” because it is traditional.
See Wyatt 2001, 27 n. 2, for an explanation of Latin religio in similar terms.
23 See also del Olmo Lete 1999a.
24 The fact that we have an Akkadian version of the “canonical pantheon” is significant: it
indicates that it is only with great caution that we can assume there to be fundamental differ-
ences between the Ugaritic and Akkadian linguistic worlds in terms of their theological im-
plications.
classified in KTU 1.47.1 as il ṣpn, “the gods of Saphon”. They are of course
a tiny selection of all the deities who appear in the Ugaritic texts, and the
complete list may be supplemented with Hurrian 25 and Akkadian divine
names, while a number of Egyptian, Hittite and Sumerian names appear,
and others are still probably unrecognized.
Developing del Olmo Lete’s perceptive analysis,26 I have suggested in a
recent study27 that the presence of a deity ṣpn at a central position in the
pantheon lists is a literary representation of the cosmic centrality of the
mountain, whose divine status, belonging to a widespread practice of di-
vinizing sacred localities, reinforces the same point. It lies in the middle po-
sition of three sets of seven deities, which may indeed have constituted a
Vorlage (containing twenty-one names) to the present pantheon list. While
as fourteenth overall it is not in the mid-most position in the entire list of
thirty-three, there is a broadly chiastic structure to the full list, which further
enhances this impression that the divine mountain is at the heart of all real-
ity. This cosmological image is to be perpetuated in the later imagery con-
cerning Mount Zion,28 and has analogues in Egyptian temple traditions, and
in the architectural form of ziggurats. A pantheon list is obviously not in-
tended to be a complete account of the divine realm, yet represents such a
totality, much as the various enneads of Egyptian theology identified key
deities in the great centres in a sacred number, nine being as it were “plural-
ity pluralized”, and therefore a figure for totality. The thirty-three deities of
the Ugaritic lists were probably based on a similar numbers game (ten times
three plus three29) also intended to encompass all gods and goddesses. Such
25 See KTU 1.135, which Laroche 1968, 508–09 (and further, 518–27) classified as a “list of
deities”, while KTU 2 identified it as a “list (sacrifices)”.
26 Del Olmo Lete 1986; 1992, 54–58 = 1999, 71–78; 1999a, 308–10.
27 See chapter 4.
28 See Wyatt 1996, 31–33 with reference to Psalm 48:2–3.
29 The same number is found in the Vedic text Bṛhad āraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.9.1–2. As the con-
text of the dialogue shows, this text too is clearly exploring the question of the implications
of a pluralistic symbolism in theology, and concludes that the multiplicity of deities (begin-
ning with three thousand, three hundred and six) really points to one. The Muslim rosary
traditionally has thirty-three beads on it: three rounds allow the recital of the ninety-nine
names of God (Schimmel 1993, 241). Del Olmo Lete (1992, 91 = 1999, 134) noted that
a grouping of deities, while acknowledging the diversity of symbols and

perceived realities of the deities, is also perhaps intuiting an underlying
unity, also implicit in the central symbol of Saphon, where they all dwell.30
An alternative term for the comprehensive nature of the pantheon is
the designation of the gods as “the seventy sons (probably rather “chil-
dren”) of Athirat” (šbʿm bn atrt): KTU 1.4 vi 46. No attempt should be
made to argue for inconsistency in view of the discrepancy between thirty-
three and seventy. Each figure is an independent numerological metaphor
for totality. Similarly, the subsets in the pantheon, consisting of heptads,
tetrads and triads, and a final dyad, themselves represent seven totalities on
a smaller scale. Each subset stands for all the deities in a certain category,
and the seven categories signify the plenitude of divine power.
3.2 Individual Deities
3.2.1 The Scope of Individual Theologies in a Polytheistic Context

In addition to comprehensive theologies of the kind suggested above, the
full range of which it is impossible to determine, there are individual the-
ologies centring on each of the main deities. This is not the place to give an
account of all of them. A number of useful studies are available on individ-
ual ones,31 and some general publications are also of use.32 I shall instead
KTU 1.148, which is based on KTU 1.47 and parallels, actually mentions only twenty-eight
or twenty-nine of the gods, to accommodate the constraints of the calendar. Perhaps there is
also a menological basis to the number? Thus Gordon 1995, 45.
30 I am not suggesting an incipient monotheism, but rather the coherence of all the deities,
their conflicts notwithstanding, in a representation of the life of the community. While a

pantheon is to some extent an ad hoc conglomeration of deities who come together through
the hazards of history, the growth, mergence and disintegration of states, ethnic changes,
migrations, and so forth, the theologians of every generation will practise some degree of
rationalization, however unconsciously, intuiting meaning, imposing structure and so on.
The organization of various pantheon-list traditions represents such processes. They are
never static, of course, and every text revealing a structure speaks only to its own generation,
constituting a historical document of conditions at such and such a time.
31 See for instance the following short selection of studies (which at times give contrary as-
sessments, and often include discussion of biblical avatars): on Anat see Kapelrud 1969, P.L.
Day 1991, 1992, 1999, Walls 1992, Lloyd 1994, Cornelius 2004; on Athirat see Maier 1986,
Olyan 1988, Wiggins 1993, Wyatt 1999c, Binger 1997, Cornelius 2004; on Athtar see Mar-
galit 1996, Xella 1996; on Athtart see Wyatt 1999d (Astarte), Cornelius 2004; on Baal see
restrict discussion to general theological principles as exemplified in a num-

ber of representative deities.
Perhaps the best place to start is with the problem of theological
scope. Ugaritian religion is commonly described as a “fertility cult”. This
perception is far too narrow—I am not even entirely clear as to what it
means—and is perhaps at least on occasion unconsciously designed as a
reductionistic put-down for ideological purposes. We should see in Uga-
ritian religion neither bad faith, nor moral obloquy,33 nor “crisis of polythe-
ism”.34 These are essentially contradictions in terms in a theological context.
On the contrary, we have a vigorous series of interlocking theologies, an
active cult, a powerful royal ideology and a network of ritual forms which
link living and dead, sick and well, good and evil, rich and poor in a homo-
geneous community. It is in short a typical religious system of its day, not
recognizably different in kind, in my view, from Iron Age religion in Pales-
tine.35 Deities are essentially symbolic figures, who will accrete in their per-
sonae the accumulated experience of the worshipping community.
Individual deities are frequently readily identifiable with various natural
phenomena or existential realities (e.g. Shapsh the sun, Yarih the moon,
Kapelrud 1952, Vanel 1965, van Zijl 1972, Wyatt 1992a, Herrmann 1999, Niehr 1999, Green
2003; on Dagan see Wyatt 1980, Healey 1977, 1999, Feliu 2003; on El, see Pope 1955, 1987,
Herrmann 1999a; on Horon see Caquot 1982, Rüterswörden 1999, also chapter 6 below; on
Kothar see Smith 1985, Pardee 1999; on Rapiu and the Rpum (Rephaim) see Caquot 1960,
Parker 1970, 1972, de Moor 1976, Pope 1977, Cooper 1987, Rouillard 1999, Pitard 1999,
Wyatt forthcoming; on Reshef see Astour 1967, 310–14, Fulco 1976, Xella 1999a; on Yam
see Fantar 1977, al Noori 1994, Stolz 1999 (Sea). This list, the disparity in the coverage of
some deities over against others, and omissions from it, indicate fruitful areas of research still
to be undertaken.
32 See in particular the relevant articles in ABD (Freedman ed. 1992) and van der Toorn,
Becking and van der Horst 1999. Some are listed in the previous note. Note also Watson
1993.
33 Thus Oldenburg 1969, xi.
34 Thus de Moor 1986b, 1997, 71–102.
35 That is, a religion (or religions) as reconstructed through archaeological research and a
critical and historical reading of textual evidence, biblical and non-biblical. The Hebrew Bible
itself is of course a critique on earlier forms of religion, its own roots included. Cf. n. 2
above.
Yam the sea, Baal the storm, Kothar the apotheosis of technology, or Kin-
nar of the lyre, and so on). It is however a mistake to conclude a one-for-
one functional relationship between deity and phenomenon. This is to re-
duce theology at best to allegory, at worst to triviality. The identification,
often based on the name,36 is merely the cipher by which an entire range of
symbolic potential is tapped. The richer the personality of the deity in myth,
the richer, we may infer, is the symbolic base. And because personality, with
all its individual quirks and contradictions, is the means of expressing the
theological content of the individual deity, the dramatic conflicts between
deities are often represented in the most confrontational terms. It is a seri-
ous mistake to take this at face value, seeing in this apparent theological
confusion evidence of either primitiveness, or worse still, theological pov-
erty or incoherence.
The richness and versatility of polytheism lies in its capacity for resolu-
tion of tensions in dramatic terms, in which deities compete in a mythic
narrative as a means of expressing the anomies and antinomies of experi-
ence. People die of disease: the powerful god Reshef, the personification of
pestilence, the very source of the disorder, is the one to whom the religious
person turns in distress. War comes to Ugarit: Anat is the very embodiment
of all its horrors, but because of her ubiquity, is at the same time repre-
sented as a nubile maiden, for whom warriors will perhaps give their all.
Her ambiguity, at once attractive and repellent, is a measure of the ambigu-
ity of the warrior’s calling. She symbolizes the utter devotion, the single-
mindedness required of the king’s soldiers (and not perhaps without an
erotic frisson). As goddess of the hunt (itself an important symbol of royal
power) she also embodies the paradox of the love of animals with their
wanton destruction. At the other end of the spectrum, there are deities of
conception and childbirth, invoked for fruitful marriages and safe parturi-
tions. These are the real “fertility deities”.
36The enormous difficulty sometimes faced in trying to identify the “original” meaning of a
divine name (cf. the range of proposals for Anat and Athirat) should give us pause about
immediate settlement for what seem like all the easier instances.
This may be folk-religion,37 but it is vital and powerful, effective in the

life of a people. As is characteristic of a pantheon, it appears in its broadest
sense to have embodied in divine personae every significant reality of
community and personal life, from the very substance of the world (earth,
air, sky, mountains and rivers38) to the practical items of everyday use (pots
and pans, chairs, sheep and oxen39) which constitute the real world of ordi-
nary people. Musical instruments were deified, because they represented a
most important point of contact with an ideal world of the inner life.40
I have selected four deities here for further comment.
3.2.2 El
A few observations on El (il, ilu) are in place here. His supreme status in the
pantheon is not in dispute, in spite of some teething problems in his analy-
sis,41 and he is the patron of kings (see further below) and ultimate ruler of
the cosmos, whose constituent parts appear to have been divided between
various of his sons (Baal, Yam and Mot correspond broadly in their nature
and roles to Zeus, Poseidon and Hades in the Olympian pantheon). But
they evidently defer to him for permission to act, and are dependent on him
37 The distinguishing of different types of religion along class lines may have its uses for
analytical purposes. but in my view threatens to introduce artificial boundaries where none
would have been perceived. The emphasis may have been different, as also the elaboration
of ritual, between the cult of the great temples and people’s (or groups’) private devotions
which have left no trace. The broad nature of the religious experience, and the theological
presuppositions, would have been part of a continuum, however, and not disparate units. It
remains extremely difficult to estimate the nature of the experience. Texts like KTU 1.119
perhaps provide our best clue.
38 These constitute the “Urgötter ”, the primordial powers who personify the substance of the
universe. They are invoked in the messages of the gods (KTU 1.1 iii 13–14 etc.). Are they
perhaps also to be identified with the dr il (KTU 1.41.16, [1.87.17], 1.176.16) or (the distinct
group?) the dr bn il (KTU 1.40.7, 17, 25, 33, [42], 1.65.2, 1.122.[3]) on the analogy of the
il ānū ša dārātim (cf. Cross 1976, 329)?
39 KTU 1.4 vi 45–54. Cf. the world of abstractions personified as so many divine realities in
the “genealogy” of Hesiod’s Theogony.

40 KTU 1.47.32 and parallels. Cf. Wyatt 1999e.
41 Cf. references above nn. 14–15.
for the conferment of their power. The only deity who appears to defy his
will is Anat, whose special case we shall consider below.
Many scholars have remarked on the apparent absence of any cos-
mogony in Ugaritian religion. Fisher (1965) thought he discerned two types
of creation at Ugarit, divided between El and Baal. The cosmogonic status
of Baal’s conflict with Yam is in dispute, and any cosmogonic overtones it
bears are implicit. But El is called bny bnwt, which is commonly translated as
“Creator of creatures”, and is certainly the father of the divine beings born
in KTU 1.12 and 1.23. These however are theogonies rather than cos-
mogonies, though perhaps this neat category-distinction would not have
seemed so obvious to the ancients as it is to us.
More promising perhaps for a tentative resolution of the issue is the
significance of El’s androgynous nature. In KTU 1.23 he is addressed by his
wives as mt, “husband”, ab, “father” and um, “mother”.42 From these inci-
dental references we may infer that El is the androgynous parent of the
goddesses. This invites speculation—and it must remain no more than this,
on present evidence—that there lies behind the usage a myth of the kind we
find in Egypt with with Atum and Amun,43 and in a different form with
Ptah, in Greece with Zeus and in India with Prajāpati. These androgynous
deities beget-and-bear daughters, who then (except in Zeus’ case) serve as
wives for further divine reproduction. Now the point of these traditions is
that they are clearly cosmogonic, in spite of the apparently theogonic ele-
ment (that is, the distinction breaks down in practice). Atum’s children, for
instance, are the “Urgötter ”, the primaeval gods who actually embody the
substance of the land of Egypt. In fact we err in distinguishing too sharply
between the two aspects of creation (cosmogony and theogony), as sug-
gested above, because such differentiation belongs to later ages of greater
abstraction in metaphysics. The wholly sexual imagery of the ancient forms
42 Wilfred Watson suggests to me that this may be simply an instance of parallelism. But
even if we concede this for the sake of argument, the fact remains that a form of words may
itself both reflect unconscious dispositions and patterns in the mind, and also generate new
possibilities, which then lead the mind into further avenues. The whole cognitive content
attributed to theological language is in my view largely if not wholly of this kind: the very
existence of the word reifies the idea. Thus unicorns and dragons (and gods!) exist in the
imagination, because we have imagined them.
43 Particularly in his aspect as Amen-Apet, the self-generating god of Djeme (Medinat Habu),
who appears as the ithyphallic deity of the Theban cult. See van der Plas 1987.
is as much an account of how the world began as it is of human origins44. It

is just that the metaphor has frozen half-developed into abstraction.
3.2.3 Athirat
A well-attested iconogram which perhaps represented Athirat (atrt, El’s
daughter-wife) is the hand, appearing on cylinder seals,45 and later an impor-
tant symbol of the Punic goddess Tanit.46 Is this perhaps a pointer to an
analogue of the Egyptian titles of the chief queen as “the god’s hand”,
which may have had ritual significance, symbolizing the daily sexual re-
creation of the world? It appears that Asherah in Judah at least had such a
symbolic dimension, whatever is to be made of it, since she was both the
deity’s daughter, and his wife, and is described as “the work of his hand...
fingers” (Psalm 19), where both phrases have undoubtedly phallic over-
tones. This is admittedly all circumstantial, but enables us to build up a ten-
tative picture of a powerful creator god whose prehistory is confidently to
be linked to Ugaritic El.47 His making of the world is essentially expressed
through the metaphor of his paternity of the divine principles of its con-
stituent parts, the enveloping chaos included.
The goddess Athirat has attracted considerable interest among schol-
ars, in particular because of her presence (in the form Asherah) in the He-
brew Bible. Her evident role as Yahweh’s consort has recently been broadly
accepted. The pair Yahweh-Asherah seem to point back to the Ugaritian
pair El-Athirat. In the latter context her role has been much debated. In
KTU 1.23, we appear to have a triad of goddesses, Athirat, Rahmay and
Shapsh, and I have argued that the former two are geminated forms of the
third (see further below). This would imply that Athirat is a sun-goddess, as
also argued for instance by Binger.
But Athirat’s particular significance in both KTU 1.23 (with her asso-
ciates) and in KTU 1.4–6 (independently) is in the context of royal ideology.
It is here that the significance of her title rbt (Akkadian rabītu), “Great
44 Such mythological forms are precisely the outworking of the subjectivity we noted above,
in discussing orientation, which must be the starting point of all experience.
45 See Schroer 1983.
46 Hvidberg-Hansen 1979.
47 See M. S. Smith 2002, 32–43.
Lady”, is significant, used also of Rahmay in KTU 1.23.54.48 This title de-
notes the dowager queen, who appears to have had an important ritual and
ideological function, corresponding to that of the Gebîrâ in the Palestinian
kingdoms. The goddess is the divine embodiment of the principle—
perhaps mythic rather than real by the LBA—that the incumbency of the
throne is transmitted through the female line, a king being legitimized by his
maternity and then by marriage to an incarnation of this same divinity.
3.2.4 Baal Hadd

Another important deity who deserves mention is the storm-god. He is
most frequently referred to by the title Baal (bʿl, “the Lord”, or “the Mas-
ter”), but is the great Amorite storm-god Hadd (hd, hdd, “the Thunderer”),49
worshipped widely throughout the Fertile Crescent. It has been customary
to describe him above all as a fertility god, and indeed he is master of the
rains, thunder and lightning. But this should not be construed as exhausting
his character. The sheer range of his titles 50 indicates the richness of his
conception.51 He is “Lord of Saphon” (bʿl ṣpn), a position of monarchical
power, but one to be construed within an economy ultimately controlled by
El. I have argued that Baal’s throne on the mountain is his by right of con-
quest from Yam, but had been given to the latter by El himself. It is thus a
delegated monarchy, which indeed not only derives from El, but is in turn
transmitted, through the myth of Athtar’s enthronement, to the earthly
kings of Ugarit. It is therefore appropriate that the storm-god is also “Lord
48 It also refers to the dowager queen, presumably with the same ideological role, in the
neighbouring kingdom of Amurru. See the divorce correspondence, PRU 4, 125–48. On the
considerable role played by queens, enthroned and dowager, in Ugaritian politics, domestic
and foreign, see Singer 1999, 690–91, 696–700.
49 The Ugaritic form is hd, var. hdd; in Aramaic he is Hadad, and in Akkadian Adad, where
the initial [h] is unrepresented in the syllabic script. In Egypt he is identified with Seth. Thus
the Mami stela from Ugarit (RS 1.[089] + 2.[033] + 5.183) invokes “Seth of Saphon”. See
Yon 1991, 328 fig. 8a.
50 See chapter 2 above, where some twenty-one titles and a further five possible ones are
discussed.
51 The judgment of Oldenburg 1969, 1, that “no strange god, however, is depicted more (sic)
wicked, immoral, and abominable than the storm god Baʿal Hadad...” is not very helpful,
except as an example of the kind of attitude deplored in my opening paragraph. He might be
defended on the ground that he is merely voicing the biblical prejudice to demonstrate the
clash of ideologies, but the rest of his study indicates that he shares it.
of Ugarit” (bʿl ugrt ), the patron and protector of the city, as eloquently
evoked in KTU 1.119. As champion in the Chaoskampf, Baal is the type of
the king as military hero.52 Furthermore, the language of the storm is the
conventional idiom for describing theophanies (as for instance in Psalm 29),
and thus a sign of his grace to his devotees. This motif, of divine compas-
sion, is also evident in the episode of his intervention on Danil’s behalf
(KTU 1.17 i 15–33). We almost discern, in the localized form of such ap-
parently pluralistic language, the polytheistic idiom for the examination
within one divine reality of the tensions experienced in the processing of
the real world. That is, Baal, and any other deity active in such a narrative
context, is essentially a cipher for the tensions inherent in El himself in the
world-process. This is therefore a kind of process theology.
3.2.5 Mot
A god somewhat neglected in discussion is Mot (mt ).53 He is conspicuous
by his absence from the ritual texts, and it is apparent that no cult was of-
fered to him. He is not mentioned in any pantheon list, and yet features
significantly in the Baal cycle of myths. This makes him the more interest-
ing as a deity not so much of the practical life of Ugaritian religion as of its
broader metaphysics. On one hand it is not at all surprising that death
should be deified, as this is entirely in keeping with the observations of
Guthrie (1993) in his sophisticated development of the animistic principle.
To give a perceived external reality (and especially an external threat) a hu-
man face is an effective technique of management: know your enemy (and
his name) and you have some defence against him. On the other hand, cult
is precisely the response of a practical theology to this need: feed you enemy
and you have him in your hand! So why was Mot not worshipped? In a
sense he is quite different from that considerable class of chthonian deities
and demons who were explicitly managed by cultic procedures in order to
control the threats they posed. But Death, itself comparatively rarely per-
sonified in the ancient near east, stands apart. The analogue-figure of Ha-
des, noted above, is not in fact a strict parallel in conception, for he is rather
52 See Wyatt 1998.

53 For a useful survey see Healey 1999a.
the location and condition of the dead who is collectivized. With Mot the
very concept of death is personified.
The chief mythological context in which the character Mot appears is
in KTU 1.4–6. His role in the narrative has been characterized by Petersen
and Woodward (1977) as essentially a doublet54 of the Baal-Yam conflict. It
is certainly striking that in view of the wide incidence of the Chaoskampf
throughout Eurasia (Amorite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, Hittite and Is-
raelite [biblical] versions are attested, apart from a whole nexus of Indian
and Iranian versions), the myth of Baal’s conflict with Mot is unparalleled.
Is it too bold to suggest that the very deification of Death as an antagonist
of Baal, the god who brings life, is the literary invention of Ilimilku, for his
own purpose of sandwiching the myth of Baal’s palace-construction be-
tween acosmic threats to it from before and after?55
This is not to attempt any reduction of Mot’s importance to one liter-
ary composition. Rather does it highlight the role of the theologian (Ilimilku
was high priest, chief of the temple herdsmen and the king’s sacrificer:
KTU 1.6 vi 55–656) in the very initial conceptualization of new metaphysical
experience. Many deities presumably had specific historical origins, however
hard it may be to identify them. Be this as it may, for it remains conjectural,
the divine existence of Mot, yet apparent cultic non-existence, suggests a
deity in transition, in process of development. In at least a loose way, he
may be linked with the Hebrew constellation of Sheol, itself an inchoate
personification of the experience of death, and such biblical figures as
Rāʿēb, Belial and Māwet, the last-named his precise counterpart. The agri-
cultural significance often attributed to Mot, as a fertility deity, is naturally
to be entirely discounted on my interpretation.57
3.2.6 The Problem of an Adequate Assessment of Ancient Deities

The characters of the gods in the mythological texts have frequently been
treated with less than sympathy in modern studies. Thus Handy (1994, 125–
54 The suspicion that this is the case is strengthened by the fact that similar royal titles are
applied to both: Yam is mdd il, Mot is ydd ilm. On the sense of this see Wyatt 1985b. Note
also that Mot himself compares his appetite with maritime creatures. See in particular my
suggestion at KTU 1.5 i 14–16: Wyatt 2002, 116 n. 11.
55 See Wyatt 1998 for the rationale of this observation.
56 On Ilimilku’s substantial role see §4.2 below, and also Wyatt 2000, 2002a.
57 See discussion of KTU 1.6 ii 30–35, v 11–16 in Wyatt 2002, 135–36, 141 nn. 83, 108.
6) calls Baal a “strong, virile dolt” and Anat “a spoilt child”,58 while El is
construed as a coward in the face of Anat’s tantrums. 59 These estimates,
little better than the old allegorical identifications which were once fashion-
able, 60 are theologically quite inadequate however, and simply a miscon-
struction of what mythology and theology within a polytheistic world-view
strive to achieve. To begin with, the trickster figure, or the deity who is the
butt of humour and figure of fun has an honoured place in religious history.
Such characters reflect the human experience of the incongruous. The con-
tradictions present in the deities of the pantheon are, moreover, faithful
reflections in the mythic idiom of contradictions in the real world. Their
dramatic interaction in the myths (such as the fights between Baal and Yam,
or Baal and Mot, or Anat’s confrontations with El) do indeed reflect a de-
gree of “theological relativity”, but this is a strength, not a weakness, in
polytheistic thought. For all the anomies of human experience can be
worked out “intrapantheonically” through the medium of the mythic narra-
tive, and the broad principle of divine power is not compromised. Anat’s
encounter with Aqhat, seen from a theological perspective, warns of the
dangers of trifling with the unpredictable and autonomous divine. It may be
compared with the story of 2 Samuel 6:1–8, where the modern reader’s
sympathy goes out to Uzzah, but in so doing misreads the narrative. Fur-
thermore, this kind of theology, explored almost exclusively in mythologi-
cal, narrative idiom, or in hymnody which reflects courtly and diplomatic
language, is the only medium open to the ancient cultures, before the de-
58 Cf. Margalit 1989, 477: he claims that “A ruthless mysogynist (sic !) and a creature of pas-
sion, Anat is a goddess who never ‘grew up’. She personifies for the poet all that is corrupt
and contemptible in Raphaite culture and society”. On pp. 478–79 he wrote of “the com-
placent... Raphaites, in their passionate devotion and voluntary bondage to a bloodthirsty
goddess, are in fact on a path to self-destruction...” Such judgments entirely fail to recognize
the logical place of negative principles in a pantheon. To interpret the goddess as a cipher
for a corrupt society is absurd: she is entirely the opposite, a sign of the vitality of its moral
theology.
59 Pardee 1997, 254 n. 105.
60 Cf. Gaster’s identification of most of the deities in the Baal cycle of myths with various
forms of water, or the vegetation theories of Virolleaud, Dussaud, et al. For references and
critique, cf. Wyatt 1996, 144–50.
velopment of elaborate abstractions of thought61. The considerable strains

that theodicy places upon monotheistic conceptions of the deity, over
which the modern systematic theologian agonizes so inconclusively, do not
arise.62 The dissonance between ideal and reality is swallowed up in a prag-
matism towards and acceptance of the real world. It is futile to criticize this
outlook for failing to achieve insights only realized a millennium or more
later. Whatever else it may have become as a result of the ever-widening
scope of symbolic activity and the expansion of human consciousness, the
religions of the early urban civilizations of the Near East were very largely a
complex system of social, economic and environmental management. Their
very longevity is evidence of their efficacy. The besetting sin of too much
contemporary scholarship is to look no further than the surface-character
of ancient deities, and to fail to recognize the depth of the symbolic dimen-
sion. And the gods of Ugarit have suffered from this more than most.63
3.3 Demonology
It is in such a perspective that we should mention briefly the presence of
demons. I have dealt with these (chapter 4) as essentially transient figures,
frozen in the snapshot of a particular context reconstructed through the
chance discovery of texts, but more realistically gods in the making or the
unmaking, so that a longer perspective would tend to see them either dis-
appearing or achieving divine status. Deities such as Reshef and Horon, of
distinctly “demonic” form, being reified horrors, have probably been given
pantheonic status as a means of controlling them on the principle outlined
above. Some, of course, would hover anonymously on the fringes of reli-
gious experience for considerable periods of time, to terrify successive gen-
61 Only Greece appears to have developed such language systematically, and even here the
narrative mode is the normal discourse of theology. Homeric and Hesiodic thought was
expressed in this way. But to sensitive readers, all these ancient thought-systems are straining
at the limitations of language, and relentlessly pushing forward the boundaries of experience
and articulacy.
62 The problem arises out of our academic desire to read systematic theology into the ancient
traditions. We then read inconsistencies into the apparent dissonance between different
poetic metaphors. This is a measure only of modern, not of ancient incapacities.
63 Any treatment of Yahweh that stopped at the surface would be rightly judged as superfi-
cial and inadequate. Scholars (= theologians!) are careful to probe behind Yahweh’s bad
temper, his petulance and changes of mind to the symbolic power of this literary imagery.
The Ugaritic deities deserve no less.
erations of the victims of their attentions, eventually to be tamed by either

the powers of exorcism or advances in medicine.
4 MYTHOLOGY
4.1 General Considerations

My object here is not a detailed analysis of the individual mythic narratives
from Ugarit. This has been amply covered elsewhere.64 Instead a few re-
marks may be helpful on mythological matters generally, in order to help us
appreciate the Ugaritian mentality.
It is a feature of all cultures that they express their sense of community
identity in the form of narratives. All early historiography, accounting for a
people’s present as the product of their past, is in narrative form. Fre-
quently, as is well known, it is clear that myth, legend and “real” history are
mingled quite indiscriminately in such compositions. This is certainly the
case with any historiographical texts surviving from the ancient Near East,
including the historiography of the Hebrew Bible. No historiography as
such survives from Ugarit, though I have argued65 that the king list in KTU
1.113, now probably in the context of a series of names for invocation in
the accompanying litany, reflects a mentality quite capable of drawing up a
formal list of this kind, and in so far as it is in all probability a selective list,
of making discriminatory judgments about the historical worth of individual
people and events. So this is a matter of arguing not for any kind of archaic
mentality, on the basis claimed by Lévy-Bruhl66 or Frankfort,67 but rather as
proposed by Donald, 68 who argued for increasingly complex forms of
memory and memorizing with early human development; Ugaritian
64 See also Gibson 1999. For representative bibliographies on all the mythological texts from
Ugarit see the heading to each text in Wyatt 2002.
65 Wyatt 1998, 2002, 402–03 n. 13.
66 Lévy-Bruhl 1922. Note Margalit’s welcome comment (Margalit 1989a, 10 n. 7).
67 Frankfort 1949. For critiques of the views of the Frankforts see Rogerson 1974 and Wyatt
1996a, 388–98.
68 Donald 1991, 152. He postulated the following stages in the capacity to memorize: proce-
dural, episodic and semantic. Consciousness is rudimentary in the second of these stages,
while the third is dependent on human language and consciousness.
thought, like all other ancient ones in principle from the earlier literate pe-
riod,69 had not yet developed techniques of analysis and abstraction. Narra-
tive, therefore, was the recognized mode of dealing with a variety of issues,
not least the problems arising in the moral and political life, questions of
identity, origins, of authority and ideology (see above) and even of everyday
matters like birth, puberty, marriage and death. Myth is the classic medium
for representing and resolving such matters and their inherent problems.
Through contemporary religious discourse (particularly credal, liturgical,
hymnic and the reading of “Scriptures”—ancient religious texts) exactly the
same pattern of mental processing is carried on today. Indeed the same
strategies are pursued today in forensic and commercial contexts, and not
merely religious ones, where precise forms of words not only convey pre-
cise nuances of meaning, but carry a peculiar authority (legal, contractual,
religious) and are deemed to “bind” people into a system of mutual inter-
dependence. This is the “linguistic world” in which we live. In principle
little has changed over the millennia.
We may have only a small fraction of the Ugaritian (or even the Uga-
ritic) myths, and this is due to the good fortune that priestly and royal ar-
chives recorded them. Many others would have been transmitted orally,
with consequent loss, or the unlikelihood of being able to recover them
from later records which have distorted them too much. Where a cognate
relationship can be established, as between texts KTU 1.23 and 1.24, their
second millennium congeners 70 and later derivatives, 71 there has usually
been substantial modification. The same is true of the Chaoskampf tradition,
which now has a continuous pedigree running from third-millennium Esh-
nunna through to mediaeval Europe.72 This material is in my view directed
primarily at the support of the institution of kingship, though of course it is
69 The development of writing itself no doubt lent a powerful consciousness to the acts of
writing and reading the written word. At a stroke, as it were, the memories of past genera-
tions could be preserved, and worlds opened up far vaster than the restricted scope of oral
tradition, itself already a powerful tool. The recording of the Ugaritic myths hints at an au-
thoritative text: the very words of the gods were now available independently of the inspira-
tion of the individual poet. There is no clear evidence for the ritual use of writing in Ugarit,
though legal texts witness to its inherent binding power.
70 Astour 1967, 154–60.
71 See Wyatt 1996, 219–68, where it was argued that they constitute the Vorlage of Psalms 2,
8, 19, 110, Genesis 16, 19:30–38, Hosea 2, Ezekiel 16 and 23.

72 Wyatt 1998.
entirely probable that more generalized mythology was also extant, as indi-
cated by texts such as KTU 1.92, and by such applied myths (generally in
relation to medical matters) as are mentioned below.
4.2 The Role of Ilimilku

This is perhaps an appropriate juncture at which to comment on the impor-
tance of the role of Ilimilku, to which I have already drawn attention above
and in previous discussions.73 Its significance here is not so much historical
or literary-critical as religious. For here we are able to pinpoint the contribu-
tion of a historical individual, whose identity would ordinarily have been
entirely lost to us, to specific developments in the religion of an ancient
culture. The naming of an author in documents of this period (apart from
royal proclamations, and diplomatic, legal and epistolary texts) is quite ex-
ceptional, and the accident of the survival of his name in the colopha of
different mythical texts affords us an unrivalled opportunity to enquire into
his mind and motivations. It is entirely reasonable to take account of
Ilimilku’s priestly and administrative roles, and to conclude that he had a
substantially authorial role in the construction of the narratives of the Baal
myths, and the Keret and Aqhat stories.74 It is this that is so unusual.
We can examine his motivations, for example, in the elaborate building
up of the already ancient Chaoskampf motif, now first evidenced a millen-
nium before his time in texts from Eshnunna, and already with widely dis-
persed congeners in the second millennium (Hatti, Mari, Babylon, India). A
case may be made for Ilimilku himself being the author, in the strict sense
of inventor and originator, of the conflict between Baal and Mot (KTU 1.5-
6)75 which constitutes the echo of the struggle between Baal and Yam (KTU
1.1-2). This narrative has no parallels elsewhere, and appears to be a con-
struction designed to present a chiastic framework round the central epi-
sode of the “Baal cycle”, the story in KTU 1.3–4; that is, its whole raison-
73 Wyatt 1997, 1998.

74 The same point was made by M. Korpel in her useful treatment of Ilimilku (Korpel 1998,
87–88).
75 The double nature of the construction was discerned by Wakeman 1973 and Petersen and
Woodward 1977. None of these writers actually attributed the composition of the Baal-Mot
conflict to Ilimilku himself, however.
d’être is explained by the central narrative. This construction points to the

episode of Baal’s “palace” (sc. temple) as the primary element in the mythic
story. But further elements in the story, and some of the features it has in
parallel with Keret and Aqhat, suggest that the authorial intention was not so
much to celebrate the construction of Baal’s temple (though an aetiology
certainly exists here, and indeed the liturgical elements to be discerned in
this narrative point to some such celebration in the cultus) as to see it as a
legitimization of royal claims. Royal ideology as much as theology in the
more conventional sense was therefore Ilimilku’s main concern. The cult of
Baal would benefit mutually, in that he appeared as the patron of the dy-
nasty.
Similar intentions appear to lie behind the Keret narrative. It is in all
probability a traditional tale, as many have noted. Some of the constructions
put upon it are however not entirely plausible. Thus it has been seen on the
one hand as the aetiology for the descent of the dynasty of Ugarit from
“Octavia”,76 the youngest daughter of Keret by Hurriya. On the other it has
been argued that it is intended to cut the royal ideology down to size by
denying its extravagant claims of divine kingship.77 Neither view is in my
estimate correct: rather is a curse visited upon the youngest daughter be-
cause of her sib-solidarity with the accursed Yasib, while the comparison of
Keret with gods who die (sc. Baal) is precisely a way of showing that both
national deity and national ruler share a theological trait. In the final analysis
the cursing of Keret’s line may be the prelude to the assumption of the
throne by another line. I shall take up this point below. Our present con-
cern is the theological significance of Ilimilku’s role. As propagandist for the
king, he actually created theology for his age, thus influencing and modifying
the thoughts of his contemporaries and of subsequent generations, just as
an influential systematic theologian such as Luther or Calvin could have a
significant impact on his culture, or as Homer or Hesiod had on early
Greek theology.
As for the historical context of Ilimilku, this is in process of a revalua-
tion, thanks to the discovery of the Urtenu archive in the southern zone of
the city. Thus far we have had no more than hints of the need for reassess-
ment of the evidence, and await the publication of these new texts to lend
substance to it. Traditionally the poet-scribe has been dated to the reign of
Niqmaddu II, and my attempts to give an estimate of him (Wyatt 1997,
76 For my alternative interpretation of the term ttmnt, see Wyatt 2002, 211–12 n. 155.
77 Parker 1977.
1998, 2002, 35–6, contrast 21 n, 6) have been on this basis. For a prelimi-
nary attempt at interpreting the new material, see Singer 1999. 78 His dis-
placement, as appears likely, to the time of Niqmaddu III, will require some
adjustments (though not radical ones) to my assessment, since both acces-
sions appear to have followed from some kind of internal political crisis.79
4.3 Two Myths from Ugarit
4.3.1 KTU 1.23

Two further important mythological texts may be discussed here briefly,
since they are only touched on elsewhere.80 The first, of the greatest histori-
cal importance, is KTU 1.23. It was found in the “high priest’s house” on
the acropolis in the second season, in 1930. The edition princeps was pub-
lished by Virolleaud 1933. The particular importance of the text was imme-
diately recognized, and a number of studies has been devoted to it.81
The tablet was found in two parts, and the smaller piece, which consti-
tutes the first five lines of the recto, was broken in half vertically, with the
right hand portion missing. The result is that the latter half of ll. 1–5 is
missing, as is the latter half of ll. 72–5 on the verso. Part of l. 71 is also
missing. On the recto a plaque has also broken away from the lower part of
the right side, destroying the ends of ll. 16–25 and the corresponding line-
ends on the verso, while also on the verso there is some surface damage just
below the centre.
78 Singer 1999, 688–89 and nn. 284, 289, 705 and n. 340.
79 See Wyatt 2002a.
80 By Gibson 1999.
81 The following translations and studies have also been published, among others: Virolleaud
1933, Ginsberg 1935, Gaster 1946, 1950, 225–56, 1961, 418-35, Gordon 1949, 57–62, 1977,
59–64, Largement 1949, Jirku 1962, 80–84, Aistleitner 1964, 58–62, de Moor 1972 ii 17–24,
1987, 117–28, Tsumura 1973, 1978, Xella 1973, Caquot–Sznycer–Herdner 1974, 353–79,
Tsevat 1974, Wyatt 1977, 1987, 1992b, 1996, 224-29, 2002, 324-35, del Olmo Lete 1981,
427–48, Cutler–Macdonald 1982, Lipiński 1986, Segert 1986, Foley 1987, Hettema 1989–90,
Schloen 1993, Aboud 1994, 189–92, Watson 1994, Pardee 1997, 274–83, Dijkstra 1998,
Smith 2006.
Several lines have been scored across the tablet, following ll. 7, 11, 12,
15, 18, 20, 22, 27 and 29 (all on the recto), thus dividing the text into ten
sections, of which the last is equal in length to the nine previous ones com-
bined. While a number of purposes appear to have lain behind such lines in
various contexts, in the present instance they appear to mark off separate
parts of the text which in the earlier part (ll. 1–29) consists of different ru-
brics, short narrative passages of ritual significance, lines of hymns to be
sung (perhaps just the opening lines to prompt cantors), and ritual instruc-
tions. From l. 30 to the end (the bottom edge and the verso of the tablet)
the text consists of one narrative poem, though here too a ritual instruction
appears in the narrative at l. 54.
The contents are as follows:
I 23.1–7 Hymnic introduction invoking the gracious gods (cf. VIII);
[ ]; summons to feast (sc. sacrifice); greetings to assem-
bled personnel (including king and queen); description of
opening scene, with figure of Mt-w-Šr seated disconsolate
and sterile, rod82 in hand.
II 23.8–11 “Viticultural” ritual involving Mt-w-Šr.
III 23.12 Instruction for sevenfold recital of the mythic narrative (sc.
ll. 8–11), and command to the priests to respond.
IV 23.13–5 Allusion to the “vast steppe” of Athirat and Rahma<y> (cf.
IX), and sevenfold performance of a culinary ritual and of
censing.
V 23.16–8 Narrative of Athirat and Rahmay setting out [ ]; invoca-
tion of their names.
VI 23.19–20 Reference is made to the eightfold, sevenfold [ ] of the
gods’ dwellings.
VII 23.21–2 Mention of the precious stones and garments of the choris-
ters.
VIII 23.23–7 Hymnic introduction (cf. I above), invoking the gracious
gods, their suckling and rituals (of purification after birth?).
IX 23.28–9 Further allusion to the “vast steppe” of Athirat and Rahmay
(cf. IV) [ ].
X 23.30–76 Main mythic narrative: El goes to the seashore, meeting two
figures (sc. goddesses?), apparently sitting on a cauldron,
who address him as “father” and “mother”; he has an erec-
tion, removes them and takes them to his house. El’s penis
appears to be identified with (or at any rate to evoke) the
82 Or perhaps ‘‘rod’’, since the term is undoubtedly ambiguous.

rod mentioned earlier (I); after banter about his potency, El

makes love to the two goddesses. He sits and counts the
months until they give birth to Shahar and Shalem, and rites
of purification are performed. The same narrative of the
conception, counting and birth is repeated. This time the
offspring are called “the gracious gods”. Gluttonous from
birth, the two young gods wander off with gargantuan appe-
tites, devouring everything in sight, for seven years. Coming
in from the desert, they call on the guardian of the sown
land, who makes an entry for them, and responding to their
request, offers them food and drink.
Readers familiar with the text will appreciate that even in giving a syn-
opsis a number of interpretative choices have been made. Most of these
have been hotly debated over the years, and they are not all by any means
settled. In this author’s view, the “gracious gods” are in fact Shahar and
Shalem, the twin sons of the sun-goddess Shapsh, who is geminated for
narrative effect and cosmological reasons into the goddesses Athirat and
Rahmay.83 Thus only two gods, twins, are to be understood as born to the
goddesses, rather than a series of births, which would understand this to be
a general theogony. Note is also taken here of Tsumura’s reinterpretation of
ll. 49–58,84 which restores the tricolon of ll. 56–7 to a position following
m mt in l. 51, and interprets it as a counting of months of pregnancy,
rather than a fivefold repetition of the impregnation (which with the two
described, was formerly understood to give seven overall on the previous
interpretation of the text85).
83 See Wyatt 2002, 333 n. 49, and also my more extensive treatment in Wyatt 1996, 219–82,
in which I examined the text in the larger context of its ancient Near Eastern congeners and
biblical derivatives. The latter range indicates the ideological importance of the tradition. See
also Astour 1967, 154–57.
84 Tsumura 1978. See also Watson 1994, and Wyatt 2002, 332 n. 45.
85 Cf. Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner 1974, 376, del Olmo Lete 1981, 446. Dijkstra 1999, 140–
42, retains the older understanding.

This is an interesting instance of a text which explicitly combines myth

and ritual.86 It therefore seems to envisage a specific application of the myth
to a specific ritual context (though that is not identified in the text). In view
of the congeners, however, it is probably safe to conclude that any specific
application is secondary, and applies to the given context in which it ap-
pears a symbolic force to be discerned in the theoretical prototype. While a
number of similar myths are told in the ancient Near East, of which several
are evidently cognate, we cannot hope to recover the original myth, which
being absolutely archetypal, must go back way into prehistory. It is even fair
to say that if myths are traced back to their origins, only two basic types
require to be posited, dealing with conflict (and all resolution of tensions)
and reproduction (and by extension other “origins”). Here is the primal tale
about how the first children were begotten. Other birth-myths, such as
KTU 1.12 i and KTU 1.24 (below), are essentially versions of the same
theme, adapted to different specific secondary contexts. I have discussed a
number of biblical derivatives,87 and here the common element is the same,
but with a marked bias towards a royal significance. This is to be expected,
since the king, as sacral figure, would tend to have concentrated in his per-
son all the symbolic values of his community. Pardee’s (1997, 274) assess-
ment that it deals with “a pair of relatively minor deities” is a fair reflection
of current opinion on the text, but in my view underestimates their consid-
erable ideological importance as “royal gods”, who reflect in their mythol-
ogy certain important constants.
Assessments of the text range from that offered by Cutler and Mac-
donald (1982) as a famine-relief liturgy, by Largement 1949, Lipiński 1986
and Segert 1986 as a “fertility cult” myth, to that of Pardee (1997) as a pos-
sible analogue or component of an autumnal vintage and new year festival
(cf. KTU 1.41).88 This divergence of views is natural, given that features of
all these types may be discerned; nor are they incompatible with my royal
assessment. Further analysis is undoubtedly required. De Moor (1987, 117)
has defined the text as a sacred marriage text. This too is reasonable in so
far as it actually deals with a marriage, but we need to be clear what “sacred
86 Contrary to the assessment voiced by de Moor 1971, 30, I do not feel compelled to accept
that all myths are inseparable from rituals. The situation is infinitely more complex. For a
recent collection of views see Segal 1998.
87 Wyatt 1996, 232–68.
88 For the most recent discussion see M.S. Smith 2006 and review by Pardee 2007. I think
that Smith misrepresents my views, and certainly does not do them justice.
marriage” (hieros gamos) means, and the use of the term sometimes implies
that the same kind of significance is to be applied in all cases, as though it is
just a tantric use of sex in the cult. It is here that I think the royal dimension
is important, and enables us to clarify matters. A mythic paradigm is estab-
lished here which is used to convey basic notions about the concern of the
chief deity for the created order, and the implicit identification of his off-
spring with kings becomes the means whereby royal duties are represented
as actualizing the theological programme.89
4.3.2 KTU 1.24

The second text I wish to treat briefly here is KTU 1.24, the so-called Nik-
kal poem, treating the marriage of Nikkal and the moon-god.90 While com-
plete, the surface of this tablet is eroded to such an extent that many read-
ings remain uncertain. The text falls into two parts. The first consists of a
mythic narrative in which the goddess Nikkal (the Hurrian form of Sumer-
ian NIN.GAL) is seduced by the moon-god, appearing as Yarih, but in all
probability the Hurrian moon-god Kusu . He then seeks her hand in mar-
riage, and after a number of attempts have been made to fob him off with
alternative brides, the wedding is performed, with the requisite payment of
bride-price and dowry, both costs borne by the bridegroom himself. The
second part is a hymn to the Kotharat, the goddesses of weddings and
childbirth.
Goetze 1941 understood the myth to be Hurrian, while del Olmo Lete
1991 has maintained its Sumerian origin. 91 Both views may be right of
course, since Hurrian religion adopted many features of the cults of the
89 Wyatt 2002, 325. The myth may not unreasonably be compared with the patriarchal narra-
tives of Genesis, which though written in an entirely different idiom, deal with precisely the
same theme, that of national survival.
90 The following translations and studies have appeared, among others: Virolleaud 1936a,
Gordon 1937, 1977, 65–67, Aistleitner 1939, 1964, 63–64, Ginsberg 1939, Goetze 1941,
Herdner 1949, Tsevat 1953, Driver 1956, 125–27, Jirku 1962, 77–79, Herrmann 1968,
Caquot–Sznycer–Herdner 1974, 381–97, Wyatt 1977b, 2002, 336–41, Gibson 1978, 128–29,
del Olmo Lete 1981, 449–56, 1991, de Moor 1987, 141–45.
91 See too the interesting discussion of other versions of this myth by Astour 1967, 80–92,
though he did not include KTU 1.24 in his coverage.

fertile crescent. It is “hurrianized”, and no doubt with particular adaptation

to the Ugaritian milieu. But I shall suggest an alternative source just below.
A Babylonian version92 appears to be part of a childbirth ritual, to ease a
difficult parturition. The presence of the hymn to the Kotharat on the same
tablet suggests that in the present instance too this may have been the pur-
pose of the myth, though this too is undoubtedly a secondary application of
the narrative. I have long wondered whether the myth itself may be related
to the narrative of Genesis 34 (the story of Dinah and Shechem), for which
I have proposed an Indo-European origin, since it is remarkably close to
some Vedic material.93 The possibility that marital circumcision may have
been practised in Ugarit (though not referred to specifically in the present
text) would support this suggestion.94
5 THE ROYAL IDEOLOGY OF UGARIT

We have already noted a number of allusions to kingship and its mythic
representation in the narrative texts. It is in the nature of an urban archive,
where much of the record was generated specifically by the palace and tem-
ple bureaucracies, that there should be such an apparent bias towards royal
interests, most obvious in cultic matters. On one hand this should warn us
of a largely untapped reservoir of “popular” religion, such as must have
been practised by ordinary citizens of the several classes and guilds attested
in administrative documents, at which the marzi u texts hint, for example;
and also the cult of minor shrines both in the city and outlying villages,
where quite independent cults may have been observed. Such historical re-
alities tend by their nature to go undocumented.95 On the other hand, the
royal nature of the bulk of the religious texts, where the ritual ones are de-
voted largely to procedures in which the king played a leading role,96 and the
92 Astour 1967, 85, Böhl 1936.

93 See Wyatt 1990.
94 On Genesis 34 see Wyatt 1990; on circumcision at Ugarit see chapter 3. On the possibility
that the present text does in fact deal with circumcision, see Allan 1999, where it is argued
that mlk qẓ (ll. 2, 17, 24) denotes the “counsellor for circumcision”.
95 The poor documentation is noted by van der Toorn 1996, 153. For a brief treatment see
below.
96 See in particular del Olmo Lete 1992 = 1999.
mythological ones are largely, though not exclusively, related to ideological

questions, is a fair reflection of the specific importance of Ugarit as a royal
city within the kingdom. Just as the biblical texts generated by the Jerusalem
cultus, or the inscriptions from royal cities such as Thebes or Nineveh,
naturally reflect the national significance of such sites, so we should expect
the same from Ugarit. What is striking about the evidence from Ugarit is
the considerable degree of continuity between its royal ideology and that of
Jerusalem from the Iron Age.97 This suggests that while local variations un-
doubtedly occurred, which must not be underestimated, a common West
Semitic nexus of ideas about monarchy, in which the same or similar myths
of divine parentage, the important ritual functions of the rabitu-gebîrâ, and
similar ritual conceptions and practices obtained. This also must not be un-
derestimated.
5.2 The Divinity of the King

The king is represented in the narrative poetry as bn il. This expression may
be interpreted as “member of the genus ‘god’’’, which is its sense when ap-
plied to deities. It thus appears to include the king in this category. More
narrowly, it appears to have the mythological sense “son of El” (that is, of
El as chief god), a nuance supported by the corollary, that El is explicitly
“father” to the king (KTU 1.14 ii 23-4: db ltr abk il: “Sacrifice to Bull your
father, El”, addressed to Keret). El is further identified as ab adm, which in
my view has the narrower sense of “father of Man (even ‘Adam’)” rather
than the broader sense of “father of mankind”. The latter expression is re-
markable enough as a powerful metaphor of kinship relating deity and his
people; with the narrower sense it reinforces the specific and peculiar rela-
tionship between deity and (divine) king already noted. A further image of
the king’s divine status is the broken text at KTU 1.15, which proclaims the
status of Yasib (Keret’s heir) in these terms:
He will drink the milk of Athirat
he will drain the breast of Virgin [Rahmay];
97 See Wyatt 1996.

the suckling of [goddesses ].98

This text has caused some disputation: “Anat” is commonly restored
in the lacuna in the second colon, though in my view without justification
other than a pavlovian response to the term btlt, while the surviving word in
the third is often read with a final t (as mšnq[t]), and translated as “wet-
nurses”. We have here not a sociological observation, however, but a
mythological allusion, to royal sons who drink their divinity from the
breasts of divine mothers, which is only to be expected if the goddess (there
is actually only one, for Athirat and Rahmay are hypostases of Shapsh, as is
evident from KTU 1.23) is consort to El and therefore the king’s ideologi-
cal mother. This passage is important not only in establishing Yasib’s ideo-
logical status, but also in countering Parker’s claim that the Keret narrative is
intended to discredit royal claims to divinity.
The overall interpretation of material of this kind suffers in part, I be-
lieve, from a tendency for the modern interpreter to attribute to the an-
cients the same mental attitudes we share. This is not only fashionable since
the deserved eclipse of Lévy-Bruhl’s more romantic views, but almost de
rigueur in today’s intellectual climate. Carried to extremes, it is absurd. Even
people in the seventeenth century had a world-view radically different from
our own. It requires a supreme effort on our part even to grasp what Late
Bronze Ugaritians thought of the world. The cosmological framework out-
lined above should warn us against importing too much rationality in our
sense of the term. Perhaps the most difficult thing to appreciate is the slid-
ing scale between the human and divine realms. The Ugaritians, like every-
one else in the Mediterranean world at least down to early Christian times,
inhabited a world populated with spiritual powers in every corner. These
could be acknowledged as the vast range of gods worshipped by compatri-
ots and foreigners alike, organized into panthea, though this usually hap-
pened only to one’s own gods, worshipped either in organized fashion, as in
the royal cultus, which actually invoked a small selection from the pan-
theon, or worshipped in ad hoc fashion according to personal devotion by
private citizens, feared or exorcized as demons, or revered as ancestors.
Nor were the ancients averse to seeing such powers embodied in ac-
tual people, particularly in kings. The royal ancestors were explicitly called
gods (KTU 1.113) and invoked at funerals (KTU 1.161) while some of their
98For justification of this reading and translation see Wyatt 2002, 209 n. 149. All translations
from Ugaritic in the present chapter are from this volume.
number99 were given the more exalted status of rpum, “saviours” or “heal-
ers”, a term which may have corresponded roughly to the “heroes” of
Greek cult. The king was a living representative of the royal gods of the
past, into whose company he was welcomed at death, and the one person
who could most effectively communicate with the divine realm on behalf of
ordinary mortals. The language of divine birth and genealogy was of course
symbolic—when is language not symbolic?—but all the more real for so
being.100
Parker (1977) suggested that the rhetorical questioning of KTU 1.16 i
9–11, 20–3 (“Is Keret then the son of El...?”) pointed to a negative answer.
Gods do not die, but Keret does, and is therefore no god. This overlooks
the fact that Baal does die. I have proposed101 as an alternative that the lan-
guage of this passage specifically compares Keret with Baal, expressing in
this way the hope that Keret too, like Baal, will be restored to life. Thus the
ideological status of the king is not in question. If anything, it is considera-
bly enhanced by the comparison. This aspect of Ugaritian thought may be
the medium through which dead kings achieved a form of deification after
death (KTU 1.113), by a formal apotheosis indicated by the determinative il,
and also by aspiring to the status of rpum. This might be enhanced by the
comparison in Keret, in addition to any language used of the reigning mon-
arch.102
99 The rpum named in the Ugaritic texts do not feature in the king-list. Their precise relation-
ship with the historical kings of Ugarit remains obscure. They are evidently invoked as “ideo-
logical ancestors”. The r epāʾîm of biblical tradition are associated above all with the Hauran,
and in this respect perhaps make connection with the Ugaritic rpum. Cf. KTU 1.108.2–3,
which links Rāpiʾu, eponymous deity of the rpum, with Ashtarat and Edrei, cities linked with
Og, last of the Rephaim, in Deuteronomy 1:4. On Rāpiʾu and the rpum see n. 31 above. See
also references in n. 140 (à propos KTU 1.161). For Pitard’s cautious estimate of the nature
and role of the rpum see Pitard 1999. For the subject in general see now Wyatt, forthcoming.
100 A similar concern to downplay the divinity of the Pharaoh is evident in some egyptologi-
cal studies. It goes against the whole weight of the ideological tradition, and against a basic
appreciation of ancient Egyptian psychology. We must attempt to understand the ancients in
their terms at least as much as ours.
101 Wyatt 1997.
102 For a more recent assessment of royal aspects of religion see Wyatt 2005c.
6 RITUAL 103

The information noted above may be supplemented by reference to the
ritual texts from Ugarit. Many of these were discovered within the confines
of the palaces, and provide a convenient and eloquent insight into the com-
plex ritual life in which the king played a central role. While the narrative
texts appear to accept a principle of “divine kingship” for the monarchy,
however precisely this be defined, there is no indication in the ritual texts of
the king’s peculiar status. His “sacral” role as a pontifex, a mediator between
the divine and human realms, is unquestionable. But he acts merely as a
cipher, performing his appointed role in the drama of the cult. No theoreti-
cal position on this is even hinted at.
The surviving ritual texts from Ugarit are unlikely to record more than
a small proportion of the cultic life of the city, and in any case at least in
some instances record events taking place in the palace and royal chapels.
Our already partial record is thus primarily of the royal cultus. General pro-
ceedings in the other main city temples on the acropolis and the city centre
are simply unknown. What can be stated with certainty is that the mytho-
logical texts offer no record of any ritual calendar or theology, as argued by
those espousing the seasonal interpretation. The most they offer is occa-
sional snatches of liturgical material embedded in the narrative, and descrip-
tions of divine feasting which are as it were a gods’-eye-view of sacrificial
rites. The observances of the characters in the Keret and Aqhat stories no
doubt reflect typical ritual practices, but these are entirely incidental to the
narratives. The ritual texts, on the other hand, evidently work within a
tightly structured cultic calendar, although in view of the fragmentary nature
of the record, we are not in a position to reconstruct this adequately, which
might allow an appreciation of the overall pattern. See del Olmo Lete 1999
and Pardee 2000, 2002 for the first extensive treatments of these issues.
The texts devoted to ritual matters are discussed elsewhere. 104 Here
perhaps some remarks on the broad nature of ancient ritual, as attested in
103 See also Merlo and Xella 1999, del Olmo Lete 1999a. On the ritual texts see de Tarragon
1980, Xella 1981, Caquot, de Tarragon and Cunchillos 1989, del Olmo Lete 1992.
104 Merlo and Xella 1999, del Olmo Lete, 1999a.
Ugarit, are appropriate. An interesting pattern emerges from scrutiny of the

ancient religions of the Near East. This is the complex relationship with all
aspects of human life, and particularly the economic dimension. Whatever
the origins of sacrificial practice, it is evident that it was the centre of the
temple cultus in all the urban cultures of the ancient Near East. On every
occasion where the deities were invoked, offerings of meat, cereals, wine,
oil or other material commodities (cloth, metals, votive gifts, incense etc.)
were made. In a sense it can be argued that a significant amount of the city-
state’s economic production was geared to the demands of the temples. The
overall scale of sacrificial demand is not clear from Ugarit, but livestock
production would have been in part controlled by its demands,105 with per-
haps special diets, selection for special markings, and animals of a certain
age and gender selected for ritual use. It is even possible that all meat-
production was channelled through the temples.106 Egyptian temples were
frequently equipped with extensive store-rooms for the storage of the pro-
duce of farm-lands controlled by them.107 We should expect similar organi-
zation at Ugarit, if on a smaller scale, though presumably any warehouses
would have been outside the city-walls, perhaps in satellite settlements.
In view of the emphasis on “the fertility cult” which appears to sell
student handbooks,108 which conjures up an image of orgiastic rites which I
once heard described as “a sea of heaving buttocks”, it is worth noting that
there is no evidence from Ugarit for practices of this kind. We certainly
105 Note that one of Ilimilku’s offices, no doubt in his capacity as a priest, appears to have
been management of temple herds (rb khnm rb nqdm : KTU 1.6 vi 55–56). The influence of
the temple-economy on the broader economy should not be underestimated. If the gods
demanded richer offerings, agricultural practice had to adapt to the demand, while greater
food-production would result in greater surpluses, and therefore enhanced trade, enhanced
wealth, and no doubt concomitant population growth. The temples were at the apex of this
economic spiral.
106 The “secular” slaughter envisaged in Deuteronomy 12:15–16, 20–25 has the appearance
of a departure from an older norm in which all animals were killed not only ritually in the
most general sense, but in the presence of a deity, and formally as an offering. One reason
for this would have been the accumulation of power in the hands of organized priesthoods.
107 They are most graphically evident at the Ramesseum, the mortuary temple of Rameses II.
See Kemp 1989, 191–97.

108 See the title of Harrelson 1969, From Fertility Cult to Worship.
have mythological begettings, and some deities have voracious sexual appe-
tites, while we have noted a ritual dimension to KTU 1.23. The context of
this interesting text is however the conception of princes, and it may well be
no more than a mimetic counterpart to the actual (highly ritualized) con-
summation of a royal marriage in Ugarit. An iconographic counterpart may
be seen in the ivory panels from the royal bed.109 We also noted a probable
ritual context to KTU 1.24, and shall mention further such material below
(§9).
6.2 A Rite of Atonement: KTU 1.40

I shall limit my discussion of individual ritual texts to one example. This is
the liturgy for the great day of atonement at Ugarit, preserved partially in
two tablets, KTU 1.40, 1.84. 110 The liturgy appears on the surviving evi-
dence to have been composed of six parts, addressed alternately to men ([I],
III, V) and women ([II], IV, VI). Only the final three sections are in a condi-
tion to allow continuous translation. Three pairs of victims were offered,
two oxen ([I, II]), two rams (III, IV) and two donkeys (V, VI). Each animal is
offered as atonement (npy111) on behalf of the men (or women) of Ugarit
and its surrounding districts(?). The accusation of sins made by various eth-
nic and social groups are addressed, and the victim is offered up to El and
the pantheon through the mediation of the messenger-gods Thukamun and
Shanim.
One section (ll. 35–43, §6), typical in structure to each, may be cited by
way of illustration:
Now repeat the liturgy for puri[fication],
for purification of the wo<me>n of Ugarit,
and atonement for the foreigner within the walls of Ugarit,
and [atone]ment for his wife.
Whenever your state of grace be changed,
whether by the accusation of the Qa[tians,
or by the accusation of the Dadm]ians,
or by the [accusation of the the Hu]rrians,
or by the accusation of the Hittites,
or by the accusation of the Cypriots,
109 For an analysis see Wyatt 1995.

110 See Wyatt 2002, 342 for bibliography, to which add de Tarragon 1998.
111 On the meaning of this key term see Wyatt 2002, 342 n. 2, where I review the different
proposals. I have followed Pardee 1991, 1191.

or by the accusation of the ǵbr,

or by the accusation of] your op[pressed] ones,
or by the accusation of your p[oo]r,
or by the accusation of qrzbl;
whenever your state of grace be changed,
either through [your] anger,
[or through your impat]ience,
or through some evil you have done;
whenever [your state] of grace be changed
[concerning the sacrifices] and the offering,
our sacrifice we offer:
this is the offering we [make],
[this is the victim we] immolate.
May it be borne aloft to the father of the gods,
may it be borne aloft to the pan[theon of the gods],
[to] the assembly of the gods,
to Thukamun [and Shanim]:
here is the donkey.
While it is difficult to extract a detailed moral theology from this mate-
rial, it certainly exhibits a moral dimension of some significance, and a pow-
erful sense of the necessary cohesion of society, while recognizing the cen-
trifugal pressures and tensions arising from the relations between sub-
groups. What is interesting is that it is the perception by a sub-group (“by
the accusation [ulp] of the Hittites” etc.) of wrong-doing by the community
at large that is significant, not any proven fault. This suggests a highly de-
veloped sense of the importance of people’s feelings, though the term ulp
(construed as u + l + p: “whether from the mouth of ”) may also have had a
specifically forensic nuance, suggesting the infraction of a code of practice.
The personal involvement of groups in society, rather than any impersonal
system of pollution, such as obtains in Leviticus, points to a moral rather
than a purely ritual basis for sin. Without doubt the mechanical dimension
also existed, but being uncodified has left no evidence. The likelihood that
we should discern a moral dimension here is perhaps supported by the
moral error into which Keret is perceived as falling in going aside from his
journey to visit the shrine of Athirat. In pursuing this undoubtedly worthy
religious goal, he violates the principle of absolute and undeviating obedi-
ence to El’s commands, which takes priority over any secondary matter. We
thus catch glimpses of a highly developed ethical universe, in no way com-
promised by the polytheistic theology whose workings we sketched above.
What the king’s duties may have been in the important ceremony of
KTU 1.40 unfortunately remain unknown. We should expect him to play a
significant role, on the analogy of Babylonian material such as the Akîtu,
but we are ignorant of the occasion or even the frequency of this rite. It
may be worth remarking that KTU 1.12, which begins with a theogonic
scene, and may thus have royal overtones, appears in its fragmentary con-
clusion to treat Baal’s death as an atonement of some kind. Does this point,
however obscurely, to the king’s ritual involvement? Any answer remains
speculative. The gist of the Keret story is also highly conscious of the deli-
cacy of a king’s moral position: any individual departure from proper be-
haviour threatens not merely a private man, but an entire kingdom.
Whether linked to a periodic rite of atonement of this sort, as the Isra-
elite ritual for Yom Kippur appears to have been (Leviticus 16), or in its
obviously more primitive form still linked to a more informal ad hoc solution
to a communal sense of guilt at a serious transgression, KTU 1.127.30ñ32
provides an intriguing antecedent to the biblical account. It prescribes the
expulsion of a goat, which will apparently carry away the sins of the com-
munity.112
7 FAMILY LIFE AND ITS RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION

While composed in epic style, and themselves with ideological reference,
the Keret and Aqhat stories reveal a number of features of everyday practice
which deserve note in giving a rounded picture of Ugaritian religious life.
They probably represent fairly conventional attitudes and observances.
A powerful sense of clan solidarity appears to have been normal. It is
this rather than a developed sense of individual identity (though not entirely
discounting this) which underlies Keret’s response to the offer of wealth
and power (KTU 1.14 i 52–ii 5 and parallels):
Why should I want silver
or yellow gold...?
It is sons I would beget,
descendants I would multiply!
112See Dietrich and Loretz 1990, 32–38, and the remarks by Meyer (1990, 270–71). A re-
cently discovered text from Ebla perhaps also contains a scapegoat ritual: see Zatelli 1998,
Wyatt 2001, 266–67.
This is almost an example of the “biology of religion”,113 in which reli-

gious language articulates the norm for patterns of behaviour governing
social and reproductive life. The present passage allows Keret to voice a
man’s primary duty, to beget sons. It is in these that the true wealth of a
man is measured. We almost sense in this response a healthy scorn for the
false idols of silver, gold and rich possessions: the acquisitive society was
perhaps then only in its infancy.
Another well-known and much-cited passage114 is the following (KTU
1.17 i 23–33 and parallels), which occurs four times. The repetitious nature
of such a large block of material suggests that it reflects a popular summa-
tion of the duties of the pious son, and the essence of family piety, and is in
addition to be considered a central theme of the story. To have a son like
this is to be blessed indeed. To lose a son like this (as is Danil in the sequel)
is to be cursed indeed.
you must surely bless him, Bull El my father,
you must (surely) give a blessing to him, O Creator-of-creatures,
so that he may beget a son in his house,
a scion in the midst of his palace.
He shall set up the stela of his ancestral god,
in the sanctuary the cippus of his kinsman;
into the earth sending forth his dying breath,
into the dust protecting his progress;115
he shall shut the mouths of his slanderers,
he shall drive away those who are ill-disposed towards him.
Taking his hand when he is drunk,
supporting him when sated with wine;
he shall serve up his share in the house of Baal,
and his portion in the house of El;
he shall plaster his roof on a muddy day,
he shall wash his clothes on a filthy day.
113 Cf. the title of the first edition of Reynolds and Tanner 1983.
114 See Eissfeldt 1966, Koch, 1967, Healey 1979 and van der Toorn 1996, 154–65. I am not
sure of the categorization of this by van der Toorn under the rubric “the cult of the ances-
tors”. Cf. Husser 1995.
115 For the sense “into” rather than “from”, as most interpreters take it, see Xella 1982, 194
and Husser 1995, esp. 124.

This classic formulation of filial piety, to be introduced by the blessing

El is exhorted to confer, falls into seven bicola, the first dealing with the
begetting of the son (the classic duty of the father), and the other six treat-
ing the son’s duties (the filial response). The prosodic structure of the sec-
tion is complex, and skilfully weaves domestic and ritual tasks.116 We are apt
to see in all this expressions of affection. The reality is probably more de-
tached. The performance of these duties is essential for the preservation of
the paterfamilias, in whom all the family’s interests are invested. He bears
the family name, and this must not be extinguished. Furthermore, his ritual
activities benefit the entire family, so that the son performs these when nec-
essary to ensure their regular implementation.
8 OTHER RELIGIOUS MANIFESTATIONS117
8.1 Vows
Keret’s vow in KTU 1.14 iv 34–43 is the only instance of a vow in Ugaritic
literature, but provides a classic example of the form:
they ca[me] to the sanctuary of Athirat of Tyre
and to the goddess of Sidon..
There Keret the votary vowed a gift:
“O Athirat of Tyre,
and goddess of Sidon,
if I take Hurriy to my house,
and bring the sacred bride into my court,
twice her weight in silver shall I give,
and three times her weight in gold! ”
As important as this formulation is the logical sequel, after it transpires that
Keret has omitted to fulfil this vow (KTU1.15 iii 25–30):
And Athirat recalled his vow,
and the goddess [his promise].
And she lifted up her voice and [cried]:
“Look, I pray: has Ke[ret broken],
or [the king] altered his vow?
[So] shall I break [my promise!]”
116 See discussion and references in Wyatt 2002, 255–59 nn. 23–41. The sevenfold pattern (n.
23) represents completeness, and so perhaps implies all the other social duties incumbent on
a son.
117 See also Spronk 1999 and Xella 1999.
While the first part conforms to the standard formulaic construction of

vows, with the address (the deity concerned) followed by a prodosis (the
condition) and then an apodosis (the votive gift promised), the second gives
an unusual insight into the putative reaction of a deity to a vow neglected.118
It deconstructs the vow, to reveal the consequence of neglect in so impor-
tant a sphere. A deity is not to be casually invoked with impunity. A vow
entered into cannot simply be ignored. The language has a legally binding
force. Everything in the tradition points to the enormous power and au-
thority invested in the spoken word.
8.2 Blessings
Just as vows have their rationale in the potency of the spoken word, so
blessings are believed to be efficacious by the mere fact of utterance. The
Keret story also provides the classic blessing formula (KTU 1.15 ii 16–28):
[El] took a cup [in] (his) hand,
a goblet in (his) [right] hand;
He did indeed bless [his servant],
he blessed Keret [the votary],
[he gave a bless]ing to the gracious [one], heir of El:
“Take a wife, O Keret,
take a wife to your house,
bring a sacred bride into your dwelling:
she will bear you seven sons,
and multiply them eightfold for you.
She will bear Yasib the heir:
he will drink the milk of Athirat
he will drain the breast of Virgin [Rahmay]
the suckling of [goddesses ]”
The blessing may continue for several lines, for it is to be understood to
include the opening lines of KTU 1.15 iii, concluding, after a list of Keret’s
daughters, with the final four cola (13-6):
“Be greatly exalted, [Keret],
118In narrative terms this is intriguing in that it also frustrates El’s intention to bless Keret.
In theological terms this shows a considerable finesse, all the more interesting because of the
undoubtedly unconscious processes which explore the strategic consequences.
among the Saviours of the netherwo[rld],

in the convocation of the assembly of Dita[n].
Their last one I shall treat as the firstborn.”
This blessing is not simply synonymous with that which is implicit in
El’s discursive instructions to Keret (KTU 1.14 ii 7–iii 49), which also ends
in a divine promise of an heir. It is rather a formal cultic occasion in which
the relationship of the king to the city gods (and to El in particular) is af-
firmed, and has important iconographical and indeed ideological over-
tones.119 But it also reinforces the king’s crucial role as mediator before the
gods on behalf of the whole of society.
The blessing formula involving the cup has also been restored in the
Aqhat story, at KTU 1.17 i 34–6,120 and is important evidence in favour of a
royal interpretation of Danil’s position. It is to be noted that while Keret
demands only one thing, children, three things are actually promised: chil-
dren, membership of the select group the rpum, and such wealth as will en-
able the youngest to be treated as the first-born.121 The vow is a common
feature of individual religious devotion in the ancient world, reflecting an
essentially pragmatic approach to religion. It was the source of material
benefits in a world without the relative stability in health or economic mat-
ters the modern urban dweller takes for granted.
A less formal blessing (perhaps more of a spontaneous outburst than a
liturgical norm, though we should not discount the latter possibility) occurs
in Danil’s words to the withered plants he encounters. Here is one example
(KTU 1.19 ii 22–5):
“Oh!
May this ear of corn rise from the parched land,
may the ear of corn rise up [among the wit]hered stalks!
Plant,
May the hand of Aqhat harvest you,
may it put you into the midst of the granary!”
119 Discussed with references in Wyatt 1997.

120 See Jackson and Dressler 1975.
121 This is to be understood not in the sense that she will be the first-born, but that there will
no need to apportion wealth, so much will be available. Attempts (e.g. Gray 1964, 60) to see
in this the tracing of a line from Keret through his youngest daughter to the Ugaritian dynas-
tic line are misplaced. There is of course a sting in the tail: an equal share in a blessing im-
plies an equal share in a curse.
While part of a finely polished literary work, this scene gives a marvel-
lous insight into the real world of the distressed, who will clutch at any
straw (as Danil is doing!) in time of deep emotional crisis. Danil does not
yet know the cause for this terrible drought, but his heart is full of forebod-
ing as he tries to use the intrinsic power of a blessing-formula to redress the
balance of nature. The fact that he invokes Aqhat’s name simply adds fur-
ther irony and pathos to the scene.
8.3 Curses
The counter to the blessing is the curse, again based on the power of
speech. Three sets of curses survive in Ugaritic literature. The first example
occurs twice in quite different contexts, and probably reflects a standard
usage. When Keret perceives Yasib’s incipient treachery (which conceivably
was inspired by the best of motives) he addresses him thus (KTU 1.16 vi
54–8):
“May Horon smash, O my son,
may Horon smash your head,
Athtart-the-name-of-Baal your crown!
May you fall down in the prime of life,
empty-handed, and humiliated! ”
The irony in this scene is overwhelming: Keret, who had sought a
blessing too many at the hands of Athirat, when he had already received
El’s assurance, now undoes even his (El’s) good work by cursing his family
back into the condition from which he began. The equal blessing promised
the youngest daughter now comes to haunt her too, as she is implicitly in-
cluded in this terrible curse.
The same formula is used by Baal against Yam in KTU 1.2 i 7–9. In
view of what Baal himself does to Yam we may ask whether the curse for-
mula does not belong to a royal head-smashing ritual (as exemplified in
Anat’s ritual treatment of prisoners122) or, as I have suggested, in executions,
being a disclaimer by the executioner.123 The idea of invoking the gods to
perform a dreadful act, thus exculpating the actual perpetrator, is deeply
imbedded in human psychology, ancient and modern. This percept also
122 See Lloyd 1996.

123 Wyatt 2002, 241 n. 297. For more recent discussion of this curse see chapter 7 below.
applies in the case where someone cannot actually wreak vengeance him-
self, and leaves it to the gods.
This is not dissimilar from the curse Danil utters against the falcons
(KTU 1.19 iii 1–3):
“The win[gs of the falcons] may Baal sma<sh>,
may Baal smash [their pinions]!
Let them fall a<t> my feet!”
In both cases gods are invoked to do violence to a guilty party in the
absence of any realistic chance of the victim himself, or his father, wreaking
vengeance.
The second curse-form is used by Danil in his as yet unfocussed dis-
tress in perceiving that something dreadful is wrong (KTU 1.19 i 42–6): 124
“For seven years Baal shall fail,
for eight, the Charioteer of the clouds!
No dew,
no rain,
no welling up of the deeps,
no goodness of Baal’s voice!”
This is an invocation of drought, for the sources of water, dew, rain
and springs, are all to cease. The threefold sources of life-giving water are
turned into a tetracolon, and a quaternity, by the theophany-sign of their
coming, the voice of the storm-god. The natural world, implicitly all its car-
dinal points, will thus participate in the mourning for Aqhat, whose life-
sustaining blood has been shed, even though Danil is not yet fully aware of
the import of his words. This is in effect a reification of the emotional des-
iccation felt by someone who mourns the dead, a feeling all the more pow-
erful if it is a parent mourning a child.
The final instance is Danil’s cursing of the cities neighbouring the
place where Aqhat was murdered. This again is evidently part of a conven-
tional legal process, in which liability is sought in the case of the discovery
of a murder victim in open country. This is the last of three towns thus
cursed (KTU 1.19 iv 3–7):
“Woe to you, town of Abilim,
because near you was smitten Aqhat the hero!
May Baal make your wells dry,
henceforth and forever,
124 To the first three cola of the tetracolon cf. 2 Samuel 1:21.
now and for all generations! ”

Afterwards he took his staff in his hand.
In the absence of the possibility of identifying the perpetrator of a
homicide, the neighbouring settlements are made legally liable. Their terri-
tory is in any event polluted by unavenged blood, so they must resort to
purification rites. The same principle is enunciated in Deuteronomy 21:1–9.
The reference to Danil’s staff (mṭ )—the term may also be translated as
“sceptre”—no doubt alludes to a formal ritual, where some gesture with the
staff implements the legal effect of his curse.
8.4 Oracles and Omens

Anxiety concerning the future is a natural human trait, the price of con-
sciousness. As a means of addressing this an important aspect of ancient
religion was its predictive role. Various techniques were probably used,125
though many of those known are not specifically attested at Ugarit.126 With
sacrificial animals being regularly butchered, the priests were familiar with
the nature of entrails and other internal organs, and there was an ancient
tradition of “reading” these, noting anomalous forms, and making links
with historical or climatic events. The gods were believed to reveal these
contingencies to the priests. Schools passed on the tradition, and model
organs were made with notes drawing attention to certain features. KTU
1.141, 1.142, 1.143, 1.144, 1.155, are inscribed clay livers, while KTU 1.127
is a lung.127 The birth of deformed animals (KTU 1.103 = 1.145128) or hu-
man infants (KTU 1.140) were the subject of detailed observations, while
celestial events were also read as portents (KTU 1.78). This last text is sur-
prisingly the only clear reference we have in Ugaritic to the importance of
celestial phenomena. However, the description of Danil’s daughter Pughat
as “one who knows the courses of the stars” (ydʿ[t] hlk kbkbm: KTU 1.19 ii
3–4129) suggests a body of lore on the subject. Bearing in mind that the gods
are called “stars” in KTU 1.10 i 4, we should expect a complex theology of
125 For a useful survey see Loewe and Blacker 1981.

126 The Ugaritic material is examined in Dietrich and Loretz 1990. See now chapter 8 below.
127 See Dietrich and Loretz 1990, 5–38, Meyer 1990.
128 Dietrich and Loretz 1990; Xella 1999; Pardee 1997, 287–89.
129 See Wyatt 2002, 297 n. 209.
the heavenly bodies, complementing the obvious deification of sun, moon

and Venus. This is still awaiting discovery.
8.5 Personal Piety

Perhaps under the present rubric should also be mentioned briefly various
other aspects of personal religion. The correspondence130 gives a number of
examples of pious wishes for the welfare of the recipients of letters, illus-
trating the almost unconscious (certainly unselfconscious) way in which
various deities were invoked matter-of-factly. Personal names131 are a fur-
ther source of information about individual and clan piety, for although
fashions in names may have obtained, it is a reasonable guess that in most
cases the deities incorporated into theophoric names (which tend to be
transparent, though we should not discount an element of opacity with ar-
chaic forms) would focus the fears, aspirations and joys of parents of
newly-born children. No personal prayers in the context of everyday life
have survived from Ugarit among the tablets published thus far, but KTU
1.119, noted above, gives an unusual example of a litany evidently dealing
with times of trouble, and therefore an instance of “urgent faith”, while the
personal prayers embodied as literary forms in Keret and Aqhat are, while
themselves honed through poetic usage, no doubt modelled on practical
piety. The particular importance of Baal in such contexts deserves further
study, and shows a lively belief in the efficacy of this god above all in an-
swering the needs of the people from national to individual level.
9 SICKNESS
9.1 Sickness as a Religious Matter

Diseases and ailments of various sorts, now the province of medicine, were
in antiquity an important aspect of ritual life, as they continue to be in tradi-
tional societies. Disorders of the body, the microcosm, were perceived as
disorders of the macrocosm. Medicine was essentially holistic. A number of
examples are found in Ugaritic literature. Thus we have Keret lying sick in
his palace, with El himself interceding to save his servant from death. In the
king’s case, the realm is particularly vulnerable, because on his health de-
pends the adequate fulfilment of his royal and social duties, as shrewdly
130 See Cunchillos, 1989, 1999, Huehnergard 1999, Singer 1999.

131 See Grøndahl 1967; Hess 1999.
assessed by Yasib (KTU 1.16 vi 25–38, 39–54). When a king lies at death’s
door, the very world mourns in anticipation (KTU 1.16 i 6–9, ii 44–7), and
the fertile earth is parched (KTU 1.16 iii 5–11).
9.2 Snakebite
Snakebite is the occasion of two interesting incantation texts, KTU 1.100
and 1.107.132 The former 133 is “a spell against the bite of a snake” (KTU
1.100.4 etc.) couched in the form of a mythic narrative, in which a mare-
deity invokes twelve deities (or pairs) in turn for assistance, addressing only
at the end the potent god Horon who can achieve the cure.134 KTU 1.107135
appears to be concerned with curing a young medical practitioner who has
been bitten.
9.3 Possession and Exorcism

Some form of possession appears to be the subject matter of the incanta-
tion KTU 1.169,136 though it has also been interpreted as a cure for impo-
tence. Baal, Horon and Athirat appear to cooperate in the expulsion of the
132 See also RS 92.2014: ET in Pardee 1997, 327–28.

133 Virolleaud 1968, 564–74; Astour 1968, 13–28; Caquot 1969, 241–254; de Tarragon 1989,
79–94, Lipiński 1974, Dietrich and Loretz 1980; Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975b;
Gaster 1975; Young 1977, 1979; Pardee 1978a, 1988, 193–226, 1997, 295–98; Tsevat 1979;
Bowman and Coote 1980; Xella 1981, 224–40; Kottsieper 1984; Levine and de Tarragon
1988; del Olmo Lete 1992, 241–49 = 1999, 359–71, Wyatt 2002, 378–87.
134 El’s fruitless invocation of the gods to cure Keret, followed by his manufacture of
Shatiqat (“Remover”) in KTU 1.16 10–vi 14 is analogous. In neither case would it be legiti-
mate to infer any theological bankruptcy: the episodes are constructed for dramatic effect. In
the case of Horon, a dangerous power is approached only in extremis. In the case of Shatiqat,
El’s making of her highlights his peculiar role in matters of kingship.
135 Virolleaud 1968, 574–80, Astour 1968, Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975b; Xella 1981,
241–50; Levine and de Tarragon 1988; Pardee 1988, 227–57; de Tarragon 1989, 95–100; del
Olmo Lete 1992, 249–51 = 1999, 371–73; Wyatt 2002, 391–94.
136 Xella 1978; Caquot 1978–79, 1984, 1989, 53–60; Bordreuil and Caquot 1980, 346–50;
Avishur 1981; de Moor 1980, 1981–82, 114–15, 1986, 255–57, 1987, 183–86; Loretz and
Xella 1981; Saracino 1982, 1984; Fleming 1991, 1997; del Olmo Lete 1992, 259–60 = 1999,
384–87; Watson 1992; Pardee 1993, 211–13; Wyatt 2002, 442–49.
demonic forces. In KTU 1.124, an indeterminate sickness is cured by means

of an oracle attributed to Ditanu, the eponym of the rpum. Another impor-
tant composition, which however defies clear analysis, is KTU 1.82.137 It
appears to be an anthology of incantation texts. The interesting text KTU
1.114,138 reflecting incidentally the phenomenon of the Marzi u, a kind of
socio-religious men’s club (cf. KTU 3.9 for a legal document concerned
with such an institution), is an incantation in the form of a myth intended
to cure a hangover, though at the same time it reflects on the acceptance of
wine-consumption as having religious significance, perhaps as an aspect of
spirituality.
10 DEATH AND ITS RITES
10.1 Texts Ritualizing Death

We have cited above the duties of the pious son outlined in KTU 1.17 i 23–
33. Some of these duties involved the son’s duties after his father’s death. It
is above all the duty of the eldest son to perform the obsequies of his fa-
ther. This is one reason for the peculiar tragedy of a father losing his first
son.139
Two important royal texts deal with the rituals of death. The immedi-
ate context of KTU 1.113 is far from certain, but it involves a liturgy per-
formed, in all probability, as a series of episodes invoking all the dead and
now divinized kings appearing in the following king-list. This is conceivably
a kispum-rite, as frequently proposed for the following text.
137 See de Moor and Spronk 1984; de Moor 1987, 175–81; Caquot 1988; del Olmo Lete
1992, 251–55 = 1999, 373–79.
138 Virolleaud 1968, 545–51; Loewenstamm 1969; de Moor 1969, 167–75, 1970a, 1984, 1987,
134–37; Margulis (= Margalit) 1970b, 1979–80, 1982; Fensham 1971, 22, 1972; Pope 1972;
Jackson 1974; Rainey 1974, 184–87; Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975c; Xella 1977;
L’Heureux 1979, 159–69; Cathcart and Watson 1980; Dietrich and Loretz 1981, 88–98,
1993; Spronk 1986, 196–202; Pardee 1988, 13–74; 1997, 302–05; Caquot 1989, 71–78; Wat-
son 1990; McLaughlin 1991, 270–74; Cathcart 1996; Wyatt 2002, 404–13.
139 We may conjecture, since the death of a son is a theme common to both stories, that one
of the motives behind Ilimilku’s compositions (or editions) of the Keret and Aqhat stories
may have been the death of an heir to the throne. In such a context we should recognize an
elegiac quality to the poems.
KTU 1.161140 is perhaps one of the most intriguing ritual texts from
Ugarit. It appears to be a combination of order of service for the funeral of
the last King Niqmaddu, father of ʿAmmurapi, and at the same time a Kis-
pum-rite, invoking dead kings, who are invited to participate in the obse-
quies and to welcome Niqmaddu into the underworld. Degrees of royal
divinity appear to be envisaged, with the ancient rpum being regarded as of
having more prestige than intermediate kings between their remote and
legendary past and the present. The text also illustrates the importance of
Shapsh as psychopomp.141
10.2 Tomb Construction

So far as practicalities go, the evidence of the tombs is of interest.142 Con-
structed in the foundations of private houses and palaces alike, they were
used for multiple burials as family vaults, and grave-goods, possessions and
food, accompanied the dead to their rest. The precise conception of the
post-mortem destiny of ordinary people is unclear, though Spronk’s (1986)
fulsome account is probably too optimistic. Aqhat’s brisk reponse to Anat
(KTU 1.17 vi 34–9) at least reflects a healthy scepticism in some circles,
though here too it is premature to assert that he denies any survival of
death. Pitard (1994) has recently shown the untenability of Schaeffer’s old
idea that tubes allowed the continued passage of food and drink to the
dead.
10.3 Mourning Rites

Mourning is referred to in both the Keret and Aqhat stories, and the inci-
dental allusions probably reflect common attitudes and practice, albeit han-
140 Caquot 1975, 1989, 103–10; de Moor 1976, 1981–2, 116–17, 1987 165–68; Pope 1977b,
177–81; Pitard 1978, 1987; L’Heureux 1979, 187–93; Xella 1981, 279–87; Bordreuil and
Pardee 1982, 1991, 151–63; Dietrich and Loretz 1983, 1991; Levine and de Tarragon 1984;
Levine, de Tarragon and Robertson 1997; Taylor 1988; Spronk 1986, 189–93; Lewis 1989,
5–46; Tropper 1989, 144–50; 1993; del Olmo Lete 1992, 130–34 = 1999, 193–98; Pardee
1993, 208–10, 1996, 1997, 357–58; Aboud 1994, 157–65; Schmidt 1994, 100–20; Wyatt 2002,
430–41.
141 See Husser 1997.
142 See Schaeffer 1939, 53–106, Margueron 1983.
dled in epic style. We have already noted the cosmic mourning for Keret in
anticipation of his death. KTU 1.16 i 15–9 alludes to weeping at the tomb
entrance by mourning women, and their professional status (on the analogy
of the groups in Egyptian tomb paintings) is to be understood from KTU
1.19 iv 9–27, where they bewail Aqhat for seven years, before Danil con-
cludes the proceedings with a sacrifice. Keret’s daughter is to go out into
the steppe to weep for her dead father (KTU 1.16 i 28–35; cf. also ii 26–36).
Two further passages (KTU 1.5 vi 11–25, 1.6 i 2–8) deal in an interest-
ing way with mourning rites. They describe the reaction of El and Anat re-
spectively to the news of Baal’s death. The former reads as follows:
Then the Wise One, the perceptive god,
went down from his throne:
he sat on his footstool.
And from his footstool
he sat on the ground.
He poured the ashes of affliction on his head,
the dust of grovelling on his skull.
For clothing he put on a loin-cloth.
His skin with a stone he scored,
his side-locks with a razor,
he gashed cheeks and chin.
He ploughed his collar-bones,
he turned over like a garden his chest,
like a valley he ploughed his breast,
He lifted up his voice and cried:
“ Baal is dead!
What has become of the Powerful One?
The Son of Dagan!
What has become of Tempest?
After Baal I shall go down into the underworld.”
This text perhaps encapsulates most powerfully the ritual expression
of utter despair in the presence of death, but at the same time the accep-
tance as significant for the mourner of the fate of the dead. The initial pen-
tacolon describes El’s progressive self-abasement, till he effectively shares,
emotionally at least, in the annihilation of death. A self-burial rite follows, a
mourning garment put on, with self-laceration and the cutting of the hair.143
143These procedures are forbidden in Leviticus 19:27–28 and Deuteronomy 14:1, a sure
indication that they were part of ancient Palestinian ritual too. Needless to say, to interpret
Only after these mute rites does the mourner give vent to feelings in words.
Interestingly, Baal’s death appears to constitute a paradigm of El’s death;
when Anat utters these same words, she alters the ard (“I shall go down”)
into nrd (“we shall go down”), and this very probably reflects or even cites
verbatim an actual funerary litany, showing that Baal’s death had religious
meaning for human beings as they contemplated their own mortality. Alter-
natively, this last passage should be corrected to *a !rd..., in which case it is
El’s words that Anat repeats verbatim.
11 NON-LITERARY DIMENSIONS IN UGARITIAN RELIGION
11.1 Looking beyond the Text

There is perhaps an inevitable, yet too great an emphasis among Ugaritic
scholars on the textual aspect of religion. Most of us specialize in the analy-
sis of texts. It should be remembered however that much of the population
was probably illiterate, and that although liturgy and mythology played a
part in all religious life, it was essentially the behavioural (ritual), aural (mu-
sical) and visual (iconographic) images and impressions which were most
indelibly stamped on their minds. The ritual aspects we have dealt with
briefly above. Here too our evidence is sadly exclusively textual, and we can
do little more than evoke from the texts scenes of the banqueting of the
gods, perhaps to be seen as reflexes of sacrificial rites, and their stupendous
journeys to one another’s abodes (“over a thousand miles, ten thousand
leagues”), to be interpreted as allusions to cultic processions.
11.2 Music
We have a number of references to the playing of lyres and the singing of
songs in the texts 144 which may reasonably be interpreted as relating to
hymnody in the cult. A remarkable reconstruction of a Hurrian hymn from
Ugarit (RS 15.30 + 15.49 + 17.387) has been attempted by Anne Kilmer,145
El’s and Anat’s actions as somehow linked to a seasonal fertility cult is to misread the evi-
dence. Cf. also the distraught behaviour of Keret’s daughter in KTU 1.16 ii 26–50.
144 See KTU 1.3 i 18–22.
145 See Kilmer, Crocker and Brown 1976. See also Güterbock 1970, Laroche 1973, Kilmer
1974 and Wulstan 1974.

while Annie Caubet 146 has drawn together and analysed the evidence for
musical instruments in use in Ugarit.
11.3 Iconography
On the iconographic front a small number of stelae and statuettes have
been discovered, which give us a glimpse into the portrayal of some deities,
and this allows some supplementation of their literary presentation. 147 In
some cases a certain amount of comparative data may legitimately be
brought to bear. A prolific source of iconographic information, but one that
is hard to quantify in terms of purely local influence, is cylinder seals. We
shall deal with this material in turn.
Some of the images remain anonymous. The following are those than
can be identified with a measure of confidence. Stela RS 8.295148 represents
an enthroned god, wearing the Atef-crown with bull’s horns, in the pres-
ence of a votary, perhaps to be identified with the king, beneath a winged
disc. While the precise interpretation of the scene is not beyond doubt, it
perhaps represents a divine blessing, such as is discussed above. It has been
compared with the scene on the royal seal.149 The stela may also be com-
pared with the gilded bronze cult-statuette of a god wearing the Atef-crown
(RS 23.394) and with the recently discovered stone statuette (RS 88.70)
found immediately north of the “temple aux rhytons”.150
The former of these has the right hand raised in blessing (correspond-
ing to the left hand on the stela, where internal design has forced a shift)
while the latter has an empty socket into which a detachable arm could pre-
sumably be inserted. The left hand of the bronze is shaped to be able to
hold a detachable object (such as a small gold cup?), while the stone statu-
ette has another empty socket. These artefacts have been understood to
represent El. He is shown to be a bearded, patriarchal figure, evidently con-
146 Caubet 1996. Cf. also Duchesne-Guillemin 1981 for comparative Mesopotamian and
Egyptian evidence.
147 The main publication where most of this material may been seen together is Yon 1991.
See also Cornelius 1999.

148 Yon 1991, 336. Cf. Wyatt 1983.
149 Jackson and Dressler 1975; Wyatt 1997, 787–89.
150 Both illustrated Yon 1991, 337. She identified the latter as El on this page, but as “a man”
on p. 351. See also Yon and Gachet 1989. The stone statuette lacks evidence of an Atef-
crown, but may have had detachable horns and feathers.
cerned with the welfare of the king, and through him of society. This is en-
tirely in conformity with the textual evidence outlined above.
Baal is without doubt portrayed in the so-called “Baal au foudre” stela
(RS 4.427) found in the Baal temple. 151 This shows the god, wearing a
horned and pointed cap (a variation on the White Crown?) in the “smiting
posture”. But instead of grasping a victim he holds a spear which becomes
a tree. Below the dagger at his belt stands a votary, dressed apparently in the
ritual garment of the king. Fenton (1996) has offered a new explanation for
the rippling lines beneath the god’s feet. The upper set he interprets as a
serpentine Yam.
Stelae whose subjects are indeterminate are RS 17.138 and 23.218,
both of a god in the “smiting posture”, in the latter instance holding a
spear, and RS 23.216 and 23.217, both of a god with a drawn bow. It is
tempting to think of Reshef, though his familiar fillet, suspended behind the
cap, is missing.152 In the case of the Mami stela, however, this fillet is pre-
sent, and yet the god is explicitly identified as “Seth of Saphon”,153 indicat-
ing the confusing fluidity in the portraiture of the two gods. A stela frag-
ment (RS 24.434) shows a god in smiting posture, with raised mace, shield
in the other hand, and a quiver behind him. Two further anonymous stelae
show an armed god with a tall plume and horns (RS 2.[037]) and a goddess
draped in a long gown shaped like a falcon’s wing and armed with a spear
(RS 2.[038]). The latter invites comparison with Anat, though the known
iconography of this goddess, like that of Athtart, shows her wearing the
Atef-crown.154
151 Schaeffer 1934; Yon 1991, 331 fig. 11a. She compared the stela with numerous small
bronzes in the “smiting posture”. Cornelius (1994) preferred to designate this iconographic
type “the menacing god”. See also Cornelius 1999, 590 (fig. 11).
152 On the comparative iconography of Baal and Reshef see Cornelius 1994.
153 Yon 1991, 328, fig. 8, obligingly showed the Seth of the “stela of the year 400” for com-
parison. It is here the Egyptian iconographic convention which is being observed.

154 For this see Leclant 1960 (Athtart) and Wyatt 1984 (Anat). The stela I discussed is of
course not from Ras Shamra, being of unknown provenance in the Michaelides collection,
Cairo, and now apparently lost. It may be compared with the Anat represented on BM stela
646/191. See also Cornelius 1993 and 1999.
Cylinder seals have been found in substantial quantities at Ugarit, and

have been published mainly by Schaeffer and Amiet.155 There is no need to
attempt any detailed study here. Used as amulets and personal identity-
markers, cylinder seals were commonly decorated with religious scenes of a
fairly stereotyped form. Variations on individual themes are found from
Sumer to Egypt, and they are by and large not very specific to a local tradi-
tion, though of course local styles were developed, which no doubt to some
extent reflected local theologies. Mythic themes, votive and blessing scenes
(cf. the dynastic seal mentioned above), representations of gods dispersing
largesse and so forth are standard motifs. One theme worth noting briefly is
that of “the god on two mountains”,156 which shows the great prestige of
Baal of Saphon throughout the east Mediterranean region.
A number of ivories have been discovered, of which the most impor-
tant group constitute the royal bed panels. These have been briefly dis-
cussed by Schaeffer (1954, 51–9 and figs. 3–4, pll. vii–x), 157 du Mesnil
(1973), Caquot and Sznycer (1980) and myself (Wyatt 1995, 580–83 =
2005b, 120–23). These illustrate typical royal scenes, of hunting, warfare,
and the despatch of prisoners, as well as showing a royal marriage and a
goddess (Shapsh) suckling twin sons. They are in short a digest of the main
themes of royal ideology.
This rich collection of iconographic material is still in need of a com-
prehensive assessment from a theological point of view. All too often such
material is given a catalogue-treatment which goes little further than the
descriptive. Cornelius (1994) may be cited as a model of the way analysis
should be conducted.
11.4 Votive Gifts: the Anchors

A final note may be offered on the anchors which have been found, mainly
scattered around in the precincts of the Baal temple, but also in houses and
tombs and even incorporated into building construction. These appear to
be votive gifts, and testify perhaps to the piety and gratitude of mariners
who, returning to port safely after long and perhaps hazardous voyages, felt
155 Schaeffer-Forrer 1983; Amiet 1992.

156 See Dijkstra 1991.
157 The panels were found in many pieces. The initial publication lacks any RS numbers (ac-
tually RS 16.56). In addition to references given see Ward 1969, 236–37 and figs. 3, 4 and
Caquot and Sznycer 1980, pll. XXVIIIa, XXIXa.
the need to make offering to the temple which had guided them safely to
land. In some instances a more general symbolism may have obtained, ow-
ing something to the economic dependence of Ugarit on the sea. The an-
chors were probably not carried or dragged from ships, being often unused
and presumably made especially for cultic use.158
11.5 The Assessment of Material Remains

We have insufficient evidence to reach firm conclusions on the use and
significance of this visible and tangible material. On the analogy of better
known cultures (particularly Egypt) and reading between the lines of later
Hebrew iconoclastic rhetoric, we may suppose a degree of “idolatry”. It is
possible to use this term in a non-pejorative sense, and it is in such a way
that I use it here. To begin with, the stelae and other glyptic representations
certainly did not constitute “idols” in the technical sense. The statues are a
different matter. The small ones found in profusion in tombs may well have
been images used in private devotions, while the gilded bronze of El may
have been used in cultic processions, representing the very presence of the
god among his devotees. Language such as “when Athtart-of-the-Window
enters the pit of the royal palace” (KTU 1.43.1–2) is to be construed as
meaning that the image of the goddess is carried thither in procession. Simi-
larly in ll. 9–10 “the two Gathru-gods come into the royal chapel”, and l. 18
appears to allude to two images of Anat. This symbolic use of an icon,
ubiquitous in the ancient world and still normal in many contemporary cul-
tures, as the focus of attention in the cultus, as the face to which prayer and
offering is addressed, was the focus of the reification in divine personae of
all human needs and aspirations, and should not be separated (as it has
largely been for polemical reasons) from all other elements such as song
and dance, vestments, incense and sacrifice in the sacralization of life and
the construction of a universe of meaning. In this respect Ugaritian religion
was heir to a hallowed tradition.
158 Frost 1991, 357. Some, found at Minet el Beida, may have been left at the port-brothel
(id., 358)! Seafarers then, as now, left nothing to chance. See now Brody 1999 on seafarers’
religion in general.
12 CONCLUSION
I have endeavoured in this survey to do more than offer a cursory glance at
the material most commonly treated as “religious”, but rather to discern
religious sensitivity in a far broader range of human concerns, as I think is
necessary for an adequate assessment of the holistic view of life and role of
religion in an ancient society. Even today the religious person is wont to say
that “my faith is more than a religion; it is a way of life”. It is fair to say that
while religion has been in retreat in the modern world, not just sociologi-
cally, but in terms of the greater fragmentation of life into different special
areas (social, moral, political, medical, environmental, and so forth), in the
ancient world any such compartmentalization is not only short-sighted in
the scholar, but fundamentally misconceived. The gods were as much a part
of the ancient citizen’s experience as breathing and thinking. They were
invoked at every turn, and were believed to be present, and concerned, in
every corner of life.
We owe it to any human society under investigation to grant it auton-
omy and integrity in its structures and values. Any theological basis for
wholesale judgments of the kind that have at times been fashionable are
entirely misplaced, and while useful comparisons and even connections may
be drawn, I remain uneasy that this area of Ugaritic studies should so often
be pursued as an adjunct (even a mere prelude!) to biblical studies, even
though, given the economic conditions under which our universities cur-
rently operate, this is probably inevitable. Let us at least acknowledge on
anthropological grounds the utility of dispassionate enquiry: Ugarit has
much to teach us in its own terms about the roots of our own cultural heri-
tage. So it is to be hoped that future research into the religion of Ugarit will
tend to be phenomenological in nature, which with due caution, rigour and
empathy, can be true both to the tradition under examination and to its
adequate setting within the broader frame of human experience.
6 EPIC IN UGARITIC LITERATURE
Published in J.M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic (BCAW, Oxford,

Malden MA: Blackwell, 2005), 246–54.
INTRODUCTION
A survey of general discussions on ancient West Semitic (Ugaritic language)
literature reveals a considerable imprecision concerning the nature of genre,
particularly with regard to the appropriateness of this or that definition of a
given composition. Not only is one man’s myth another man’s history, but
“epic”, “legend”, “saga” and “folktale” can all be (or if they cannot, or
should not be, they are) used to denote the same texts. Some scholars even
use two or three of these terms for the same composition in the same dis-
cussion. In the following essay I am not going to try to solve this problem,
if only because it is a futile exercise, except perhaps in so far as it illustrates
the inherent impossibility of confining any real literature within various de-
signs of theoretical taxonomic strait-jacket. But I am going to discuss three
bodies of literature, which are linked by one important feature: they are all
associated with the name of one author, redactor or editor.
The most general approach would tend to distinguish the Baal narra-
tives from Ugarit as myths, while conceding to Keret and Aqhat epic charac-
teristics, but this generalization disguises a wide range of conflicting views
among scholars. Smith (2001, 23) wrote that “ if there is one text that all
scholars can agree is a myth, it is the Baal cycle”. In a footnote to this sen-
tence (Smith 2001, 208 n. 159) he noted that Jason (1977, 32), and Milne
(1988, 169–70), classified the Baal cycle as a “mythic epic”. Note also his
own useful observations on the problem of myth in Baal (Smith 1994, 27–
8). Albright (1942, 227) called all three compositions under consideration
“epics”, while Watts (1989, 443) called them all “myths”. The briefest sur-
vey of the critical literature reveals that when it comes down to details,
scholars are at sixes and sevens over their strategy.
143
Having recently claimed that myth is not really a literary genre at all
(Wyatt 2001a), but rather a mind-set appropriate to religious experience,
discourse and literary composition, I would tend to regard all three as
mythic (that is, as exhibiting the workings and perceptions of what I call
“the mythic mind” ), since each moves in a world peopled either exclusively
by gods (Baal ) or has gods and men interacting in a matter-of-fact fashion
such as we see in other “epic” literatures such as the Iliad or Gilgamesh (Keret
and Aqhat ). They are composed from an emic perspective.
I am also content to treat all the material discussed here as epic, based
on a minimalist view of epic as heroic and ideological narrative, generally
poetic in form, which seeks to promote the identity, values and concerns of
a culture, and perhaps specifically of the ruling classes within a community.
The theme of Baal, though it has exclusively divine characters (thus consti-
tuting “myth” as “stories about gods”, according to the common, if inade-
quate view) fits into this ideological and hierarchical framework. Epic is
definitely not proletarian in its concerns! It may even be quite heterogeneous
with regard to genre in its constituent parts (Hendel 1987, 26–27).
As regards the issue of historical reference in epic literature, I think
that this must be regarded as an accidental rather than intrinsic element.
The broad significance of epic is surely that however trivial and even factual
its origins, such as warfare at Troy (Iliad and Odyssey and even, by a leap of
faith, the Aeneid !), a monarch out of control (Gilgamesh) or an ambush in the
Pyrenees (Chanson de Roland and the Orlando tradition), or in the case of Keret
perhaps a dynastic crisis in Ugarit, occasioning reflection on the problem of
dissonance between an institution and its incumbent, and conceivably echo-
ing ancient lore about the ancestral king Didanu/Ditanu (Schmidt 1994,
72–82, 89–91; Wyatt 2002, 433 n. 12), the final “epic” product is a raising of
the trivial or merely fanciful to a heroic and cosmic level, exploring the
deepest human problems of life and death, social affiliation and above all of
the wielding of power. By its nature, this would entail an element of ideol-
ogy, serving the interests of the social group to whom the poetes belonged.
By such a token, the three compositions treated below are all epic. They are
also all in verse, the techniques of Semitic prosody such as regular parallel-
ism, extensive assonance and wholesale use of chiasmus pointing to a long
oral tradition, though it would be premature to claim that the present texts
are necessarily the end products of an oral process. Baal and Keret in particu-
lar betray evidence of the conflation of diverse elements (on Keret see Parker
1977; 1989). A case could presumably be made for the Baal cycle, since the
Chaoskampf motif is exceedingly dispersed, and presumably by oral commu-
nication. However, written versions already appear in the mid-third millen-
6 EPIC IN UGARITIC LITERATURE 145
nium. (See Wyatt 1998 for a survey of the material, to which may be added
Annus 2001, and Wyatt 2003.)
POEMS CONCERNING BAAL

A number of narrative texts, in varying degrees of preservation and legibil-
ity, feature the West Semitic storm-god Baal, the patron deity of Ugarit (Tell
Ras Shamra). These are KTU 1.1–1.6, the so-called “Baal cycle”, which will
form the basis of the following discussion; 1.7–1.9 (fragments of school
exercises, excerpts from the main text); 1.10, 1.11 and 1.13, which deal with
the erotic encounters of Baal and Anat; 1.12, apparently a myth relating to
atonement and redemption rites, and featuring Baal; and 1.92, which nar-
rates an attempted seduction by Baal of the virgin goddess Athtart (Astarte).
KTU 1.133 is a fragment paralleling an episode in KTU 1.5. KTU 1.10 may
in fact be part of the “cycle” of 1.1–1.6 (I now consider it to be perhaps the
end of Ilimilku’s composition), and KTU 1.13 has been interpreted as a
fragment of the third column of 1.10. (For this numbering system see
Dietrich et al. 1976, 1995; for convenient recent translations see Pardee
1997a, b, c; Parker 1997; Wyatt 2002.)
KTU 1.1–1.6 constitute by broad consensus the main body of Baal.
Something in the order of 50 percent of the text on these tablets is missing,
though a certain amount of minimal reconstruction is possible, thanks to
the use of reiterated poetic formulae. There is also a broad consensus on
the order in which the tablets are to be read, in the sequence of numbering,
though KTU 1.2 appears to contain parts of two distinct tablets (Meier
1976; Wyatt 2002, 37), thus perhaps representing a parallel version; there
are also some sequence dissonances elsewhere. Most interpreters take it as a
working hypothesis that there is a rough unity of composition in the main
body of material.
Tablet KTU 1.6 ends (col. vi 54–8) with a colophon listing the titles of
Ilimilku, the scribe, to whose significance we shall return. A broken colo-
phon may have identified him as the scribe of KTU 1.4 (col. viii lower
edge); the other texts of the series, in addition to further ones, notably, in
the present discussion, KTU 1.10, being commonly attributed to him on
epigraphic grounds. (See also KTU 1.22, one of the surviving Rpum texts,
which have been linked by some scholars with the Aqhat story; KTU 1.14–
1.16, Keret: Ilimilku named as the scribe at 1.16 vi lower edge; KTU 1.17–
1.19, Aqhat: Ilimilku may have been named in colophon at 1.17 vi lower
edge). It should be conceded that there is no colophon on tablet KTU 1.10,
the reverse of which is uninscribed, and this could be construed as evidence
against its putative place as concluding Baal. It could similarly be argued

that the full formulation at the end of KTU 1.6 vi marks it out as the end of
the composition. But neither argument is conclusive.
The narrative in Baal runs as follows (all references in KTU 1. series).
In this synopsis I list the missing materials as well, where they can be in-
ferred, in order to indicate the precise elements of continuity and of discon-
tinuity between various parts.
KTU 1.1: (6 columns: fragmentary): Various embassies are sent, and the
sea-god Yam is enthroned as divine king.
KTU 1.2 (fragments, perhaps of 8 columns: see Wyatt 2002, 36–7) Athtar’s
royal claim is rejected, and Baal is surrendered by the divine assembly…
Bound beneath Yam’s throne, he emerges to kill Yam with divine weapons.
KTU 1.3 (6 columns: half missing). Baal is feasted, and Anat goes to war, in
a real battle, followed by a ritual one (see Lloyd 1996). On receiving mes-
sengers from Baal, she insists that she had already killed his enemies, and
demands a palace for Baal from El, the high god. Baal sends Athirat’s assis-
tant to Kothar the artificer god...
KTU 1.4 (8 columns: about two column-lengths missing): …who makes
gifts for Athirat. She intercedes with El, the palace is built and inaugurated.
Mot is not invited.
KTU 1.5 (6 columns: about two column-lengths missing): Mot demands
Baal’s surrender, and he goes into the underworld. El mourns him.
KTU 1.6 (6 columns: about two column-lengths missing): Anat mourns
Baal. She and Shapsh recover his body and she buries him. Athtar is en-
throned. El dreams that Baal is restored. A restored Baal fights a restored
Mot, and Shapsh separates them, awarding Baal the victory.
KTU 1.10, supposed by some to belong here. (3 columns: about half miss-
ing.) Baal goes hunting, where Anat meets him. They watch a cow in labor,
make love, and a son is borne to Baal.
A wide range of interpretations has been offered for the Baal story, be-
ing largely variations on two main themes, which we may summarize in the
briefest form here. There are several useful surveys, which may be con-
sulted for further details (de Moor 1971; Smith 1986; 1994, 58–114; Wyatt
1996, 117–218; 1998.). Initial attempts belong to the “myth and ritual” era
of scholarship, and attempted to see two main features in the text: firstly,
the deities were seen fairly simplistically as allegorical figures, personifica-
tions of every kind of natural and cultural phenomenon, and as essentially
“imminent in nature”, a pantheistic evaluation which seems perverse, but
belongs largely to the polemics of biblical scholarship. This approach,

adopted from the inception of Ugaritic studies by Virolleaud and Dussaud
(for references consult Smith 1994 and Wyatt 2002), was refined into a pan-
Near Eastern ritual pattern by Gaster (1950; cf. Gray 1965), and into a rig-
orous ritual calendar for Ugarit by de Moor (1971).
This approach is now regarded as broadly discredited, and an ideologi-
cal basis is seen as a more probable motivation. The discovery of a ritual
application of the motif, linked to the cultic use of “divine weapons” in
Mari, published by Durand (1993) offers a far more plausible Sitz im Leben,
which I followed up in a comparative survey (Wyatt 1998). Now the Chaos-
kampf theme is seen as part of the larger issue of royal ideology, and serves
as legitimization of war, in which kings recapitulate the primordial victories
of their patron deities.
The distinctive feature of Baal, compared with all other versions, is its
incorporation into a large composition, which is perhaps to be attributed to
Ilimilku himself. The implicit point of the common theme of the possession
and use of royal weapons is here linked to the theme of the acquisition of a
royal palace (Ugaritic hkl, like its cognates, means both palace of a king and
temple of a god). And Baal’s building and inauguration of a palace consti-
tutes a challenge to other rival royal claims; both Yam and Mot are pre-
sented as gods challenging Baal’s hegemony. (This rivalry may be compared
with tension the between Zeus, Poseidon and Hades.) Finally, in a tour de
force which skilfully echoes the structure of the Chaoskampf narrative (Peter-
sen and Woodward 1977), Baal’s conflict with Mot echoes that with Yam,
and is resolved with a comparable setting of Baal’s royal power under the
aegis of that of El, the high god. (For further discussion see below.)
THE STORY OF KERET

An abbreviated colophon at the end of KTU 1.16 confirms that Ilimilku is
responsible at least for the writing of this text. Some suppose there to have
been further tablets (e.g. Pardee 1997a, 333; Margalit 1999, 204), but the
extant text is broadly coherent, and comes to a satisfying if uncomfortable
solution. The narrative runs as follows.
KTU 1.14 (6 columns: about 75 percent surviving): Keret’s family is de-
stroyed (whether seven wives or seven children remains uncertain); El ap-
pears to the distraught king, offering wealth as consolation. Keret refuses,
and El instructs him on how to find a new wife by seizing her from Pabil of
Udum. He must reject Pabil’s attempts to buy him off. En route to Pabil’s
kingdom, Keret turns aside to make a vow to Athirat. He besieges Udum;

Pabil sues for peace…
KTU 1.15 (6 columns: about half surviving): Pabil reluctantly gives his
daughter Hurriya. Keret feasts the gods. El blesses him, foretelling a fruitful
marriage, guaranteeing the succession. The gods depart; El’s promises are
fulfilled. Athirat’s vow was not fulfilled, and she remembers. At a banquet
for the nobility, Hurriya announces that Keret is dying. The banquet seems
to turn into an anticipatory wake.
KTU 1.16 (6 columns: about a third missing). Keret’s son Ilhu weeps for
him: the king tells him to fetch his sister… She arrives, also bewailing
Keret… A ritual fragment compares Keret’s death to Baal’s… Divine her-
alds are instructed to summon the gods. El asks which of them will heal
Keret. When no one offers, he creates a goddess, who does so. The heir
Yasib bursts in on the now cured Keret, demanding his throne, assuming
that he is still ill, and is cursed by the king.
Early analysis of Keret (first treated in toto by Ginsberg 1946) fell into
historicist, or myth-and-ritual, frames of understanding, well characterized
in Margalit (1999, with references). But in his evaluation of Pedersen (1941)
and Merrill (1968), he went too far in dismissing an ideological dimension;
and Margalit’s own analysis of Keret, which he treated as theatre (literally: a
drama in three acts), as a light-hearted romp and as a parody of LBA relig-
ion, and particularly its royal ideology, was wide of the mark.
The broad subject matter is self-evidently royal ideological in nature
(see, broadly, though with reservations, Gray 1964). Its interpretation as
satirical (thus Margalit) or a critique of old royal dogmas (thus Parker 1977)
is dubious in my view: rather is it a fairly serious analysis of the limits of
individual autonomy within a dynastic line, and of the absolute requirement
of true piety in a monarch. Keret fails, and thus shows how disastrous is
irreligion. Thus the old values are firmly upheld.
In the matter of historicity, we have noted the claimed link with Di-
danu/Ditanu. If Keret is to be identified with Kirta (perhaps = Sanskrit
kṛ ta) king of Mittanni (Wilhelm 1989, 28), we may suggest a romance on
some episode in the life of the king, adapted to Ugaritian concerns. Simi-
larly, we may ask whether his capital of Bet Hubur (= Khabur) is the lost
Hurrian capital of Waššukanni. But this is conjecture. The motif of the
childless king is shared not only with Aqhat, but with Job, and is a common
folklore motif.
THE STORY OF AQHAT

A fragmentary colophon on the edge of KTU 1.17 vi, together with the
script, suggest that this composition is from the hand on Ilimilku (Wyatt
1999a, 234–35).
KTU 1.17 (6 columns: about half surviving). Danil spends six days in the
temple, trying to gain a son. Then on the seventh Baal intercedes for him
with El, so that he may beget a son who will perform the appropriate filial
duties on his father’s behalf. Aqhat is born, Danil rejoices, offering thanks
to the childbirth goddesses, and the years pass… After two missing col-
umns, Kothar brings a wonderful bow, which is given to Aqhat. At a sacri-
fice, Anat sees the bow and covets it. When she tries to persuade Aqhat to
give it her, with promises of wealth and immortality, he insults her. She
goes to El…
KTU 1.18 (4 columns: about a third surviving). … threatening him with
violence if he does not give her freedom to punish Aqhat. He gives her carte
blanche. She comes to Aqhat, inviting him to go hunting with her… She
plots his death with her hit man Yatipan, who will swoop on him like (or
as) a falcon.
KTU 1.19 (4 columns: most of the text survives). The bow is smashed. The
enraged Anat laments the bow and tears Aqhat to pieces. Danil, unaware of
the tragedy, sits to judge his people. His daughter Pughat, intuiting his loss,
rends his cloak. Danil utters a terrible curse. Still unaware of what has hap-
pened, he tours his fields, and two messengers bring the news of Aqhat’s
death. He curses the falcons, retrieves Aqhat’s remains and buries them. He
then curses the neighbourhood of Aqhat’s death, while Pughat plans her
revenge. She comes to Yatipan’s camp disguised as Anat, bent on revenge,
and plies him with strong drink…
If the very fragmentary Rpum texts (KTU 1.20–22 appear to be parallel
versions of the same narrative) are related to this composition, a view now
largely discounted (Wyatt 1999a, 235 and n. 3, 237), and relying on the cir-
cumstantial mention of the name Danilu in the text, then it would appear
that a kispum feast of dead kings (the rpum are perhaps close in conception
to the Greek heroes; cf. Wyatt 2002, 305 n. 1) takes place at a threshing
floor. We may conjecture that Danil, but hardly his son, was included in
their number.
The most recent surveys of Aqhat scholarship are Margalit (1989) and
Wyatt (1999a). Early attempts were historicist and seasonal (Virolleaud
1936), or seasonal and astronomical (Gaster 1950; Astour 1967), both cate-
gories rejected by Caquot and Sznycer (Caquot et al. 1974). De Moor (1988)
extended his seasonal theories concerning Baal to Aqhat. A royal ideological
dimension was recognized by Ginsberg (1945a, b) but rejected by Gibson
(1975), who followed Driver (1956) in seeing the theme of death and resur-
rection in the narrative, which is emphatically absent from the surviving
text(!), except in the offer which Aqhat rejects. Del Olmo Lete (1981)
judged Aqhat to be epic, but “more mythical” than Keret, thus illustrating the
problem of trying to apply genre categories. Margalit’s analysis (1989) was
driven by two theoretical points, the so-called Kinneret hypothesis and the
non-royal nature of the story. The former has not commanded assent; the
latter is rebutted in my treatment (Wyatt 1999a, 249–51). I would now go
further than my comments there, to see the composition as dealing specifi-
cally with royal ideological issues, however much it is dependent on tradi-
tional and diverse literary motifs.
ILIMILKU’S MOTIVES
Let us first briefly address the status of Ilimilku (cf. Wyatt 1997, to be
±4,250 lines of tablet text (therefore rather more individual cola) are to be
modified by the revision of Ilimilku’s date, Wyatt 2002a), to whom some
credited in the three compositions discussed here, of which a little over half
survives. The only information we have concerning him appears in the
colophon at the end of KTU 1.6 vi, as noted above. Lines 54–8 are in
prose, and state that
Ilimilku the Shubanite wrote (it), the student of Attanu the diviner, chief
of the priests, chief of the temple herdsmen, sacrificer of Niqmaddu
king of Ugarit, Lord of Yargub and Ruler of Sharruman.
Other fragments of colopha survive, but provide no further informa-
tion. Our main problem is to determine which of the titles belong to which
of the people named. Ilimilku is certainly the student of Attanu; but are the
titles “the diviner, chief of the priests, chief of the temple herdsmen, sacrifi-
cer” those of Attanu or Ilimilku himself? To be honest, we cannot tell from
this text. It will be seen from the punctuation in my translation that I have
taken “diviner” to be a title of Attanu, leaving the possibility that the fol-
lowing ones all belong to Ilimilku, until we reach those of Niqmaddu. This
is a guess, but I hope a reasonable one, and is broadly in agreement with the
line taken by other scholars. In support of it can be cited the regular and
mature cuneiform style of the writer. This contrasts sharply with the rough-
ness of style of other tablets, which are agreed to be those of school-pupils,
such as KTU 1.7 and 1.8 among the religious texts. Ilimilku is at least the
scribe, if nothing more, and this office alone implies advanced education
and high office. Moreover, as chief of the temple herdsmen (nqdm), he
might have had other remits: his position might be comparable to that of
Amos (Amos 7:14: nôqēd ).
The fact that the same scribe is credited with the three main literary
compositions from Ugarit (Baal, Keret and Aqhat) together with at least one
of the Rpum texts, KTU 1.22, and a further fragment (RS 92.2016, an incan-
tation) points to a writer with considerable authority, and possibly freedom
of action with regard to the handling of his materials. He certainly uses a
consistent style and outlook (cf. Korpel 1997), with many formulations re-
curring through the corpus. It is the last mentioned fragment, found in the
house of Urtenu in the southern part of the city, which has forced a recal-
culation of the date of Ilimilku, who is now to be seen as a contemporary of
Niqmaddu III–IV in the late thirteenth century BCE, rather than Niqmaddu
II of the mid-fourteenth century.
The importance of the identification of the author or redactor (or
both) of this poetic corpus is surely significant for our overall interpretation
of the material. While it is entirely possible that the work covers a lengthy
period in Ilimilku’s life, it is more probable that we should see it as fitting
into the reign of his patron, and to some extent reflecting the concerns of
that reign, in terms most likely of a public relations and propagandistic
function (pace Margalit). Furthermore, if we can discern specific concerns of
the reign of Niqmaddu III–IV in Baal, it is reasonable, in view of Ilimilku’s
offices, at least to ask whether the same concerns, or similar ones, do not
also lie behind his composition of Keret and Aqhat. I recently (Wyatt 2002a)
suggested that it was the occasion of a royal wedding, that of Niqmaddu
III–IV to a Hittite princess, E li-Nikkal (see Singer 1999: 701–4), which mo-
tivated Ilimilku to write an epithalamium, beginning with the traditional
Chaoskampf story, and adding a considerable amount of extraneous material
of his own devising to make the connection. Baal was the outcome of this
process. It served the double purpose of celebrating the king’s wedding and
flattering the bride’s father, the Hittite emperor Tud aliya IV, with a treat-
ment of the old martial ideology (KTU 1.1–2), a transparent reference in
the palace-building episode to the establishment of a royal house (KTU
1.3–4), which itself might allow a pun on the play between a material house
(palace, temple) and a dynastic house (offspring) such as lay behind 2 Sam-
uel 7, and according to Merrill (1968) Keret as well. The conflict with Mot
(KTU 1.5–6) also allowed construal as the triumph of fecundity over death,
appropriate to the celebration of a marriage.
At the most basic level, Keret is a moral tale, drawing on a traditional

and ubiquitous theme, the desire for children, of particular importance
when the destiny of a royal line is at stake. But this must be pursued
through true piety, and unquestioning obedience to the gods. Keret behaves
exactly as he should, until on the third day of his journey to Udum, he turns
aside to offer a vow to Athirat (KTU 1.14 iv 34–43), indicating a lack of
trust in El’s promise. Thus, in the name of one level of piety, he commits a
greater impiety. The parallel with 1 Kings 13:11–26 is patent. The episode’s
interruption of the seven-day sequence of Keret’s journey has been noted
by Cartledge (1992, 108. Cf. Wyatt 2002, 200–1.) It is Keret’s subsequent
failure to fulfil this impious vow which compounds his sin, and brings
down on him the wrath of Athirat, which cannot be deflected even through
El’s healing power. With his final curse on his son and heir, Keret is back
where he began, all hope dashed. The irony is that it is Yasib who, through
his rebelliousness (an equal impiety!), triggers off the final cataclysm. It
might be objected that this is rather heavy stuff from a court poet! But it
should be remembered that Ilimilku was also a priest. Perhaps he acted as
moral theologian to the king, warning him with impunity of dangers, much
as Nathan could be perfectly frank in his discourse with David (2 Samuel
12:1–15).
Keret is also about a royal marriage, of course. We may note the parallel
between Keret and Hurriya and Paris and Helen, where two kingdoms,
Udum and Troy, are threatened on behalf of a woman marrying out of the
dynasty, though the circumstances of the two situations are rather different,
and any direct link is conjectural. However, Niqmaddu’s marriage to E li-
Nikkal was also an exogamic one, where the parallel with Keret may have
been deliberately evoked.
A similar moral construction may be put on Aqhat. Again we have a
tale of a sonless king, who goes to considerable lengths to remedy the situa-
tion. In this case the king is beyond reproach, but his son (just like Yasib in
Keret), who should perform the duties of filial piety outlined four times in
the narrative, is impetuous and outspoken, insulting Anat. He thus signally
fails to maintain these standards. The message of both narratives is there-
fore in part at least not to spare the rod. (Again, we have the biblical parallel
of David’s indulgence of his sons, with tragic consequences.)
A function of epic is without doubt to maintain traditional values in a
changing world. Ours is not the first age to lament a lost past. Both Keret
and Aqhat offer a nice example of the issue in the bribes offered to them by
the gods. El offers Keret limitless wealth and power (expressed in the mar-
tial figure of chariots); Keret demands offspring, who will perpetuate his
line, and thus grant him immortality of a kind. Anat offers Aqhat limitless
wealth; he then spurns the further offer of immortality. Keret subsequently
exhibits levity in religion; Aqhat does so at this point. Far from exhibiting a
moral bankruptcy, as claimed of Ugaritian religion by de Moor (1997, 83–
84), this corpus emphatically champions the old moral certitudes which are
challenged anew in every generation.
Divine kingship is a theme that is perhaps somewhat out of fashion,
many treatments of Egyptian and West Semitic kingship stressing the hu-
man aspect of the institution, with a tendency to downplay, or represent as
merely figurative, the divine aspect. In my estimation such modern pleading
misrepresents the institutions of the ancient world, and flies in the face of
clear evidence to the contrary. In a recent discussion (Wyatt 1999) I reex-
amined the Ugaritian evidence, indicating the agenda of Ilimilku, and show-
ing how the ritual texts and the iconographic convention reinforce the ar-
guments of the present literary compositions, making comparisons between
Keret and Baal which are vacuous unless the divinity of both is conceded,
and suggesting that Aqhat takes the agenda for granted.
A recent study is worth mentioning here, because it initiates a new di-
mension of study. Wright (2001) has examined the literary use of the ritual
accounts in Aqhat. He notes that the ritual scenes in Keret are too fragmen-
tary for a similar detailed study, but mutatis mutandis, his conclusions proba-
bly fit both narratives, the surviving text of Aqhat devoting the surprisingly
high figure of 82% of the total to ritual (Wright 2001, 8). Baal is also well-
endowed with ritual sequences, including two accounts of an enthronement
(KTU 1.1 iv, 1.6 i), and is thus also eminently suitable for such analysis,
particularly with regard to royal ideology. This approach does not seek to
reintroduce the old myth-and-ritual agenda by the back door: what it dem-
onstrates fairly persuasively is the way in which the non-linguistic commu-
nication system of ritual parallels the role of language, thus reinforcing at
every turn the literary tensions and dynamics of the text, and indeed consti-
tuting a subliminal reinforcement of any ideological agenda the text may
have. This provides some confirmation, in my view, of the royal agenda I
see the texts as serving.
7 “MAY HORON SMASH YOUR HEAD!”: A
CURSE FORMULA FROM UGARIT
First published in G. del Olmo Lete, Ll. Feliu and A. Millet Albà (eds) Šapal
tibnim mû illak : Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of His 65th
Birthday, AuOrs 22, 2006, 471–79.
The following discussion attempts to give a brief account of the ideo-
logical context of a curse-formula occurring twice in Ugaritic literature, with
a possible reflex of it in a third passage.
As the confrontation between Baal and Yam moves to a crisis in the
narrative of Baal, Kothar arrives with maces, which he entrusts to (the pre-
sumably weaponless) Baal. The storm-god takes them, and with their assis-
tance, destroys his adversary (KTU 1.2 iv 11–41).
In an earlier passage, KTU 1.2 i 7–9, whose precise literary and tempo-
ral relation to this climax remains obscure, Baal appears to anticipate this
dénouement, in voicing a challenge to Yam which ends with a mighty curse,
the subject of our discussion. It is puzzling, in that he names the maces
(only one, aymr, surviving in the extant text) some while before Kothar ac-
tually makes, produces and names them at KTU 1.2 iv 11–15, 18–23, and
they subsequently “leap” from the hand of Baal. But that problem is in-
soluble in the face of such a poorly preserved text1, and need not concern
us here.
The text in Baal requires some reconstruction, but the curse may be
confidently restored, since it appears more or less verbatim, in an undamaged
context in Keret (Kirta), at KTU 1.16 vi 55–8:
1 See my comments on the sequential reading of “KTU 1.2”, as at least two tablets are
known, in Wyatt 2002, 36–37 nn. 3, 4, and layout, pp. 51 and 56. De Moor’s proposal (1987,
30 n. 126), that the anticipation of the subsequent victory in KTU 1.2 i 7–9 is a case of di-
vine foresight, looks a bit lame in the absence of a meaningful context.
155
KTU 1.2 i 7–9 KTU 1.16 vi 55–8

ytb[r rn ym ] ytbr rn ybn
[ ytbr rn] rišk ytbr rn rišk
ʿttrt š[m bʿl qdqdk] ʿttrt šm bʿl qdqdk !
[¯]¯t mṭ 2
tqln bgb[l šntk] tqln bgbl šntk
[b pnk wtʿn] b pnk wtʿn
May [Horon] sma[sh, O Yam], “ May Horon smash, O my son,

[may Horon smash] your head, may Horon smash your head,
Athtart-the-na[me-of-Baal your skull ]! Athtart-the-name-of-Baal your skull!
may you stagger?... [ ]
may you fall down in the pri[me of May you fall down in the prime of
life,] life,
[empty-handed and humiliated!]” empty-handed and humiliated!” 3
In considering the significance of this formulaic language, it is also

worth noting the following passage from Aqhat, citing words addressed by
Anat to her hired assassin Yatipan, in KTU 1.18 iv 21–7:
bn nšrm ar p an[k ] Among the falcons I shall hover:
ʿl aqht ʿdbk above Aqhat I shall place you.
hlmn tnm qdqd Hit him twice on the skull,
tltid ʿl udn three times above the ear.
špk km 4 šiy dm Pour out (his) blood like a murderer,
km š ṭ lbrkh like a slaughterer (you must bring him)to his knees.
tṣi km r Let his life-breath go out like the wind,
km itl brlth Like spittle his vitality,
km qṭr baph as (his) dying breath from his nostrils,
2 See Wyatt 2002, 56 n. 90; DLU (ii ) 602: mṭ tpln, “staggering you fall”. Cf. HALOT (ii)
555 : m w ṭ . 3 Translations as in Wyatt 2002, 56, 241. Whether the former passage has a miss-
ing part after the first tricolon (id. 56 n. 90) remains problematic. Perhaps a formula now in
the form of a tricolon followed by a bicolon was, putatively, two tricola.
4 We would expect k... km... rather than the present km... km... . The same curious form oc-
curs in the following bicolon.

“MAY HORON SMASH YOUR HEAD!” 157
u ! ap mprh and also his pulse:

ank la wy I shall indeed strike him! 5
There are two distinctive items of vocabulary in the Aqhat passage
which are of some significance in view of the broader discussion of this
paper, to which I should make reference. The first is mprh (√prr, Hebrew
√pr[ p]r) in l. 26, for which R.M. Wright adduced the cognate Egyptian
npp. 6 The second is la wy in l. 27, for which, instead of the common sup-
position that we have a negative prefixed to the first person singular D stem
of wy, “to live” 7, Watson proposed an Egyptian cognate of the same form,
wy, “to strike”8. He cited as clear examples of the semantic field two fur-
ther passages in Aqhat: KTU 1.18 iv 12–3 (tm ṣh || t [wy]) and 1.19 i 14–6
(im ṣh || a w). Although he conceded the hypothetical nature of his pro-
posal, two of his observations offer strong support, firstly the climactic
value of this interpretation in prosodic terms, in the Aqhat passage cited
here,9 and secondly the penchant in ancient Near Eastern literature for us-
ing vocabulary in keeping with the ethnic context of a theme. He drew at-
tention to the theme of the composite bow, which was probably an Egyp-
tian invention.10 But more immediately we may cite the head-smashing mo-
tif, which is distinctively Egyptian, as we shall see below. Was the poet con-
scious of this appropriate Egyptian influence, combined with his choice of
image? It looks as though he had a deliberate strategy to evoke the right
ambience, with all its overtones, to make his point. This is all the more
likely in that Anat was primarily a war-goddess: that is, her language is in-
tended to reflect her sphere of influence, with its associated ritual killing of
prisoners of war.
I think we can go beyond the conjectural interpretation of the Baal and
Keret (Kirta) passages I offered previously, to wit, that the formula was used
5 Translation as in Wyatt 2002, 285–86, with the exception of the last line, for which cf.
Watson 2004, though I construe the prosody slightly differently. I take it that Anat is the
subject of the colon, though Yatipan is her agent in the preceding ones.
6 Wyatt 2002, 286 n. 158; Wright 1994.
7 E.g. Wyatt 2002, 286: “I shall not let him live” Cf. DLU (i ) 379, Tropper 2000, 550
(§74.412.25).
8 Watson 2004. The same discussion also summarizes the various views of the form yšt wy.
9 Watson 2004, 156.
10 Watson 2004, 158 n. 19.
as a means of self-exculpation by executioners11. Or at any rate, if there is a

plausible element in that proposal, then a quasi-cultic and ideological di-
mension should also be recognized. The Baal passages are evidently formu-
lated within the conventional discourse of royal ideology, since the entire
narrative relates to royal matters in the court of Ugarit12. In dealing with a
theological matter, the status of Baal within the pantheon, and more spe-
cifically the divine economy of Ugarit and the place of his temple within it,
it is also dealing subliminally with political realities and their ideological ba-
sis. The same is evidently the case with Keret (Kirta), since the context of the
king’s curse is related directly to matters of royal protocol.
In my recent discussion of epic in Ugarit 13 , I argued that the same
broad agenda underlies Baal, Keret (Kirta) and Aqhat; and Aqhat is indeed to
be construed as having an agenda in that it explores issues of royal descent
(Aqhat is the son of a king 14) and accountability. It is to be expected, then,
that ideological clichés should be the idiom in which it was couched, with
its enormous emphasis on the procreation of a son, the filial duties incum-
bent on that son, the prestige of a divinely-constructed bow, the indulgence
in hunting and falconry, and so forth. It is in this context that it is reason-
able to see the words of Anat to Yatipan cited above as comparable to the
imagery of the curse of Baal and Keret (Kirta)―and all the more so if Ilimilku
had an authorial input into all three compositions. He was alluding to the
same symbolic reality, and borrowing his imagery from the same source.
The wording both of the curse in Baal and Keret (Kirta), and of Anat’s
instructions to Yatipan, have one theme in common: it is the head of the
victim which is to be struck, to the point of smashing the skull, or causing
him to die of blood-loss. Now there was one royal motif par excellence in the
ancient world to which such language was surely alluding: the so-called
smiting ritual of ancient kings. Its early forms are found in archaic Egyptian
art, though it remained remarkably constant for over three millennia: it ap-
pears most commonly and graphically on the façades of temple pylons (as
at Abu Simbel, Edfu, Esna, Karnak―many examples, Luxor, Medinat
Habu, and elsewhere), and on reliefs, 15 ceremonial palettes, 16 labels 17 and
11 Wyatt 2002, 241 n. 297.

12 See chapter 6.
13 Chapter 6.
14 See chapter 6; cf. Wyatt 1999a, 249–51.
15 Even Nefertiti, Akhenaton’s consort (and co-regent?) is shown smiting: Hall 1986, fig. 39;
Partridge 2002, 226 fig. 296.

other impedimenta found in royal tombs, and inspired similar iconography

and conceptual expression in Jerusalem18 and Ugarit and elsewhere in the
Levant (as in the present literary contexts), at Idalion in Cyprus and Prae-
neste in Italy.19 Warrior gods are commonly shown in the “smiting” pos-
ture, or as Cornelius would prefer to see it, the “menacing” posture, 20
though I think that the posture is actually a coded reference specifically to
the smiting theme and its associated ideology of royal power. At any rate, it
is specifically smiting rather than simply menacing which concerns us here:
that is, there is a victim. As I indicated in my comparative study of the so-
called Chaoskampf motif , 21 the entire rationale of the ubiquitous allusions to
the common theme was the royal appropriation of divine power, or, to put
it another way, the presentation of military activity in a divine context as a
means of sanctioning and validating the human activity. The smiting scene
was essentially a local analogue to the broader ritual and mythic pattern.
The iconographic form in Ugarit varies from the norm with which we
are concerned, in that the king is represented on the ivory bed-panel as de-
stroying the eyes of his enemy.22 This is not to be seen as invalidating my
observations here, but rather as developing the theme into a more general,
and perhaps punitive motif. For the smiting scene, perhaps as distinct from
the blinding scene, is essentially ritual in significance. The killing is per-
formed, in effect, as a human sacrifice in the presence of the gods. Typically
in the monumental Egyptian examples, Amun or Ra faces the king, and
gestures his acceptance of the oblation to be offered. A more generalized
16 E.g. the Narmer palette, verso. Dyn. 0–1. See Emery 1961, 44 fig. 4; Hall 1986, fig. 8;
inscribed palette of Zer, Dyn. 1. See Emery 1961, 60 fig. 23; Hall 1986, fig. 7.
17 E.g. ivory label of Den, Dyn. 1: Hall 1986, fig. 9. Hall shows examples from throughout
pharaonic history, together with later examples from Meroe.

18 Cf. Psalm 110:5:
My Lord (divine title, referring to the king) is at your right hand:

he smites kings on the day of his wrath;
he passes judgment upon nations.
He piles up corpses;
he smashes heads over all the earth.
See Wyatt 1996, 210, id. 1998, 865, 867.
19 Central scene of the Idalion bowl, in the Louvre, and the Praeneste bowls, in Rome. All
are seventh century BCE. See Moscati 1988, 442 (Idalion), and 444, 446 (Praeneste).
20 See Cornelius 1994, 16, 25.
21 Wyatt 1998.
22 Panel A3: see Wyatt 1995, 581 = 2005b, 121; id. 1998, 866.
form of the ritual pattern comes from Ugarit, where Lloyd demonstrated23
that the double battling of Anat in KTU 1.3 column ii is a battle followed
by a ritual reenactment, and the killing of prisoners. This may be compared
with the ten bound and beheaded prisoners shown on the recto of the
Narmer palette.
In the Egyptian material which evidently inspired the international use
of the smiting motif, it is generally the king who grasps his vanquished en-
emy by the hair, before dispatching him with a bladed mace or fenestrated
axe. The king of Egypt was regarded as an incarnate form of Horus, an
amalgamation of two distinct deities, the anthropomorphic son of Osiris
and Isis (respectively the embodiments of kingship past and the royal
throne, st, “throne”), and the falcon son of Ra and Hathor (respectively the
ultimate representation of royal power, and the embodiment of the royal
palace and the sky, t- r, “the House of Horus” 24). It is scarcely likely that a
literate person of the rank of Ilimilku was unaware of this convention, so
that his choice of the god Horon as subject of the curse (we shall come to
Athtart below) can scarcely be regarded as a coincidence devoid of mean-
ing. Obviously the first thing we should expect in an Ugaritic literary pas-
sage is a local reference, especially when the divine name Horon is well-
attested in the West Semitic world, not least in Ugarit itself, and indeed as
far afield as Mari.25 He was evidently the most effective deity to invoke in
the healing of the stricken foal in KTU 1.100, being the twelfth in a series.26
The question that must be asked is what relation did the Semitic god Horon
( rn) have, if any, to the Egyptian god Horus ( r, rw), beyond a possible
association by virtue of the similar forms of the names? At least an associa-
tion is implied by the application of the smiting motif to Horon. But this is
23 Lloyd 1996.
24 While a pun was no doubt intended, since the basic meaning of r is “elevated, lofty”, and
this might have meant in origin no more than “the elevated house” (sc. the sky) where the
goddess dwelt, the conventional writing of the divine name Hathor was a falcon within the
house sign, and thus a deliberate allusion to the deity Horus. The correct form of a neutral
“elevated house” would be t- rt , with agreement of the adjective.
25 Marian PN awranabi : Huffmon 1965, 32, 192 (cited van Dijk 1989, 60 and Rüterswörden
1999, 425). Cf. Ugaritic PN bn- rn : Grøndahl 1967, 424.

26 KTU 1.100.57–60 (and 61–69). The series of deities invoked is El, Baal, Dagan, Anat and
Athtart in Inbub (as a pair), Yarih, Reshef, Athart of Mari, Zizzu and Kemosh (as a pair),
Milk, Kothar-and-Hasis and Shahar and Shalem (as a pair), and finally Horon. See Wyatt
2002, 378–87 for translation, commentary and references.
a long way from demonstrating their identity. An Egyptianized form,

wrwny 27, shows that the two were clearly distinct in Egyptian thought.
The Semitic form is probably cognate with the toponym Hauran,
awrān, the territory surrounding Jebel Druze, more or less the Bashan of
the Bible. This toponym is the only form which corresponds in every re-
spect to the divine name. All other suggestions either face difficulties, or
invite association (e.g. the Horus association which is the subject of the pre-
sent paper) without permitting simple identification. Del Olmo Lete
showed 28 how the Hauran region, which featured in both Ugaritian and
Israelite tradition as the seat of the god Rapiu (to be equated with Og king
of Bashan)29, was considered to have access to the underworld. In KTU
1.100.58 Horon is said to be rn mṣdh, “Horon in the fortress” . 30 The form
mṣd, with suffixed h, mṣdh, is unknown thus far as a toponym,31 though this
is the sense we would expect in the context, since the other deities invoked
in this text are each linked to a cult-centre. It is a reasonable hypothesis to
see in it (mṣdh) an allusion to, or even the name of, the citadel of Horon’s
underworld kingdom, he being a chthonian god. 32 It is possible that we
should consider mṣd to have been an access-point to this infernal realm,
27 HALOT (i ) 352 a.
28 Del Olmo Lete 1988.
29 The same regnal formula is credited to both:
―of Rapiu:
May Rapiu, King of the Hereafter, be [ est]ablished,
yea, may he be established, the powerful and noble [god],
the god enthroned in Athtarat,
the god who reigns in Edrei*... (KTU 1.108.1–3)
(*reading i !dr ʿy for hdr ʿy)
―and of Og:
Og, the king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtarot and Edrei...
(Deuteronomy 1:4. Joshua 12:4 adds “ the survivor of the Rephaim” )
30 The final h of mṣdh is locale, as in the other references to TNs in the text. Cf. Tropper
2000, 324–25 (§54.323a), where it is taken to be the equivalent of ʿm, “towards”. In view of
my interpretation of mṣdh , above, I propose that the h serves a double function, as direc-
tional/local and possessive, thus: “in his fortress” (= *mṣdhh ). Cf. Rüterswörden 1999, 425:
he considers Albright’s (1936, 9) linking of the divine name with Arabic aur , “bottom of a
well”: “It is not impossible that the name of the god is a similar adjectival expression, mean-
ing primarily the ‘deep one, the one inhabiting the underworld’ ”.
31 Cf. DLU (ii ) 585–86.
32 Thus van Dijk 1989, 62.
perhaps functioning as a cult-place of Horon. This must however remain

conjectural until further evidence is found to support it. And its precise lo-
cation can only be a matter for speculation at present. There have also been
other etymological proposals. Both the toponym and the divine name have
been related to Hebrew ôr, ur, “cave”, “hole”.33 This certainly fits a chtho-
nian dimension, but falls down against the fact that the Ugaritic form is r,
not r . 34 Montet and Weill wondered whether he might be “the god of the
Horites”, which is not possible, for the same reason,35 and also noted its
similarity to the Arabic term ourroun, meaning “falcon”,36 which is certainly
suggestive.
Considerations of the nature and dwelling of Horon would seem at
first glance to make any link with the Egyptian Horus increasingly improb-
able, apart from possible association by similarity of name, and from the
avian element, since both were in fact falcon-gods. But two factors, in addi-
tion to the superficial resemblance of the two names, suggest that we
should not rush to judgment. Firstly, Horus, though a sky god, had impor-
tant chthonian functions, as psychopomp37 and as a lord of the underworld.
Some representative texts from the funerary corpus, presented in chrono-
logical order, will illustrate this:
Recitation by Nut the Great who dwells in the mansion of Šnit
(= the rainstorm):
“The king is my son of my desire;
I have given him the Netherworld
that he may reside over it as Horus who presides over the
33 Van Dijk 1989, 62, citing Albright 1936.

34 DLU (i ) 402. Cf. HALOT (i ) 348.
35 Montet 1935, 165; Weill 1938, 168. But the guttural of rn is , while that of “ Horite” is
( urri ).
36 Montet 1935, 165; Weill 1938, 168. This interpretation was also offered by Mercer 1942,
135. But the final n of the divine name is radical, while for the bird it is a nunation. Is it pos-
sible however that the Egyptian divine name Horus ( r, rw ) and the Arabic term are cog-
nate? (Cf. Akkadian urinnu, “eagle”—another candidate for a cognate! —according to CDA
426a. See also Kogan and Militarev 2004, 145–48, references brought to my attention by
W.G.E. Watson.)
37 He would have such a role in principle as the deity identified with the king, in view of the
archaic shamanic aspects of Egyptian kingship, in which the king very explicitly entered the
realms of the gods above and below during the rites of kingship.
Netherworld ( r nty-dwt ).” (PT 7; §5)38

On one level of understanding this may be interpreted as addressing
the deceased king (Horus incarnate), in one of the early texts preceding his
osirianization, and it perhaps represents an early stage in the formal linking
of Horus (the sky god, increasingly solarized at the same time) with the un-
derworld. At the same time, the king himself maintained his identity with
Horus. His rule, it appears, would extend to the underworld after his death.
In the following passage, the deceased king appears to be distinguished
from Horus and Seth, who both take him up to the sky, and down into the
underworld. Since the baleful characteristics of Seth might be construed as
making him a more likely candidate than Horus for identification with
Horon, it is worth stressing the cooperative role of the brother-gods here:
I ascend on this ladder which my father Ra made for me.
Horus and Seth take hold of my hands and take me to the
Netherworld. (PT 271; §390)39
The following passage also clearly distinguishes the dead king from a
chthonian Horus:
Isis and Nephthys have seen and found you,
Horus has reassembled you... (PT 357; §584)40
A graphic example comes from the Coffin Texts, in which the de-
ceased, now of non-royal blood, claims identity with Horus, and is kept well
away from a now hostile Seth. It is the penultimate line, referring to his
travelling along “the roads of eternity to the dawn”, which clearly points to
the chthonian aspect:
I am Horus the falcon
who is on the battlements of the mansion of Him whose name is
Hidden.
My flight aloft has reached the horizon,
I have overpassed the gods of the sky,
I have made my position more prominent than that of the Primaeval
Ones.
The Contender has not attained my first flight,
my place is far from Seth, the enemy of my father Osiris.
I have used the roads of eternity to the dawn
38 Faulkner 1969, 2.
39 Faulkner 1969, 79.
40 Faulkner 1969, 115.
I go up in my flight... (CT 148.223–24)41

The psychopompic role of Horus also comes out particularly clearly in
the Book of the Dead.
The following passage accompanies the vignette of the weighing of the
heart, in which Horus son of Isis (but appearing in vignettes as the falcon
god) leads the righteous dead, now declared mʿ hrw, “true of voice”, into
the presence of the judge, Osiris:
Thus says Horus son of Isis: “ I have come to you, O Wennefer, and I
bring N to you. His heart is true, having gone forth from the balance,
and he has not sinned against any god or any goddess. Thoth has judged
him in writing which has been told to the Ennead, and Maat the great
has witnessed it. Let there be given to him bread and beer which have
been issued in the presence of Osiris, and he will be forever like the fol-
lowers of Horus.” (BD 30b)42
Finally, in the text accompanying the vignette of the Fields of Offer-
ing, the psychopomp and the righteous dead are again more or less fused:
This is Horus. He is a falcon a thousand cubits long. Life and domina-
tion are in his hand, he comes and goes at will in its waterways and
towns, he rises and sets in Qenqenet, the birthplace of the god... (BD
110)
We have seen in the above passages evidence of the clearly chthonian
aspects of Horus.
Are there any independent grounds for supposing Horon and Horus
to have been linked?
Albright cited a number of passages in which Horon and Horus ap-
pear in association, 43 while van Dijk drew attention to the falcon-
iconography of the former, certainly shared with, and possibly influenced
by, the iconography of the latter, and took it that the two deities were in-
deed identified on occasion.44 Montet published a remarkable statue from
Tanis, which showed a falcon form of Horon protecting the young
Ramesses II, whose iconography was that of Harpocrates, with finger to
41 Faulkner 1973, 126 (= 2004, 126).

42 Faulkner 1985, 104.
43 Albright 1936, 3, 4, cited Rüterswörden 1999, 426.
44 Van Dijk 1989:62–63, cited Rüterswörden 1999, 426.
lips and the side-lock of youth.45 The falcon-god is explicitly identified thus
on the inscription; were he not, it would be natural to identify the falcon as
Horus, who commonly appears in a protective role on royal statues.
Van Dijk’s insistence on the late (Ramesside) date 46 for the incidence
of Horon in Egypt is no barrier to the association of ideas I am considering.
In fact it rather neatly highlights the specifically contemporaneous nature of
the Egyptian and Ugaritic material, which supports the view that as Horon
became significant in Egypt, so we might expect to see evidence of familiar-
ity with Horus in Ugarit.
If we take it that Ilimilku or his source intended at least echoes of Ho-
rus to be read into the curse-formula of Baal, and specifically with regard to
its ideological implications, then we may perceive the link made between
the actual use of the weapons in KTU 1.2 iv, and the implicit falcon-
imagery of the curse, also to be deliberate. It is as though the smiting for-
mula was already regarded as a figure for the swooping of a falcon onto its
prey in the wild. This in turn may account for the variant in Aqhat, in which
the killing of the victim of the war-goddess Anat, here the prince and hero
Aqhat, is actually accomplished at a distance, in the figure of a swooping
falcon, rather than directly (in contrast to Anat’s own unambiguous threats
of body-to-body violence in KTU 1.17 vi 43–5). At the same time, it is of
interest that the otherwise gratuitous allusion to the victim being brought to
his knees in the Aqhat passage (l. 24) becomes a powerful visual allusion to
the iconography of smiting, in which the enemy king is commonly shown
kneeling in submission.
A brief word is perhaps in order concerning the role of Athtart in the
curse formula with which we began. She is of course closely related to Anat
(e.g. in KTU 1.2 i 40, 1.100.19–20, 1.107.40.39 and 1.114.9–11, 26–28), as
well as fulfilling a similar role in the excerpt cited here from Aqhat. She also
appears in Egyptian iconography in martial guise, armed and on horse-
45 Montet 1935 and pll. V, VI; id. 1935–37, 12–14 and pll. X, XI. He drew particular attention,
1935, 156, to the iconographic play on the king’s name: the child has a sun-disc (rʿ) on his
head, the child is ms, while his left hand rests on the sw sign (at once nsw, “king”, and sw,
“south”) thus spelling out the kings name, rʿ-ms-sw = Ramesses. As Montet noted, “It was
this name that was placed under the protection of the god”.
46 Cf. however the view of Albright 1941, 7–9, that Horon was attested in Egypt from the
time of Amenhotpe II, while Montet 1935, 158–59, drew attention to the strange form of
Haremhab’s name (normally r m b: “ Horus is in Festival”) as rn m b (“ Horon is in Festi-
val”); both were eighteenth dynasty kings.
back, 47 and in Egypt both goddesses are appropriately consorts of the vio-
lent god Seth. Furthermore, in the climax to the encounter between Baal
and Yam, it is Athtart, who, perhaps shrieking encouragement like a camp-
follower on the sideline of battle, urges Baal to finish his task (KTU 1.2 iv
28–30). In the curse she appears to function as Horon’s anima, or alter ego,
closely parallel to this action, and also in much the same way as Hathor,
who also has a violent side to her nature, functions as the destructive Eye of
Ra, agent of the king (Horus) in his battles.
47 Leclant 1960.
WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE: EL’S
ORACLE TO KING KERET (KIRTA), AND THE
PROBLEM OF THE MECHANICS OF ITS
UTTERANCE
Published in VT 57 (2007).
I INTRODUCTION
Oracles and analogous phenomena constitute an important part of religion,
in its function as an organizational system designed to assist human com-
munities in the management of space and time, with particular reference to
the future. The future, as an unknown quantity, naturally arouses anxieties
and a desire to predict events and to avoid possible disasters.1 Language has
a striking role to play in two categories of the management of such concern,
vows and oracles, as well as facilitating the primary temporal awareness of
the future as an approaching reality. In both, the formulation of an idea, be
it an aspiration of individual or collective nature, is believed to encapsulate
the essence of the aspiration, so that things transpire precisely in the man-
ner described. The basis of this thinking lies in the psychology of language,
and the universal belief that to name a concept somehow reifies it, gives it
substance, and in the right circumstances allows it to be conjured up, or
actualized. Thus, in the case of a vow, a bargain is made with higher pow-
ers, and a precise agreement on a quid pro quo basis is entered into, whereby
so long as the votary fulfils his or her part of the bargain, there is the expec-
tation, and indeed the implicit moral demand, that a deity will grant what-
ever is demanded. This is the very basis of folk religion, and has little spiri-
tual force.
The oracle tends to be on a higher plane. There is nothing overtly
conditional about it. From a theological perspective, it grants the principle
1 See Wyatt 2001 passim, and especially 233–51, 271–99.
167
of divine freedom,2 but assumes that access may be had to the divine will,
and that this will be expressed in a comprehensible way. It reached its apo-
gee, perhaps, in oracles such as that at Delphi, where the ambiguity of the
supernatural message precluded its manipulation by the human subject. En-
quire of the oracle, and you never knew what answer you would get, as
Croesus found to his cost.
With ancient Near Eastern oracles, that degree of sophistication had
perhaps not been reached, or perhaps it had, but ways had been found of
manipulating the oracle by binding it into liturgical forms, so that its ambi-
guity was circumscribed, and it gave precisely the expected answer. 3 We
should never underestimate the ability of the human mind to discover
loopholes to circumvent any conditions laid down by law or custom.
(Somewhere in our constitution there is a Jesuitical gene, designed to cope
with the law of unintended consequences.) Something of Delphic ambiguity
can be seen in some biblical oracles, even though the liturgical framework
probably sought to control things there too.4 So far as Ugaritian evidence is
concerned, with which we are here concerned, even the ambiguity is am-
biguous in terms of the literary example discussed below―the only evidence
so far discovered―which makes its subtlety particularly delicious. Perhaps
one of the unstated purposes of literature such as Baal, Keret and Aqhat was
2 From an anthropological and psychological perspective, this is of course a trick of the
mind, whereby the decision-making process may be granted an objective status. Cf. Jaynes
1976, 84–99, on the function of deities as decision-making principles.
3 The Mari oracles do not seem to have a liturgical context, being apparently instances of
spontaneous reception of the divine message, which was then communicated directly to the
king. However, in view of the “shorthand” nature of the record, to be discussed below, we
should be wary of over-interpreting this aspect (that is, underestimating the formal cultic
context), though some certainly appear to have been spontaneous, that is unprompted,
communications on the part of a possessed person. The much later Assyrian prophecies, for
all their apparent spontaneity, appear in fairly predictable contexts (e.g. royal accessions)
which presuppose a degree of control. (Cf. Mari text A 1968, discussed by Durand 1993 and
Wyatt 1998, 841–43 = 2005b, 158–60). The phenomenon in Israel is seemingly of an entirely
different order, but this very impression of “uniqueness” should warn us against the danger
of over-interpretation, and above all of eisegesis. But even here a cultic context is evidently
to be presupposed in a number of places (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:5; Isaiah 6; Amos 5: 18–27, 7:13;
2 Kings 4:25; Zechariah 3:1–4:14, etc.). See Lindblom 1962, 80 and n. 54; cf. Buss 1980, 7–8.
4 We may cite one example: Amos’ “ Day of Yahweh” oracle (noted above) which takes up
an expectation of an auspicious Day (a “predictable oracle”) and turns it on its head.

WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF STONE 169
the exploration of just such theological conundra, as the poet sought to

resolve such issues.
The term “oracle” is used to cover a wide range of ritual techniques
and literary forms,5 but I shall restrict its application in the present discus-
sion to a fairly narrow scope. The reading of omens, celestial, mechanical
(sacrificial, and instrumental), and natural (appearances of birds and ani-
5 Parpola 1997, xiv, showed how the undifferentiated use of the term “oracle”, to cover the
readings from omen books and extispicy reports, as well as “inspired prophecy”, blinded
biblical scholars to the important witness of the latter type of material from the Assyrian
archives. The material in his corpus provides an important parallel to the supposedly distinc-
tive Israelite oracular tradition, closer than the Mari oracles on account of their proximity in
time. Whether Parpola’s own estimate, that the Assyrian material witnesses to what
amounted to a “mystery cult of Ishtar” (xiv–xvii and later elaboration), is either tenable, or
possibly a key to similar esoteric traditions in Ugarit and elsewhere, remains to be seen. In
his interesting discussion, Buss distinguished between “prophetic messages” and “more
mechanical divinations”, noting that the former “deal especially with the assessment of the
actual, which contains elements of particularity and the new.” His definition of the prophet
is useful:
The role of a prophet or seer can be characterized as the receiving and transmitting
of communications not available to ordinary conscious sensitivity, which are held to
come from a source (the divine) or through a form of perception transcending nor-
mal spatio-temporal limitations...
( Buss 1980, 7 and 6 respectively).
See also Nissinen 2000 and 2004. In the latter (2004, 23), he remarked that
[ p]rophetic activity does not necessarily exclude other roles in society; the social po-
sition of the prophet may vary according to the integration of the prophetic role into
the society as a whole. The oft-made dichotomy between free, charismatic prophets
and the so-called cultic or court prophets should no longer be upheld as a funda-
mental, generally applicable distinction...
His definition of prophecy is also worth citing in full:
Prophecy... is human transmission of allegedly divine messages. As a method of re-
vealing the divine will to humans, prophecy is to be seen as another, yet distinctive
branch of the consultation of the divine that is generally called “divination”. Among
the forms of divination, prophecy clearly belongs to the noninductive kind. That is
to say, prophets―like dreamers and unlike astrologers or haruspices―do not employ
methods based on systematic observations and their scholarly interpretations, but
act as direct mouthpieces of gods whose messages they communicate.
( Nissinen 2003, 1)
mals), or even the interpretation of dreams, is not at issue here,6 but rather
the uttered oracles of cultic personnel who appeared in Mari, Assyria and
Israel as “prophets”, who undoubtedly appeared elsewhere even if they
have left no written record. M. Nissinen has categorized this material as
“noninductive”, in distinction from the “inductive” techniques noted
above.7 In general, the writing always followed an originally oral communi-
cation, and the psychological, experiential or ritual bases for individual ora-
cles were varied, and often unidentified. My task here is to ascertain
whether the Ugaritian material to be discussed constitutes evidence of
prophecy in these terms in Ugarit.
II THE ORACLE IN KERET (KIRTA)

An important episode in the Keret story from Ugarit, narrating events in the
life of the king, and his rescue from the edge of extinction, only to be cast
back onto the precipice at the end, is the oracle given to the king by El, in
the framework of an extended blessing upon him and his dynastic line in
KTU 1.15 ii 16–iii 16. On my reading, this passage was originally an entire
column in length, a carefully-constructed and balanced liturgical composi-
tion, though much of it is now missing. It is this blessing, the embedded
oracle and associated material which is the primary subject of the present
discussion.
It is given in response to a plea from Baal that El act. Baal addresses
him in these terms (KTU 1.15 ii 13–16)8:
[ t]bʿ llṭpn [il] Come, O Wise One, perceptive [god],
ltbrk [krt] tʿ bless indeed [Keret] the votary,
ltmr nʿmn [ ǵlm] il give a blessing indeed to the gracious one, [heir of] El.
This intercession by Baal, the royal god, protector of the Ugaritian
monarchy, moves the supreme deity, El himself, generally regarded as the
progenitor of kings, graciously to intervene to bring about the necessary
resolution of Keret’s problems of wifelessness and childlessness. Thus Baal
takes the initiative, and a hierarchical relationship is established: Keret, Baal
and El.
The oracle narrative (KTU 1.15 ii 16–iii 16)9 reads as follows:
6 For discussion of other techniques at Ugarit see Xella 1999, del Olmo Lete 1999, 306–16
etc.
7 Nissinen 2003, 1 (cited above).
8 For translation see Wyatt 2002, 207–08.
ks yi d [il b] yd [ El] took a cup [in] ( his) hand,

krpn bm [ ym]n a goblet in (his) [right] hand;
brkm ybrk [ ʿbdh] He did indeed bless [ his servant],
ybrk il krt [tʿ] El blessed Keret [the votary],
[ ym]rm nʿm[n] ǵlm il [ he gave a bless]ing to the gracious [one], heir of El:
att [tq] ykrt “ Take a wife, O Keret,
att tq btk take a wife to your house,
[ǵ]lmt tšʿrb ẓrk bring a sacred bride into your dwelling:
tld šbʿ bnm lk she will bear you seven sons,
wtmn tttmnm! and multiply them eightfold for you.
tld yṣb ǵlm She will bear Yasibu the heir:
ynq lb a[t]rt he will drink the milk of Athiratu;
mṣṣ td btlt [ r my] he will drain the breast of Virgin [ Rahmayu:]
mšnq [ilht] the suckling of [ goddesses ] ...”
(about 15 lines missing)10
“[ ]
[ mid rm] krt [ Be greatly exalted,] Keret,
[btk rpi] arṣ [among the Saviours of ] the underworld,
[bp r] qbṣ dtn [in the convocation of] the assembly of Ditanu.
[wt]qrb wld bnt lk [She will] come to term and bear you [dau]ghters11:
tld pǵt t¯[¯¯]t she will give birth to the girl [ ]
tld pǵt t[¯¯¯]r she will give birth to the girl [ ]
tld pǵ[t ¯¯¯] she will give birth to the gir[ l ]
tld p[ ǵt ¯¯¯] she will give birth to the gi[rl ]
mid rm [krt] Be greatly exalted, [Keret],
btk rpi ar[ ṣ] among the Saviours of the underwo[rld],
9 For translation see Wyatt 2002, 208–12.

10 Though we may only conjecture, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the intervening
lacuna contained a list of the further sons to be born, up to the number of seven, matching
in number the daughters presumably named (the names are missing) in the sequel. See be-
low.
11 Or perhaps “a daughter”, in which each of seven daughters is listed, this one and six more.
Or possibly “seven daughters” ([<šbʿ > b]nt )? On the supposed name of an eighth daughter
(thus many, erroneously, e.g. Tropper 2000, 530–31, §74.236.2) see Wyatt 2002, 211–12 n.
155.
bp r qbṣ dtn in the convocation of the assembly of Dita[nu].

ṣǵrthn abkrn Their last one I shall treat as the firstborn.”
It is not so much the content of the oracle that concerns us here, as

the form in which it is couched, the occasion of its utterance, and its rela-
tionship both to the embedding material and to other oracular material
from Ugarit. I have dealt with the ideological implications of the text in
various recent publications. 12
The entire narrative of Keret is without doubt to be read as an epic
composition, 13 and while like much epic it probably has a tenuous link with
real historical events, to all intents we should regard it as fiction. Having
said that, there is no reason to doubt that there is an essentially historical
verisimilitude about its telling, 14 and so it is reasonable to suppose that the
formulaic language in which this passage is couched draws on at least the
principles, if not the very words, of actual liturgical usage in the real world.
The genre is clear enough: this is an annunciation, declaring the forthcom-
ing birth of a royal heir. But since it is formulated within the broader con-
text of a marriage blessing, 15 and this in turn within an enthronement bless-
ing, it anticipates all the births which will result from the present nuptials.
Fecundity is a signal demonstration of divine favour, and this marriage will
be blessed with twice the ideal number of offspring (twice times seven:
fourteen in all).16 So blessed will be the marriage that there will be sufficient
12 For notes on the text as translated see Wyatt 2002, 208–12.

13 See chapter 6.
14 Cf. the sociological and historical realities of the Iliad, preserved over several centuries of
transmission.
15 The passage anticipates the subsequent marriage of Keret to Hurriya, and it is of her chil-
dren that it speaks.

16 S.B. Parker (1989) was the first to note that in this respect it partially anticipates the cir-
cumstances and arithmetic of Job : cf. KTU 1.14 i 10–25 and the whole passage under dis-
cussion here with Job 1:2 , 1:13–19 and 42:10, 13 (reading šibʿānâ as “fourteen”: HALOT iv
1401 suggestion §b). The view that it is a multiplicity of wives, not children, that is alluded to
in the opening lines of Keret (thus Tropper 2000, 346–48 [ §§62.132a, 62.142a, 62.152a,
62.162a, 62.172a], 370 [ §63.32], 5 70 [ §74.424]) would tend to destroy this parallel. But as I
have argued, ( Wyatt 2002 , 181, n. 19) the argument is finely balanced. I suspect that I am
now (2006) edging towards the position of Tropper and Pardee, but the present passage
under discussion still presents something of a problem for the view, with its emphasis on the
children, perhaps twice an original number.
to give the very youngest an equal measure of blessing (= wealth) with the
firstborn,17 and by implication, a similar measure will be accorded to all the
intervening children. In short, in keeping with the epic style, we have here,
perhaps in somewhat hyperbolic terms, the very paradigm of royal felicity,
with its attendant benefits for the entire nation.
The theoretical structure of the whole oracle may be represented more
clearly by setting the two parts (sons and daughters respectively) in parallel,
thus (column two here following column one):
17There is no warrant for reading into the final line a reversal of the blessing: the last instead
of the first, as though the first (sc. Yasibu) is to be disinherited or displaced. The fact that
this is the outcome will also reverse the blessing on the youngest. See Wyatt 2002 , 212 n.
157.
THE LIBATION RITE

[ El] took a cup [in] (his) hand,
He did indeed bless [ his servant],
El blessed Keret [the votary],
[ he gave a bless]ing to the gracious [one],
heir of El:
INSTRUCTION TO MARRY
“ Take a wife, O Keret,
take a wife to your house,
bring a sacred bride into your dwelling:
ORACLE : SONS TO BE BORN I ORACLE : DAUGHTERS TO BE BORN I
she will bear you seven sons, [She will] come to term and bear you [dau]ghters:
and multiply them eightfold for you.
She will bear Yasibu the heir:
(BLESSING OF THE ELDEST
he will drink the milk of Athiratu;
he will drain the breast of Virgin [ Rahmay:]
the suckling of [ goddesses ]
[further material on Yasibu ? see n. 13])
ORACLE : SONS TO BE BORN II ORACLE : DAUGHTERS TO BE BORN II
[she will give birth to the boy Il u 18] she will give birth to the girl [ ]
[she will give birth to the boy ... ] she will give birth to the girl [ ]
[she will give birth to the boy ... ] she will give birth to the gir[ l ]
[she will give birth to the boy ... ] she will give birth to the gi[rl ]
BLESSING ( EXALTATION) OF KERET BLESSING ( EXALTATION) OF KERET
[ Be greatly exalted,] Keret, Be greatly exalted, [Keret],
[among the Saviours of ] the underworld, among the Saviours of the underwo[rld],
[in the convocation of ] the assembly of in the convocation of the assembly
Ditanu. of Dita[nu].
BLESSING OF THE YOUNGEST
Their last one I shall treat as the firstborn.”
18 We may surmise that this is the name of the second son; or perhaps it is the seventh? The
name occurs at KTU 1.16 i 46, 58, ii 33 and is probably to be restored in the missing section
at the end of 1.15 vi (it is presumably Il u who is speaking in 1.16 i 2–11, 14–23, and is ad-
dressed in 1.16 i 25–45) as well as in 1.16 ii 17, 21.
This is so nicely balanced in broad formal terms, despite there remain-

ing many questions about the exact content of the section listing the sons
(some fifteen lines may be missing overall 19) that we may legitimately ask
whether we have here a liturgical passage in the form of an antiphony, each
part carefully balancing the essential elements in the other part in an oral
expression, even though they are sequential. 20 The chiastic arrangement
emphasizes this quality.21 The form strongly reinforces the content of the
message, and the final blessing on the youngest daughter, 22 which is to
prove so ironic in the story of Keret, is emphasized by its isolation, having
no counterbalancing part in the first half of the blessing. On the other
hand, it does rather nicely balance the initial blessing of Yasibu, the heir,
who is to be suckled by goddesses, in addition to offering a complement
concerning the girl as striking as the language used of the son.
The formal architecture of this passage indicates the culmination of a
complex redactional process, whereby what may have originated as a fairly
simple oracle, albeit already of a common type,23 foretelling the birth of a
child, has been progressively elaborated, with the initial divine blessing for-
mula (a different genre), the instruction to marry (yet another genre), the
oracle concerning offspring, elaborated into multiplication of offspring, the
19 If we suppose that there was more to the language concerning Yasibu, say nine lines, al-
lowing six further ones for the listing of the further sons (as with the daughters), then the
gap may be adequately accounted for. This remains speculative, of course.
20 Cf. the same nicely balanced antiphonal structure in Deuteronomy 28:1–14 and 15–35 (the
latter section subsequently greatly expanded in the light of exilic experience, vv. 36–68).
21 Cf. the chiastic analysis proposed above in 2005c, 721, and slightly modified here.:
1 1.15 ii 16–20 Introductory formulaic account of blessing rite;

2 1.15 ii 21–4 Promise of offspring; a
3 1.15 ii 25–8 Yasibu (eldest) will be a suckling of goddesses; b
[4 1.15 ii ¯¯¯ lacuna of ca 15 lines, probably list of seven sons; c]
5 1.15 iii 2–4 promise of membership of the rpum ; d
6 1.15 iii 5–12 list of seven daughters; c1
7 1.15 iii 13–5 promise of membership of the rpum ; d1
8 1.15 iii 16 the youngest daughter will be as blessed as the first; b1
9 1.15 iii 17–9 the gods bless Keret and depart. a1
22 The concept of an eighth daughter, conveniently named “Octavia” (ttmnt ), is a figment of

modern eisegesis: see Wyatt 2002, 211–12 n. 155.
23 Numerous Ugaritic and biblical examples exist of the type: see below.
balance between male and female children, and its embedding within (pre-
existing?) promises of divine benevolence and blessing, to say nothing of
the strong ideological bias because it is royal in application, has reached its
present final stage. This is the use of stereotypical language within the con-
text of an epic poem, with its own distinctive bias and function within the
royal ideology of Ugarit.24 I am not asserting this as a means of implying a
long prehistory of the text. For all we know, the ratiocination may have
gone on in the head of Ilimilku. Its complexity suggests, however, that he
took some time to achieve the final text of his composition, much of which
may well have been based on traditional material.
As Jackson and Dressler demonstrated, 25 the passage concerning the
cup of blessing in ll. 16–20 recurs in Aqhat (KTU 1.17 i 34–36), where its
presence was hitherto unrecognized because of haplography. The fact that
it occurs twice establishes its formulaic nature. 26 In the case of its incidence
in Aqhat, the wedding context is not assumed, since Danil and Dantiy are
already married. Perhaps it is fair to say that the literary force of the formula
in that context is precisely the huge efficacy of a royal marriage blessing as a
means of solving a gynaecological problem. (Men are never blamed for in-
fertility in ancient literature!) Indeed, since the situation in Aqhat is a special
case, while in Keret it is paradigmatic, or universal, we may ask whether the
original Sitz im Leben was, as in the latter, in a nuptial context.
24 On Keret as an Ugaritian epic see chapter 6 above.

25 Jackson and Dressler 1975. See also Wyatt 2002, 260 n. 42 , for summary of their argu-
ment.
26 It reads remarkably like the words of eucharistic institution: “On the night that he was
betrayed . . . ”
The essential identity of the two passages in Keret and Aqhat is clear from the following
synopsis (see Wyatt 2002, 208 and n. 143 and 260 and n. 42―following Jackson and
Dressler―for further discussion):
KTU 1.15 ii 16–20 KTU 1.17 i 34–<->–36
ks.yi d [il.b] yd [ks] yi d.il <byd(h)
krpn.bm [ ym]n krpn.bm ymn(h)
brkm.ybrk [ ʿbdh] brkm.ybrk > ʿbdh
ybrk.il.krt [ tʿ ] ybrk [il.dni]l.mt.rpi
[ym]rm.nʿm[n.]ǵlm.il ymr.ǵzr [mt h]rnmy
The blessing formula itself in Keret now lies as a framework around the
oracle concerning offspring, however, in a fairly obvious way. This can be
seen by the excision of the oracle. We then have this sequence:
[ El] took a cup [in] (his) hand,
He did indeed bless [ his servant],
El blessed Keret [the votary],
[ he gave a bless]ing to the gracious [one], heir of El:
...
Be greatly exalted, Keret,
among the Saviours of the underworld,
in the convocation of the assembly of Ditanu.
We thus find, rather surprisingly, that the oracle is in all probability
secondary to the blessing, or rather that in the composition of Keret, Ilimilku
has taken a stereotyped blessing formula, perhaps from the enthronement
liturgy, and used it to frame the oracular element (which may have origi-
nated in another liturgy, presumably one of birth―or rather concep-
tion―announcement). The same author (it could only convincingly be the
same author) has then used the same formula in the composition of Aqhat,
though the latter part, concerning the Rapiuma, was not included, since an
alternative formulation was used (KTU 1.17 i 36–38):
El took [a cup] <in (his) hand:
a goblet in (his) right hand;
he did indeed bless > his servant,
[El] blessed [Dane]l, the man of healing,
he gave a blessing to the hero, [the devotee of H ]rnm:
“By my life! Danil, [the man of heal]ing, shall live!
by my vitality the hero, the devotee of Hrnm !
[May] it [go] well with him!
It is noteworthy that in Keret the tricolon
Be greatly exalted, Keret,
among the Saviours of the underworld,
in the convocation of the assembly of Ditanu.
now follows each list of children (male and female respectively―this is seen
particularly clearly in the synoptic arrangement) and as it were sums up the
burden of each birth-list: such fecundity is a portent of Keret’s inclusion
among the agents of royal fertility. They themselves will honour him for his
prowess. Thus the editorial process causes the fundamental blessing, the
king’s exaltation among the Rapiuma (whose Sitz im Leben was the en-
thronement), to be modified into one concerning offspring.
The literary form used in this reiterated formula, with its peculiar em-
phasis, invites some further consideration on the role of the Rapiuma. 27 It
is striking that Keret appears to be envisaged as being among their number.
While the time-scale involved here is indeterminate, it is even possible that
he is to be numbered among them while still alive, apparently an unparal-
leled honour, since they are dead kings28. However, if my analysis of the
development of the passage is cogent, this formed part of the original bless-
ing formula into which the oracular material has subsequently been inserted,
and may in fact have constituted a formal blessing of the kings of Ugarit in
some such context as their enthronement, as it were proleptically marking
the solidarity between deceased kings and their present successor, but with
no element of hyperbole. The Rapiuma are agents in the elevation of the
king to his new status.
Text KTU 1.108 invokes the god rpu mlk ʿlm, which I have translated
as “Rapiu, King of eternity”,29 or more recently, as proposed by H. Niehr,30
as “Rapiu, King of the Hereafter”. This modified version follows the in-
sights of Niehr and del Olmo Lete concerning the specifically royal func-
tion of this deity. Rapiu is a Rhadamanthine figure, 31 lord of the under-
world, and patron of the dead kings who have joined his company there,
where they continue to be involved in the affairs of the living through kis-
pum rites and royal funerals (e.g. KTU 1.113, where only non-rpum kings are
named, and 1.161). It would be entirely appropriate for a king’s ideological
link with them to be emphasized at his enthronement.
27 For previous recent discussion see Rouillard 1995; id. 2005; and Wyatt forthcoming. One
point to bear in mind is that though the Vorlage of Keret may well originate in eastern Syria (at
Khabur on the Balik), the ideology contained in this formula belongs firmly within Ugaritian
usage (cf. KTU 1.108, 1.161). This is not to deny the possibility that the ideology may have
also been current in Khabur. Ditanu after all indicates an Assyrian aspect to the tradition.
For the Rapiuma as possibly linked through their eponym to the later Greek Titans, see
discussion in Wyatt forthcoming.
28 Pace L’Heureux 1979. See discussion in Wyatt forthcoming.
29 Wyatt 2002, 395.
30 See Wyatt forthcoming, n. 16.
31 Cf. the mysterious “ Radaman” (rdmn) of KTU 1.3 i 2, Baal’s cup-bearer. See Wyatt 2002,
70 n. 1.
The element mlk in Rapiu’s mode of address is more than just titular; it
invites us to see him as an alter ego to the deity Milku or Maliku (mlk) ap-
pearing in the pantheon-lists, KTU 1.47.33 = 1.118.32 = RS 20.24.32. In
the Ugaritic versions he appears in a plural form, as mlkm (malikūma?),
while in the Akkadian version the form is d ma.lik.meš, confirming the
plural reading. In KTU 1.161.11, 12, the deceased Ammithtamru and
Niqmaddu (sc. II ) are both designated mlk, which led del Olmo Lete to see
a theological content in the term.32 The reference to Milku (Maliku) of Ath-
tarat in 1.107.42 is undoubtedly to the same god, since this city was linked
with Rapiu in 1.108.2–3, where it is paired with Edrei, giving us the cities
also associated with Og, the “survivor of the Rephaim” in biblical tradi-
tion.33
Rapiu appears to have been the eponym of a collectivity of gods who
were former kings, perhaps to be distinguished from the mlkm as long
dead, 34 or perhaps as elite members of that category. Their invocation in
KTU 1.161, where they are summoned into the threshold of the tomb to
greet Niqmaddu III–IV as his corpse is lowered into the tomb, 35 shows the
solidarity in the royal cult between kingship past and present, with implica-
tions for the future. Keret receives a divine commitment to include him in
their number.
Let us now consider the mechanics of the procedures, particularly with
reference to the oracular element.
In the fictional context, El is presented as directly addressed himself,
and as directly addressing Keret in the granting of this powerful blessing.
This describes an ideal situation. That is, it is a simplification of the real
process, by means of a paradigmatic presentation. It may be compared with
the following biblical sequence from 2 Samuel 2:1–2:
Now after this David enquired of Yahweh, “shall I go up to one of the
cities of Judah?” And Yahweh replied, “Go on up.” Then David said,
“to which one shall I go up?” And he replied, “To Hebron”.
This appears superficially to be a straightforward conversation be-
tween David and Yahweh. In reality, of course, it is stylistic shorthand for
32 See del Olmo Lete 1999, 194 n. 82, with my remarks, Wyatt 2002, 435 n. 23.
33 See discussion in Wyatt forthcoming.
34 Note that the Rapiuma do not appear in the king-list of KTU 1.113.
35 Cf. the ironical use of the motif in Isaiah 14:9, discussed in Wyatt forthcoming.
an account of an oracular technique such as the Urim and Tummim,36 fram-

ing questions to elicit a “yes” or “no” response, which we see more directly
represented in this sequence:
Then Saul said to all Israel, “Stand on one side, and I and my son Jona-
than will stand on the other side.”! And all the people replied, “Do as
you think fit.” Then Saul said to Yahweh, “God of Israel, why did you
not answer your servant today? If the fault is with me or my son Jona-
than, give Urim; if the fault is with your people Israel, give Tummim.”
Jonathan and Saul were identified, and the people were free. Then Saul
said, “ Let the lot be cast between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jona-
than was identified. (1 Samuel 14:40–42, LXX).
On the analogy of this material and its literary presentation, the ap-
pearance of a direct communication in Keret may simply point to a more
complex technique, as in the biblical examples here adduced. We cannot be
certain of the ritual process underlying the sequence from Keret. We can
only compare it with other annunciation and blessing accounts, which may
offer some clues. The following annunciations all conform to a common
pattern: KTU 1.12.14–30 (annunciation), 1.13.22–29 (blessing), 1.17 i 34–
47 ++ (Aqhat: annunciation and blessing), 1.24.7 ? 37 (Nikkal’s pregnancy);
Genesis 16:10–12 (Ishmael: annunciation and blessing 38), Genesis 17:1–19
(Isaac), Judges 13:2–20 (Samson), 1 Samuel 1:12–18 (Samuel), Psalm 19:2–
7 = EVV 1–6 (mythic account of the king’s birth 39); Isaiah 14:7 (Abijah’s
pregnancy with Hezekiah40) and even Luke 1:26–38 (the annunciation to
Mary). In varying measures, they appear to reflect liturgical conventions in
such matters. In each case, the fiction has it that the deity speaks directly or
through a messenger (mlak, mālʾāk, “angel”) to the subject. The Sitz im Le-
ben of such narratives, typically royal in origin (the divine examples merely
typify the ideological basis of the material), is the demand for royal heirs
and oracles designed to affirm good news.
36 On this procedure see the interesting explanation of Robertson 1964. Van Dam 1997 is
more cautious, but less interesting.

37 On the tense problem see Wyatt 2002, 337 n. 10. Whether past or future in force, the line
bears a remarkable similarity to Genesis 16:11 and Isaiah 7:14. On the issue see Wyatt 1994,
146–47 = 2005b, 81; id., 1994a, 419 n. 80 = 2005b, 101 n. 80.
38 See Wyatt 1994 = 2005b, 77–84.
39 Wyatt 1995 = 2005b, 103–31.
40 Wyatt 1985a, 45 = 2005b, 8.
But the question remains, how were such divine messages received in
the first place? 41 We have noted how a seemingly normal conversational
presentation may be an implicit allusion to a ritual technique, as with the
Urim and Tummim. Can we pinpoint an Ugaritian or more widely attested
convention specific to oracular usage? For one of the interesting implica-
tions of our discussion about this literary, fictitious oracle, is that familiarity
with its genre implies the existence of oracular procedures, that is prophecy,
in Ugarit, even though other direct evidence for it has not so far been iden-
tified. Its presence in Mari and Assyria and elsewhere should have led us to
expect it, in any event. Only against the background of familiarity with the
phenomenon could Keret have made sense to its hearers. The material to
which we now turn corroborates this intuition, by providing further circum-
stantial evidence for the existence of prophecy in Ugarit.
III AN ORACULAR FORMULA IN BAAL AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

FOR UGARITIAN AND BIBLICAL THOUGHT
An important formulaic sequence, having perhaps a significant bearing on
the question of oracles and the means of their transmission, recurs a num-
ber of times in Baal, though not in our present context, Keret. It is however
of some interest for the present discussion. The passage appears thus:
dm rgm it ly wargmk For I have a word that I would say to you,
hwt watnyk a message that I would repeat to you:
rgm ʿṣ a word of tree
wl št abn and a whisper of stone,
rgm ltdʿ nšm a word unknown to men,
wltbn hmlt arṣ and which multitudes of the earth do not understand:
tant šmm ʿm arṣ the coupling of the heavens with the earth,
thmt.ʿmn kbkbm of the deeps with the stars.
abn brq dltdʿ šmm I understand the lightning which the heavens do not know:
atm wank ibǵy come, and I shall reveal it
btk ǵry.il.ṣpn in the midst of my divine mountain Saphon,
bqdš bǵr n lty in the sanctuary, in the rock of my inheritance.
It occurs in these passages: KTU 1.1 ii 1–3, fragmentary, [1.1 ii 22–

end?], 1.1 iii 10–16, and 1.3 iii 19–31, all with lacunae, from which the com-
41 See Launderville 2003, 193–239. He offers no evidence from Ugarit.

plete version above is reconstructed.42 In these contexts, it belongs with two

ritual programmes I have characterized as “the burial ritual” and “the spear
ritual”. The present sequence I have called “the cosmic secret”. In my ear-
lier study, I proposed that at least in conceptual terms it underlay the lan-
guage of Psalm 19:3–5.43 The context of both the Ugaritic and biblical pas-
sages here noted is the practice of royal ideology. This is the best overall
explanation of the context of the Baal narratives,44 and I have argued that
Psalm 19 deals with a coronation, and in the earlier part narrates the king’s
mythic birth.45 The ideological circumstances are thus precisely those of the
broader context of this discussion.
Of considerable interest in this passage is the bicolon introducing the
strophe on the “cosmic secret”:
a word of tree (ʿṣ )
and a whisper of stone (abn)...
I think, for reasons that I shall enlarge on, that we should maintain this
translation, in spite of the fact that there are numerous biblical echoes such
as Exodus 19:4, Leviticus 19:4, 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:15–19, 28*, 5:8, 15,
28:36*, 64*, 29:16* (EVV 17*), Isaiah 44:9–20, 46:1–7, Jeremiah 2:27*, 3:9*,
Ezekiel 20:32*,46 which evoke what the Bible and its interpreters consider to
be the worst excesses of “idolatry” in its maximal sense, the use of any vis-
ual form to represent the divine. (And yet how material is the verbal imagery
42 For a previous treatment in the broader context of message formulations addressed by
one deity to another, see Wyatt 1995, 575–79 = 2005b, 116–19.

43
ʾên ʾōmer There is no speech

weʾên debārîm and there are no words:
belî nišmāʿ qôlām quite unheard is their voice.
bekol-hāʾāreṣ yāṣāʾ †qawwām (But) from the whole earth goes forth their voice
ûbiqeṣê tēbēl millêhem and from the ends of the world their utterance.
† MT; or emend to *qôlām
On the integrity of this passage, without the necessity of excising v. 4 as a later interpolation,
see Wyatt 1995, 567 n. 13 = 2005b, 110 n. 13, and on the reading qawwām/*qôlām, 1995, 571
= 2005b, 112–13.
44 See M.S. Smith 1994, 104–10; Wyatt 1998, 1999 and 2000.
45 See Wyatt 1995 = 2005b, 103–31.
46 Asterisked references contain the specific formula ʿēṣ w eʾeben (ʾ elōhîm maʿaśēh y edê ʾādām ʿēṣ
w eʾeben, Deuteronomy 4:28; ʾ elōhîm ʾ a ērîm ʿēṣ w eʾeben, Deuteronomy 28:36, 64; gillulîm ʿēṣ
w eʾeben, Deuteronomy 29:16).
of the Hebrew Bible, just as it is in the present passage!) Two of the chief
iconic forms used in Israelite religion, to judge from the reiterated attacks
on them, the ʾašērāh and the maṣṣēbāh, were precisely in the media of wood
(ʿēṣ) and stone (ʾeben) respectively. Should we not replace “tree” by “wood”
in the Ugaritic bicolon, and frankly recognize its explicitly material nature? I
think not. For while the biblical iconoclasm makes for splendid rhetoric, it
is often at the expense of a fair representation of the object of its ire.47 Ho-
sea 4:12 reads:
ʿammî beʿēṣô yišʾāl My people enquires of its tree
ûmaqlô yaggîd lô and its rod instructs it
a passage commonly taken to be a graphic example of deliberate distortion
of the reality for polemical purposes, as in J.R. Porter’s version (1981,
203):48
My people enquire from a block of wood,
and their rod gives them oracles.. .
Though it is not obligatory to read the text of Hosea in this way, it is
probably a fair inference, given his polemical style.
The Ugaritic text must be seen strictly in its own context, and though
there is indeed an element of materialism in the choice of figure, we should
recognize in this an irreducible element in all attempts at religious experi-
ence and communication. How else can the human mind (sc. the brain in
functional mode) perceive 49 the transcendent and the abstract except
through the concrete and the tangible? The very foundation of all symbolic
expression is physical experience: sight, smell, sound, taste and touch. The
language of this Ugaritic passage takes us to the very core of religious ex-
pression.
The language of the text in Baal is allusive, and not perhaps to be easily
pinned down. The first part, “a word of tree”, may indeed relate to the use
47 A useful study of the matter, LaRocca-Pitts 2001, put the issue nicely in a nutshell by its
title: Of Wood and Stone . . .
48 J.R. Porter cited Mays 1969, 73. Cf. JPS (on a different syntax):
It consults its sticks,

its rod directs it!
49 I use the term advisedly. It is the language of theology, and of religious experience. From a
behavioural and cultural perspective, we should say “construct”. I am happy with either
term.
of trees, sc. their material, in the construction of icons and other religious
objects. But another intriguing possibility arises if we see the allusion as
relating to a number of specific biblical oracular traditions. Because it is
probably the living tree, or the tree as medium of hierophany, and similarly,
the stone as “living rock”, as in a sacred mountain or stela, and not merely
the material substance, which is the occasion of oracular revelation. The
chief characteristic will have been the numinous quality of the location.
We may well ask whether the biblical formula understanding it to be a
question of “wood... and stone” was not ultimately derived from the for-
mula as attested in Ugarit (i.e., not necessarily directly from Ugarit), so that
its original force would be not so much the materiality of the items, as their
oracular function. 50 The entire iconoclastic tradition may have originated
initially as a rejection of rival oracles.
Let us note the rich tradition of oracular trees in particular in the Old
Testament. In Genesis 12:6 we read that Abram, newly arrived in the Le-
vant after his prolonged migration from Ur and Haran, came to Shechem:
wayyaʿ abōr ʾabrām bāʾāreṣ ʿad meqôm š ekem ʿad ʾēlôn môreh...
Then Abram travelled through the country to the shrine51 of Shechem,
to the “ Teacher’s Oak”52.
This “sacred” tree (for it evidently had a specifically religious nature) is
mentioned a number of times in biblical tradition. In Deuteronomy 11:30 it
is mentioned almost gratuitously as a significant focal point in the Israelites’
migration; in Genesis 35:2–4, part of a narrative which contextualizes the
pre-Israelite tradition of Genesis 34,53 a significant ritual break with the past
is sealed with the burial of various divine images (kol-ʾ elōhê hannēkār, “all the
foreign gods”54) under the tree. This perhaps explains the earlier “gratui-
tous” reference, for the location functions as the interface between old and
50 Mobley 2005, 93–101, offered a perceptive analysis of the p esîlîm of the story of Ehud,
Judges 3:15–30.
51 It is likely that māqôm has its specialized sense of a religious sanctuary here, as in Genesis
28 (see Wyatt 1990d).

52 “(T)he Hill of [Oracular] Seeing”: Mobley 2005, 138.
53 See Wyatt 1990.
54 And rather oddly, their earrings. Presumably these had religious significance, or were of
gold, and thus formed part of a sacred depositional hoard. Cf. Exodus 32 :2–4 and Judges
8:24 (the relationship of these passages was observed by Mobley 2005, 119, though he did
not note the Genesis reference).
new dispensations. The tree features yet again in Joshua 24:26–32, where it
is, perhaps with great significance, the place at which Joshua sets up a great
stone (ʾeben g edôlāh: the term maṣṣēbāh is studiously avoided) under (ta at 55)
the tree as a ritual accompaniment to the writing of the Law (mišpāṭ). Fi-
nally, though the text is not explicit, we may suppose that it was the loca-
tion of the burial of Joseph’s bones (v. 32).
Now what precisely was the “oak (or: terebinth) of Moreh”? The latter
term means “teacher”. Was this an oracular tree? Did a seer sit underneath
it to receive and dispense divine guidance? What were the mechanics of the
process?
Hebron was also the location of a group of famous sacred trees, ap-
pearing in a number of narratives. In Genesis 13:18 Abram settles at the
oaks (plural) at Mamre, “which are at Hebron”; 56 in 14:13 he is living at the
oaks “of Mamre the Amorite” (the toponym having become a gentilic),
while 18:1–15, the episode of the annunciation to Sarah, locates events at
“the oaks of Mamre”, with no comment on its gentilic or toponymic sig-
nificance.
Beersheba was the site of a tamarisk tree planted by Abraham (clearly
an aetiology) in Genesis 21:33, where he invoked Yahweh El Olam. He
built an altar there following a theophany in 26:23–25, and Jacob (“Israel”)
sacrificed there in 46:1. The tree is not mentioned in the latter two passages,
but perhaps the three belong together in terms of the presuppositions of
the tradition: tree and altar belonged together as elsewhere.
Yet another tree, known as “the Oak of Weeping”, features at Genesis
35:8, as the site of the burial of Rachel’s nurse Deborah, near Bethel. This
tree featured too at 1 Kings 13:14.57 Since this Deborah was an entirely in-
significant character in the tradition, we may well ask whether this tree is
really to be identified with the following example from outside the Genesis
narrative. Or perhaps it was originally Rebekah who was interred here. The
present aetiology is opaque.58
55 JPS: “at the foot of ”.

56 See the remarks of Haran 1985, 57 n. 17.
57 Discussed briefly at Oesterley and Robinson 1937, 30–31.
58 Oesterley and Robinson 1937, 28, suggested that the tree was the location for “weeping
for Tammuz” rites. Note how the listing of the trees amounts to a gazetteer of sacred sites in
Palestine with known or alleged patriarchal or other heroic links.
Another tradition ( Judges 4:5) is told of another Deborah, numbered

among the judges of Israel:
w ehîʾ yôšebet ta at-tōmer d ebôrāh bên hārāmāh ûbên bêt-ʾēl b ehar ʾeprāʾîm
wayyaʿ alû ʾēlêhā b enê yisrāʾēl lammišpāṭ
Now she sat beneath “Deborah’s Palm”, between Ramah and Bethel in
the highlands of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her for justice.
This is presumably to be identified with the tree near Bethel, even though
now two names are used.
Yet another tradition, in Judges 6, concerns Gideon. An angel came
and sat under an oak tree at Ophrah (v. 11), appearing to Gideon in a
theophany (v. 12), and delivering a message. Gideon subsequently offered
food to the angel under the tree (vv. 19–21) and erected an altar (v. 24,
though not explicitly in relation to the tree59).
A further example occurs in 1 Kings 19:4–8, where the fleeing Elijah
rested under a broom tree and was ministered to by an angel, suggesting
that the tradition understood it to involve a theophany.
Finally, perhaps one of the most important instances from the point of
view of Israelite (> Jewish) religious history was the narrative of the burn-
ing bush at which Moses encountered God in Exodus 3, and where Yah-
weh spoke from the middle of the plant, which I have argued was con-
sciously modelled on and intended to represent the temple Menorah. 60
Deuteronomy 33:16 alludes to this tradition in the expression ûr eṣôn śōkenê
s enê, “... and the favour of the one dwelling in the bush” (sc. Yahweh), indi-
cating that the deity was understood to reside in some fashion within the
tree.
The same questions arise concerning the function of all these trees.
They evidently had a religious significance, and there is no sense of a con-
scious tension between their mention and the iconoclastic language we have
noted. But the presence of the latter in the tradition highlights their authen-
tic nature as witnesses to the same kind of religiosity as we have found in
Ugaritian tradition. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to interpret the
two bodies of evidence, biblical and Ugaritic, as examples of the same
broad phenomenon. With the exception of the burning bush, they are all
59Cf. Beersheba above.

60The narrative is an exilic composition, but has become the paradigm of revelation for the
whole editorial tradition of the Hebrew Bible. See Wyatt 1979 = 2005a, 6–12; id., 1986 =
2005a, 13–17; id., 1999 = 2005b, 191–220.
associated with sacred sites, presumably sanctuaries. The burning bush is a

special case, intended to evoke the sacrality of Jerusalem, and apply it to the
end-of-the-world, liminal place of exile. It is in any case a purely literary
construct.
The “Teacher’s Tree” at Shechem61 and “Deborah’s Palm” (aka “the
Oak of Weeping”?) seem to offer most for an understanding of the func-
tion of the tree, while the latter, Moses’ bush and the Gideon narrative ex-
plicitly link the tree with a divine communication, 62 and perhaps assist our
understanding of its significance in the Ugaritic formula.
Early anthropological studies saw sacred trees (and especially oaks,
which feature in most instances here)63 as a routine locus of supernatural
revelation.64 Oesterley and Robinson offered some interesting observations
in line with views of the time concerning sacred trees mentioned in the Bi-
ble.65 In a survey of Arab practice ancient and modern, they cited Doughty,
who observed of tree-cults among the Bedouin:
Sometimes the tree is believed to speak with an inarticulate voice, as the
gharcad did in a dream to Moslim; but except in a dream it is obvious
61 Oesterley and Robinson 1937, 26–27, observed that

one cannot fail to recognize a connexion between the mention of a specific, and ob-
viously well-known, tree and the divine appearance there. The tree was regarded as
sacred. Abraham halts at it because he expects a divine manifestation there... The
same must be postulated of the terebinth of Mamre... In the case of the tamarisk
tree in Beersheba which Abraham is said to have planted (Gen. xxi. 33) one might
well ask, What is the point of his doing so? But this is in all probability a later tradi-
tion to explain the presence of an ancient tree sanctuary. The verse must be read in
connexion with Gen. xxvi. 23–35, which describes a theophany in the same place,
but where the tree is not mentioned (cp. Gen. xlvi. 1).
62 In the case of Deborah, the tree is the locus of a legal procedure. But it is hard to imagine
this not involving a theological dimension.

63 Of course the species of oak or terebinth (ʾēlāh, ʾēlôn, ʾallôn), primarily evergreen varieties,
mentioned in the Hebrew texts are not the same as that or those featuring in European cultic
tradition (in England and northern Europe, the deciduous Quercus robur).
64 Robertson Smith 1927, 191–97 etc.
65 Oesterley and Robertson 1937, 23–32, with references to earlier studies. See also J.R. Por-
ter 1981.
that the voice of the tree can only be some rustling sound, as the wind
in the branches. 66
They then examined the various biblical passages. They opined that so
far as mechanics were concerned, it would be the wind rustling the foliage
of the tree which would indicate the presence of the deity. Their parade
example was 2 Samuel 5:23–24, to be treated below. They observed that:
It is quite clear from this passage that the belief was held that Yahweh
entered the trees, His presence being indicated by the rustling. One
could not have a more direct indication of animistic belief. 67
There is no need to accept uncritically the old nineteenth century con-
cept of animism espoused here and throughout their discussion by these
authors, unless it be updated according to the discussion of Guthrie 1993,
in which the underlying principle was the universality of anthropomor-
phism, and thus the metaphorical experience of the natural world as me-
dium for revelation. But they were probably correct in seeing these surpris-
ingly numerous allusions as evidence of archaic features in Israelite religion,
still apparently endorsed by the later tradition, and thus in tension with the
aniconic imperative. 68 There is a possible allusion to an oracle-tree in the
obscure passage in KTU 1.12 i 19–20:
ẓi baln tkm go out from the tree in the centre
btk mlbr il šiy towards the vast and awful desert.69
which would provide a Late Bronze analogue of biblical texts at least in-
tended to be perceived as archaic.
This insistence on the sacrality of trees is not so far removed from our
broader royal concerns noted above. For the tree was a central symbol of
monarchy in the ancient Near East. 70 Not only was the king of Assyria in-
timately involved in the regular cult of the tree as symbol of his nurture of
the community,71 but he was seen as an aspect of it. When Nebuchadrezzar
66 Doughty 1888 ii 209, cited Oesterley and Robertson 1937, 25 n. 4.

67 Oesterley and Robertson 1937, 31; cf. J.R. Porter 1981, 203.
68 Other trees not discussed above are that near Qadesh, the “oak in Za-ʾanannim” ( T N :
RSV; “oak of Beza-ʾanannim”, PN: Oesterley and Robertson 1937, 28) mentioned in Joshua
19:33 (cf. Judges 4:11), and the one in “the valley of the terebinth” near Socoh, in 1 Samuel
17:2.
69 Wyatt 2002, 163; see n. 6 ad loc.
70 Wyatt 2001, 166–72.
71 B.N. Porter 2003.
of Babylon dreamt of a tree, and Daniel explained, “that tree is yourself, O

king”, we undoubtedly have a faithful reflection of Babylonian ideology. 72
While none of the biblical characters noted here were kings, Abra(ha)m was
a patriarch,73 while Deborah and Gideon were judges, an office involving
political rule as well as magistracy, and were therefore “virtual” monarchs.
King Saul, however, sat (or “was enthroned”) under a tamarisk tree at
Gibeah (1 Samuel 22:6), while his bones were buried beneath a tamarisk (1
Samuel 31:13) or a terebinth (1 Chronicles 10:12) in Jabesh. And in 2 Sam-
uel 5:23–24 (cf. 1 Chronicles 14:15) King David asked for a message from
Yahweh concerning tactics in the Philistine war; it may be that the Urim and
Tummin were used, since a negative answer was given, on the yes-no princi-
ple, but the answer continued:
He (Yahweh) replied, “Do not go up, but encircle them and attack them
opposite the bākāʾ (trees). 74 And when you hear the sound of marching
in the tops of the bākāʾ (trees), then attack, for at that moment Yahweh
will be going in front of you to attack the Philistine camp.”
The sound, presumably of the wind in the trees, was evidently an
oracular response, but secondarily indicated as significant before the event
by another procedure. By nature the interpretation of the wind would be an
esoteric craft known only to ritual specialists. This much is implicit in the
Ugaritic formula, which continues,
a word unknown to men,
and which multitudes of the earth do not understand...
...
which the heavens do not know...
Secrets are revealed in this technique to which even many of the gods are
not privy! 75 There is a hierarchical dimension here, which is ultimately to
be identified as royal.
In nearly all the biblical cases (Shechem, Beersheba, Hebron, Ophrah,
Gibeah, Jerusalem [the “real” locus of the burning bush, represented by the
72 Cf. Wyatt 2001, 166–72.

73 Abraham is presented in Genesis in a way very similar to Danil in Aqhat. And while the
latter work is a bucolic drama (as well as having epic qualities), Danil is explicitly a king. See
Wyatt 1999a, 249–51, contra Margalit.
74 RSV “balsam”. HALOT i 129, perhaps “mastic-terebinth”.
75 Cf. KTU 1.3 i (14–15) and discussion in Wyatt 2002, 71 nn. 6, 7.
menorah]), the intimate link between tree and altar or other feature of a cult
centre in the tradition shows that these arboreal oracles were controlled and
maintained by the cultic personnel at the sanctuary in question. It would be
natural for a central political authority to want to control such powerful
manifestations of divine self-disclosure, for the benefit of the whole com-
munity, but above all in the interests of the king. It is no accident that in the
Ugaritic material which we have considered, royal interests were always
paramount.76
The final tricolon cited above in the oracular formula from Baal,
come, and I shall reveal it
in the midst of my divine mountain Saphon,
in the sanctuary, in the rock of my inheritance
occurs only in the last example of the citation, in KTU 1.3 iii 19–31, in
which it is Baal who addresses Anat. It is plausible, given the strict lien be-
tween the giving of an oracle and the appropriate (sacred) place at which it
is revealed, to conclude that this is integral to the whole formula (so that it
is formulaically adapted to the other contexts). If we concede this point,
further implications follow.
Firstly, its association with an inheritance suggests that it is concerned
with the transmission of property rights. This is a particular feature of royal
usage, whence its use in Baal, a royal ideological composition, 77 and political
76 The question is certainly worth asking, though this is not the place to answer it, as to
whether the cult of the asherah in Israel and Judah was primarily a means by which royal
oracles were delivered. This would have brought together a number of factors, and also
explain a number of outstanding problems. We have drawn attention here to the frequency
with which tree oracles occur in the biblical texts, and to the explicitly or implicitly royal
nature of such occurrences. The asherah as a cult-object, generally accepted a stylized,
worked, or surrogate tree, is associated historically with royal traditions (that is narratives
specifically concerning royal cultic policy, and is probably inseparable from the fortunes of
the goddess Asherah as a royal goddess in both kingdoms (and with the status of the Gebi-
rah as her avatar). With the demise of the monarchy at the exile, the cult of Asherah seems
to have disappeared, and at the same time any oracular function it had would also have
ceased. The disappearance of the occasion for royal oracles (it is noteworthy how much
post-exilic prophecy was concerned with expectations of a restoration under Zerubbabel)
also accounts in part for the apparent decline in prophecy in general. There must have been
an extensive change in the functions of cult personnel in the light of the new circumstances
of Persian hegemony.
77 Wyatt 2000 = 2005b, 221–30 and references cited.
usage in Israelite tradition, 78 concerned with national claims to territory (of

most significance in the context of an Ugaritic Vorlage are Deuteronomy
32:9 and associated texts). And the patriarchal narratives (e.g. Genesis 12:7,
13:14–18 etc.) provide territorial markers, as it were.
Secondly, the thrust of the usage in Baal concerns the ideological sig-
nificance of Mount Saphon in Ugaritian cosmology, and undoubtedly its
implicit identification with the seat of royal power in the palace complex of
the city. This theme was taken up in particular in Psalm 48:3 with its treat-
ment of the sacred mountain in Jerusalem. 79
We are still left with the procedural question not finally answered. For
I am not claiming that the “tree and stone” formulation was necessarily the
channel for the communications underlying the language we have analysed
in Keret and Aqhat. It is a possibility. Another possibility, given the involve-
ment of the Rapiuma in the ritual life of the king, is that some necromantic
involvement of Ugarit’s dead kings was also a channel for oracular expres-
sion. But again, the witness is silent, beyond some liturgical hints as in KTU
1.20–22, 1.108 and 1.161. Other possibilities (discussed in del Olmo Lete
1999―see index) have been noted above.
A third line of approach would be to insist on the presentation of the
narratives themselves, to the effect that a spontaneous, unprovoked
theophany issued in gratuitous promises from the chief god El to his son
the king. But again, it is reasonable to respond to this by seeing it as a fur-
ther shorthand presentation of more complex, manipulative, ritual proce-
dures. When already set within established liturgical traditions, as identified
above, we are already at some remove from the original circumstances of
any prototypes.
What we have seen in Keret and Baal is literary evidence of a phenome-
non not hitherto recognized in Ugaritian culture. The following observation
of Nissinen (2004, 25) is perhaps relevant here:
a definition of prophecy should not a priori exclude the literary products
that emerged from the scribal interpretations of prophetic words.
78 HALOT ii 687–88 (with bibliographical references) identifies 222 examples in the OT, of
which 46 are in Numbers and 50 in Joshua : even allowing for their genre, these are striking
statistics.
79 On the relation of Zion to Saphon and Memphis in Psalm 48:3 see Wyatt 1996, 31–33.
This seems to be a conscious appropriation of the omphalic claims of these other world-
centres.
Rather, these should be considered secondary prolongation of the pro-

phetic communication process.
He went on (id., 27) to draw attention to evidence from Wenamun, with
reference to eleventh century prophecy in Byblos, to the inscription of
Zakkur of Hamath (Syria, ca 800 BCE), to the Balaam inscriptions at Deir
Alla (ca 700 BCE), to the contemporary Ammonite citadel oracle and an al-
lusion in P. Amhurst 63, an Aramaic text, as evidence over a considerable
period for West Semitic forms of prophecy.80 Ugarit was thus in no way an
isolated case, but now provides one more piece of the mosaic that scholars
are slowly reconstructing.
80 References in Nissinen 2004, 27 nn. 41–46. Texts cited in Nissinen (ed.) 2003.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED
Aboud, J.
1994 Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit
(FARG 27, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Aistleitner, J.
1939 Die Nikkal-Hymne aus Ras-Schamra, ZDMG 93:52-59.
1964 Die Mythologischen und Kultischen Texte aus Ras Schamra (Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó).
1974 Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache ed. O. Eissfeldt (BVSAWL
Phil.-Hist. Klasse 106 Heft 3, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 19631,
19652, 19673, 19744 ).
Aitken, K. T.
1990 The Aqhat Narrative. A Study in the Narrative Structure and Composi-
tion of an Ugaritic Tale ( JSSM 13, Manchester: Journal of Semitic
Studies).
Albrektson, B.
1967 History and the Gods (HS 5, Lund: Gleerup).
Albright, W.F.
1936 The Canaanite god aurôn ( ôrôn), AJSL 53:1–12.
1938 Recent progress in north-Canaanite research, BASOR 70:18–20.
1941 The Egypto-Canaanite deity aurôn, BASOR 84:7–12.
1942 The creation of the composite bow in Canaanite mythology,
JNES 1: 227–29.
1957 From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City: Doubleday, 2nd
edition).
Allan, R.
1999 Now that summer’s gone: understanding qẓ in KTU 1.24, SEL
16:19-25.
2004 O El ! A Study of Titles and Epithets Attributed to El in West Semitic
Religion, Literature and Personal Names (Edinburgh PhD).
Amiet, P.
1992 Corpus des Cylindres de Ras Shamra-Ougarit II. Sceaux-Cylindres en
Hématite et Pierres Diverses (Paris: ERC).
193
Annus, A.
1999 Are there Greek Rephaim? On the etymology of Greek Meropes
and Titanes, UF 31:13–30.
2001 “Ninurta and the Son of Man,” 7–17 in R. M. Whiting (ed.) My-
thology and Mythologies. Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influ-
ences (MS 2, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project).
2002 The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Meso-
potamia (SAAS 14, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project).
Arnaud, D.
1998 Prolégomènes à la rédaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit ii: les bor-
dereaux de rois divinisés, SMEA 41:153–73.
2001 Textes administratifs religieux et profanes, 323–32 in M. Yon
and D. Arnaud (eds), Etudes Ougaritiques I. Travaux 1985–1995
(RSO 14, Paris: ERC).
Artzi, P.
1999 Ninurta in the mid-second millennium ‘West’, 361–67 in H.
Klengel and J. Renger (eds), Landwirtschaft im alten Orient: Aus-
gewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin,
4.-8.7.1994 (CRRAI 41, BBVO 18, Berlin: Reimer).
Astour, M.C.
1967 Hellenosemitica (Leiden: Brill, 2nd edition).
1968 Two Ugaritic serpent charms, JNES 27:13–36.
Avishur, Y.
1981 The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani
78/20), UF 13:13–25.
Barr, J.
1974–75 Philo of Byblus and his “Phoenician History”, BJRL 57:17–68.
Baumgarten, A.I.
1981 The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblus: a Commentary (EPROER
89, Leiden: Brill).
Beckman, G.
1999 Hittite Diplomatic Texts (WAW 7, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 2nd
edition).
Berger, P.
1973 The Social Reality of Religion (Harmondsworth: Penguin = The Sa-
cred Canopy, 1967).
Binger, T.
1997 Asherah. Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament ( JSOTS
232, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED 195
Bœspflug, F. and F. Dunand (eds)

1997 Le Comparatisme en Histoire des Religions. Actes du Colloque Interna-
tionale de Strasbourg (18–20 Septembre 1996) (Paris: Cerf ).
Böhl, F.M.T. de Liagre
1936 Oud-Babylonische mythen, JEOL 4:194–204.
Bordreuil, P. and A.Caquot
1980 Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à
Ibn Hani, Syria 57:343–73.
Bordreuil, P. and Malbran-Labat, F.
1995 Les archives de la maison d’Ourtenou, CRAIBL 443–9.
Bordreuil, P. and D. Pardee
1982 Le rituel funéraire ougaritique RS 34.126, Syria 59:121–28.
1991 Les textes ougaritiques, 139–68 in RSO 7.
2004 Manuel d’Ougaritique 2 volumes (Paris: Geuthner).
Bowman, C.H. and R.B. Coote
1980 A narrative incantation for snake-bite, UF 12:135–39.
Boyer, P.
1994 The Naturalness of Religious Ideas (Berkeley CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press).
Brody, A.J.
1998 “Each Man Cried out to his God”. The Specialized Religion of Canaanite
and Phoenician Seafarers (HSM 58, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press).
Bronner L.
1968 The Stories of Elijah and Elisha (POS 6, Leiden: Brill).
Brooke, G.J, A.H.W Curtis, and J.F. Healey (eds)
1994 Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Uga-
rit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992 (UBL 11, Münster: Ug-
arit-Verlag).
Burrow, T.
1973 The Proto-Indoaryans, JRAS, 123–40.
Buss, M. J.
1980 The social psychology of prophecy, 1–11 in J.A. Emerton (ed.)
Prophecy. Essays presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-fifth Birthday 6
September 1980 (BZAW 150, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter).
Caquot, A.
1969 Nouveaux documents ougaritiens, Syria 46:241–65.
1975 RS 34.126, ACF 75:427–9.
1978–79 Ras Ibn Hani 78/20, ACF 79:188–90.
1979–80 Horon: revue critique et données nouvelles, AAAS 29–30:173–
80.
1982 Le dieu Horon: bilan critique et données nouvelles, RHR

199:243–44.
1984 Une nouvelle interprétation de la tablette ougaritique de Ras Ibn
Hani 78/20, Orientalia 53:163–76.
1988 Un recueil ougaritique de formules magiques, SEL 5:31–43.
1989 Textes religieux, 7–123 in Caquot, de Tarragon and Cunchillos
1989.
Caquot, A. and A.-S. Dalix
2001 Un Texte Mythico-magique (No. 53), §8.12, 393–405 in M. Yon
and D. Arnaud (eds) Etudes Ougaritiques 1. Travaux 1985–1995,
(RSO 14, Paris: ERC).
Caquot, A. and M. Sznycer
1980 Ugaritic Religion (IR XV 8, Leiden: Brill).
Caquot, A., M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner,
1974 Textes Ougaritiques i: Mythes et Légendes (LAPO 7, Paris: Cerf ).
Caquot, A. J.-M. de Tarragon and J.-L. Cunchillos
1989 Textes Ougaritiques ii: Textes religieux et rituels; Correspondance (LAPO
14, Paris: Cerf).
Carmichael, C.
1997 Law, Legend and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20 (Ithaca NY and
London: Cornell University Press).
Cartledge, T.
1992 Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTS 147,
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Cassuto, U.
1949 Zeus Demarous b ekitbê Ugarit, 65–67 in Baer, Y.F., Y. Gutman
and M.M. Schwabe (eds) Sēfer Dinaburg (Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer).
1970 The Goddess Anath ( Jerusalem: Magnes).
Cathcart, K.
1996 Ilu, Yari u and the One with two horns and a tail, 1–7 in Wyatt,
Watson and Lloyd 1996.
Cathcart, K. and W.G.E. Watson
1980 Weathering a wake: a cure for a carousal. A revised translation
of Ugaritica V text 1, PIBA 4:35–58.
Caubet, A.
1996 La musique à Ougarit: nouveaux témoignages matériels, 9–31 in
Wyatt, Watson and Lloyd 1996.
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.)
1983–85 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 volumes (New York: Double-
day).
Clark, R.
2006 The Multiple Origins of Religion (New York, Oxford: Peter Lang).
Clifford, R.J.
1984 Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic texts and in the Bible, Orientalia
53:183–201.
Cohn, N.R.C.
1957 The Pursuit of the Millen<n>ium (London: Secker & Warburg, re-
printed 1961, 1970).
1967 Warrant for Genocide (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, reprinted 1996).
1975 Europe’s Inner Demons (London: Chatto: Heinemann for Sussex
University Press).
1993 Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come (New Haven: Yale University
Press).
Coogan, M.D.
1978 Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster).
Cooper, A.
1981 Divine names and epithets in the Ugaritic texts, iii 333–469 in
Fisher et al. 1972–81.
Cornelius, I.
1993 Anat and Qudshu as ‘Mistress of Animals’. Aspects of the ico-
nography of the Canaanite goddesses, SEL 10:21–45.
1994 The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal. Late Bronze
and Iron Age Periods (c 1500–1000 BCE) (OBO 140, Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht).
1999 The iconography of Ugarit, 586–602 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess. The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian
Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qadeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE
(OBO 204, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoek and Ruprecht).
Craigie, P.C.
1983 Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Croatto, J.S. and J.A. Soggin
1962 Die Bedeutung von šdmwt im Alten Testament, ZAW 74:44–50.
Cunchillos, J.-L.
1989 Correspondance, 239–421 in Caquot, de Tarragon and Cunchil-
los 1989.
1999 The correspondence of Ugarit, I The Ugaritic letters, 359–74 in
Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Cunchillos, J.-L. and J.P. Vita

1995 Concordancia de Palabras Ugaríticas. Banco de Datos Filologicos Semiticos
Noroocidentales part 1, vols. 1.1–3 (Madrid, Zaragoza: CSIC, Insti-
tución Fernando el Católico).
Curtis, J.B.
1937 An investigation of the Mount of Olives in the Judaeo-Christian
traditions, HUCA 28:157–80.
Cutler, B. and J. Macdonald
1982 On the origin of the Ugaritic text KTU 1.23, UF 14:33–50.
Dahood, M.
1958 Ancient Semitic deities in Syria and Palestine, in S. Moscati (ed.),
Le Antiche Divinità Semitiche (SS 1, Rome: Centro di studi semitici,
Istituto de studi orientali, Università).
1965 Review of PRU V, Orientalia 34:482–84.
1965–70 Psalms (AB 16–17a, 3 volumes, New York: Doubleday).
van Dam, C.
1997 The Urim and Thummim. A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Wi-
nona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns).
Day, J.
1985 God’s Battle with the Dragon and the Sea. Echoes of a Canaanite myth in
the Old Testament (UCOP 35, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
1989 Molech (UCOP 41, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Day, P.L.
1991 Why is Anat a warrior and a hunter? 141–46 in W. Jobling et al.
(eds) The Bible and the politics of exegesis: essays in honor of Norman K.
Gottwald on his sixty-fifth birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press).
1992 Anat: Ugarit’s “mistress of animals”, JNES 51:181–90.
1999 Anat, 36-43 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst 1999.
Dennett, D.
1995 Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Diakonoff, I.M.
1972 Die Arier im Vorderen Orient: Ende eines Mythos (zur Meth-
odik der Erforschung verschollener Sprachen, Orientalia 41:91–
120.
Dietrich, M.
2003 Salmanassar I. von Assyrien, Ibirānu (VI.) von Ugarit und
Tud aliya IV. von atti. RS 34.165 und die Schlacht von Ni rija
zwischen den Hethitern und Assyrern, UF 35:103–39.
1996 Aspects of the Babylonian impact on Ugaritic literature and re-

ligion, 33–47 in Wyatt, Watson and Lloyd 1996.
Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz
1980 Die Bannung von Schlangengift (KTU 1.100 und KTU 1.107:
7b–13a.19b–20), UF 12:153–70.
1981 Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (I). Ein For-
schungsbericht, UF 13:63–100.
1983 Neue Studien zu den Ritualtexten aus Ugarit (II) Nr. 6—
Epigraphische und inhaltliche Probleme in KTU 1.161, UF
15:17–24.
1990 Mantik in Ugarit. Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau—
Omensammlungen—Nekromantie (ALASP 3, Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag).
1991 Grabbeigaben für den verstorbenen König. Bermerkungen zur
Neuausgabe von RS 34.126 = KTU 1.161, UF 23:103–6.
1993 KTU 1.114, ein ‘Palimpsest’, UF 25:133–36.
Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín
1973 Die ugaritischen Verben mrr I, mrr II, mrr III,UF 5:119–22.
1975 RS 4.474 = CTA 30—Schreibübung oder religiöser Text? UF
7:523–24.
1975a Der stichometrische Aufbau von RS 24.258 = Ug. 5, S. 545–551
Nr. 1, UF 7:109–14.
1975b Bemerkungen zur Schlangenbeschwörung RS 24.244, UF 7:121–
25.
1976 Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. (AOAT 24/1, Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and
Bercker 1976. Second edition = The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts
from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places ALASP 8, Münster: Ug-
arit-Verlag 1995).
Dietrich, W.
1994 Der Eine Gott als Symbol Politischen Widerstands. Religion
und Politik im Juda des 7. Jahrhunderts, 463–90 in W. Dietrich
and M.A. Klopfenstein (eds), Ein Gott Allein? JHWH-Verehrung
und Biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der Israelitischen und Altorien-
talischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag;
Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht).
van Dijk, J.
1989 The Canaanite god auron and his cult in Egypt, GM 107:59–
68.
Dijkstra, M.
1989 Marginalia to the Ugaritic letters in KTU (II) (§2: The case of
the lost Niqmaddu, and §3: Another Niqmaddu in the Ugaritic
king list [ KTU 1.113]?), UF 21:145–52.
1998 Astral myth of the birth of Shahar and Shalim, 265–87 in ‘Und
Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf...’. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum
Alten Orient. Festschrift für O. Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Le-
bensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT
250, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
1991 The weather-god on two mountains, UF 23:127–40.
1999 Ugaritic stylistics. I Ugaritic prose, 140–64 in Watson and Wyatt
1999.
Donald, M.
1991 Origins of the Modern Mind (Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press).
Doresse, M.
1971–9 Le dieu voilé dans sa châsse et la fête du début de la décade,
RdE 25 and 31.
Dossin, G.
1950 Le panthéon de Mari, 49–50 in A. Parrot (ed.) Studia Mariana
(DMOA 4, Leiden: Brill).
Doughty, C.M.
1888 Travels in Arabia Deserta (2 volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Drijvers, H.J.W.
1995 Atargatis, cols. 213–16 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der
Horst 1995.
Driver, G.R.
1956 Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Duchesne-Guillemin, M.
1981 Music in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, WA 12:287–97.
Durand, J.-M.
1993 Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en
Mésopotamie, MARI 7:41–61.
Dussaud, R.
1931 Brèves remarques sur les tablettes de Ras Shamra, Syria 12:67–
77.
1931a La mythologie phénicienne d’après les textes de Ras Shamra,
RHR 104:353–408.
1932 Le sanctuaire et les dieux phéniciens de Ras Shamra, RHR

105:245–302.
1935 Le mythe de Baʿal et d’Aleyan d’après des documents nouveaux,
RHR 111:5–65.
Eilberg-Schwartz, H.
1990 The Savage in Judaism (Bloomington IN: Indiana University
Press).
Eissfeldt, O.
1951 El im ugaritischen Pantheon (BVSAWL 98.4, Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag).
1952 Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit (BRA 5, Halle: Nie-
meyer Verlag).
1966 Sohnespflichten im Alten Orient, Syria 43:39–47.
Emery, W.B.
1961 Archaic Egypt (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Evans, R.J.
1997 In Defence of History (London: Granta).
Faulkner, R.O.
1969 The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (London: Oxford University
Press; reprinted Warminster: Aris and Phillips).
1973–78 The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts three volumes (Warminster: Aris
and Phillips) (= 2004, one-volume edition).
1985 The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (London: British Museum).
Feliu, Ll.
2003 The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (HCANE 19, Leiden: Brill).
Fensham, F.C.
1971 Some remarks on the first three mythological texts of Ugaritica
V, UF 3:21–24.
1972 The first Ugaritic texts in Ugaritica V and the Old Testament,
VT 22:296–303.
Fisher, L.R.
1965 Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament, VT 15:313–24.
Fisher, L.R. et al. (eds)
1972–81 Ras Shamra Parallels (3 volumes, vol. 3 S. Rummel ed., AnOr 49–
51, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Fleming, D.E.
1991 The voice of the incantation priest (RIH 78/20), UF 23:141–54.
1992 The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar. A Window on Ancient
Syrian Religion (HSS 42, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press).
1997 Ugaritic incantation against sorcery, 301–2 in Hallo 1997.

Foley, C.M.
1987 Are the ‘Gracious Gods’ bn šrm? UF 19:61–74.
Fontenrose, J.A.
1957 Dagon and El, Oriens 10:277–79.
1959 Python. A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins (Berkeley CA: Uni-
versity of California Press).
Frankfort, H. and H.A.(eds)
1949 Before Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin). (abbreviated from
The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago: Chicago Uni-
versity Press).
Frost, H.
1991 Anchors sacred and profane, 355–410 in Yon 1991.
Gallacher, W.R.
1994 On the identity of Hêlel ben Šahar of Is. 14:12-15, UF 26:131–
46.
Galliano, G. and Calvet, Y. (eds)
2004 Aux origines de l’alphabet. Le royaume d’Ougarit (Paris: Somogy;
Lyon: Musée des Beaux-Arts).
Gaster, T.H.
1946 A Canaanite ritual drama. The spring festival at Ugarit, JAOS
66:49–76.
1950 Thespis (New York: Schuman. Second edition Harper Row
1961).
1950 Ugaritic philology, JAOS 70:8–18.
1961 Thespis (2nd edition 1961, New York: Doubleday, reprinted
1966 Harper).
1975 Sharper than a serpent’s tooth: a Canaanite charm against
snakebite, JANES 7:33–51.
Gibson, J.C.L.
1975 Myth, legend and folklore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat texts,
60–68 in Congress Volume (SVT 25, Leiden: Brill).
1978 Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
1999 The mythological texts, 193–202 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Gifford, E.H.
1903 Eusebius Pamphili Evangeliae Praeparationis Libri XV (Oxford:
Henry Frowde, 4 volumes).
Ginsberg, H.L.
1935 Birth of the gracious and beautiful gods, JRAS 45–72.
1939 Two religious borrowings in Ugaritic literature. I A Hurrian

myth in Semitic dress, Orientalia 8:317–27.
1945a The North-Canaanite myth of Anath and Aqhat i, BASOR 97:3–
10.
1945b The North-Canaanite myth of Anath and Aqhat ii, BASOR
98:15–23.
1946 The Legend of King Keret (BASOR Supplements 2-3, New Haven).
Goetze, A.
1941 The Nikkal poem from Ras Shamra, JBL 60:353–74.
Gordon, C.H.
1937 A marriage of the gods in Canaanite mythology, BASOR 65:29–
33.
1949 Ugaritic Literature (SPIB 98, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
1969 Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
1977 Poetic legends and myths from Ugarit, Berytus 25:5–133.
1995 Sixty years in Ugaritology, 41–46 in M. Yon, M. Sznycer and P.
Bordreuil (eds), Le Pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. (RSO 11,
Paris: ERC).
Grabbe, L.L.
1976 The seasonal pattern and the “Baal cycle”, UF 8:57–63.
1994 “Canaanite”: some methodological observations in relation to
biblical study, 113–22 in Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994.
Graves, R.
1960 The Greek Myths 2 volumes (Harmondsworth: Penguin3 ).
Gray, J.
1949 The Canaanite god Horon, JNES 8:27–34.
1964 The KRT Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra (Leiden: Brill; 2nd
edition).
1965 The Legacy of Canaan (SVT 9, Leiden: Brill, 2nd edition).
Green, A.R.W.
2003 The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (BJS 8, Winona Lake IN:
Eisenbrauns).
Griffiths, J.G.
1996 Triads and Trinity (Cardiff: University of Wales Press).
Grøndahl, P.
1967 Die Personennamen der Texts aus Ugarit (SP 1, Rome: Pontifical Bib-
lical Institute).
Gruppe, O.
1887 Die griechischen Culte und Mythen ihren Beziehungen zu den orientalischen
Religionen (Leipzig: Teubner).
Güterbock, H. G.
1970 Musical notation in Ugarit, RA 64:45–52.
Guthrie, S. E.
1993 Faces in the Clouds. A New Theory of Religion (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press).
Hall, E.S.
1986 The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies (MÄS 44, Munich: Deutscher
Kunstverlag).
Hallo, W. (ed.)
1997 The Context of Scripture 3 volumes (Leiden: Brill).
Handy, K.L.
1994 Among the Host of Heaven (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns).
Haran, M.
1985 Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake IN:
Eisenbrauns 2 ; Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978).
Harrelson, W.
1969 From Fertility Cult to Worship (Garden City NY: Doubleday).
Healey, J.F.
1977 The underworld character of the god Dagan, JNSL 5:43–51.
1979 The pietas of an ideal son in Ugarit, UF 11:353–56.
1985 The Akkadian pantheon-list from Ugarit, SEL 2:115–25.
1999 Dagon, 216–19 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
1999a Mot, 598-603 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
Heidel, A.
1942 The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
Heider, G.C.
1985 The Cult of Molek. A Reassessment (JSOTS 43, Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press).
Heintz, J.-G.
1997 Des textes sémitiques anciens à la Bible hébraïque: un compara-
tisme légitime? 127–56 in Bœspflug and Dunand 1997.
Hendel, R.S.
1987 The Epic of the Patriarch. The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions
of Canaan and Israel (HSM 42, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press).
Herdner, A.
1949 iri ibi et les noces de Yari et de Nikkal, Semitica 2:17–20.
1963 Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras

Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939 2 volumes (MRS 10, BAH 79,
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Geuthner).
Hermann, W.
1960 Die Göttersöhne, ZRGG 12:242–51.
1969 Aštart, MIO 15:6–55.
1982 Die Frage nach Göttergruppen in der religiösen Vorstel-
lungswelt der Kanaanäer, UF 14:93–104.
1999 Baal, 132–39 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst 1999.
1999a El, 274–80 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst 1999.
Hess, R.S.
1999 The onomastics of Ugarit. I Personal names and prosopography,
499–515 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Hettema, T.L.
1989–90 “That it be repeated”. A narrative analysis of KTU 1.23, JEOL
31:77–94.
L’Heureux, C.
1979 Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baʿal and the Rephaʾîm (HSM
21, Missoula MT: Scholars Press).
Hiebert, T.
1996 The Yahwist’s Landscape (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Huehnergard, J.
1999 The correspondence of Ugarit, II The Akkadian letters, 375–89
in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Huffmon, H.B.
1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and Lexical
Study (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Hurtado, L.W.
1988 One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Husser, J.-M.
1995 Culte des ancêtres ou rites funéraires? A propos du ‘catalogue’
des devoirs du fils (KTU 1.17:I-II), UF 27:115–27.
1997 Shapash psychopompe et le pseudo-hymne au soleil (KTU 1.6 vi
42-53), UF 29:227–44.
Hvidberg, F.F.
1962 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Arnold
Busck; ET of Graad og Latter i det Gamle Testament, Copenhagen:
Lunos Boktrykeri 1938).
Hvidberg-Hansen, F.O.
1979 La Déesse Tanit 2 volumes (Copenhagen: Gad).
Jackson, J. J.
1974 Style in Isaiah 28 and a drinking bout of the gods (RS 24.258),
85-98 in J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler (eds) Rhetorical Criticism. Es-
says in Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburgh: Pickwick).
Jackson, J.J. and H.H.P. Dressler
1975 El and the cup of blessing, JAOS 95:99–101.
Jason, H.
1977 Ethnopoetry: Form, Content, Function (FTL 11, Bonn: Linguistica
Biblica).
Jaynes, J.
1976 The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
(Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin, reprinted 1982).
Jirku, A.
1962 Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit (Gütersloh:
Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn).
Johnston, P.S.
2002 Shades of Sheol. Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers
Grove IL: IVP).
Jonas, H.
1963 The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon).
Kaiser, O.
1959 Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel
(BZAW 18, Berlin: de Gruyter).
Kapelrud, A.S.
1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: Gad).
1969 The Violent Goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo: Univer-
sitets Forlaget).
Kemp, B.J.
1989 Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilization (London: Routledge).
Kilmer, A.D.
1974 The cult song with music from ancient Ugarit: another interpre-
tation, RA 68:69–82.
Kilmer, A.D., R.L. Crocker, and R.R. Brown
1976 Sounds from Silence. Recent Discoveries in Ancient Near Eastern Music
(Berkeley: Bit Enki Publications). Includes LP record BTNK
101; side B: A Hurrian Cult Song from Ancient Ugarit.
Kitchen, K.A.
1977 The king-list of Ugarit, UF 9:131–42.
Kloos, C.
1986 YHWH’s Combat with the Sea (Leiden, Amsterdam: Brill).
Koch, K.
1967 Die Sohnesverheissung an den ugaritischen Daniel, ZA 24:211–
21.
1993 Die Geschichte eines Berges und seiner Gottheiten, 171–223 in
B. Janowski, K. Koch and G. Wilhelm (eds) Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament
(OBO 129, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck and Ruprecht).
Kogan, L. and A. Militarev
2004 New etymologies for common Semitic animal names, 144–54 in
G. Takács (ed.), Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies
in Memoriam W. Vycichl (SSLL 39, Leiden: Brill).
Korpel, M.
1990 A Rift in the Clouds (UBL 9, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
1997 Exegesis in the work of Ilimilku of Ugarit, OTS 40:86–111.
Kottsieper, I.
1984 KTU 1.100. Versuch einer Deutung, UF 16:97–110.
Kühne, C.
1975 Mit Glossenkeilen markierte fremde Wörter in akkadischen Uga-
rittexten II, UF 7:253–60.
Lambert, W.G.
1986 Ninurta mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation, 55–60 in
K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld (eds), Keilschriftliche Literaturen.
Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
(BBVO 6, Berlin: Reimer).
de Langhe, R.
1945 Les Textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs Rapports avec le Milieu Bib-
lique de l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Gembloux).
LaRocca-Pitts, E.C.
2001 Of Wood And Stone. The Significance of Israelite Cultic Terms in the
Bible and its Early Interpreters (HSM 61, Winona Lake IN: Eisen-
brauns).
Largement, R.
1949 La Naissance de l’Aurore. Poème Mythologique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit
(ALBO ii 11, Gembloux: Duculot and Louvain: Nauwelaerts).
Laroche, E.
1968 Documents hourrites de Ras Shamra, Ugaritica 5:448–544.
1973 Etudes hourrites: notation musicale, RA 67:124–29.
Launderville, D.
2003 Piety and Politics. The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece,
Biblical Israel and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (Grand Rapids MI:
Eerdmans).
Leclant, J.
1960 Astarté à cheval d’après les représentations égyptiennes, Syria
37:1–67.
Lehmann, M.R.
1983 A new interpretation of the term šdmwt, VT 3:361–71.
Levine, B. A. – de Tarragon, J.-M.
1984 Dead kings and Rephaim: the patrons of the Ugaritic dynasty,
JAOS 104:649–59.
1988 «Shapshu cries out in heaven»: dealing with snake-bites at Ugarit
(KTU 1.100. 1.107), RB 95:481–518.
Levine, B.A., J.-M. de Tarragon, and A. Robertson
1997 The patrons of the Ugaritic dynasty (KTU 1.161), 357–58 in
Hallo 1997 i.
Lévi-Strauss, C.
1988 Structural Anthropology (Harmondsworth: Penguin, reprint).
Lévy-Bruhl, L.
1922 La Mentalité Primitive (Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan).
Lewis, T.J.
1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 59, Atlanta:
Scholars Press).
1996 CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: lion-dragon myths, JAOS 116:28–
47.
Lindblom, J.
1972 Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell).
Lipiński, E.
1967 Le dieu Lim, 151–60 in J.-R. Kupper (ed.) La Civilisation de Mari,
RAI xv (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).
1974 La légende sacrée de la conjuration des morsures de serpents,
UF 6:169–74.
1986 Fertility cult in ancient Ugarit, 207–15 in A. Bonanno (ed.) Ar-
chaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Pre-
sented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient
Mediterranean, the University of Malta 2–5 September 1985 (Amster-
dam: Grüner).
Littauer, M.A. and J.H. Crouwel,

1979 Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (HdO
VII. i 2b Lief. 1, Leiden: Brill).
Lloyd, J.B.
1990 The banquet theme in Ugaritic narrative, UF 22:169–95.
1994 The Goddess Anat: an Examination of the Textual and Iconographic
Evidence from the Second Millennium B.C. (University of Edinburgh
PhD Diss.).
1996 Anat and the ‘double’ massacre of KTU 1.3 ii, 151–65 in Wyatt,
Loewe, M. and Blacker, C.
1981 Divination and Oracles (London: Allen and Unwin).
Loewenstamm, S. E.
1969 Eine lehrhafte ugaritische Trinkburlesque, UF 1:71–78.
Løkkegaard, F.
1953 A plea for El, the bull, and other Ugaritic miscellanies, 219–35
in F.F. Hvidberg (ed.), Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen : septuage-
nario A.D. VII id. nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis discipulis amicis di-
cata (Hauniae: Munksgaard).
1954 Some comments on the Sanchuniaton tradition, ST 8:51–76.
Maier, W. A.
1986 ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37, Atlanta GA: Scholars
Press).
Margalit, B.
1970b A new Ugaritic farce, UF 2:131–38.
1979–80 The Ugaritic feast of the drunken gods: another look at RS
24.258 (KTU 1.114), Maarav 2:65–120.
1980 A Matter of ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ a Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–
5–6 ) (AOAT 206, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, and
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker).
1982 Ugaritic lexicography I, RB 89:418–26.
1989 The Ugaritic Poem of Aqhat (BZAW 182, Berlin: de Gruyter).
1996 Ugaritic ʿttr ʿrẓ and DAPT (I 14) šgr.wʿštr, 179–203 in Wyatt,
1999 The legend of Keret, 203–33 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Margueron, J.
1983 Quelques reflexions sur certaines pratiques funéraires d’Ugarit,
Akkadica 32:5–31.
Margulis, B. (= Margalit, B.)

1970 A Weltbaum in Ugaritic literature? JBL 89:481–82.
Mayer, W.
1996 The Hurrian cult at Ugarit, 205–12 in Wyatt, Watson and Lloyd
1996.
Mays, J.L.
1969 Hosea (OTL, London: SCM).
McLaughlin, J.L.
1991 The marzea at Ugarit, UF 23:265–81.
Meier, S.A.
1986 Baal’s fight with Yam (KTU 1.2.I, IV). A part of the Baal myth
as known in KTU 1.1, 3-6? UF 18: 241–54.
Mercer, S.A.B.
1942 Horus, Royal God of Egypt (Grafton MA: Society for Oriental Re-
search).
Merlo, P. and Xella, P.
1999 The Ugaritic cultic texts, I The rituals, 286–304 in Watson and
Wyatt 1999.
Merrill, A.L.
1968 The house of Keret; a study of the Keret legend, SEÅ 33:5–17.
Mettinger, T.N.D.
1994 Aniconism―a West Semitic context for the Israelite phenome-
non?, 159-78 in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein (eds), Ein
Gott Allein? JHWH-Verehrung und Biblischer Monotheismus im Kon-
text der Israelitischen und Altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO
139, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and
Ruprecht).
Meyer, J.-M.
1990 Zur Interpretation der Leber- und Lungenmodelle aus Ugarit,
241–80 in Dietrich and Loretz 1990.
Michaels, S.
1994 Monotheismus und Fundamentalismus. Eine These und ihre
Gegenthese, 51–57 in W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein (eds),
Ein Gott Allein? JHWH-Verehrung und Biblischer Monotheismus im
Kontext der Israelitischen und Altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO
139, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and
Ruprecht).
Michaud, J.-M. (ed.)
2005 La Bible et l’Héritage d’Ougarit (collection POLO, Sherbrooke,
QU: Éditions GGC).
Milne, P.J.
1988 Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in the Hebrew Bible (BLS 13,
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Mobley, G.
2005 The Empty Men. The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel (ABRL, New
York: Doubleday).
Montet, P.
1935 Un dieu cananéen à Tanis: Houroun de Ramsès, RB 44:153–65
and plates.
1935–37 Les fouilles de Tanis en 1933 et 1934, Kémi 5:1–18 and plates.
de Moor, J.C.
1969 Studies in the new alphabetic texts from Ras Shamra, UF 1:167–
88.
1970 The Semitic pantheon of Ugarit, UF 2:187–228.
1970a B. Margulis on RŠ 24.258, UF 2:347–50.
1971 The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Poem of Baclu according to the Ver-
sion of Ilimilku (AOAT 16, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker).
1972 New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Part One: Description, Part
Two: The Canaanite Sources (Kampen: Kok).
1976 Rāpiʾūma—Rephaim, ZAW 88:323–45.
1981–82 Demons in Canaan, JEOL 27:106–19.
1984 Henbane and KTU 1.114, UF 16:355–56.
1985 ʿAthtartu the huntress (KTU 1.92), UF 17:225–30.
1986 Ugaritic lexicographical notes I, UF 18:255–61.
1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Nisaba 16, Leiden:
Brill).
1988 The seasonal pattern in the legend of Aqhatu, SEL 5:61–78 (FS
O. Loretz).
1997 The Rise of Yahwism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, Uitgeverij
Peeters; second edition).
de Moor, J.C. and K. Spronk
1984 More on demons in Ugarit (KTU 1.82), UF 16:237–50.
Moran, W.L.
1992 The Amarna Letters (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press).
Morenz, S.
1973 Egyptian Religion (London: Methuen).
Moscati, S.
1988 Les Phéniciens (French edition edited by P. Amiet, Milan: Bompi-
ani).
Mullen, T.H.
1979 The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM
24, Chico CA: Scholars).
Na’aman, N.
1990 On gods and scribal traditions in the Amarna letters, UF
22:247–55.
Negbi, O.
1976 Canaanite Gods in Metal (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press).
Neiman, D.
1977 Gihôn and Pishôn: mythological antecedents of the two enig-
matic rivers of Eden, 321–28 in A. Shinan (ed.) Proceedings of the
6th Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies).
Niehr, H.
1997 Zur Semantik von nordwestsemitischen ʿlm als ‘Unterwelt’ und
‘Grab’, 295–305 in B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella
(eds), Ana Šadî Labnāni lū Allik. Festschrift für W. Röllig (AOAT
247, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, Kevelaer: Verlag
Butzon and Bercker).
1999 Baal Zaphon, 152–54 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der
Horst 1999.
Nissinen, M.
2004 What is prophecy? An ancient Near Eastern perspective, 17–37
in J. Kaltner and L. Stulman (eds), Inspired Speech. Prophecy in the
Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon ( JSOTS
378, London: T & T Clark International).
Nissinen, M. (ed.)
2000 Prophecy in its Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Ara-
bian Perspectives (SBLSS 13, Atlanta GA: SBL).
2003 Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12, At-
lanta GA: SBL).
Noll, R.
1994 The Jung Cult (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).
Obermann, J.
1948 Ugaritic Mythology (New Haven CT: Yale University Press).
Olyan, S. M.
1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34, Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press).
Oldenburg, U.
1969 The Conflict between El and Baal in Canaanite religion (Numen Sup-
plements second series 3, Leiden: Brill).
Oesterley, W.O.E. and T.H. Robinson
1937 Hebrew Religion, its Origin and Development (London: SPCK, 2nd
edition).
del Olmo Lete, G.
1981 Mitos y Leyendas de Canaán según la Tradición de Ugarit (Madrid:
Cristiandad).
1987 Los nombres ‘divinos’ de los reyes de Ugarit, AuOr 5:39–69.
1988 Bašan o el ‘infierno’ cananeo, in P. Xella (ed.), Cananea Selecta.
Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zum 60. Geburtstag = SEL 5:51–60.
1992 La Religión Cananea según la Litúrgia de Ugarit (AuOrS 3, Sabadell:
Editorial AUSA).
1999 Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (ET of
1992 revised, Bethesda, MD: CDL Press).
1999a The Ugaritic cultic texts, II the offering lists and god lists, 305–
52 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Otto, R.
1950 The Idea of the Holy (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edi-
tion; ET of Das Heilige, 1917).
Palmer, E.
1991 Land of the Rising sun. The predominant East-West axis among
the early Japanese, Monumenta Japonica 46:69–90.
Pardee, D.
1978 The Semitic root mrr and the etymology of Ugaritic mr (r ) ||
brk *, UF 10:249–88.
1978a A philological and prosodic analysis of the Ugaritic serpent in-
cantation UT 607, JANES 10:73–108.
1988 Les Textes Para-Mythologiques de la 24 e Campagne (1961) (Paris:
ERC).
1991 The structure of RS 1.002, 1181–96 in Kaye, A.S. (ed.) Semitic
Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth
Birthday November 14th, 1991 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
1993 Poetry in Ugaritic ritual texts, 207–18 in J.C. de Moor and
W.G.E. Watson, (eds) Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (AOAT
42, Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag).
1996 Marzi u, Kispu and the Ugaritic funerary cult: a minimalist view,
273–87 in Wyatt, Watson and Lloyd 1996.
1997 West Semitic canonical compositions, 241–85, 287–98, 302–09,
333–56 in Hallo 1997 i.
1997a Review of Brooke et al., Ugarit and the Bible (Münster 1994),
JAOS 117:375–8.
1999 Koshar, 490–91 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
2000 Les Textes Rituels 2 fascicles (RSO 12, Paris: ERC).
2002 Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10, Atlanta GA: SBL).
2007 Review of M.S. Smith 2006, RBL 03/2007.
Parker, S.B.
1972 The Ugaritic deity Rāpiu, UF 4:97–104.
1977 The historical composition of KRT and the cult of El, ZAW
89:161–75.
1979–80 Some methodological principles in Ugaritic philology, Maarav
2:7–41.
1989 The Prebiblical Narrative Tradition. Essays in the Ugaritic Poems Keret
and Aqhat (SBLRBS 24, Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Parker, S.B. (ed.)
1997 Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBLWAW 9, Atlanta GA: SBL).
Parpola, S.
1997 Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press).
Partridge, R.B.
2002 Fighting Pharaohs. Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Egypt (Manches-
ter: Peartree).
Pedersen, J.
1941 Die KRT Legende, Berytus 6:63–105.
Petersen, A.R.
1998 The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit?
( JSOTS 259, CIS 5, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Petersen, D.L and M. Woodward
1977 Northwest Semitic religion, a study of relational structures, UF
9:233–48.
Pitard, W.T.
1978 The Ugaritic funerary text RS 34.126, BASOR 232:65–75.
1987 RS 34.126: notes on the text, Maarav 4:75–86, 111–55.
1994 The “libation” installations of the tombs at Ugarit, BA 57:20–

37.
1999 The Rpum texts, 259-69 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
2007 Just how many monsters did Anat fight (KTU 1.3 III 38–47)?
75-88 in K. Lawson Younger Jr (ed.), Ugarit at Seventy-Five (Wi-
nona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns).
Pitt-Rivers, S.
1977 The Fate of Shechem (CSSA 19, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
van der Plas, D.
1987 Effigies Dei (Studies in the history of religions. Numen book series
51, Leiden: Brill).
Pope, M.H.
1955 El in the Ugaritic Texts (SVT 2, Leiden: Brill).
1965 Baal-Hadad, 253–64 in H.W. Haussig (ed.) Wörterbuch der My-
thologie, vol. 1, Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient (Stuttgart:
Klett).
1972 A divine banquet at Ugarit, 170-203 in J.M. Efird (ed.) The use of
the Old Testament in the New and other essays. Studies in honor of W. F.
Stinespring (Durham NC: Duke University Press).
1977 Notes on the Rephaim texts from Ugarit, 163–82 in M. de Jong
Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J.J. Finkel-
stein (MCAAS 19, Hamden CN: Archon).
1987 The status of El at Ugarit, UF 19:219–30.
Porter, B.N.
2003 Trees, Kings, and Politics. Studies in Assyrian Iconography (OBO 197,
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Rup-
recht).
Porter, J.R.
1981 Ancient Israel, 191–214 in M. Loewe and C. Blacker (eds) Divin-
ation and Oracles (London: Allen and Unwin).
Quirke, S.
2001 The Cult of Ra. Sun worship in ancient Egypt (London: Thames and
Hudson).
Rainey, A.F.
1963 A Canaanite at Ugarit, IEJ 13:43–45.
1965 The kingdom of Ugarit, BA 28:102–25.
1974 The Ugaritic texts in Ugaritica 5, JAOS 94:184–89.
Reynolds, V. and R. Tanner

1983 The Biology of Religion (Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press. 2nd edition, 1995, retitled The Social Ecology of Religion).
Rin, S.
1963 Ugaritic-Old Testament affinities, BZ NF 7.1:22–33; reprinted in
ʿAlilot ha ʾElim ( Jerusalem: Iblan, Israel Society for Biblical Re-
search 1976).
Ringgren, H.
1947 Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities
and Functions in the Ancient Near East (Lund: Ohlssons).
Robertson, E.
1964 The “Urim and Tummim”; what were they? VT 14:67–74.
Robertson Smith, W.
1927 The Religion of the Semites (London: A. and C. Black).
Rogerson, J.
1974 Myth in Old Testament Interpretation (BZAW 134, Berlin: de
Gruyter).
Röllig, W.
1968 Der Gott Lim im amoritischen Pantheon, BZ 12:123–27.
Rouillard, H.
1999 Rephaim, 692–700 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
2005 L’énigme des refāʾîm bibliques résolue grâce aux rapaʾūma
d’Ougarit?, 145–82 in Michaud 2005.
Rüterswörden, U.
1995 Horon, cols. 805–8 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der
Horst 1995.
Saracino, F.
1982 Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and some OT connections, VT 32:429–32.
1984 Appunti in margine a RIH 78/20, SEL 1:69–83.
Sarna, N.
1957 Epic substratum in the prose of Job, JBL 76:13–25.
Sasson, J.M.
1972 Flora, fauna and minerals , 383-452 in Fisher et al. 1972–81 i.
1981 Literary criticism, folklore scholarship, and Ugaritic literature,
81–98 in G.D. Young (ed.) Ugarit in Retrospect. Fifty years of Ugarit
and Ugaritic (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
1966 Nouveaux témoignages du culte de El et de Baal à Ras Shamra
et ailleurs en Syrie-Palestine, Syria 43:1–19.
Schaeffer, C.F.-A.
1934 La stèle de ‘Baʿal au foudre’ de Ras Shamra (Musée du Louvre),
Monument Piot 34:1–18.
1939 Etudes Relatives aux Découvertes de Ras Shamra (BAH 31, MRS 3,
Paris: Geuthner 1939) = (Ugaritica [1]).
Schaeffer-Forrer, C. F.-A.
1983 Corpus des Cylindres-Sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ougarit et d’Enkomi-Alasia
(Paris: ERC).
Schimmel, A-M.
1993 The Mystery of Numbers (Oxford: Oxford University Press: ET of
Das Mysterium der Zahl, Munich: Diederichs, 1984).
Schloen, J.D.
1993 The exile of disinherited kin in KTU 1.12 and KTU 1.23, JNES
52:209–20.
Schmidt, B.B.
1994 Israel’s Beneficent Dead. Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Isra-
elite Religion and Tradition (FAT 11, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr).
Schroer, S.
1983 Zur Deutung der Hand unter den Grabinschrift von Chirbet el
Qôm, UF 15:191–99.
Segal, R.A. (ed.)
1998 The Myth and Ritual Theory. An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell).
Segert, S.
1986 An Ugaritic text related to the fertility cult (KTU 1.23), 217–24
in A. Bonanno (ed.) 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 (Amsterdam: Grüner).
Singer, I.
1999 A political history of Ugarit, 603–733 in Watson and Wyatt
1999.
Smith, M.
1952 The common theology of the ancient near east, JBL 71:135–47.
Smith, M.S.
1985 Kothar wa-Hasis, the Ugaritic Craftsman God (University of Yale
PhD).
1986 Interpreting the Baal cycle, UF 18:313–39.
1994 The Ugaritic Baal Cycle volume 1: Introduction with text, transla-
tion and commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2 (SVT 55: Leiden: Brill).
2001 The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Israel’s Polytheistic Background and

the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
2002 The Early History of God (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans; Dearborn
MI: Dove; second edition).
2006 The Ritual and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT
1.23. Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and
Domination (SBLRBS 51, Atlanta GA: SBL).
van Soldt, W.
1988 The title tʿy, UF 20:313–21.
1989 ʾAtn, prln,ʾAttā/ēnu the Diviner, UF 21:365–8.
1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit. Dating and Grammar (AOAT 40,
Kevelaer: Butzen and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag).
1999 The written sources. I The syllabic Akkadian texts, 28–45 in
Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Spronk, K.
1986 Beatific Vision in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East (AOAT
219, Kevelaer: Butzen and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
1999 The incantations, 270–86 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
Stadelmann, L.I.J.
1970 The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib 39, Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute).
Stadelmann, R.
1967 Syrisch-Palästinische Gottheiten in Ägypten (Leiden: Brill).
Stolz, F.
1999 Sea, 737–42 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst 1999.
de Tarragon, J-M.
1980 Le culte à Ugarit (CRB 19, Paris: Gabalda).
1998 Le rituel ugaritique KTU 1.40: quelques réflexions, 727–32 in
Dietrich and Kottsieper 1998.
Taylor, J.G.
1988 A first and last thing to do in mourning: KTU 1.161 and some
parallels, 151–77 in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the
Lord. Biblical and other studies in memory of Peter C. Craigie ( JSOTS
van der Toorn, K.
1996 Family religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel. Continuity and change in
the Forms of Religious Life (SHCANE 7, Leiden: Brill).
van der Toorn, K., B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst (eds)
1999 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill; second
edition).
Tromp, N.J.
1969 Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testa-
ment (BiOr 21, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Tropper, J.
1989 Nekromantie, Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament
(AOAT 223, Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
1993 Morphologische Besonderheiten des Spätugaritischen, UF
25:389–94.
1994 Is Ugaritic a Canaanite language?, 343–53 in Brooke, Curtis and
Healey 1994.
2000 Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Tsevat, M.
1953 The Ugaritic goddess Nikkal-wIb, JNES 12:61–62.
1954 The Canaanite god Šäla , VT 4:41–49, 322.
1974 Comments on the Ugaritic text UT 52, EI 14:24*–27*.
1979 Der Schlangentext von Ugarit UT 607, UF 11:759–78.
Tsumura, D. T.
1973 A Ugaritic god, MT-W-ŠR, and his two weapons (UT 52:8-11),
UF 5:407–13.
1978 A problem of myth and ritual relationship—CTA 23 (UT
52):56–57 reconsidered, UF 10:387–95.
Vanel, A.
1965 L ’Iconographie du Dieu de l’Orage (CRB 3, Paris: Gabalda).
Virolleaud, C.
1931 Un poème phénicien de Ras Shamra, Syria 12:193-224.
1931a Les cultes phéniciens et syriens au IIe millénaire avant l’ère chré-
tienne, JS 164–73.
1931b La lutte de Môt, fils des dieux et d’Aleïn, fils de Baal, Syria
12:193–244.
1933 La naissance des dieux gracieux et beaux. Poème phénicien de
Ras-Shamra, Syria 14:128–151.
1934 Fragment nouveau du poème de Môt et Aleyn Baal, Syria
15:226–43.
1936 La Légende Phénicienne de Danel: Texte Cunéiforme Alphabétique avec
Transcription et Commentaire (BAH 21, MRS 1, Paris: Geuthner).
1936a Hymne phénicien au dieu Nikal et aux déesses Košarôt prove-

nant de Ras-Shamra, Syria 17:209–28.
1937 Le dieu cananéen oron, RES 1937:36–41.
1937–8 La mythologie phénicienne d’après les poèmes de Ras-Shamra,
AEPHE 5-19.
1965 Textes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques des Archives Est, Ouest et du Petit
Palais (MRS 7, PRU 2, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, Klinksieck).
1968 Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra
(XXIVe campagne, 1961), Ugaritica 5:545–606.
Vorländer, H.
1981 Der Monotheismus Israels als Antwort auf der Krise des Exils,
84–113, 145–48 in B. Lang (ed.) Der Einzige Gott (Munich:
Kösel).
Wainwright, G.A.
1928 The aniconic form of Amun in the New Kingdom, ASAE
28:175–89.
Wakeman, M.K.
1973 God’s Battle with the Monster (Leiden: Brill).
Walls, N.
1992 The goddess Anat in Ugaritic myth (SBLDS 135, Atlanta: Scholars
Press).
Ward, W. A.
1969 La déesse nourricière d’Ugarit, Syria 46:225–39.
Watson, W.G.E.
1990 Comments on KTU 1.114:29’-31’, AuOr 8:265–67.
1992 Imagery in a Ugaritic incantation, UF 24:367–68.
1994 Aspects of style in KTU 1.23, SEL 11:3–8.
2004 An Egyptian cognate for Ugaritic WY (II)? 155-59 in G.
Takács (ed.) Egyptian and Semito-Hamito (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in
Memoriam W. Vycichl (Leiden: Brill).
Watson, W.G.E. and N. Wyatt
1997 De nouveau sur les armes cérémonielles, NABU 1997 1:27–28
Watson, W.G.E. and N. Wyatt (eds)
1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HdO, Series I vol. 39, Leiden: Brill).
Weill, R.
1958 Le dieu cananéen wrwn, sous les traits de Horus-faucon chez
les Ramessides, RE 3:167–68.
Wensinck, A. J.
1916 The Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth
(Verhandelingen der Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen
te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde NS xvii 1, Amsterdam:

Müller).
1918 The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites (Verhandelingen
der Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam,
Afdeeling Letterkunde NS xix 2, Amsterdam: Müller).
Whitaker, R.E.
1972 A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press).
Wiggerman, F.A.M.
1989 Tišpak, his seal, and the dragon muš uššu, 117–33 in O. M. C.
Haex, H.H. Curvers and P.M.M.G. Ackermans (eds) To the Eu-
phrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits van
Loon (Rotterdam: Brookfield).
Wiggins, S. A.
1991 The myth of Lady Asherah: lion lady and serpent goddess, UF
23:383–94.
1993 A reassessment of ‘Asherah’ (AOAT 235, Kevelaer: Butzen and
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Wilhelm, G.
1989 The Hurrians (Warminster: Aris and Phillips).
Wright, D.P.
2001 Ritual in Narrative. The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retalia-
tion Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona Lake IN: Eisen-
brauns).
Wright R. M.
1994 Egyptian npp: a cognate for Ugaritic mpr ‘convulsion’, UF
26:539–41.
Wulstan, D.
1974 Music from ancient Ugarit, RA 68:125–28.
Wyatt, N.
1977 The identity of Mt w Šr, UF 9:379–81.
1978 The problem of the “god of the fathers”, ZAW 90 (1978) 101–
04 = 2005a, 1–5.
1979 The Development of the tradition in Exodus 3, ZAW 91:437–
442 = 2005a, 6-12.
1980 The relationship of the deities Dagan and Hadad, UF 12:375–
79.
1983 The stela of the seated god from Ugarit, UF 15:271–77.
1983a A suggested historical context for the Keret story, UF 15:316–18.
1984 The Anat stela from Ugarit and its ramifications, UF 16: 327–37.
1985 Possible Indo-European influence in Ugaritic thought, UF
17:371–74.
1985a “Araunah the Jebusite” and the throne of David, ST 39:39–53 =
2005b, 1–12.
1985b “Jedidiah” and cognate forms as a title of royal legitim[iz]ation,
Biblica 66:112–25 = 2005b, 13–22.
1985c Killing and cosmogony in Canaanite and biblical thought, UF
17:375–81.
1986 The Significance of the Burning Bush, VT 36:361–65 = 2005a,
13–17.
1987 Sea and desert: symbolic geography in West Semitic religious
thought, UF 19:375–89 = 2005a, 38–54.
1987a Who killed the dragon?, AuOr 5:185–98 = 2005a, 18–37.
1987b Baal’s boars, UF 19:391–98.
1988 When Adam delved: the meaning of Genesis III 23, VT 38:117–
22 = 2005b, 55–59.
1988a The source of the Ugaritic myth of the conflict of Baʿal and the
sea, UF 20:375–85.
1989 Quaternities in the mythology of Baal, UF 21:451–59.
1989a Near eastern echoes of Aryan tradition, SMSR 55 (NS 13):5–29.
1990 The story of Dinah and Shechem, UF 22:434–58.
1990a Symbols of exile, SEÅ 55:39–58 = 2005a, 55–71.
1990b “Supposing him to be the gardener” (John 20, 15): a study of the
Paradise motif in John, ZNW 25:21–38 = 2005b, 61–76.
1990c A further weapon for Baal? UF 22:459–65.
1990d Where did Jacob dream his dream? SJOT 1990 ii:44–57.
1992 Of calves and kings: the Canaanite dimension in Israelite relig-
ion, SJOT 6:68–91 = 2005a, 72–91.
1992a The titles of the Ugaritic storm-god, UF 24:403–24.
1992b The pruning of the vine in KTU 1.23, UF 24:426–30.
1994 The meaning of El Roi and the mythological dimension of
Genesis 16, SJOT 8:141-51 = 2005b, 77–84.
1994a The theogony motif in Ugarit and the Bible, 395–419 in G.J.
Brooke, A.H.W. Curtis and J.F. Healey (eds) Ugarit and the Bible
(UBL 11, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 1994) = 2005b, 85–101.
1995 The liturgical context of Psalm 19 and its mythical and ritual
origins, UF 27:559-96 = 2005b, 103–31.
1995a The significance of ṣpn in West Semitic thought, 213–37 in M.
Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds) Ugarit: ein Ostmediterranes Kulturzen-
trum im Alten Orient (ALASP 7, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag) = 2005a,

102–24.
1996 Myths of Power. A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and
Biblical Tradition (UBL 13, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,).
1996a Le centre du monde dans les littératures d’Ougarit et d’Israël,
JNSL 21:123–42.
1996b The vocabulary and neurology of orientation: the Ugaritic and
Hebrew evidence, 351–80 in N. Wyatt, W.G.E. Watson and J.
B. Lloyd (eds) Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture Edinburgh July 1994.
Essays in Honour of Professor J.C.L. Gibson. (UBL 12, Münster: Ug-
arit-Verlag) = 2005a, 125–50.
1997 Ilimilku’s ideological programme: Ugaritic royal propaganda, and
a biblical postscript, UF 29:775–96 = 2005b, 133–49.
1998 Arms and the king: the earliest allusions to the Chaoskampf motif
and their implications for the interpretation of the Ugaritic and
biblical traditions, 833–82 in M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (eds)
‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf...’. Studien zum Alten Testament und
zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für O. Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70.
Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT
250, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag) = 2005b, 151–89.
1999 Degrees of divinity: mythical and ritual aspects of West Semitic
kingship, UF 31:853–87 = 2005b, 191–220. (Extended version
of Just how “divine” were the kings of Ugarit? 133–41 in J. San-
martín, M. Molina and I. M. Rowe (eds) Arbor Scientiae. Estudios
del próximo Oriente Antiguo dedicados a Gregorio del Olmo Lete con
ocasión de su 65 aniversario (AuOr 17–8, Madrid: CSIC 2000).
1999a The Story of Aqhat (KTU 1.17–19), 234–58 in W.G.E. Watson
and N. Wyatt (eds) Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HdO I 39, Lei-
den: Brill, 1999).
1999b The religion of Ugarit: an overview, 529–85 in Watson and
Wyatt 1999.
1999c Asherah, 99–105 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
1999d Astarte, 109–14 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
1999e Kinnaru, 488 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
2001 Space and Time in the Religious Life of the < Ancient > Near East (BS
2001a The mythic mind, SJOT 15 :3–56 = 2005a, 151–88.

2002 Religious Texts from Ugarit (BS 53, London: Continuum, 2nd edi-
tion)
2002a “Ilimilku the theologian: the ideological roles of Athtar and Baal
in KTU 1.1 and 1.6, 845–56 in Oswald Loretz, K. Metzler and
H. Schaudig (eds) Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Man-
fried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 6.11.2000… (AOAT 281,
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
2003 ‘Water, water everywhere…’: Musings on the aqueous myths of
the Near East, 211–57 in D. A. González Blanco, J. P. Vita and
J. A. Zamora (eds) De la Tablilla a la Inteligencia Artificial. Homenaje
al Prof. Jesús Luis Cunchillos en su 65 aniversario (Zaragoza: Instituto
de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo) = 2005a, 189–
237.
2004 Review of M.S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, JNES
63:291–95.
2005 Le mariage et le meurtre: stratégies royales au Levant, 213–44 in
J.-M. Michaud (ed.) La Bible et l’Héritage d’Ougarit (collection
POLO, Sherbrooke, QU: Éditions GGC). ET as ‘Marriage,
mayhem and murder: an everyday story of royal folk’, in 2005b,
231–51.
2005a The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology in Ugaritic and Old Testament
Literature (London: Equinox).
2005b ‘ There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas
Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature
(SOTS Monograph Series, London: Ashgate).
2005c The Religious Role of the King at Ugarit, UF 37:695–728 = ed-
ited version, 41–74 in K. Lawson Younger Jr (ed.), Ugarit at Sev-
enty-Five (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007).
2006 The Seventy Sons of Athirat, the Nations of the World, Deuter-
onomy 32.6b, 8–9, and the Myth of Divine Election’, 547–56 in
R. Rezetko, T.H. Lim and W.B. Aucker (eds.), Reflection and Re-
fraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld
(SVT 113; Leiden: Brill).
forthcoming
A la recherche des Rephaïm perdus, in J-M. Michaud (ed.), Le
Royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Euphrate. Nouveaux Axes de Re-
cherche (collection POLO, Sherbrooke, QC: Éditions GGC) =
forthcoming a, chapter 3.
forthcoming a
The Archaeology of Myth. Papers on Old Testament Tradition (London:
Equinox 2008).
Wyatt, N., W.G.E. Watson and J.B. Lloyd (eds)
1996 Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Proceedings of the International Colloquium
on Ugarit, Religion and Culture Edinburgh July 1994. Essays in Honour
of Professor J. C. L. Gibson (UBL 12, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Xella, P.
1972 Per una riconsiderazione della morfologia del dio Horon, AION
32:271–86.
1973 Il mito di Š R e ŠLM. Saggio sulla mitologia ugaritica (SS 44, Rome:
Centro di Studi Semitici).
1977 Studi sulla religione della Siria antica. I El e il vino (RS 24.258),
SSR 1:229–61.
1978 Un testo ugaritico recente (RS 24.266, Verso, 9–19) e il ‘sacrifi-
cio dei primi nati’, RSF 6:127–36.
1981 I Testi Rituali di Ugarit (SS 24, Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino
Oriente).
1982 Gli Antenati di Dio (Verona: Essedue).
1988 D’Ugarit à la Phénicie: sur les traces de Rashap, Horon, Esh-
mun, WO 19:45–64.
1996 Les pouvoirs du dieu ʿAttar, 381–404 in Wyatt, Watson and
Lloyd 1996.
1999 The omen texts, 353–58 in Watson and Wyatt 1999.
1999a Reshef, 700–3 in van der Toorn, Becking and van der Horst
1999.
Yadin, Y.
1975 Hazor (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson).
Yon, M. (ed.)
1991 Arts et Industries de la Pierre (RSO 6, Paris: ERC).
1991a Réalités agraires et mythologie d’Ougarit, 53–68 in M-C. Cauvin
(ed.) Rites et Rythmes Agraires (TMO 20, Lyon: Maison de l’Orient
Méditerranéen).
Yon, M. and J. Gachet
1989 Une statuette du dieu El à Ougarit, Syria 66:349.
Young, D. W.
1977 With snakes and dates: a sacred marriage drama at Ugarit, UF
9:291–314.
1979 The Ugaritic myth of the god oron, UF 11:839–48.
Zatelli, I.
1998 The origin of the biblical scapegoat ritual: the evidence of two
Eblaite texts, VT 48:254–63.
van Zijl, P. J.
1972 Baal. A study of Texts in connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics
(AOAT 10, Kevelaer: Butzen and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
INDEX
Abraham, 185, 187, 188 Astarte, 18, 19, 95, 145, 197, 223
acculturation, 50 Athtar, 31, 58, 67, 74, 95, 101, 146,
Akkadian, xii, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 224
24, 29, 48, 67, 74, 86, 92, 93, 100, Athtart, 14, 18, 19, 33, 39, 63, 67, 70,
101, 162, 179, 204, 205, 218 72, 74, 95, 128, 138, 140, 145,
aliyn, 9, 10, 27 156, 160, 165
Ammithtamru, 179 atonement, 121, 122, 123, 145
ʿAmmurapi, 133 Attart, 1
Amorite, 28, 48, 61, 86, 101, 103, Atum, 99
185, 205 axe, 10, 160
Amos, 151, 168 Baal, vi, 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Amun, 57, 99, 159, 220 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24,
Anat, 1, 12, 14, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 35, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
52, 54, 63, 65, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 52,
90, 95, 97, 99, 104, 116, 128, 134, 54, 55, 58, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70,
135, 138, 140, 145, 146, 149, 152, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 88, 89, 90, 91,
156, 157, 158, 160, 165, 190, 197, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104,
198, 206, 209, 215, 220, 221 108, 109, 118, 122, 124, 128, 129,
anchor, 76 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139,
aniconism, 57 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149,
apotropaic, 79 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158,
Aqhat, vi, 32, 37, 66, 77, 104, 108, 160, 165, 168, 170, 178, 181, 182,
109, 119, 123, 127, 129, 131, 133, 183, 190, 191, 201, 203, 205, 206,
134, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 151, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217,
152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 165, 168, 219, 222, 224, 226
176, 177, 180, 188, 191, 193, 202, Baal cycle, 89, 108, 143, 144, 145
203, 209, 214, 221, 223 Babylonian, 73, 82, 83, 103, 114,
Arad, 92 122, 188, 199, 204, 207, 208
Asherah, 100, 190, 194, 197, 213, Bashan, 39, 161
221, 223 Beersheba, 185, 186, 187, 189
Ashtarot, 39, 161 Bethel, 58, 185, 186
assembly, 13, 67, 74, 76, 122, 126, bine, 2
146, 171, 172, 174, 177 binomial, 9, 66, 87
Assyria, xiv, 170, 181, 188 bull, 26, 34, 35, 58, 137, 209
227
Chaoskampf, 63, 64, 102, 103, 107, enthronement, 89, 101, 153, 172,
108, 144, 147, 151, 159, 223 177, 178
chariot, 34, 35, 36 Ethiopia, 90
charioteer, 33, 35 Eusebius, 18, 19, 202
chiastic, 9, 25, 76, 77, 94, 108, 175 falcon, 16, 138, 149, 160, 162, 163,
circumcision, 42, 43, 44, 115 164, 165
cosmic policeman, 11 fertility, 41, 42, 62, 70, 96, 97, 101,
crown, 35, 128, 137, 138 103, 113, 120, 135, 177, 217
curse, 32, 109, 127, 128, 129, 130, field, 7, 3, 26, 49, 58, 83, 157
149, 152, 155, 158, 160, 165 Gideon, 186, 187, 188
Cyprus, 159 Gihon, 90
Dagan, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 25, goblet, 126, 171, 174, 177
26, 28, 48, 65, 74, 91, 95, 135, Gomorrah, 3
160, 201, 204, 221 grapes, 2, 3, 42
Daniel, 27, 188, 207 h locale, 2
David, 152, 179, 189, 222 Habakkuk, 3, 4
Deborah, 185, 186, 187, 188 Hadad, 10, 18, 21, 101, 215, 221
Demarous, 18, 19, 196 Hadd, 18, 21, 39, 63, 101
Deuteronomy, 2, 3, 39, 47, 117, 120, Hathor, 160, 166
129, 135, 161, 175, 182, 184, 186, Hazor , 35, 58, 91, 225
190, 224 Hebrew, xi, xii, xiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 14,
Didanu, 144, 148 16, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 44,
Dinah, 115, 222 47, 53, 55, 58, 61, 63, 79, 82, 83,
donkey, 33, 122 90, 92, 96, 100, 103, 106, 140,
dowager, 101 157, 162, 182, 186, 187, 196, 211,
Ebla, 91, 123 212, 213, 218, 223
Eden, 90, 212 Hebron, 179, 185, 189
Edrei, 39, 117, 161, 179 henotheism, 53, 54, 55, 62
Egyptian, 52, 72, 73, 76, 81, 86, 89, Herakles, 18
92, 94, 100, 118, 120, 134, 136, hero, 10, 20, 102, 129, 165, 177
138, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, Heshbon, 3
165, 201, 207, 211, 220, 221 hieros gamos, 42, 113
El, vi, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, Horon, vi, 30, 78, 95, 105, 128, 132,
22, 26, 30, 31, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,
48, 52, 54, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 165, 166, 195, 196, 203, 216, 225
67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, Horus, 16, 30, 160, 161, 162, 163,
89, 90, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 164, 165, 166, 210, 220
104, 111, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, Hurrian, 43, 48, 73, 86, 94, 114, 136,
124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 134, 148, 202, 206, 210
135, 137, 140, 146, 147, 148, 149, Hurriya, 109, 148, 152, 172
152, 160, 167, 170, 171, 174, 177, hymn, 10, 37, 54, 114, 136
179, 185, 191, 193, 201, 202, 205, hypostatization, 52
206, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 222, Ilhu, 32, 148
225 ilib , 8, 74, 75, 76
INDEX 229
Ilimilku, vi, 103, 108, 109, 120, 133, Nebuchadrezzar, 188

145, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, Nergal, 62
158, 160, 165, 176, 177, 207, 211, Nikkal, 73, 114, 151, 152, 180, 193,
223, 224 203, 204, 219
immortality, 149, 152 Niqmaddu, 109, 133, 150, 151, 152,
Ishtar, 16, 89, 169 179, 200
Isis, 160, 163, 164 oak, 185, 186, 187, 188
Jacob, 185, 204, 222 Og, 39, 117, 161, 179
Jerusalem, 4, 51, 90, 92, 115, 159, omphalos, 88
186, 189, 191, 196, 212, 216 Ophrah, 186, 189
Jonathan, 180 Osiris, 160, 163, 164
Karnak, 158 Ouranos, 18, 19
Keret, 13, 32, 34, 35, 68, 71, 77, 78, Pabil, 147, 148
81, 108, 109, 116, 117, 118, 119, palace, 31, 55, 73, 89, 91, 103, 109,
122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 115, 119, 124, 131, 140, 146, 147,
132, 133, 134, 135, 143, 144, 145, 151, 160, 191
147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, pantheon, 7, 14, 15, 48, 52, 54, 57,
157, 158, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72, 73,
174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 87, 89, 91, 93,
181, 191, 202, 203, 209, 210, 214, 94, 95, 98, 102, 104, 117, 121,
221 158, 178, 204, 211
Kidron, 4 paternity, 12, 19, 100
kispum, 133, 149, 178 pestilence, 52, 78, 97
Kothar, 12, 35, 73, 74, 90, 96, 146, poison, 3, 20
149, 155, 160, 217 Pontos, 18, 19
Kotharat, 74, 114 pregnancy, 67, 112, 180
Kronos, 18, 19 prune, 1, 41
Lachish, 92 psychopomp, 134, 162, 164
Luxor, 158 Pughat, 66, 130, 149
LXX, 4, 180 Punic, 37, 100
marriage, 21, 43, 44, 101, 107, 113, purification, 111, 121, 129
114, 120, 139, 148, 151, 152, 172, Ra, 88, 159, 160, 163, 166, 215
176, 203, 225 Rachel, 185
Mars, 62, 67 Rahmay, 66, 100, 101, 111, 112, 116,
Melqart, 18, 19 117, 126, 174
menorah, 189 Rainy, 14, 23, 25, 36
Milku, 178 Rapiu, 38, 75, 96, 161, 178, 179
Mittanni, 48, 148 Rapiuma, 177, 178, 179, 191
Moreh, 185 Rephaim, 96, 117, 161, 179, 194,
Moses, 53, 81, 186, 187 208, 211, 215, 216
Mot, 2, 5, 10, 19, 20, 28, 31, 38, 43, Reshef, 27, 52, 62, 67, 69, 74, 78, 79,
62, 65, 77, 79, 98, 102, 103, 104, 96, 97, 105, 138, 160, 197, 225
108, 146, 147, 151, 204, 209 resurrection, 28, 150
Narmer, 158, 160
rpum, 70, 75, 117, 118, 127, 132, 134, terebinth, 64, 185, 187, 188, 189
149, 175, 178 terrace, 2, 3
sacrifice, 42, 67, 111, 121, 134, 140, theology, 7, 8, 40, 47, 53, 59, 63, 78,
149, 159 86, 87, 93, 94, 97, 102, 104, 105,
Sanskrit, 61, 92, 148 109, 119, 122, 130, 183, 217
Sarah, 185 theophany, 36, 129, 185, 186, 187,
Saul, 180, 189 191
seasonal, 7, 119, 135, 149, 203, 211 Thukamun, 121, 122
Seth, 101, 138, 163, 165 thunder, 21, 101
Shalem, 31, 74, 76, 111, 112, 160 Transjordan, 39
Shamash, 62 triad, 18, 19, 75, 76, 100
Shanim, 121, 122 Troy, 144, 152
Shapash, 205 Tummim, 179, 180, 181, 216
Shechem, 43, 115, 184, 187, 189, Urim, 179, 180, 181, 189, 198, 216
215, 222 Urtenu, 109, 151
shoots, 3, 4, 41, 43 Valiant, 9, 36, 54
Sibmah, 3 Venus, 66, 130
skull, 135, 156, 158 vine, 1, 2, 3, 4, 41, 42, 43, 44, 222
Sodom, 3 viticultural, 3
Š-stem, 2 warrior, 10, 35, 97, 198
stars, 66, 130, 181 wedding, 114, 151, 176
stela, 31, 101, 124, 137, 138, 183, 221 wine, 2, 64, 119, 124, 133
steppe, 32, 78, 111, 134 Yahweh, 19, 61, 62, 63, 80, 92, 100,
stichometry, 9, 22, 23 105, 168, 179, 180, 185, 186, 188,
storm-god, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21, 33, 189, 213
34, 37, 38, 39, 90, 101, 129, 145, Yam, 1, 10, 18, 19, 25, 27, 31, 55, 58,
155, 222 67, 69, 74, 96, 98, 99, 101, 103,
tamarisk, 185, 187, 189 104, 108, 128, 138, 146, 147, 155,
Tempest, 23, 25, 26, 135 156, 165, 210
temple, 16, 31, 33, 55, 64, 73, 88, 90, Yarih, 27, 66, 67, 71, 74, 96, 114, 160
91, 94, 103, 109, 115, 119, 120, Yasib, 109, 116, 117, 126, 128, 131,
137, 139, 147, 149, 150, 151, 158, 148, 152
186 Yatipan, 149, 156, 157, 158
tendril, 2, 41 Zeus, 18, 19, 61, 98, 99, 147, 196
231

Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORD OF TREE AND WHISPER OF

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

AAAS Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes

UBL Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur

First published in JSS 37 (1992) 149–53.

they caused his šdmt to fall like a vine.2

2 Translation modified in accordance with Wyatt 2002, 327.

as masculine singular with suffix?—in Genesis 49:11.) If we now apply this

wʾyn ybwl bgpnym

tJ ™mpeurismJ, clearly interpreting the Hebrew to mean a burning-ground.

First published in UF 24 (1992) 403–24.

ling the macrocosmic universe, with Baal in control of a subordinate sphere,

my stichometry presupposes an anomalous shift to a staccato rhythm, it

22 See Hermann 1960; id., 1982.

In terms of the combination of words to develop more complex ideas,

later insistence on a pan-biblical monotheism—but “gods”, ʾēlîm is to be construed not as

31 Kapelrud 1952, 57–58; van Ziji 1972, 332–36.

of the significance of the mountain in Ugaritic religious thought—it is ap-

bqdš bǵr n lty in the sanctuary, the rock of my inheritance,

2005a, 102–24. Cf. DUL ii 788, ṣapunu .

It is difficult to match the confusing genealogies of Eusebius’ account,

41 Cf. Løkkegaard 1954; Barr 1974–75; Baumgarten 1981.

possibility, but translated it as “our onset” in his text, relating it to Arabic

46 Driver 1956, 101, 154 n. 24.

“venomous”: “a kind of serpent”). DUL ii 830: “poisoning”, “poison”.

53 Kapelrud 1952, 50–52; van Zijl 1972, 346–51.

Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975, 524.

bʿl mt Baal is dead!

69 Del Olmo Lete 1981, 542.

the one whom you obey, 73 Tempest!

ure). If this is felt to be a problem, we may posit an earlier form such as

76For explanation of this see Wyatt 1980, 378.

15 zbl bʿl arṣ81

78 Occurring only in the Niphal stem: BDB 367; Daniel 9:24.

87 See Wyatt 1980, 377.

Widow of the Li’mites”.

94 De Moor 1969, 183.

the top of the temple”:

are to be associated primarily with the presence of Proto-Indo-Āryans in

113 Vanel 1965. (See now Green 2003, 152.)

(here “Proto-Indo-Āryan”) see Burrow 1973.

lk lk ʿnn ilm Go, go, Cloud(s) of the god!

w nǵr ʿnn ilm but take care, Cloud(s) of the god!

Other possible and dubious titles 130

2 3 bʿl mrym ṣpn and bʿl (b)ṣrrt ṣpn

130 Cf. n. 29.

sions, or “superlatives”, versions of bʿl ṣpn (§9 above). The occurrences of

Given the ingenuity of scholars and the continued trickle of textual

First published in UF 24 (1992) 425–7.

1 Cf. my slightly modified translation in Wyatt 2002, 326–27:

4 Eilberg-Schwarz 1990, 141–48.

insufficiently informed about Canaanite (or Ugaritian) circumcision rites12

First published in JHC 5 (1998) 24–63.

problems. It invites such further questions as the applicability of neurosci-

THE EXPERIENCE OF POLYTHEISM

5 The bold attempt of Jaynes 1976 deserves mention.

To insist on a perceived relativity as some kind of disqualification of the

7 As an analogy we may compare it with the question of drawing cosmological conclusions

reader, must be judged a failure in the light of recent palaeo-psychological

evolutionary psychologists and palaeoanthropologists which promises us serious advances in

traordinary power might be stolen or otherwise acquired by another cul-

15 For the classic analysis see Otto 1950.

times over in unsung or unrecorded situations, known only to the immedi-