Mandarin Companion - The Secret Garden (Sample)
Mandarin Companion - The Secret Garden (Sample)
Mandarin Companion - The Secret Garden (Sample)
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
Edited by the Board of the Quarterly
H.M. Barstad – R.P. Gordon – A. Hurvitz – G.N. Knoppers
A. van der Kooij – A. Lemaire – C.A. Newsom – H. Spieckermann
J. Trebolle Barrera – H.G.M. Williamson
VOLUME 114
The Ugaritic Baal Cycle
Volume II
By
Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
LCCN: 94031618
ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 978 90 04 15348 6
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... xv
Citations, Abbreviations and Sigla ............................................. xxi
Preface ......................................................................................... xxix
The Format of This Volume .................................................. xxix
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
Research on the Baal Cycle Since 1994 ................................ 4
Textual Matters ....................................................................... 7
Authorship and Date of the Tablets .................................. 7
The Order of the Tablets and their Narrative and
Thematic Continuity ...................................................... 9
Literary History and Social Setting ................................... 10
Verbal Syntax in the Baal Cycle ............................................ 22
Narrative ............................................................................. 23
Direct Discourse ................................................................. 29
1.3 III–1.4 VII: The Building Narrative and the Role of
Etiquette in Its Structure .................................................... 35
Divine Geography and Family Relations in the Baal Cycle ... 41
The Abodes of the Gods ................................................... 42
Divine Time ........................................................................ 44
The Divine Family .............................................................. 46
El’s Relationship to Baal’s Enemies ................................... 52
Divine Reality in the City of Ugarit ................................. 55
Like Deities, like Temples (Like People): Baal’s Palace and
Its Reflection on Earth ....................................................... 58
Intersection: Ownership, Presence, Fertility and
Revelation ....................................................................... 58
Divine Narrative and Divine Abode .................................. 59
Participation: The Character of the Deity as Reflected
in the Temple .................................................................. 61
Analogy (and/or Homology): Temple and Deity .............. 63
Human Need and Divine Help ......................................... 66
CAT 1.3 IV
Bibliography ............................................................................ 267
Text ......................................................................................... 267
Textual Notes .......................................................................... 268
The Small Fragment of the End of the Column ............. 274
Text Restored and Set in Poetic Form ................................... 275
Translation and Vocalized Text .............................................. 277
Commentary ........................................................................... 282
Poetic Parallelism and Word/Syllable Counts ................... 283
Introduction ........................................................................ 289
Lines 1–5: Anat’s Reaction to the Messengers’ Arrival
(Continued) ..................................................................... 289
Lines 5–20: Baal’s Message to Anat .................................. 294
Lines 21–36: Anat’s Answer ............................................... 295
Lines 37–55: Anat’s Travel to Baal and Their Meeting ... 301
CAT 1.3 V
Bibliography ............................................................................ 315
Text ......................................................................................... 315
Textual Notes .......................................................................... 316
Text Restored and Set in Poetic Form ................................... 323
Translation and Vocalized Text .............................................. 324
Commentary ........................................................................... 328
Poetic Parallelism and Word/Syllable Counts ................... 328
Introduction ........................................................................ 334
Lines 1–4: Anat’s Response to Baal (Concluded) .............. 334
Lines 4–9: Anat’s Journey to El ......................................... 335
Lines 10–25: El’s Response and Anat’s Threat ................. 342
Lines 25–44: El’s Answer and Anat’s Plea ........................ 351
x contents
CAT 1.4 IV
Bibliography ............................................................................ 485
Text ......................................................................................... 485
Textual Notes .......................................................................... 487
Text Restored and Set in Poetic Form ................................... 490
Translation and Vocalized Text .............................................. 492
Commentary ........................................................................... 495
Poetic Parallelism and Word/Syllable Counts ................... 495
Introduction ........................................................................ 501
Lines 1–19: Athirat’s Travel Preparations .......................... 502
Lines 20–30: Athirat’s Journey and Arrival at El’s
Abode .............................................................................. 515
Lines 30–62: El’s Greeting and Athirat’s Plea ................... 519
CAT 1.4 V
Bibliography ............................................................................ 529
Text ......................................................................................... 529
Textual Notes .......................................................................... 531
Text Restored and Set in Poetic Form ................................... 535
Translation and Vocalized Text .............................................. 537
Commentary ........................................................................... 541
Poetic Parallelism and Word/Syllable Counts ................... 541
Introduction ........................................................................ 549
Lines 2–19: Athirat’s Proclamation of the Palace
for Baal ............................................................................ 553
Lines 20–35: Anat’s Delivery of the News to Baal ........... 570
Lines 35–65: Baal’s Preparations for the Building of
His Palace ....................................................................... 572
xii contents
CAT 1.4 VI
Bibliography ............................................................................ 583
Text ......................................................................................... 583
Textual Notes .......................................................................... 585
Text Restored and Set in Poetic Form ................................... 591
Translation and Vocalized Text .............................................. 592
Commentary ........................................................................... 595
Poetic Parallelism and Word/Syllable Counts ................... 595
Introduction ........................................................................ 601
Lines 1–15: The Debate Over the Window Continues ...... 602
Lines 16–38: The Construction of the Palace .................. 610
Excursus II: Brick-Making in Pre-Industrial Cultures ....... 623
Lines 38–59: The Banquet Celebrating Baal’s Palace ...... 625
Indexes
Mark Smith:
A great deal of work on this commentary was conducted in tandem
with the first volume of this commentary, published in 1994 under the
title, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1. As a result, all the thanks expressed
in that volume applies equally to this one. Moreover, many persons
and organizations have supported this work since 1994. Marvin Pope,
as usual, stood at the forefront of the list until his death in 1997. He
constantly offered encouragement. Moreover, he provided a copy of
his unpublished translation and notes to 1.4 I–VIII, and I am grateful
for his permission to use that material (notes cited as MHP). Similarly,
Dennis Pardee permitted me to use his epigraphic notes to CAT 1.3,
based on his collation of this tablet mentioned in Pardee 1988b:1 n. 4
(these are cited as DP). He has since published a translation and notes
to the Baal Cycle (Pardee 1997a), and readers may gain better insight
into his own views by perusing that work of his. I am grateful for his
generous permission to cite his readings and notes.
I spent part of the summer of 1995 at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusa-
lem working on this volume. I am grateful to Simon Parker for having
inviting me to contribute the text, translation and notes to the Baal
Cycle and some smaller Ugaritic texts for a volume entitled Ugaritic
Narrative Poetry (cited as UNP ). This work provided an opportunity to
put to paper a basic complete translation and text and to think about
the process and details of translation. The text there was informed by
photographic materials produced by the West Semitic Research Project
under the care, good will and generosity of Bruce Zuckerman and
Wayne Pitard. The project subsequently produced the photographic
material for this volume. My debt to Professors Zuckerman and Pitard
for this material is immense, for while many of the translation options
and discussions in this volume can be found among the myriad of
articles and books, the photographs cannot; they are gems, and I am
very fortunate to have them inform and accompany my work. I am
grateful also to the Director of the French mission to Ras Shamra and
to the Syrian Directorate of Antiquities for permission to publish the
photographs in this volume.
From 1993 to 2000, Saint Joseph’s University was unfailing in its
support of my research. In 1995 the university provided me with a
grant that took me to Jerusalem to conduct research on this book. The
academic community at Saint Joseph’s University also took an active
interest in the research. A contribution to this commentary was provided
by my former departmental colleague, David Carpenter. From Professor
acknowledgements xvii
for all of its help. I am grateful to New York University for providing
me with sabbatical time and to the Pontifical Biblical institute and the
Catholic Biblical Association for their support of my time in Rome. I
save my final word of thanks for Wayne Pitard whose hard work on
all aspects of this volume has vastly improved it. In the process of co-
authoring this volume, I have especially enjoyed his learning, insight
and good humor.
Wayne Pitard:
First of all I must thank Mark for inviting me to join him on this
project. This collaboration has been one of the most enjoyable and
fruitful experiences in my professional career, and I cannot imagine a
better working partner than Mark. And secondly, I wish to thank Dr.
Bruce Zuckerman, an old friend and delightful colleague who took
me under his wing in 1989 and taught me how to photograph clay
tablets using large-format cameras. This led to a number of photo-
graphic expeditions to Syria and Paris, during which I (with the help
of Theodore Lewis, Andrew Vaughn, and Brian Schmidt in various
years) photographed most of the literary texts from Ugarit. Some of
the fruits of this work will be seen here.
The photos published in this volume were taken in the Aleppo
National Museum in Syria and were made with the generous coopera-
tion of the Syrian Directorate of Antiquities. I am grateful to Drs. Ali
Abu-Assaf and Sultan Muhesen, successive Directors of Antiquities
for their support and cooperation. In Aleppo I was greatly helped by
Wahed Khayata, Director of Antiquities for the Aleppo Region, and
the staff of the Aleppo National Museum, who supported me at every
turn. I must also thank the members of the Mission de Ras Shamra
for their help in years past.
Financial support for the photographic work came from several
sources. The University of Illinois has always been enormously sup-
portive of my work in Ugaritic, providing me with funding for the
expeditions to Syria and Paris, along with computer support at home.
Bruce Zuckerman, Marilyn Lundberg and Ken Zuckerman, all part of
West Semitic Research, have been the sine qua non of the photographic
project. Not only were they my instructors, but they also provided the
equipment for the expeditions and care for the original negatives in the
WSR collection. A National Endowment for the Humanities Summer
Stipend in 1991 allowed me to begin work on the methodologies that
are used here for the drawings of the tablets. In addition, some of the
xx acknowledgements
NEH funding for the translation project, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, was
provided to support the 1995 expedition; I wish to thank the NEH and
Simon B. Parker for that critical help. I also received a William and Flora
Hewlett International Research Grant in 1995, which helped support
my stay in Syria. I am also grateful to the Fulbright-Hays Program for
a Fellowship that took me to Syria in 1999.
Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues in the Program for the Study
of Religion at the University of Illinois, particularly Gary G. Porton and
Richard Layton, off of whom I have bounced a number of ideas that
emerge in this volume. And I want to express my appreciation and love
for my family—wife Angie and daughters Sarah and Samantha—who
suffered patiently through many a month of my enthusiastic explana-
tions of obscure Ugaritic terms with remarkable tolerance.
Finally, we wish to thank Rachel E. Smith for help with the authors’
index, and Mattie Kuiper, Birgitta Poelmans and the staff at Brill for
their hard work on this complex volume.
The abbreviations, listed in The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near
Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. P. H. Alexander et al.;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999) and The Assyrian Diction-
ary. Volume 15 S (ed. E. Reiner et al.; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1984)
vii–xxii, are used with the following additions, changes and sigla:
II. Terms
2. Grammatical Terms
acc. “accusative case”
C causative stem (BH “hiphil”)
cst. construct state
D double stem (BH “piel”)
DN(s) divine name(s)
Dt double stem with -t reflexive or reciprocal (BH “hithpael”)
fem. feminine gender
citations, abbreviations and sigla xxvii
3. Other Terms
ANE ancient Near East or ancient Near Eastern
EA El-Amarna (cited according to Moran 1992)
LBA Late Bronze Age
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
n(n). footnote(s)
RS Ras Shamra (text number)
III. Sigla
This volume represents the continuation of The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1
(henceforth UBC 1). The first volume provided a general introduction
to the cycle, plus detailed commentary on its first two tablets (CAT
1.1–1.2). This second volume contains a detailed commentary on the
next two tablets (CAT 1.3–1.4). While the introduction in the first
volume covered most of the major interpretive issues involved in the
cycle, subjects specific to CAT 1.3–1.4 are treated in the Introduction
here. In addition, further research on the cycle has prompted us to
make some additional comments about the cycle as a whole. The main
features of this volume generally follow the conventions described in
UBC 1:xxviii–xxxvi, although we have added a few new features. Here
is the general arrangement for this volume:
I. The Introduction
Addressed in this section are general matters supplementing and occa-
sionally revising the Introduction to the first volume: research on the
Baal Cycle since 1994; textual and literary issues; verbal syntax in the
Baal Cycle; the structure of the building narrative in 1.3–1.4 and
the role played by royal/family etiquette and protocol in the story;
the role of both divine geography and Ugaritic family structure in the
presentation of the narrative; the relationship between El and Baal’s
enemies; and a discussion of the identification between the divine palace
and the earthly temple.
2. Bibliography
The study of each column of text begins with a bibliography of edi-
tions, translations and studies.
through context and parallel passages, are marked with a circle, /˚/.
(4) Extremely fragmentary letters for which certainty of identity can-
not be reached are marked by x. The textual notes often discuss the
possible readings for these letters.
1
For the first two categories, see Huehnergard 1987b. For the “three ’alephs,” see
Marcus 1968. For further discussion of particulars, see notes to the vocalizations.
2
See the cautionary remarks of CMHE 21 n. 50; Pope 1977a:181–82 n. 90; Pardee
1978:75 n. 5, 1988b:1; Tuttle 1978:253–68.
preface xxxiii
Indeed, we would encourage the reader to speak the lines aloud a few
times to gain a feeling for its sonant quality.
6. Commentary
The commentary for each column begins with a poetic analysis, pri-
marily the work of Smith, consisting of the vocalization of each colon,
followed first by a scanning of semantic parallelism (indicated by lower
case letters) and then by word and syllable counts. The scanning of
semantic parallelism renders construct phrases as a single unit, but
where construct phrases in a second or third line correspond to a single
word in the previous line within a colon, the siglum “x + y” is given
in parentheses, following the practice of Pardee (1988b:9, 77–78). In
a number of instances, this practice has been extended by indicating
apposition within clusters, especially for divine names with epithets,
with the comma in “x, y.” While the sigla for parallelism include both
grammatical and semantic parallelism (cf. Pardee 1988b:9–10 n. 15),
some of the more distinctive features of grammatical parallelism are
discussed in the remarks that follow the presentation of the cola. The
word and syllable counts indicate the length of lines within a poetic unit.
At times, a word count may be misleading by suggesting an imbalance
in the length of the lines, while the syllable count in the same unit not
infrequently corrects this misimpression. The word count remains of
some help, however, since the syllable count naturally depends on our
vocalization and is therefore somewhat theoretical.
An analysis of each poetic unit follows. It provides remarks bearing
on various sorts of parallelism—syntactical, morphological and sonant
(among many works on the subject, see Hrushovski 1971:1201–2;
Berlin 1985; Greenstein 1986–87). The syntactical parallelism is not
treated according to any specific system, but an attempt is made to
indicate how these sorts of parallelism may bind and contrast lines
of cola, especially in the absence of apparent semantic parallelism.
Berlin’s treatment of sound pairs has advanced the understanding of
sonant parallelism, and her definition of a sound pair (Berlin 1985:104;
Berlin’s italics) is followed in this volume: “the repetition in parallel words
or lines of the same or similar consonants in any order within close proximity.”
Observations regarding various links between cola in this commen-
tary are based more specifically on three criteria used by Berlin to
delimit sonant parallelism (Berlin 1985:105): (i) “at least two sets of
consonants must be involved”; (ii) “the sets must be in close proximity,
within a word or adjacent words in both lines”; and (iii) “ ‘same or
xxxiv preface
3
For other proposed cases, see Ginsberg 1936:171; Watson 1986a:110–11. For
anacrusis, we have operated with two implicit assumptions, following Ginsberg: (i) with
the opening term set off from the rest of the colon, the basic poetic parallelism of the
rest of the colon is simpler; and (ii) the line-lengths of the remaining lines (without the
term in anacrusis) appear more proximate with line-lengths generally found in Ugaritic
narrative poetry. For interesting cases of line-length, see the discussions of 1.3 II 5–7
(whln); 1.3 V 35–36//1.4 I 4–6//1.4 IV 47–48 (’any); and 1.4 I 20–22 (šskn m‘ ).
preface xxxv
4
Ginsberg 1948:139; Parker 1989b:7–59; Fisher, RSP III 253, 260 n. 16; Whitaker,
RSP III 209–11.
xxxvi preface
avoid this extra material may skip over these sections. In the body of the
commentary, we have also frequently quoted a text and/or translation
of various passages not in 1.3 or 1.4 in order to illustrate their perti-
nence, instead of assuming that by mere citation of their text number,
readers would understand the point of comparison. The commentary
is fairly inclusive and representative of scholarly views, without the
massive encumbrance to reading that a full citation of scholarly views
would entail.5 We apologize in advance to any scholars who judge that
their work has been overlooked or slighted by omission. Finally, we felt
it worthwhile at times to duplicate some material in order to reduce
the already great amount (albeit necessary) of cross-referencing in this
volume and back to the first volume of the commentary.
A few other additional features distinguish this volume of the com-
mentary from its predecessor volume, UBC I. The first involves an effort
to offer more remarks bearing on verbal syntax, and in particular, the
position of the verb. In his Memoria de Licenciatura, Andrés Piquer
Otero (2000) applied the approach of text linguistics (as found in the
work of Niccacci 1990 and others) to the first two tablets of the Baal
Cycle. He has since applied the same strategy to the cycle as a whole
(Piquer Otero 2003). The approach holds three theoretical advantages
over most discussions of the verb in narrative poetry, including UBC
1:39–57. First, it systematically distinguishes usage in direct discourse
from usage in narrative. Second, it further refines usage within both
direct discourse and narrative based on word order. As a result, the
approach yields a systematic examination of the usages of the verb.
Third, establishing the standard types of verbal syntax provides a
baseline for recognizing further rhetorical departures and elaborations
(for a good example, see the commentary on 1.3 II 3–16). Piquer
Otero’s approach, which is laid out in the Introduction, offers a further
means to clarify the verbal system beyond the remarks offered in UBC
1:39–58.
A second additional feature of this volume involves the range of
material consulted. This volume pays more attention to the material
culture of the Late Bronze Age Levant. The last decade has seen an
ever-increasing recognition of the need to bring into dialogue all sorts
5
A detailed bibliographical listing for the two tablets treated in this volume can
be found in AOAT 20/6:404–30. For further bibliography more generally, see AOAT
20/1–6 for works up to 1988. For works during the 1970s, see also the Newsletter for
Ugaritic Studies.
preface xxxvii
7. Bibliography
The bibliography at the end of the commentary provides documentation
for the secondary sources cited in the volume. The bibliography for the
Baal Cycle is extensive. The “social science” format is used for citing
secondary literature, thereby reducing the number of footnotes. In most
cases, we have updated references to the most recent editions of works
(e.g., DLU to DUL; and KTU to CAT ). In a handful of cases, we have
retained citations of an older work, in order to credit the earlier stage
of research (e.g., Schloen 1995). The bibliography runs up into 2005
(with the most recent number of UF available being volume 35). A few
more recent items have been dealt with during final revisions.
35, Tablet 1.4, Column 1, Lines 17–30. The line numbers indicate the
lines that have an accompanying superimposable drawing. There are
many cases where lines appear in more than one image, but they are
drawn only once. Tablet 1.3 is covered in Images 1–26; Tablet 1.4 in
Images 27–87. Images 88–90 show CAT 1.8, which is now identified
as the top of 1.3 VI, while Images 91–92 show part of CAT 1.13,
discussed on pp. 178–80. The latter two images do not have accom-
panying drawings.
Most of the images are in color and come from the 1995 and 1999
projects. Unfortunately, a political indiscretion by Pitard led to an abrupt
termination of the 1999 project before new and better photographs of
the edges of the tablets could be taken. Thus for the edges, we have
been forced to use Pitard’s early black and white photographs from
1985, before he had been trained in photographic technique by Bruce
Zuckerman. Most of these provide serviceable images of the signs. The
only problematic spot among these images is #12, which shows 1.3 III
45–47 on the lower edge of the tablet. This photo is somewhat out of
focus, and particularly the right sides of the lines are difficult to read.
There is also one set of lines for which we have no photo—the three
broken lines on the obverse of the small fragment of 1.3, RS 2.[014]
= III 1–3. However, the original photograph from the Mission de Ras
Shamra’s archive is available, as are Pitard’s images, on the important
epigraphic website, InscriptiFact, at http://www.inscriptifact.com, an
undertaking of the West Semitic Research Project, directed by Bruce
Zuckerman.
In the abridged 1999 season, measurement indicators were included
in the images (Images 27–33, 43–49, 56–63, 68–86, 88, 91–92). On
the general shots of the obverse and reverse of 1.4, the measurement
intervals are one centimeter. In the detail shots, the intervals represent
five millimeters.
The drawings make use of different colors to indicate aspects of
the tablets. The turquoise lines show where the edges of the wedges are
preserved. Dark blue areas indicate the deep interiors of wedges whose
edges have not survived. Red lines indicate uncertain hints of wedges.
Purple hatching indicates places where the surface of the tablet is broken
away, green dots indicate where encrustations have filled in wedges and
yellow wedges mark wedges that the scribe mistakenly made, but did
not cover before continuing his work.
We wish to thank Joshua Tomaszewski of ATLAS Digital Media at
the University of Illinois, and Paul Bengt Riismandel, also of ATLAS,
xl preface
The Tablet Viewer may be run directly from the DVD, or it may be
downloaded onto your computer’s hard drive and run from there.
The images, including the overlays, are JPEGs and may be opened
separately from the viewing program using any imaging application,
such as Adobe Photoshop.
INTRODUCTION
The commentary to the first two tablets of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle
(KTU/CAT 1.1 and 1.2), which dealt with Baal’s battle against Sea,
appeared in print in 1994, under the title, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Vol-
ume I. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2
(henceforth UBC 1; for corrections, see Smith 1994b; see also the reviews
of Loretz 1995b; del Olmo Lete 1996 and Pardee 1998c; note also
Pardee ip 2 on the epigraphy of CAT 1.1, and Piquer Otero 2000 and
2003:67–72, 80–197 on the verbal syntax of CAT 1.1–1.2). This second
volume of commentary treats the middle two tablets of the cycle, 1.3
and 1.4, which recount the story of how Baal got his great palace on
Mount Sapan. These two tablets are the best-preserved texts of the
Baal Cycle, although they are far from complete. Tablet 1.3 has lost
approximately the upper third of the obverse, and the corresponding
lower third of the reverse. Approximately 75% of 1.4 is preserved, with
at least portions of some 396 out the tablet’s original 540–550 lines
surviving. Although a few scholars have expressed doubts that these two
tablets belong together as a single narrative (see the discussion in UBC
1.7–11), a fully plausible, coherent and consecutive storyline across the
tablets can, in fact, be easily discerned.
Our analysis of the general plot is as follows. 1.3 begins with Baal
hosting a feast on Mount Sapan, although the identities of the attendees
and the purpose of the banquet are lost in the lacuna at the beginning
of column I. If we are correct in seeing 1.3 as a continuation of the
story from 1.2, then we may suggest that the feast is a celebration of
Baal’s victory over Yamm. The scene is broken off prematurely by a
long lacuna of some 37–40 lines at the end of column I and at the
beginning of column II. When the text reappears in column II, we
find ourselves in a very different scene, whose relationship to column
I is quite unclear. In this section Anat is at the center of the story, as
she marches out to battle against a human army. The reason for this
conflict is not preserved, but Anat slaughters the enemy forces in a strik-
ingly brutal fashion. After wiping out even her prisoners, the goddess
cleanses and beautifies herself. In column III we find the beginning
of the storyline that constitutes the primary theme of the two tablets:
Baal’s need for a palace appropriate for his new position as leader of
2 introduction
the divine council and as provider of the rain for the earth. When the
text becomes extant, the scene has shifted back to Baal, who is giving
his messengers Gapn and Ugar a message for Anat. As they approach
Anat, the goddess’ first reaction is that they must be bringing bad
news of another attack against Baal. Gapn and Ugar assure her that
that is not the case and deliver their message, a request that she come
to Mount Sapan to confer with Baal (column IV). She immediately
departs, and upon her arrival, hears Baal’s lament over his lack of a
palace. It is clear that Baal must have El’s permission before he can
build one. Anat agrees to take Baal’s lament to El to get the old patri-
arch to give his okay to the project. If he does not, Anat threatens, she
will beat him up until he gives in. She journeys to El’s abode, but finds
herself unable even to get a proper audience with the god. Speaking
from an outer room, she belligerently presents Baal’s case (column V).
In the lacuna at the end of column V, it appears that El turns down
her request, apparently unintimidated by her threats. Anat returns to
Mount Sapan (also in the lacuna), where Baal proceeds with a second
plan, i.e., to enlist the aid of Athirat, the mother of the gods and the
wife of El, to convince the latter about Baal’s need for a palace (col-
umn VI + CAT 1.8). He now sends his messengers Gapn and Ugar
to the craftsman god, Kothar-wa-Hasis, to ask him to make elaborate
gifts for Athirat (1.4 I). Kothar immediately enters his smith shop and
forms spectacular gifts of gold and silver, primarily pieces of furniture
fit for the Mother of the gods. After a lacuna of some sixteen lines at
the beginning of column II, we find Athirat going about her domestic
duties by the seashore. As Baal and Anat approach, the goddess at
first is afraid that they are about to attack her and her family. But
seeing that they are bearing gifts, she realizes that they are coming
with peaceful intentions. She prepares a feast for her guests, and after
a lacuna at the beginning of column III, we find Baal recounting an
event in which he had been treated very badly at an assembly of the
gods. The significance of this passage within the larger context is not
clear. But following this speech, Baal and Anat arrive at the banquet,
give Athirat the gifts and secure Athirat’s cooperation. In column IV
Athirat travels to El’s abode, where she is greeted with great warmth
by El. She presents Baal’s situation to her husband, and El grants his
permission. In her reaction to this (column V), Athirat articulates the
critical function of this new palace, stating that with the building of
the palace, Baal will be able to send forth his rains upon the earth.
introduction 3
Athirat then calls upon Anat (who had accompanied her to El’s tent)
to take the news to Baal. Baal rejoices and begins to gather the materi-
als for the palace. He also sends for Kothar-wa-Hasis to supervise the
construction. When Kothar arrives, he proposes putting a window in
the palace, but Baal rejects the idea. In column VI the palace is built,
and Baal invites the seventy children of Athirat to a grand banquet
in celebration. The gods come and eat and implicitly accept Baal’s
position as ruler of the gods. After the banquet, Baal comes to the
earth, and in traveling across it, he accepts the submission of all its
cities. The god then returns to his palace and tells Kothar that he has
changed his mind; he will allow a window in the palace. The window
is built and through it (it is portrayed as a rift in the clouds), Baal sends
forth his mighty voice. The earth trembles and his enemies flee to the
mountains. With a cedar spear in his hand, he sits enthroned as ruler
of heaven and earth. But Mot, the god of the netherworld, has not
recognized Baal’s authority. Baal calls his messengers Gapn and Ugar
and instructs them on how to take a message to Mot (column VIII).
The tablet breaks off as Baal begins to recite his message.
The story of the building of Baal’s palace, which takes up the bulk
of 1.3 and 1.4, is the central story of the Baal Cycle physically, as it is
flanked on each side by the accounts of the conflicts with Yamm and
Mot. Theologically this middle section is also central: the climactic
image of the episode in 1.4 VII of Baal enthroned, lord of heaven
and earth, mighty warrior whose voice is the thunder and who sends
forth the rains to water the earth, is certainly the primary image of
the god for his worshippers in Ugarit. No matter how many difficul-
ties the story places before Baal in reaching this point, he does arrive
at his epiphany with full power and no rivals. The previous episode
concerning Yamm shows his ability to overcome great challenges. The
following episode depicting his challenge of Mot points out something
that everyone knew: even the god of life must share the universe with
death. But on earth, life remains the more powerful and more durable.
At the end of each of these episodes, Baal’s rulership is proclaimed
(1.2 IV 32–37; 1.4 VI 38–VII 42; 1.6 VI 33–35). But the truly defining
image of his kingship is the one in 1.4.
4 introduction
In the decade since the first volume UBC 1 was published, a number of
new works on the Baal Cycle have appeared, both translations (Dietrich
and Loretz 1997; Pardee 1997a; Wyatt 1998; Smith in UNP ) and studies
on specific aspects of the poem (Greenstein 2006; Herr 1995; Korpel
1998; Kruger 1995; Page 1998; Piquer Otero 2000, 2003; Wiggins 2000;
Wyatt 2002; see also Wyatt 1996). Smith 2001a deals with a number
of aspects concerning the nature of the Ugaritic understanding of the
gods that may be considered a supplement to the discussions in both
UBC 1 and this introduction. The field has also benefitted from some
new archaeological discoveries, especially the recovery of a substantial
archive of tablets in the house of Urtenu, a high official in the court
of Niqmaddu IV (formerly III—see Arnaud 1999) at the end of the
thirteenth century. Texts found there from the 1986 to 1992 seasons
have been published (Yon and Arnaud, Etudes 235–407; cf. also Pardee
2002), while a large number of tablets found during the 1994 season and
a few subsequent finds are in preparation. Of signal importance for the
history of the city of Ugarit are four new king-lists, one found in 1988
and three in 1994, which have dramatically increased our knowledge of
the succession of Ugaritic monarchs from the eighteenth to the early
twelfth centuries (Arnaud 1999; Lackenbacher 2002:23 n. 12, 210, 253,
357, and the bibliography cited therein; Pardee 2002:195–210).
Perhaps the most significant discovery specifically concerning the
Baal Cycle came to our attention just as we were completing the final
revisions of this commentary in March, 2008. Dennis Pardee informed
us of his startling discovery that CAT 1.8, a small fragment that has
traditionally been thought of as a school text made of up a series of
random quotes from the Baal Cycle, is actually the missing beginning
of column VI of tablet 1.3. Pardee has kindly provided us with his
unpublished manuscript concerning this discovery, and we find his
discussion compelling (Pardee i.p.). We have thus revised our discussion
of 1.3 VI in light of this, and also 1.4 VII, where a close parallel to
several lines of 1.8 is found.
The study of the Ugaritic texts has advanced in other areas. New
editions of many of the alphabetic tablets by Pardee (1998b, 2000,
2002) and by Pitard (1998) have dramatically improved and stabilized
the readings of the texts. The improved readings are reflected in a
number of the recent translations, including Pardee (1997a), Wyatt
(1998) and UNP. New dictionaries of Ugaritic, DLU (now in a second
introduction 5
Textual Matters
1
The vocalization for this name standard in Ugaritic studies has been ’ilimilku.
However, van Soldt has argued for ilimalku. For this view, see van Soldt 1991:21
n. 182, 27–29; UBC 1.3 n. 6; Lackenbacher 2002:237 n. 808. The evidence for *malku
based on the vocabularies is admittedly not definitive for a proper name. See the more
extensive discussion below, pp. 727–28.
2
Schaeffer argued in the original report for the third season (1931) that some of the
tablets had been incorporated into the mortar for the walls of the house, suggesting
that part of the texts belonged to an earlier period of the site; see Schaeffer 1932:22.
But the original inventory only lists three fragments, RS 3.321, 339 and 346, as being
found in mortar (Cunchillos 1989:60–61) and, as Cunchillos 1989:87 notes, the mortar
more likely adhered to the tablets only during the fire that destroyed the house.
3
Pardee has noted that there is no certainty that the Ugaritic script was in existence
during the reign of Niqmaddu III. Only one tablet besides the Ilimalku texts (CAT 3.1)
has been attributed to the reign of this king, but Pardee (2003a) has made a plausible
case for attributing it to the reign of Niqmaddu IV in the thirteenth century.
8 introduction
The primary evidence for dating the tablets to the fourteenth century
and the reign of the Niqmaddu of that period (i.e. now III instead of II)
is the appearance of a scribe Ilimalku on two Akkadian legal tablets (RS
17.61 and 17.67) found in the house of Rašapabu (Ugaritica V 13–15).
RS 17.61 contains the names of two other persons, Irib-ilu, the governor
(rābi u) of Raqdu (lines 3 and 21) and Abdu the son of Abdi-rašap
(line 17), who also appear on other tablets that can be clearly dated to
the mid-fourteenth century (see van Soldt 1991:27–28). The first name,
Irib-ilu, is also found in RS 16.190 (PRU III 64), in which Niqmaddu
the son of Ammištamru gives him a field. Irib-ilu is referred to in the
text as “his governor (rābi išu).” Abdu son of Abdi-rašap is well-known
from five tablets found in the royal palace (RS 15.254D, 16.239; 16.143;
16.157; and 16.250; PRU III 78–86); he flourished during the reign
of Ar alba, the son of Niqmaddu III, in the fourteenth century (cf.
the chronological list in Arnaud 1999:163). Thus it seems clear that a
scribe Ilimalku lived and worked in Ugarit during the mid-fourteenth
century. However, there is no real reason to insist that this Ilimalku is
the same one who wrote the Ugaritic tablets, since neither the Akkadian
nor the Ugaritic texts provide us with a patronymic for the scribe, and
Ilimalku appears to have been a relatively common name (cf. PTU 326).
One should note, however, that Dalix (1996:87–88), while attributing
the two Akkadian texts with Ilimalku’s name to the thirteenth century
(she does not deal with the issue of the other names just discussed, cf.
83–84; however, we have not had access to her dissertation), argues that
the handwriting style of the Akkadian and the Ugaritic texts shows a
great deal of similarity. But Huehnergard (2003:296) has pointed out
the difficulty of identifying the handwriting of a single scribe on tablets
written in two different scripts.
Thus we have plausible arguments for both of the proposed dates.
On the one hand, if the scribe Ilimalku of the Akkadian texts is the
same person as the Ilimalku of the Ugaritic tablets, then the evidence
would support a fourteenth century date. But there is not solid evidence
that they are the same person, and the discovery of the new Ilimalku
Ugaritic text in the early twelfth century destruction layer of the house
of Urtenu may point to a later date for the scribe. Until further evidence
arises, it seems that this issue will remain unresolved.
introduction 9
The Order of the Tablets and their Narrative and Thematic Continuity
( UBC 1.2–19)
UBC 1 argues that the Baal Cycle consists of three major episodes:
(1) the conflict between Baal and Yamm, which can be viewed as ending
with Baal’s victory banquet in CAT 1.3 I, or perhaps the cessation of
hostilities in 1.3 II; (2) the quest for Baal’s palace (1.3 III–1.4 VII); and
(3) the conflict between Baal and Mot (1.4 VIII–1.6 VI). As can be seen,
these three parts do not correspond exactly to the beginnings or endings
of the tablets. This situation is strong support for understanding the
tablets as an organic unity, and indicates that it is misleading to refer
to the three parts as 1.1–1.2, 1.3–1.4 and 1.5–1.6, as is conventionally
done. The case for arranging 1.3 and 1.4 as a continuous story has
been substantially strengthened by the placement of CAT 1.8 at the
beginning of 1.3 VI (Pardee i.p.). 1.8 begins with a specific reference to
the making of gifts for Athirat in order that she might support Baal’s
argument for a new palace. That removes any doubt that the events
of 1.4 I immediately follow the events of 1.3 VI.
UBC 1:2–19 argued for the unity of the cycle, but it also noted that
this issue is not fully resolved. The greatest uncertainty pertains to the
first two tablets. There is no doubt that 1.5 and 1.6 constitute a continu-
ous narrative, and, as will be seen in this commentary 1.3–1.6 show very
strong congruence. The question of the relationship between 1.1 and 1.2
with the rest of the cycle was discussed in UBC 1.12–19. In response to
arguments offered by Meier (1986, 1989; cf. Pardee 1997a:245 n. 34),
UBC 1.12 discussed the possibility that the extant tablets and fragments
may represent more than one version of the Baal-Yamm story. Pardee
(1997a:242 n. 4; see also Pardee 1998c:47–48) disputed that proposal
by arguing that it is highly unlikely that there were multiple copies of
the Baal Cycle in the House of the High Priest:
An element often omitted in the discussion of whether these six tablets
constitute a literary unity is the indisputable fact that, up to the present,
no single instance of a duplicate mythological text is known: there are six
clear instances of brief “quotations” from known texts . . . and there are
clear instances of formulaic repetition in different texts. But it nonetheless
appears beyond the realm of plausibility that the six tablets known today
of the Ba‘lu cycle would come from “two versions of the Baal Cycle”
(Smith 1994:12) and yet show no overlapping text.
This argument is worthy of serious consideration, in spite of the fact
that it is an argument from silence. But one should note that it is
10 introduction
possible that some overlap can be observed between 1.1 III and 1.2 III
(UBC 1.22). If this is the case (the damaged nature of both columns
precludes certainty in this matter), and particularly if 1.2 III, which
does not have an actual join with 1.2 I–IV, belongs to an independent
and otherwise unattested tablet (cf. UBC 1.22–25), then the two tablets
might in fact be duplicates (on this particular issue Pardee does not
comment directly). Thus we must still leave open the possibility that
either 1.1 or 1.2 III does not belong to the copy of the cycle repre-
sented by 1.3–1.6. In spite of this uncertainty, however, there seems
little reason to doubt that the story of the conflict between Baal and
Yamm, particularly as discernable in 1.2 I and IV, was a major part
of the Baal Cycle (for criticism of Meier 1986 and 1989:154–55 who
argued against the relationship of 1.2 to the rest of the cycle, see UBC
1.12–14 and Korpel 1998:90, n. 16).4 Our proposal suggesting that 1.3
I (and perhaps II) constitute the conclusion of the Yamm episode, if
accepted, would further support a close relationship between 1.2 and
the rest of the cycle.
4
The concern expressed in UBC I (p. 14) about the distance between the find spots
of 1.1, 1.2 III and the other tablets of the cycle was misplaced. 1.1 was discovered
just outside the southern doorway of the house (p.t. 345), while 1.2 III and fragments
of 1.4 were found either in the doorway, or just inside the entry room (p.t. 338, 343,
341). The main fragment of 1.3 was located in the northeastern quadrant of the entry
room. Also in the doorway were 1.19, 1.15 and a fragment of 1.14. The exact findspot
of 1.2 I–II–IV is uncertain. Bordreuil and Pardee identify the fragment as RS 3.367,
and list its point topographique as 203, which is not noted on the published plans of
the House of the High Priest. If this identification is correct, the information provided
by Bordreuil and Pardee 1989:29, 32 suggests that it was found in the eastern rooms
of the house, no great distance from the rest (cf. also the map in Cunchillos 1989:94).
Cunchillos 1989:70–72, however, argues that 1.2 I–II–IV is to be identified with RS
3.347, which was found in the same vicinity as 1.2 III (RS 3.346), at p.t. 338, 343, 341.
See the discussion on 1.4 below on pp. 381–85. For the issue at hand, the uncertainty
is largely irrelevant, since both potential locations for 1.2 I–II–IV are within the house.
The location of the tablet fragments of the Baal Cycle fits well into the probable condi-
tions of the destruction of the house, in which the house was ransacked before being
burned. The issue of the discovery of a fragment of 1.6 (RS 5.155) at a location some
thirty meters from the House of the High Priest will be discussed in UBC 3.
introduction 11
that 1.10 belongs to the cycle, something that is quite problematic (as
he is aware, 2002:853), since the latter tablet gives no real indications
of such a relationship, and it was written by a different scribe. Both the
views of Korpel and Wyatt (also Pardee 1998c:47–48) presuppose that
the tablets we have were the first time this version of the Baal story
was committed to writing. But this cannot be demonstrated. In fact,
there seems to be some plausible evidence that Ilimalku inscribed these
tablets using a previous, written source. A number of errors found in
the texts have the appearance of copying errors, rather than mistakes
committed while a person freely composes (see especially Segert 1958
and note particularly his discussion of 1.17 II 17 on p. 200, which
appears to be a fairly obvious case of homoeoarchton; and 1.4 II 13
on p. 202, where the mistake appears much more like a copyist’s error
than anything else. See also the less convincing but interesting work by
Horwitz 1977, 1979). Also suggestive is the startlingly unprofessional
look of the obverse of 1.4 (see the discussion in the introduction to
this tablet, pp. 386–89), which seems to indicate that Ilimalku was very
inexperienced when he began writing this tablet, inexperience that does
not appear on any of the other tablets written by Ilimalku. This may
suggest that 1.4 was the first multi-columned tablet Ilimalku attempted
to inscribe. If so, then it would be unlikely that he was either compos-
ing the poem or inscribing it from dictation, since the tablet starts in
the middle of the story. If one is copying from other tablets, one need
not do so in order.
Pardee’s emphasis on the idea that only one copy of the texts was
written (since no duplicates are known), also seems to presuppose that
Ilimalku wrote the tablets in the house where they were found and
that any copies that might have been made from these tablets would
have been stored in the same house, and thus found by the excavators.
Of course, neither of these presuppositions is confirmable. There is
no evidence beyond the presence of the tablets that specifically links
Ilimalku’s scribal activities directly to the House of the High Priest.
The appearance of another Ilimalku tablet across town at the house of
Urtenu shows that the mere presence of tablets attributed to a specific
person does not indicate where they were produced. Nor is there clear
evidence that the House of the High Priest served as a scribal school,
where additional copies of the myth might have been copied (cf. van
Soldt 1991:747–53 cf. Pitard i.p.). The house may rather have simply
contained a real library, stocked with tablets inscribed elsewhere. A
single copy of the literary works may have been all that the owner of
14 introduction
the library (i.e., the high priest?) needed in his house. Other copies
may have existed elsewhere in the city, but there seems little reason to
expect additional copies of these tablets in one house unless the house
was a scribal school. In sum, the issue of Ilimalku’s relationship to the
poems he wrote on the tablets remains obscure.
Very little new work attempting to reconstruct the prehistory of the
cycle has been done since the publication of UBC 1 (see pp. 29–35).
Herr (1995) has attempted the most detailed recent reconstruction of
the poem’s development, proposing a six-layered growth but, as always,
such reconstructions must rely on unprovable, though often plausible,
assumptions. It seems better to pursue a more modest and general
goal of illuminating the social setting and purpose of the Baal Cycle,
supported by the evidence at hand (cf. the earlier discussion in UBC
1.105–12). The material provided by the colophon in 1.6 VI 54–58
gives us a fair amount of information about the social context in which
the Cycle circulated. Ilimalku was a scribe (spr) who was a student or
apprentice (lmd) under Attenu, the chief priest. If the series of epithets
in lines 55b–57a belongs to Attenu, as seems likely (see the discussion
in the commentary, pp. 725–28), the latter was also a highly placed
member of the royal court. Although the colophons contain no specific
reference to royal patronage in the production of the tablets5 (and there
may have been no specific necessity for there to be such a patronage),
it seems likely that the Cycle as we have it was particularly of interest
to the elite within the priestly and royal circles of Ugarit. The central
theme of the cycle is the kingship of Baal. Since Baal was the patron
deity of Ugarit, there seems little doubt that a text dealing with the
status of Baal among the gods would have a great deal to say about
the status of Ugarit and its king. At the same time, the cycle’s intense
focus on the divine realm probably indicates that the poem also wishes
to emphasize the importance of the priestly element of society, who
are involved particularly with that realm.
The focus on concerns of royalty can be observed in the way the story
is told, and most significantly in the way the story of the relationship
between Baal’s palace and his functioning as giver of rain upon the earth
5
Some scholars have interpreted the word y in 1.6 VI 57 as a verb meaning “to
donate, present,” and have thus understood this line as a reference to royal patron-
age for the production of these tablets. But, as discussed in the Commentary below,
pp. 728–29, we do not believe that this interpretation of the word is likely. We under-
stand it as a noun, the title of an office.
introduction 15
the first occupant of the position. With regard to his defeat of Tiamat
and Qingu, the image is that of a revolution in which the old regime
is overthrown and destroyed (note the royal language for Qingu in I
148–56). In the Baal Cycle, on the other hand, the imagery used to
describe the situation is that of regular royal succession, in which the
old patriarch/king, toward the end of his reign, appoints his successor,
who then takes on both the title of king and the duties delegated to
him by the patriarch. The older ruler continues to retain his title, so
that both are called “king,” and, while he may hand over a great deal
of power to his successor, he holds on to the primary authority of his
office and must be consulted with regard to major policy issues. In the
Baal narrative (as often in real life), more than one potential successor
surfaces, and a struggle ensues. A parallel to the succession theme in
the Baal Cycle may be seen in the story of Solomon’s succession to the
throne in 1 Kings 1. Here also the old king is expected to appoint his
successor before he dies, and two candidates, Adonijah and Solomon,
surface for the position. When Adonijah presumptuously announces that
he is taking on the role of king without consulting David, Solomon’s
mother, Bathsheba, and the prophet Nathan intercede on Solomon’s
behalf before the old ruler, who then proclaims Solomon his successor.
At this point both David and Solomon hold the title of king, as do El
and Baal in the Cycle. The primary difference between the human set-
ting of 1 Kings and the divine context of the Baal Cycle is that in the
former, the appointing of the successor will be followed by the death
of the old king and the subsequent assumption of complete power
by the son, while in the mythological world, time is frozen—El will
not die and will thus retain aspects of power that will keep Baal from
exercising the complete authority of a Marduk. The combined reign
of El and Baal is a co-regency. This makes Baal’s kingship essentially
different from those depicted for Marduk and Yahweh.
Baal’s relatively weak position and his need for allies also fit into the
motif of the young candidate for the succession whose claim to the
throne is not as strong as that of his rival. In the case of the Cycle,
Yamm is El’s first choice, and he apparently enjoys the support of most
of the divine council. Baal, on the other hand, is overlooked by El, but
in the view of the narrator, he is the superior candidate who must work
hard to make his superiority clear to the old king. There are similarities
here to the situation of Solomon in 1 Kings 1. Adonijah appears to
have been the eldest living son of David, the obvious successor, and was
supported by the primary members of David’s old guard. Solomon’s
18 introduction
6
Like Baal, he is the ruler of the earth, while officially still subordinate to Anu,
the king. See Atrahasis (Old Babylonian version) I 7–10 (Lambert and Millard
1969:42–43).
introduction 19
from Baal’s hand to batter the sea god. In 1.6 Anat rescues Baal fol-
lowing his defeat by Mot, by seizing and killing the latter herself.7 Such
a portrayal may indeed reflect the relative helplessness the rulers of
Ugarit may have felt at times when the larger political events of the
region spun out of control. An affirmation of the necessity for estab-
lishing alliances in a world of enemies may be an underlying reason
for this aspect of the Cycle.
On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that at the climax of
each episode of the Cycle, the limited nature of Baal’s kingship is sub-
merged in a proclamation of his power (1.2 IV 31–37; 1.4 VI 38–VII
42; 1.6 VI 30–35). This is most emphatically narrated in 1.4 VI–VII.
With the construction of his palace, the members of the divine council
come for a banquet that is clearly intended to show finally that the gods
recognize Baal’s sovereignty (VI 38–59). This is followed by his victory
tour of the earth in which all the population also submits to him (VII
7–14). Finally, with his grand theophany in VII 25–42, there can be
no question of his complete control of heaven and earth. So in spite
of his weaknesses, Baal sits enthroned on Mt. Sapan as king. As patron
deity of Ugarit, this image of Baal was certainly the primary way in
which he was envisioned. Whatever the vicissitudes the city underwent
in the political turmoil of the times, in moments of danger, they could
call upon Mightiest Baal as a protector (1.119.26’–31a’; 34b’–36’):
When a strong one attacks your gates,
A warrior your walls,
You shall lift your eyes to Baal:
“O Baal, if you will drive the strong one from our gates,
The warrior from our walls,
A bull, O Baal, we will offer,
A vow, O Baal, we will fulfill.”
...
And Baal will hear your prayer.
He will drive the strong one from your gates,
The warrior from your walls.
It is this image of Mightiest Baal and his close relationship to the city
of Ugarit and its king that also appears to be illustrated in the famous
7
We would no longer emphasize Baal’s sending of intermediaries to El concerning
his palace as an example of weakness, since we argue below that this action probably
represents the proper protocol for approaching the elder king with requests of a delicate
nature, and thus does not belong in this discussion.
introduction 21
“Baal with Thunderbolt” stela found near the Temple of Baal in 1932
(AO 15.775 = RS 4.427; for a picture, see Schaeffer 1949:pl. XXII;
UBC 1.107). The primary figure on the stela is clearly Baal, with a
war club in his raised right hand and a javelin (lightning bolt) in his
left. Below his feet appear to be representations of the sea and the
mountains. Between the lower part of his body and the javelin, we find
a considerably smaller figure that almost certainly represents the king
of Ugarit. The striking difference in the size of the figures must be an
attempt to strike the right balance between the glory of the god and
the relative weakness of the king, while indicating that the king has a
clear and close relationship to the god. The stela almost certainly was
located originally in the courtyard of the Temple of Baal, and thus
provided an eloquent illustration for both elite and commoner of the
subtext of the version of the Baal Cycle that Ilimalku inscribed.
This leads us to the question of the audience for this version of the
Baal story and the purpose of Ilimalku’s written copy. The fairly obvious
relationship between the tablets and the royal/priestly classes indicates
that the latter represent the primary audience for the cycle. This does
not mean that the royal version was not also readily known among
the ordinary people of Ugarit. In fact, the importance of assuring a
general sense of the power of the patron deity and the centrality of
kingship and proper succession to the throne for the divine and human
community would suggest that this form of the myth was widely dis-
seminated. The purpose of Ilimalku’s copy of the story was certainly
not to set it away in a library where only a few might read it. An
important feature of tablets 1.3 and 1.4 shows that the written version
was intended to be a guide for an oral and presumably public presenta-
tion of the poem, not a “canonical and final written exemplar” to be
used primarily for reading. The feature is the use of double horizontal
lines at particular points in the narrative to indicate that a portion of
the story has been left out and that it should be replaced by the oral
narrator of the poem when that point of the narrative is reached. This
technique of abridgement appears in 1.3 III after line 31; 1.4 V after
line 41; 1.4 VIII after line 47, and possibly in 1 4 I after line 43. In
each of these cases, Ilimalku (or the scribe who produced tablet that
Ilimalku copied) has chosen not to write down the standard accounts
of messengers’ journeys from the home of the sender to the home of
the recipient. But it is quite clear from the instructional note given after
the lines in 1.4 V—“And return to the recitation about when the lads
are sent—” that the scribe expected an oral storyteller to be able to
22 introduction
Verbal syntax in the Ugaritic narrative poetry has received some impor-
tant treatments, but little exegetical significance has been attached to it,
and it remains something of a mystery.8 Fortunately for Ugaritic studies,
8
In a letter addressed to Pammachius (Letter 57, discussed in Brock 1979:69–70,
reference courtesy of Dr. James Robinson), Jerome refers to “the Holy Scriptures,
where even the word order is a mystery” (“scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo
mysterium est”).
introduction 23
Narrative
I. *yqtl
particle is optional. However, the examples do not bear out this claim.
His main example for a sequence of this type without the particle is
the complex case of 1.2 I 19–20 cited above. The opening word may
be understood not as *yqtl but *qtl. If the latter is correct, it may be
that either *qtl or particle + *yqtl can begin a sequence. For further
discussion, see below under II, #1. Furthermore, in the vast number
of clear cases, *yqtl does not initiate a sequence, but continues it (cf.
BH particle + *yqtl for narrative, e.g., Exod 15:1; cf. BH wayhî at the
beginning of a sequence?). In sum, *yqtl in opening position seems to
signal continuation of narrative sequence, while the addition of the
opening particle apparently marks a further nuance in relating parts
of a long narrative, in particular shifts in scene.
2. W- + *yqtl
i. This sequence of the conjunction w- plus *yqtl follows or continues
the main level of narrative. The construction develops the narrative
sequence by articulating related contents. Examples: 1.1 IV 13: wy‘n
l <p>n ’il d[p’id], “and Beneficent El the Beni[gn] spoke”; 1.1 III 17:
wy‘n k r w ss, “and Kothar wa-Hasis answered” (also 1.2 III 18); 1.2
IV 11, 18: wyp‘r šmthm, “and he proclaimed their names”; 1.2 IV 26:
wydlp tmnh, “and his form collapsed”; 1.2 IV 23: wyrtq md bd b‘l, “and
the weapon leapt from the hand of Baal.” For this last example, Piquer
Otero suggests that w + *yqtl also articulates a paragraph, which includes
a change of subject (compared to the preceding quotation). The dif-
ference between this sequence and [particle] + *yqtl + [subject] is not
maintained, for example in 1.2 IV 15 (*yqtl without w-)//1.2 IV 23
(*yqtl with w-). Evidently, stylistic and discourse factors affect usage.
ii. According to Piquer Otero, “w- of apodosis which may appear
in sentences belonging to the main narrative line after an anticipated
subordinating commentary could be considered similar to the intro-
ducing w- just mentioned . . . Its few attestations do not permit a firmer
hypothesis.” Example: 1.2 IV 6–7: wttn gh is the logical apodosis. A
more complex case is involved in 1.3 II 3–5: kl’at ,grt bht ‘nt/wtqry ,glmm
bšt ,gr, “The double-gates of the house of Anat closed, she met youths
at the foot of the mountain.” For Piquer Otero, wtqry initiates the nar-
rative sequence (contrary to the usual rule described above in 2i). This
difference is attributed to the preceding clause, which is logically subor-
dinate. Accordingly, Piquer Otero suggests rendering: “Once the gates
of Anat’s house are closed, she meets youths at the foot of the moun-
tain.” For him, wtqry then begins the narrative sequence in this context.
introduction 25
3. X + *yqtl
In the context of the main narrative line, the appearance of a sentence
element before the verb conforms to precise syntactical conditions,
involving style and rhetoric. One sort involves a complement (in agree-
ment with the subject), for example 1.2 I 31: qmm ’a[mr] ’amr, “standing,
they spoke a speech.” A second sort is constituted basically by chiasm,
for example in 1.2 I 40 (assuming the correctness of the reconstruc-
tion), with the object fronted for emphasis: [ ymnh ‘n]t t’u d// šm’alh t’u d
trt, “[ His right hand An]at seized//his left hand Athtart seized.” A
third sort, involving an initial prepositional phrase, is more difficult to
classify: either textual reasons may be involved (the introduction of a
new agent or point of view), or style may be significant, for example
in the “reverential” emphasis placed on a character as in 1.6 I 36–37:
lp‘n ’il thbr wtql, “at El’s feet she bowed down and fell” (and its parallel
in 1.1 II 14–17; cf. its thematic reversal in 1.2 I 30: lp‘n ’il ltpl, “at El’s
feet they did not fall”); or fronting for emphasis in some cases, e.g., 1.2
I 24: bhm yg‘r b‘l; “them Baal rebuked,” and 1.2 IV 28: bšm tg‘rm ‘ trt,
“by name Athtart rebuked (him).” (In both of these cases, it may be of
some significance that they open a verbal rebuke.) This category also
includes a case such as 1.2 I 32–33, ’išt ’ištm y’itmr, “a flame, two flames
they appeared.” Here we have a description of the figures discussed
in the preceding three bicola. Piquer Otero also suggests 1.3 II 13–15
as an example: brkm t,gl[ l] bdm mr/ lqm bmm[‘] mhrm, “knee-deep she
glea[n]ed in warrior-blood, neck-deep in the gor[e] of soldiers.” This
*yqtl clause does not discontinue the narrative line, but the verb’s position
following the initial adverbial accusative focuses the description on the
goddess and her action. It is to be noted further that the prepositional
phrases, with the nouns mr//mhrm, suggest that this bicolon elaborates
the preceding mention of mhr introduced initially in 1.3 II 11 ( just as
the nouns in 1.3 II 11–13, r’išt//kpt signal an elaboration of the nouns
r’i[š]//kp, introduced in lines 9–10).
in these cases one might use the present tense for the verbs in order
to highlight the particular foregrounding expressed by these particles.
Such foregrounding appears in the initial line in the four-line unit in 1.3
III 32–34: hlm ‘nt tph ’ilm, “Look! Anat perceives the gods.” Related is
the case of 1.3 II 5–6, whln ‘nt tmt b‘mq, “and look! Anat fights in the
valley.” Compared to the preceding examples, the syntax of the initial
lexeme in this case is more complex: the presentative clause fronted by
hln is linked by w- to the preceding sentence. In these cases the narra-
tive line continues with these clauses, but with an added foregrounding
marked by the presentative particle. An even more complex case with
the presentative particle appears in 1.3 II 17: whln ‘nt lbth tm,g yn, rendered
literally, “and look! Anat to her house goes.” Given the unusually high
number of instances of this clause-type in 1.3 II, it may be recognized
that it plays a key rhetorical role in this particular narrative. Piquer
Otero regards this construction as a “complex nominalized sentence”
with *yqtl. For him, these are not variations of nominal clauses in the
traditional sense. Instead, in text-linguistics such verbal clauses involve
extended presentations of the subject and its actions. For Piquer Otero,
such clauses may be distinguished formally by their departure from the
standard clauses-types discussed above.
II. *qtl
are particularly complex insofar as the actions of these verbs are not
distinguished in time-frame from the preceding nominal clauses in
1.3 II 9–11 and perhaps from the following bicola in 1.3 II 13–15 or
15–16 (both with the syntax of X + *yqtl). Given this apparent simul-
taneity, the bicola would seem to be regarded as belonging to the same
time frame (or at least overlapping), with an alternation of a variety of
clause-types (nominal, then *qtl + X, then X + *yqtl; cf. parallelism of
*yqtl with *qtl within cola, with examples presented in UBC 1.49, #7). For
further discussion, see the commentary to 1.3 II. The *qtl verbs in 1.3
I 4, 8, and 18 reflect stylistic purposes. Each one opens a set of actions
in Baal’s feast, continued by a series of *yqtl forms. These verbs may
not be circumstantial (or subordinate, so Blake, discussed in UBC 1.48);
rather, such verbal forms might initiate the series of actions involved
(see the Commentary to this column; and UBC 1.55–56), which are
continued with *yqtl forms along the lines suggested by Piquer Otero
described above in I, #1.
2. W- + *qtl
Within units providing comment longer than a single sentence, w- may
be used as a subdivider of the text. This usage is analogous to w + *yqtl
on the narrative main level (see I, #1 above). Examples: 1.1 IV 15: wp r
šm ym, “and he pronounced the name Yamm”; and 1.1 III 4–5: wrgm
lk[ r w ss], “and they spoke to Ko[thar wa-Hasis].”
3. [Particle] + X + *qtl
Complex nominalized sentences with *qtl (cf. above I, 4, 1), these
sequences introduce a background comment or an explicative paren-
thesis inserted into the main narrative sequence. Piquer Otero cites 1.2
I 20: ’ap ’ilm l [m] y b, “meanwhile the gods sat down to fea[st]” (the
verb might be viewed as *yqtl, but Dobrusin 1981 has shown the plural
prefix for the third masc. pl. of *yqtl to be t-, not y-). The particle ’ap
suggests that this scene is parallel to the preceding in time-frame (hence
“meanwhile” or the like). Another example appears in 1.4 III 23–26:
’a r m,g y ’al iyn b‘l, “then (or, just as) Mightiest Baal arrived . . .” This
usage with the particle ’a r + *qtl as circumstantial appears prior in time
frame (or “pluperfect”; see UBC 1.47) relative to the same construction
of ’a r + *yqtl, noted above in I, #1. Comparable, but with fronting
for emphasis, is the clause in 1.2 IV 6–7, [b]ph rgm ly ’a . . . wttn gh, “The
word had not yet left his mouth, . . . then she raised her voice.”
28 introduction
9
Regarding initial *qtl forms, Greenstein (1998:412–13) comments in terms
somewhat similar to Piquer Otero’s view: “The qatala forms serve mainly to convey
background . . . and to produce rhetorical functions and patterns such as those observed
by Held . . ., Fenton . . . and Smith.” However, *qtl is sometimes used to begin or close
as well as to highlight a narrative sequence. See Greenstein 2006:96–98.
introduction 29
Direct Discourse
I. *yqtl
2. w- + *yqtl
i. Instead of linking sentences on the same textual level (as this syntacti-
cal structure does in narrative), this structure in direct discourse intro-
duces a comment subordinate to the clause that precedes it. Example:
1.3 III 20–21//1.3 IV 13–14, dm rgm ’i ly w’argmk, “for a message I
have and I will tell (it) to you.”
ii. w- + *yqtl volitive to link to prior *yqtl volitive. Example: 1.2 IV
22b–23a, yprs ym wyql l’ar , “may Yamm sink and fall to the earth”
(see #3 below for further discussion).
30 introduction
3. X + *yqtl
i. With commands, this structure functions as an alternative to the
imperative, sometimes in isolation (1.2 IV 6–7, 10, 13, 20b–21a), or in
more complex imperative structures according to the rule furnished by
Fenton (1969), what might be called “Fenton’s law”: command given in
the imperative is executed in the narrative with *qtl, while commands
given in *yqtl volitives are implemented in the narrative with *yqtl
indicative forms (1.4 IV 4–12, 1.14 II 13–27 with III 55–IV 9, 49–50;
for discussion see UBC 1.51). The two *yqtl volitives in 1.2 IV 22–23
follow the imperative in line 21 in order to express change of subject:
the direct objects following the imperative in line 21 are the parts of
Yamm’s body that the weapon is to strike, while Yamm himself is the
subject of the following jussives in lines 22–23.
ii. In the discourse of narrative anticipation, topicalization by per-
sonal pronoun subject seems to be designed to emphasize the subject
or actant. Examples: 1.2 I 37, hw ybl ’argmnk, “he himself will bring
tribute to you”; 1.3 IV 22, [ ’ a]n ’aqry . . ., “I myself will offer . . .”. In
some cases, it marks a shift in actant: 1.6 II 15, ’an ’itlk, “I myself was
going about . . .”.
iii. Subject + *yqtl constitutes a further possibility of what Piquer
Otero calls the “complex nominalized sentence” (discussed above).
Example: 1.3 V 33–34//1.4 IV 45–46, klnyn qšh nbln/klnyn nbl ksh, “all
of us will bring him a chalice, all of us will bring him a cup.” See also
1.2 IV 8–9.
iv. Object + *yqtl to front the former: 1.5 VI 24–25, ’a r b‘l ’ard
b’ar , “after Baal I will descend to the underworld” (paralleled in 1.6
I 7–8).
4. W- + X + *yqtl
i. This construction in discourse contexts of commands (after impera-
tives) gives a nuance of what Piquer Otero calls subordinate comment
finality (traditionally labeled purpose or result clauses). Example: 1.3
III 28–31//IV 18–19, ’atm w’ank ’ib,g yh, “come that I myself may reveal
it.” Note also the asyndetic variation (without w-) in 1.2 I 18–19, 35: bn
dgn ’ar m p h, “the Son of Dagan that I may possess his gold” (cf. 1.3
III 46–47; 1.4 VII 47–48). For the comparable syntax for subordinate
comment finality, but expressed with the negative, ’al + *yqtl, see 1.3
V 22, ’al ’a dm by[mn]y, “lest I seize it with my [right han]d”; cf. 1.4
VI 10–11; 1.4 VIII 17–18 may be read in this manner; 1.6 I 45–46;
1.6 V 19–20.
introduction 31
5. Particle + X + *yqtl
i. Fronting for emphasis: 1.2 I 25, ’a d ’ilm t‘ny, “together will the gods
answer . . . ?” Or, 1.2 IV 9 (second line of a tricolon), ht ’ibk tm , “now
you will smash your enemy.”
On a higher level of discourse, a particle may function as part of the
means for connecting two speeches: ’ap m n rgmm ’argmn/k, “also on a
second subject I would speak (with you)” (1.3 IV 31–32, 1.4 I 19–20).
II. *qtl
2. W- + *qtl
A rare structure in direct discourse, it works as a comment. The usage
of w- derives from the principle of internal subdivision within a para-
graph (see above II, 2 under narrative).
3. [Particle] + X + *qtl
i. Through topicalization with a subject pronoun, it can mark a change
of subject or actant in a comment. Example: 1.2 I 45, ’an rgmt lym b‘lkm,
“I myself say to Yamm, your lord.” See also 1.2 I 28 (unless the verb
is an infinitive absolute).
ii. This structure may function as a general background frame or
recapitulation coda (complex nominalized sentence). See 1.3 III 36–38
and 1.3 IV 4; 1.4 VI 36–38.
32 introduction
4. W- + X + *qtl
This structure works as a copula subdivision between comments.
III. Imperative
1. Imperative + X.
This structure functions on the main level in texts of commands.
Examples: 1.2 I 16, ny d’tkm, “recite your instructions.” See also 1.2
I 27; 1.2 IV 12, 14, 19b–20a, 21b; 1.4 I 20–21; 1.4 VIII 7–9; 1.5 V
13–14. For an imperative within larger imperative structure, see the
imperative tn used twice in 1.2 I 18 and repeated in 1.2 I 35. For this
structure with a preceding vocative noun, see 1.2 IV 12, 19.
2. W- + Imperative + X
w- acts as a subdivider structuring a chain of imperatives into sections.
Example: 1.2 I 16, wrgm l r ’aby, “and say to Bull [my] fa[ther”; 1.3 VI
21–22, wrgm lk r w ss, “and say to Kothar wa-Hasis.” See also 1.4 V
18//33–34; 1.4 VIII 7–8 and 14; 1.5 V 14–15.
3. Vocative + imperative
This structure focuses on the addressee of the following imperative.
Example: 1.6 II 12, ’at mt tn ’a y, “You, O Mot, give up my brother.”
1.3 and 1.4 show multiple strategies at work within a single column.
Some of these poetic features, such as repetition of a word (#1, 3, 4;
cf. #2), word-pairs (#5, 8) or of roots (#6), also indicate that many of
the same phenomena found within cola serve further to bind cola or
whole sections. Stated differently, the strategies utilized at the micro-level
of the colon are paralleled at the macro-level, that is, across cola. The
same point applies to Biblical Hebrew poetry (Smith 2001b:217–20).
The collection and classification of such features at the macro-level
remain a major desideratum for the study of West Semitic poetry.
At a higher level of complexity, many of these features operate to
generate parallelism of entire scenes in different passages across columns.
For example, the repetition of Baal’s lament in 1.3 IV 47–53//1.3 V
35–44//1.4 I 4–18//1.4 IV 47–57 serves to highlight what is crucially
at stake throughout the middle section of the Baal Cycle in 1.3–1.4.
Similarly, the repetition of terms binding the different figures together
in dialogue within a column (e.g., *mgn//*,g y used four times in 1.4
III 25–26, 28–30, 30–32, 33–36) exists at a higher order of complexity
across columns. For example, the repeating cola about the window in
the palace thread through three columns (1.4 V 61–62, 64–65, 1.4 VI
5–6, 8–9; 1.4 VIII 17–19, 25–27). As with Baal’s lament, this repeti-
tion highlights the importance of the theme within the larger building
story.
introduction 35
within the story. The function of the window is very clear—it represents
the means by which Baal produces the rains for the earth. Because the
granting of rain is one of Baal’s most central functions on the earth,
this indicates just how important the story of its construction is within
the context of the Baal Cycle. But it is not at all clear why Baal at
first refuses to allow Kothar to build it. Baal’s own explanation of his
reluctance to allow a window in the palace is found in 1.4 VI 7–13,
but the passage is badly damaged. However, it makes a reference to
Yamm and to Baal’s daughters, which suggests that perhaps he is con-
cerned about an attack against the latter by the former. But even if we
are correct about this interpretation, Baal’s explanation does not give
a clear sense of the poet’s intent for this story device. Some scholars
have interpreted it as another indication of Baal’s relative weakness
(see the commentary for 1.4 VI, pp. 602–10). But as we have noted
already, it does not seem that the storyteller is using the palace story
to emphasize weakness on Baal’s part. The entire story of the cycle is
filled with obstacles placed before Baal along the road to his exaltation,
some requiring combat (Yamm and Mot), others requiring diplomatic
skills and patience (gaining permission from El). But the overcoming of
obstacles along the way to exaltation need not be thought of as always
suggesting weakness. Rather some of the episodes may have been
intended to show the determined nature of the god’s character. Over
and over again, it appears that his goal of rulership over the universe
will not succeed. But with the help of allies among the gods, Baal is
able to overcome the difficulties. West Semitic storytelling is filled with
narratives in which an obstacle appears to derail the goal of the hero,
but in the end the problems are resolved and the hero reaches his goal.
For example, the opening scenes of the Aqhat Epic present the elderly
Dan il without a male heir and with little hope of getting one. But first
Baal, then El intervene, and Dan il is granted a child, Aqhat. Similarly,
Kirta, whose family is wiped out at the beginning of his epic, now
alone and without hope, is eventually granted a new family. In both
of these stories, further disaster strikes—Aqhat is killed, and Kirta is
nearly killed by disease, and then he is challenged by a son who rebels
against him. Although we do not have the conclusions of either tale, it
seems likely that both stories were resolved with the family line being
restored and (especially for Kirta) the proper succession to the throne
being assured. Similar storytelling techniques are found in the narra-
tive of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 12–25. Yahweh promises them
an heir, but obstacle after obstacle is placed in the way, so that it often
introduction 41
appears that the promise will not be fulfilled. A significant reason for the
popularity of this narrative motif has to do with the joy of telling and
hearing a story in which there is an unexpected and happy reversal of
fortune at the climax. In the story of Baal’s palace, we cannot ignore
this aspect of the storyteller’s art. The audience is certainly aware of
the conclusion toward which the story is heading. i.e., that the palace
will be built, Baal will send forth the rains. It seems possible that the
controversy over the window is intended to provide one last piece of
suspense before Baal reaches his final goal. Because of uncertainty
about the continuing threat of Yamm, Baal is reluctant to put in the
window, in spite of the fact that the window is necessary for him to be
able to send forth his voice and rains. Without the window, Baal can-
not perform his divine function—thus we have a suspenseful moment.
Baal summons all the gods to his new palace, and, unfortunately in
the broken passage at the end of column VI and the beginning of
column VII, the problem with Yamm is resolved (Yamm’s name arises
again in the broken line VII 3–4), though we do not know how. After
this, Baal is willing to put the window in, and the climactic theophany
provides the successful conclusion to the story. It seems plausible then
to recognize in Baal’s delay of putting in the window a narrative ele-
ment that emphasizes that Baal is the one who determines when and
how he fulfils the divine function. He chooses to manifest his power at
the time he determines.
Semitic material (including the Bible). The following sketch begins with
an examination the geography of the gods and their abodes. This will
be followed by analyses of the Ugaritic concepts of the divine family
and its inner workings.
There are several key points to be made about these locales. First of
all, each of these abodes is isolated from the other. The gods are not
envisioned in Ugaritic mythology as living together in “heaven,” but
rather at different locales around the earth, primarily on the moun-
tains. The gods must make substantial journeys to get from one divine
abode to another. Regular communication between them is portrayed
as relatively rare and primarily through messengers.
Secondly, it is important to note that in the mythological texts the
gods have virtually no contact with cities on earth. No relationship is
explicitly made in the literary texts between the abode of the gods
and the temples of these gods in the towns of the kingdom of Ugarit,
even those in the capital. This is quite striking and is in substantial
contrast to the divine geography of Mesopotamia. There the gods are
intimately tied to their cities both by cult and by mythology. While the
Mesopotamian gods are often portrayed as spending time in heaven,
the mythological texts depict them regularly as spending much of their
time in their temples in the cities of which they are patrons. Thus,
Marduk lives in the Esagila in Babylon and the temple is portrayed
as the actual location of the divine council itself (Enuma Elish VI
39–92). Enlil spends his time at the Ekur in Nippur and the town is
described as a dwelling place of gods before it was a dwelling place
for humans (“The Story of Enlil and Ninlil,” Jacobsen 1987:167–80,
esp. 171, lines 10–12). When Inanna decides to journey to the neth-
erworld, she is described as leaving from each of her major temples
in the cities of Sumer ( Jacobsen 1987:206–7). This blending of local
sanctuaries into the mythic patterns in Mesopotamia is quite significant
in showing the close relationship between the temple personnel and
the stories. It indicates the importance of myth in the political sphere
of Mesopotamian life.
The fact that the Baal Cycle draws no explicit connection between
Baal and Ugarit is thus quite striking. Even in the Hebrew Bible, where
mythology is largely replaced with the “historiographic” account of
Israel’s story, the relationship between Yahweh and his people is placed
on a quasi-mythological ground in the account of the building of
Yahweh’s tabernacle in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40, which culminates
with Yahweh’s divine presence, in the form of a cloud, entering the
shrine. The account of the building of the temple in Jerusalem in
1 Kings 5–8, has a similar climax. Ps 48:2–3 clearly links the Jerusalem
temple to a divine palace on Mt. Saphon (= Sapan). There can be
44 introduction
little doubt that the connections between the mythic sphere and the
local temple and palace were on the minds of those involved in the
production of the Baal Cycle, but why the connections are so much
less evident here is a puzzle to which we have not found a solution.
Perhaps the poet assumes that the audience is sophisticated enough to
draw the relationships themselves. Perhaps there was a sense in which
the poet felt that it was inappropriate to draw an explicit connection
between the gigantic mythological palace (“a thousand fields, a myriad
hectares”) with the relatively modest temple at Ugarit.10 If so, it may
hint at the possibility that at Ugarit the religious leadership had already
developed a form of the idea that is articulated in 1 Kgs 8:27: “But will
God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their utmost reaches
cannot contain you, how much less this house that I have built!”
Within the construction of the cycle, the isolation of each of the
gods’ abodes is emphasized by the relative lack of detail in the depic-
tions of the various scenes of the cycle, an aspect of the narrative most
noticeable in 1.3 and 1.4. The poet makes very little attempt to provide
a visual background to the events described in the poem—only rarely
is there a reference to a servant or an element of furniture, and no
attempt is made to indicate the liveliness of a banquet or the drama of
a journey by indicating the large number of people involved, either as
attendees to the banquet or servants bustling about at their duties. The
narrative focuses almost exclusively on the primary characters.
Divine Time
Besides divine geography and its role within the cycle, it is also impor-
tant to examine the role of time here. The temporal setting of the
story of Baal provides some interesting insight into the way the poet
intends for the audience to understand the action of the epic. F. A. M.
Wiggerman (1996) has examined the role of temporal setting in the
mythological texts of Mesopotamia and has argued that the stories of
cosmic conflict, in which anthropomorphic gods battle enemies that
are portrayed as dragons and monsters, and which often have to do
with creation and the establishment of order in the cosmos, are more
clearly depicted as occurring in the ancient past. Stories that do not
10
We thank Prof. Gary Porton of the University of Illinois for this suggestion.
introduction 45
deal with monstrous enemies and creation of the world are generally
set in a vague present.
While the Baal Cycle presents episodes of cosmic conflict (the battles
with Yamm and Mot), one of the most noteworthy aspects of these
stories is that they do not culminate in creation. It is thus not too sur-
prising that there is no indication that these stories are set in a distant
past. Rather the cycle seems to be set in the vague near present. Thus,
in 1.3 II, Anat goes forth to fight against human armies, which clearly
indicates that the story is not being portrayed as a series of events
that preceded the creation of humanity. The only aspect of the story
that clearly suggests a time in the distant past (but still after creation)
is the use of the construction of the palace to provide an aetiology for
Baal’s function as sender of the rain. From a modern point of view,
the long-term presence of humanity on earth suggested by Anat’s battle
conflicts with the idea that it was only after Baal built his palace that he
sent forth his rains. How could the world have existed so long without
the rain? But such chronological lapses are not of significance in most
mythological storytelling.
The apparent return of Yamm and Mot after their defeat also indi-
cates in a clear way something that is less obvious, but also present, in
the Enuma Elish, that the death of these antagonists is never consid-
ered final, that the threat that they represent (chaos, death) never fully
subsides and that thus these battles in a certain way remain or perhaps
repeat themselves eternally. This concept informs Enuma Elish, VII
132–34 (Foster 2005:483), in which the poet explains one of Marduk’s
fifty names by stating, “He shall keep Tiamat subdued, he shall keep her
life cut short.” This is stated after Marduk has killed her and created
the world with her body. And yet, she must still be subdued. Thus even
in a tale that is ostensibly set in the distant past, there is a significant
undercurrent of meaning that connects those primordial events to
the present. In the Baal Cycle that undercurrent is considerably more
obvious than in the Enuma Elish, as Yamm continues to play a role
in the story of the building of the palace in 1.4 VI 12, VII 3–4, and
Mot, after dying in 1.6 II 30–37, returns after seven years in 1.6 V 8ff
to fight Baal again. Recognizing the eternal nature of the struggles in
the poem helps in understanding how Baal can eternally be the king
of the gods, while at the same time he can also be defeated by Mot
and killed. All of this occurs together in an eternal present. One simply
focuses on the aspect of Baal that is of importance to the moment.
46 introduction
11
See Schloen 1995: esp. 41, 73. In the general approach and areas of data per-
taining to this subject, Schloen follows Stager 1985. For an older appreciation of the
family as the basic unit of society, see Mendelsohn 1948:24–40.
12
For this word, see the options discussed in Healey 1980 and Dietrich 1995.
48 introduction
detail below.) In any case, it is worth noting that the conflicts described
in the Baal Cycle all involve the gods of this level. No deity ever disputes
the status of El or Athirat.
Although we have the names of several members of this tier, we know
that there were many more. The gods of this rank were collectively
called, “the seventy, the children of Athirat” (1.4 VI 46). “Seventy” is
well known as a conventional number for a large and clearly defined
group (see Judg 9:5; 2 Kgs 10:1; cf. Exod 1:5; KAI 215:3; Montgomery
1933:120; Fensham 1977), usually under the authority of a patriarchal
figure, often a king.13 In the narrative of Elkunirša, a West Semitic myth
written in Hittite, Ashertu’s children number 77//88 (Hoffner 1998:91),
the same number of Baal’s divine rivals in 1.12 II 48–49. Also at Emar
the traditional number of the gods in the pantheon appears to have
been seventy (Emar 373.37–38; Fleming 1992:73, 242; 2000b:57–59,
238–39). This tradition perhaps survives in the later Jewish notion of
the seventy angels who deal with the seventy nations (1 Enoch 89:59,
90:22–25; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Deut 32:8; bT. Shabbat 88b;
Sukkah 55b; see TO 1.214 n. k; J. Day 1994:184; 2000:23–24). It is
to be noted that in some of these cases, specifically Judg 9:5 and KAI
215:3, the groups of seventy family members play roles in dynastic
conflicts. The number expresses the entirety of a family line that may be
threatened with extinction, precisely the issue raised in the Baal Cycle.
When Athirat first sees Baal and Anat coming to her in 1.4 II 21–26,
her reaction is one of fear that they have come to attack her children.
In fact such a conflict appears to occur when Baal returns from the
dead in 1.6 V 1–4. The notion that the key gods of the cosmos belong
to the familial group, the children of Athirat, explains the importance
of Baal’s feast for this group when his palace is completed (1.4 VI
38–59). The presence of the children of Athirat at the inauguration
of the palace and their taking part in the grand banquet indicates the
acknowledgment of Baal’s position by the entire pantheon (Mot, of
course, excluded), and thus assures the audience of the established
nature of Baal’s kingship.
Besides Baal, the other primary deity from the second tier who plays
an important role in 1.3–1.4 is Anat. She is Baal’s sister, but at the
same time appears to be a daughter of El (cf. 1.3 V 25; 1.18 I 16).
13
For more examples and further discussion of this “seventy,” see the Commentary
to 1.4 VI 46 on p. 629.
introduction 49
Her relationship to Athirat, however, does not suggest that she is one
of her offspring. Her character is unique among the deities in Ugaritic
myth, closely related to that of Inanna/Ishtar in the Mesopotamian
texts. She is portrayed as a young woman who is legally unattached to
any male, and therefore her place in the pantheon remains fluid (Walls
1992; P. L. Day 1991). She sometimes expresses a startling contempt for
authority and is willing to threaten even El to get her way (1.3 V 19–25
and 1.18 I 11–14). She also occasionally breaks out into unrestrained
anger and violence. Her shockingly brutal attack on her enemies in
1.3 II, her killing and dismemberment of Mot in 1.6 II 30–35 and
her harsh murder of Aqhat because of his stubbornness in refusing
to give her his bow (1.18 IV 16–39) all illustrate what Frymer-Kensky
(1992:65) calls her “sheer force, rage, and might, with a physical power,
that exists in a somewhat uneasy relationship to the orderly world of
the hierarchical pantheon.” But the key characteristic of Anat is her
intense love for and loyalty to Baal. She is his strongest ally and will
do anything in her power to help him. In 1.3 III 35–47 she refers to
her own mighty battles with Baal’s enemies. She is the first one Baal
enlists in trying to gain El’s permission for the palace (1.3 III–V), and
although her threatening demeanor appears to derail her attempt, the
passion released against El is grounded in her devotion to Baal. She
continues to support him in his meeting with Athirat (1.4 III 23–44),
and she is the happy messenger who brings Baal the good news of
El’s permission (1.4 V 20–35). She will go on to play a key part in the
story of Baal and Mot.
Another element of the second tier would presumably be the offspring
of the children of El and Athirat, i.e., the gods of the third generation.
Very little is preserved about this generation of gods at Ugarit, unlike
in Mesopotamia, where several generations of gods were constructed,
with major deities coming from different genealogical levels. At Ugarit
the only children of the third generation who make an appearance are
Baal’s daughters, Pidray, Tallay and Ar ay (cf. 1.3 I 22–25; III 5–8; 1.4
I 14–18 and parallels; VI 10–11; 1.5 V 10–11). The vagueness with
which these three women are described in the cycle makes it difficult to
be certain that they are literally Baal’s daughters. It is also possible they
are his wives instead (see particularly 1.3 III 5–8), and that the term,
“daughter” is not being used literally in this context. On the other hand,
Pidray is explicitly portrayed as Baal’s daughter in CAT 1.24.26–27,
when ar ab, king of summer, suggests that Yari marry Pidray rather
than Nikkal, saying, “I will introduce you to her father Baal.” But with
50 introduction
14
On this god, see M. S. Smith 1985, and Pardee, DDD 913–14.
introduction 51
15
The name of Dagan has been derived from Arabic *dajana, “to be cloudy, rainy”
(cf. Wehr 272: “to be dusky, murky, glomy (of day)”). Renfroe (1992:91–94) and Healey
(1993:507) are critical of this etymology, given the distance in time and space (see also
UBC 1.91 n. 174; Feliu 2003:278–87). Dagan was a major god of the middle Euphra-
tes from Hadidi/Azu upstream to Terqa downstream, and at points in between, such
as Tuttul and Emar. For Dagan at Emar, see Fleming 1992:169–71, 203–8, 240–56,
282–83; Fleming 1993; Beckman 1996:27–28, text 15, line 32, where along with the
warrior-god Ninurta he is invoked to destroy anyone who would contest the words of
the testament. For Dagan in Ur III texts, see Sharlach 2001:95–96. For a recent survey
of the god, see Feliu 2003.
16
Another indication of Baal’s outsider status is found in CAT 1.24.25–26, where
the moon-god Yarih is called the “brother-in-law of Baal.” For the situation that Dagan
and Adad appear to share a wife in Babylonia ca. 1900, see Lambert 1980:137; Feliu
2003:290.
52 introduction
17
Texts from outside Ugarit provide other versions of the conflict between Baal and
the family of El and Athirat, as well as indications of his irregular birth. See particu-
larly the story of Elkunirsha (a Hittite version of a West Semitic myth) and Philo of
Byblos (see Smith 2001a:63–65). An anthropological perspective to such inner-familial
conflicts can be found in Hrdy 1999: esp. 33, 179–85, 236.
introduction 53
Recognizing these elements helps to flesh out the overall intent of the
poet and brings the reader to a grander sense of what the epic may
have meant to its ancient audience.
The centrality of rain for the agricultural economy of Ugarit plays
a foundational role in the portrayal of Baal in the cycle. UBC 1.97–99
argued that each of the three primary episodes of the cycle appears
to come to a climax with the arrival of Baal’s rains. This can be inter-
preted as each episode focusing in on the beginning of the rainy season
in the autumn. Thus the weapons used by Baal against Yamm in 1.2
IV can easily be seen as representing Baal’s lightning, the harbinger
of the rains. In the second episode, Baal’s grand theophany from his
palace climaxes and concludes the story of his palace, and there is no
doubt that it refers to the fall inauguration of the rainy season. Again,
in the story of Baal and Mot, Baal’s return to life is explicitly con-
nected to the return of the rains after a long period of dryness (1.6 III
4–7), thus again using the imagery of the autumn return of rain. The
threefold use of the image of the arrival of the rains emphasizes the
importance of this theme within the poem. It also suggests that each
separate episode was intended to climax with the image of triumphant
Baal sending the rains. As mentioned above, this is clearly the image
of Baal with which the poet intended to leave the audience, not with
a sense of Baal as a relatively weak king (as has often been assumed).
Baal works his way through numerous obstacles in each of the episodes,
but ends as the undisputed ruler of the cosmos. This is exactly the way
we would expect the god whose function it is to mediate the bless-
ings of the natural universe to human society to be portrayed. Baal is
exactly as powerful as he needs to be to perform his cosmic function,
in balance with Sea and Death. He is not described as an absolute
ruler such as Marduk is in the Enuma Elish because he is envisioned
by the poet as being part of a divine household, while the poet of the
Enuma Elish envisions Marduk as an absolute monarch, according
to the political imagery that developed in Mesopotamia—something
quite divorced for the portrayal of the patrimonial household. Thus
the expectations concerning the type of power attributed to the two
gods are quite different. But to his subjects at Ugarit Baal is king and
triumphant warrior. Under El’s tutelage, he is the most powerful of
the gods, bringer of rains and fertility.
58 introduction
We have already noted above that in the Near East there often appears
to have been a strong relationship between the mythic presentation of
the divine world and the human world on earth. This seems true of
the connection between Baal’s palace and his temple at Ugarit, even
though the latter is never explicitly connected to the former in the text.
The palace on Mount Sapan is the central issue of the episode that
dominates 1.3 and 1.4, and it seems that in many ways the palace and
the mountain play a key part in defining the character of Baal himself.
The poet’s focus upon the palace in the narrative in turn almost cer-
tainly amplified for the audience in Ugarit Baal’s critical role for the
people of the city, and also strongly hinted at the function of Baal’s
temple (and the cult undertaken within it) in the city. In this section we
will look into some aspects of the function of the mythological motifs
in merging the depiction of the divine world with the realities in the
mundane context of Ugarit.
In the ancient Near East there was no closer relationship between
the divine and the human than that expressed in the temple of the
god and the cultic activities that were performed there. The priesthood
made significant attempts through ritual and through narrative to
identify the heavenly sanctuary on the holy mountain with the temple
in the city, itself also often (but not always) located on a hill. The goal
was to make the god accessible to the city, to encourage him to bless
the city, and to join the population to the god. We will examine some
of the ways in which the two worlds of the divine and human came
together at Ugarit and how this is sometimes reflected within the Baal
Cycle. Four aspects of this relationship will be examined in this final
section of the Introduction (see also Smith 2005): (1) the intersection
of deity and humanity at the temple; (2) the deity’s story and its rela-
tionship to the temple; (3) the close relationship between the divine
and earthly palace or temple and the character of the deity; and (4)
how the features of the temple were used to actually create an image
of the god himself.
18
In addition to these explicit markers of garden imagery in the Temple, Bloch-Smith
(1994:27) observes: “the molten sea perhaps symbolized secondarily the primordial
waters issuing forth from Eden (Gen 3:10), and the twin pillars modeled the trees
(of life and knowledge) planted in the garden.” Bloch-Smith’s observations about the
Jerusalem temple as the divine garden known also from Genesis 2–3 stand in a long
line of scholarship (for references and discussion, see Wallace 1985:70–89; Stordalen
2000:409–37).
introduction 61
in the power of the deity. Baal’s mountain is the site of “victory” (tl’iyt),
according to CAT 1.3 III 31 and 1.10 III 31. Similarly, Yahweh’s
power is manifest terrestrially in the tradition of Jerusalem’s strength
(Psalm 46). Its titles include terms of power and security, “refuge and
stronghold” (ma ăseh wā‘ōz; Ps 46:2) and “haven” (miśgāb; Pss 46:8, 48:4).
Great size is also an element of this discourse of strength (discussed
below). Given the widespread nature of the discourse of power in West
Semitic texts, power may be regarded as one of the dominant shared
predications made between deities and their temples or mountains. Just
as the deity guarantees the security of their temple/palace, the latter
remains the terrestrial manifestation of the deity’s power.
A further expression of participation and identification between god
and temple involves holiness. Smith (2001a:93–97) has discussed this
element at length, so we will merely summarize here. Both gods and
temples/mountains are referred to as “holy” in the Ugaritic texts. A
common epithet of the gods is bn qdš, “sons of holiness,” or possibly,
“sons of the Holy One” (CAT 1.2 I 20–21, 38; 1.17 I 3, 8, 10–11, 13,
22; cf. the Phoenician inscription KAI 4:4–5 referring to the deities in
general as the “holy ones,” qdšm; cf. UBC 1. 294–95; Merlo 1997:50).
Baal’s voice is called holy in the account of his great storm theophany
in 1.4 VII 29. At the same time the mountain where Baal lives, Mount
Sapan, is called qdš, “holy.” In the Aqhat Epic, the word is used specifi-
cally as a synonym for “temple” (1.17 I 26 and parallels). The use of
this term for deity, temple and sacred mountain is also found in the
Hebrew Bible. Thus the temple mount in Jerusalem is called “his holy
mountain” (har qodšô; Ps 48:2) and “the holy dwelling-place of the Most
High” (qĕdôš miškĕnê ‘elyôn; Ps 46:5). Israelite texts also mention the Holy
Ones collectively as a divine body or assembly led by Yahweh, their
king (Ps 89:6b–7a). It is the god’s presence, of course, that imparts
holiness to the location, and thus the temple gains its status through
its participation with the god.
Holiness within a cult site plays a central role in the development
and maintenance of political and religious power and status (cf. Guthrie
1996:133–35). Those in charge of maintaining the holiness within the
sacred area themselves become influential and powerful. Thus we find
at Ugarit that the king (and sometimes his family—1.112.6–7) plays
a key role in the ritual of the major temples in the city (cf. 1.46.10;
1.105.19–20; 1.109.2; 1.112.1–17; 1.119.1–24’; etc.). The holiness then
comes from the god to the temple to the king, who becomes the conduit
for bringing its blessings to the state and its people.
introduction 63
19
See Levenson 1988:82–88.
64 introduction
into the temple. Finally at the threshold to the cella, a right footprint
was carved, indicating both the giant stride of the god who needed
only two steps to reach the interior of the temple, but also indicating
(since there are no footprints pointing out of the rooms) that the deity
was now in residence.
Israel also understood its deity and the cultic appurtenances devoted
to him in terms of superhuman size (Greenfield 1985; Smith 1988;
Bloch-Smith 1994). The large size of certain of the structures in the
Solomonic Temple courtyard would suggest that they were not intended
for human use, but belonged to the realm of the divine. Accordingly, a
sort of homology between the size of the deity and temple is assumed.
Such a homology between the divinity and the temple functions to
increase the identification of the two, to use the temple to house not
just the deity, but also the deity’s story and to use the deity to express
the social and political importance of the house.
A second area where the physical aspects of the temple merge with
the appearance of the deity is in its perceived beauty and pleasantness.
In the texts we find that both the gods and their abodes are described
occasionally with identical terms of beauty. Thus deities are called
“lovely, pleasant” (n‘m) and “beautiful, attractive” (*wsm). In CAT 1.14
III 41–42 (paralleled in 1.14 VI 26–28), Kirta’s prospective bride is
compared in her beauty to both the goddess Anat, who is described
with the word n‘m, “loveliness” and the goddess Athtart is said to possess
tsm (< *wsm), “beauty” (followed by a description of eyes like lapis and
alabaster—in short “blue eyes”). The newborn gods of 1.23 are called
both ’ilm n‘mm (1.23.23, 60, 67 and probably in the damaged lines 1
and 58) and ysmm (< *wsm; 1.23.2), “handsome ones”. In general, n‘m
and words from the root *wsm both refer to aspects of a “good” physi-
cal appearance (see Pardee 1997b:276 n. 5).
Baal’s mountain also has n‘m. In 1.3 III 30–31 and in 1.10 III 31,
Mount Sapan is described as “the lovely mountain/hill of victory.”
The attribute of beauty given to the god’s abode is elaborated upon in
the brief description of the palace he builds in 1.4 V–VII. While no
details of the décor are given, the poet refers several times to the use
of gold, silver and lapis lazuli as primary components of the temple
structure. The Israelite temple is described in greater detail, with a clear
emphasis on the beauty and splendor of its appearance (1 Kings 6–7; cf.
the description of the heavenly palace of Yahweh in Exod 24:10, with
its sapphire pavement). The attractiveness of the temple is apparently
intended to evoke the attractiveness of the deity worshiped there.
introduction 65
20
For text, translation and notes, see Pardee 1988a:119–52. See also Pope and
Tigay 1971; Irwin 1983:54–57; Xella 1996:396–98; and Wyatt 1998:388–90. Pardee
sees ly as a reference to the goddess Dewy associated with Baal, which is possible.
Pardee rightly compares gl and r in this text with gl in the Baal Cycle (1.4 V 6–9)
cited above. The word kt in the latter context is accordingly to be emended to rt. See
the Commentary to 1.4 V 6–9 for further details.
21
Pardee (1988a:124, 125) reconstructs “lips” before the simile kyn ddm, hence “lips
like wine-jars,” and he takes lbh with what follows in the lacuna. This approach is philo-
logically possible, since ddm may be either “jar” (e.g., dd šmn gdlt) or “love” (//’ahbt//yd
in CAT 1.3 III 2; cf. Akkadian dadu). This approach is, however, less likely syntactically.
With Pardee’s rendering, one would expect instead *kdd yn. Or, perhaps assuming “lips”
is to be reconstructed, perhaps kyn ddm lbh is an extended simile, “like the wine of the
love of his heart” (this translation assumes enclitic mem on ddm).
66 introduction
1.3 I
[About 25 lines are missing at the beginning of the column.]
1.3 II
[About 25 lines are missing at the beginning of the column.]
1 ...
2–3 Henna for seven girls,
With scent of musk and murex.
3–5 The gates of Anat’s house closed,
She met youths at the foot of the mountain.
70 translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4
1.3 III
1.3 IV
[This column continues directly from the previous one.]
[ There is a gap of about 15 lines. The extant text picks up with Baal’s complaint
about his need for a palace.]
1.3 V
[This follows directly from the previous lines.]
1.3 VI + 1.8
1.8
13–14 + 2–3 The downpour is the binding (upon) your (two) heads,
The lightning between your (two) eyes.
15–17 + 4–6 [ Travel] a thousand š i[r on] the sea,
A myriad [ ] on the rivers.
76 translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4
1.3 VI 7–25
1.4 I
[About 23 lines are missing at the top of the column.]
1 “ ‘. . .
2 ...
3 ...
4–6 [ In lament]
[ He cr]ies to Bull [ El, his Father],
[ To E]l, the King [who created him].
6–8 [ He cri]es to Athi[rat and her children],
The goddess [and the band of ] her [brood]:
9–11 [‘For Baal has no house like the gods’],
[ No court like Athi]ra[t’s children’s].
12–14 The dw[el]ling of El is the shelter of his son,
The dwelling of Lady Athirat of the Sea,
14–16 The dwelling of the Noble Brides,
The dwelling of Pidray, Daughter of Light,
17–18 The shelter of Tallay, Daughter of Showers,
The dwelling of Arsay, Daughter of the Wide World.’
19–20 On a second subject I would speak with you:
20–22 Please, see to a gift for Lady Athirat of the Sea,
A present for the Creatress of the Gods.’ ”
23–24 The Skilled One ascended to the bellows,
Tongs in the hands of Hasis.
translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4 77
1.4 II
[About 16 lines are missing at the top of the column.]
1 [ ]
2 . . . the stone [ ]
3–4 She took her spindle [in her hand],
An exalted spindle in her right hand.
5–7 As for her robe, the covering of her skin,
She conveyed her garment into the sea,
Her double-robe into the rivers.
8–9 She set a jar on the fire,
A pot on top of the coals,
10–11 She would exalt Bull El the Beneficent,
Honor the Creator of Creatures.
12–14 When she lifted her eyes, she looked,
Athirat indeed saw Baal’s advance,
14–16 The advance of Adolescent Anat,
The approach of the In-law [of the Peoples].
16–18 On her, feet [shook],
[Arou]nd, loins [trembled],
[Above,] her fa[ce] sweated.
19–20 [ The joints of her loi]ns convulsed,
Weak were the ones of [her] back.
21 She raised her voice and declared:
21–24 “Why has Mightiest Baal come?
Why has Ado[les]cent Anat come?
78 translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4
1.4 III
[About 12 lines are missing at the top of the column.]
1.4 IV
[About 12 lines are missing at the top of the column.]
1 . . . Bull [ El . . . Father].
1–2 [And Lady] Athir[at of the Sea answered]:
2–4 “[ Hear, O Qudsh] wa-Amrar,
[O Fisher of Lady] Athirat of the Sea:
4–7 [Tie the horse,] harness the stallion;
[Set ropes of ] silver,
Golden [bridles];
Prepare the ropes of [my] mare.”
8 Qud<sh> wa-Amra[r] complied:
9–12 He tied the horse, harnessed the stallion;
He set ropes of silver,
Golden bridles;
He prepared the ropes of her mare.
13–15 Qudsh wa-Amrar clasped,
Set Athirat on the back of the horse,
On the beautiful back of the stallion,
16–17 Qudsh flared up as a flame,
Amrar, like a star in front.
18–19 Behind (came) Adolescent Anat,
But Baal departed for the summit of Sapan.
20–22 So she headed out
For El at the springs of the Rivers,
Amid the streams of the Deeps.
80 translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4
1.4 VI
[Lines 60 –63 are too broken to translate. Between 2 and 5 additional lines are
missing at the end of the column.]
1.4 VII
1 . . .]lapis lazu[li] . . .
2 . . . Mightiest Baal
3–4 . . . the Beloved of El, Ya[mm] . . .
4 . . . on top of his head.
5 El/the god[s] . . .departed from the mountain . . .
6 When/Indeed the gods [X-ed] on/from Sapan.
7–8 He crossed to [the chief ] city,
He turned to the [chie]f town.
9–10 Sixty-six (surrounding) cities he seized,
Seventy-seventy towns.
11–13 Eighty Baa . . .
Ninety Baal . . .
13–14 Baal [ent]ers (?) into the house.
14–15 And Mightiest Baal spoke:
15–16 “I will install, O Kothar, Son of Sea,
Kothar, Son of the Confluence:
17–20 Let an aperture be opened in the house,
A window inside the palace.
So let a break in the clouds be [op]ened,
According to the w[ord of ] Kothar wa-Hasis.”
21–22 Kothar wa-Hasis laughed,
He raised his voice and declared:
23–25 “I truly told you, O Mightiest Baal:
‘You will reconsider my word, O Baal.’ ”
25–28 An aperture was opened in the house,
A window inside the palac[e].
Baal opened a break in the clouds,
29–30 Baa[l] gave forth his holy voice.
Baal repeated the is[sue of (?)] his [li(?)]ps,
31–35 His ho[ly (?)] voice covered (?) the earth,
[At his] voice . . . the mountains trembled.
The ancient [mountains?] leapt [up?],
The high places of the ear[th] tottered.
35–37 The enemies of Baal took to the woods,
The haters of Hadd to the mountainsides.
37–38 And Mightiest Baal spoke:
38–39 “O Enemies of Hadd, why do you tremble?
Why tremble, you who wield a weapon against the Warrior?”
translation of cat 1.3 and 1.4 85
[Lines 57–60 are too broken, and about seven additional lines are missing at the
end of the column.]
1.4 VIII
Following the four horizontal lines, another twenty or so lines are missing at the
end of the column.]
Find Spots: The larger fragment, RS 3.363, was found in 1931 (third
campaign) at “point topographique” 339, in the northeast quadrant
of the southern entry room of the House of the High Priest, (see
the plan in Bordreuil and Pardee 1989: 25, fig. 7). The fragment RS
3.364 = CAT 1.8, which is now identified as the upper part of 1.3 VI
(Pardee i.p.) was found at the same location and is also listed under
“point topographique” 339. See the introductory material on 1.3 VI for
detailed discussion of 1.8 (pp. 408–9). The small fragment, containing
a few lines of columns III, IV, and V, was found the previous year, in
a different location. Unfortunately, the inventory list for the second sea-
son has been lost, and the locations of the tablets found in this season
can only be narrowed to the topographical points numbered 210–264.
These points comprise finds that were made in several different places
across the house, including the room directly to the west of the one
in which the larger fragment was found, the room at the far west side
of the house where the first season’s tablets were discovered, a room
in the northeastern corner of the house, and in the street outside the
southern door (“Rue de la bibliotheque”). This fragment could have
been found in any of these locations. In any case, it was discovered
several meters away from the main body of the tablet.
When found, the main fragment was in good company. The area
composing the southern entry room, the southern doorway and the
street just outside the door was the location where CAT 1.1, 1.2 III,
88 cat 1.3
probably 1.2 I, II, IV (see the discussion above, p. 10, n. 4), two frag-
ments of 1.4, and parts of the Kirta and Aqhat Epics were found.
It appears that many of the tablets in the House of the High Priest
were found in the rubble of the collapse, rather than on the floor (cf.
Schaeffer’s description of the finds of the third season 1932:22). This
indicates that the tablets had been located on the second floor of the
house (cf. Pardee 2002:8 n. 3). The fact that fragments of 1.3 (as well
as fragments of 1.4, 1.6, and probably 1.16) were widely dispersed
across the house suggests that the tablets had already been ransacked
and broken in pillaging that occurred before the house collapsed.
The three fragments of 1.3 (including 1.8) preserve slightly over
half of the text originally written on the tablet. RS 3.363 contains the
lower parts of columns I–III on the obverse, and the upper sections
of columns IV–VI on the reverse. The small fragment preserves part
of the top lines of column III and the last few lines of column IV,
while RS 3.364 contains at least parts of the first seventeen lines of
column VI. Each column probably held ca. 65–70 lines of text, giv-
ing the tablet approximately 390 to 420 lines, of which at least part
of 239 lines remain. As is characteristic of Ilimalku, the first column
on the obverse is narrower than the other two columns. The middle
column is the widest of the three, but the right-hand column has the
advantage that the scribe may continue around the right edge of the
tablet to finish a long line. On the reverse, the pattern continues, with
column IV (on the right side) making use of the right edge, column V
the widest on the side, and column VI the narrow one. One can see
the same pattern on CAT 1.4 and 1.5, and to a lesser extent, 1.6.
In his editio princeps (1938), Virolleaud chose to divide his presenta-
tion of the tablet into six units that do not always correspond to the
columns of text. He designated them with the letters A–F. Section A
corresponded to column I, but B contained column II, plus the opening
three lines of column III, preserved on the small fragment, RS 2.[014].
Section C was made up of column III 4–31, ending with the double
line that marks a jump in the narrative. Section D picked up with III
32 and went to IV 46, while E included the end of column IV from
cat 1.3 89
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1938:1–10, pls. I, XI, 1936:336–45; CTA 14–15, fig. 7, pls.
IV, VI; KTU 9–10; CAT 10; Pardee 1988b:1–2.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 24–25; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.153–56; Cas-
suto, GA 84–85, 107–13; Coogan 1978:89–90; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1135–37;
Driver, CML1 82–85; Gaster, Thespis 235–6; Gibson, CML2 46–47; Ginsberg, ANET
135–36; Gordon, UL 17, 1977:76; Gray, LC2 38–39; Jirku 26; Lipiński 1970; Loretz
2002b; de Moor, SPUMB 67–84, 1987:2–4; Obermann, UgM 8–12; del Olmo Lete,
MLC 179–80; MLR 66–67; Pardee 1988b:2–67; 1997a:249–50; Smith 1990, UNP
105–7; Wyatt 1998:70–72; Xella 1982:97; van Zijl, Baal 47–52.
1 ’al.t∫¿l[ ]∫xl[ ]
prdmn.‘bd.’äl’ï[ ]
b‘l.s’id.zbl.b‘l
’ar .qm.y ‘r
5 w.yšl mnh
ybrd. d.lpnwh
b rb.ml t
q .mr’i.ndd
y‘šr.wyšqynh
10 ytn.ks.bdh
krpn[[m]]m.bkl’at.ydh
bkrb.‘ m.r’idn
mt.šmm.ks.qdš
ltphnh.’a t.krpn
15 lt‘n.’a rt.’alp
kd.yq .b mr
rbt.ymsk.bmskh
qm.ybd.wyšr
m ltm.bd.n‘m
20 yšr.¿zr. b.ql
‘l.b‘l.∫b. rrt
pn.ytmr.b‘l
bnth.y‘n.pdry
bt.’ar.’apn. ly
92 cat 1.3 i
25 [ ]∑rb.pdr.yd‘
[ ]t.∂hm3xlt
[ ]
[ ]mkt
Textual Notes
Line 1. ’al.t∫¿l[ ]x∂ l[ Only the lower diagonal wedge of the /¿/ is
preserved, but that assures the reading. Following it, the tips of two
long verticals are barely visible. The context argues for /l/ over / /. In
the succeeding break, there is room for a word divider and perhaps a
letter before the lower line of a horizontal wedge appears. This could
be /t/, as suggested by CAT, but it may also be the right wedge of
/k/ or /r/, or perhaps, /n/ or /’a/. That wedge is followed by vague
traces of perhaps three vertical wedges, a possible /l/, although the
traces seem rather bunched together in comparison to other /l/’s.
Line 2. prdmn.cbd. äl ï[ The /n/ has four wedges. The top parts
of /’al’i/ have been lost, but each is certain epigraphically as well as
contextually.
Line 5. yšl mnh The /n/ here also has four wedges.
Line 6. lpnwh The form of the word with a /w/ is unusual and might
involve an error (for /n/?). The /h/ has four horizontals.
Line 11. krpn[[m]]m. Things are complex at the /n/. It is clear that
the scribe wrote an /m/ first, then replaced it with an /n/. Cf. Pardee
(1998b:87): krpn. The second /m/ encroaches on the right wedge of
the /n/, suggesting that it was written after the scribe corrected the
first /m/ with the /n/. Thus it is presumably part of the word.
ydh The /h/ has four wedges.
cat 1.3 i 93
Line 12. r dn The /n/ appears from its upper line to have four
wedges.
Line 17. rbt The form for the word, “ten thousand” or “myriads,”
elsewhere is rbbt. Accordingly, haplography may be suspected here.
Line 21. cl. bcl.b rrt The / / is clear, even though the edges are
abraded away. Pardee sees a word divider between /b/ and / rrt/.
There is clearly a dimple there, but we are reluctant to identify it as a
word divider. It is possible though.
Line 25. [ ]∂rb We see no trace of the /b/ read by CAT at the begin-
ning of the line. The /r/ is certain only due to context. The only part
preserved is the right horizontal; there are no actual traces of wedges
to the left along the break.
Line 26. [ ]t.∫hmxlt We believe that what CAT reads as an /c/ before
the first /t/ is actually just a break. The /h/ is read as an /’i/ in both
CTA and CAT. However, what both identify as the lower left vertical
of the /’i/ is actually breakage. The letter following /m/ is virtually
gone, but there appear to be lines of two horizontals consistent with a
/k/. The following /l/ is certain, although only the tops of the wedges
are preserved.
Line 28. [ ]mkt Both wedges of the /m/ are partially preserved
and are certain. The /k/ is also clear, with all three wedges visible. The
upper part of the /t/ is broken, but the letter is certain.
1
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:114; UG 169.
2
Pope (in Smith 1998b:653) compared Arabic sayyid, “a noun of respect.” See
DUL 751.
3
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:110; UG 172.
cat 1.3 i 95
4–8 He stood, arranged and offered him qāma ya ‘uru4 wa-yašal imuna-
food, hu
Sliced a breast before him, yabrudu5 ada lê6-
panawi-hu7 (?)
With a salted knife, a cut of fatling. bi8- arbi malū ati qa a
marī’i
Baal’s Drink
4
See DUL 898; Pope (in Smith 1998b:653); and Commentary below on p.
105–6.
5
Often related to BH/Aramaic *prd, “to separate,” also Akkadian parādu, Arabic
farada; see DUL 236; cf. PN ybrdmy in 1.24.29; see Garr 1986:50 and Sivan 1997:27
explaining the shift from *p > *b as a partial assimilation of b to the following unvoiced
phoneme.
6
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:142; UG 172.
Huehnergard prefers a vocalization of li-. Blau and Greenfield (1970:16) explain the
form: “in ‘Proto-Ugaritic’ ’ilā which no longer exists in Ugaritic, left a mark on its
partial synonym la by influencing its ending: la + ’îlē (< ’ilay) = lē.” Tropper (UG 758)
proposes either le- or lê- (*< lay, to which he compares “zsem. *’ilay”). Following Blau
and Greenfield, the latter option is assumed here.
7
See UG 198, which understands lpnw- as an uncontracted form.
8
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:112; UG 187,
755.
9
Like Akkadian uzuzzu, the Ugaritic verb was originally formed from the N-stem
of middle weak * w , as noted independently by Pope 1947 and Rosenthal 1940:293
n. 1, and as endorsed recently in Huehnergard 2002:177.
10
For a recent discussion of cognates, see Mankowski 2000:62–63. He argues that
Akkadian kāsu is the source of Sumerian GU-ZI/KU-ZI and not the other way around.
For comparative evidence, see also Fox 2003:75. He reconstructs PS *ka’s or kās.
11
Cf. ba-di-ú in EA 245:35, normalized bâdi by Rainey 1996:3.23 and Sivan 1997:43,
198. Rainey also compares Phoenician-Punic bd (DNWSI 1.434, which includes PNs,
e.g., KAI 17; see also Israel 1989:53–54). Rainey derives the reconstruction of a col-
lapsed triphthong of the preposition of b- plus *yad-. This view coheres with Greek
transliterations of the Phoenician form as *bod- (see KAI II:24). See the discussions
also in Sivan 1984:209; UBC 1.153, 322 n. 182; UG 161, 774. Within the West Semitic
languages, this usage of bd may be an isogloss linking several so-called “Canaanite”
languages. For the syllabic evidence for the third masc. sg., suffix on nouns, see Hueh-
nergard 1987b:120; Sivan 1997:53.
12
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:176.
13
Cf. the gloss ša-mì-ma in EA 264:16 (Sivan 1997:77).
96 cat 1.3 i
13–15 A holy cup women may not see, kāsa qudši lā14-taphîna-hu ’a ātu
A goblet Athirat may not eye. karpana15 lā-ta‘înu ’a iratu16
15–17 A thousand jars he drew of the ’alpa kadda17 yiqqa u bi- amri18
wine,
A myriad he mixed in his ribbata19 yamsuku bi-miski-hu
mixture.
14
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:141.
15
In addition to cognates cited in the lexica, cf. Akkadian karpatu, “pot,” in Akka-
dian texts from Ras Shamra (e.g., RS 20.425 in Ugaritica V, p. 192 and RS 20.20.04
in Ugaritica V, p. 193).
16
Her name appears as daš-ra-tu4 in deity-lists from Ugarit (RS 20.024.19, Pardee
2002:14; and RS 92.2004.13, Pardee 2002:17). For the syllabic forms, see further
Huehnergard 1987b:111; UG 183. It is possible that the Ugaritic form is to be vocal-
ized accordingly as *’a rat-. Note also that the name of this goddess is Ashertu in the
Hittite-Hurrian story of “Elkunisha and Ashertu;” in this case, it would appear that the
a-vowel has undergone syncope (ANET 519; Hoffner 1965; 1998:90–92). In the Amarna
correspondence, personal names with her name as a divine element vary the spelling of
her name even within the same letter (Abdi-Ašrati and [<Abdi>-Aš]eratu in EA 138;
Abdi-Ašrati, Abdi-Aširti and Abdi-Aširta in EA 137; see also Abdi-Ašratu in EA 60:2
as opposed to [Abd]i-Aširti in EA 62:2; see Moran 1992:132 n. 1; DDD 100).
17
For the syllabic evidence for this noun, see Huehnergard 1987b:136. For cognates
in Indo-European languages, see UT 19.1195, DUL 429–30. The word is standard in
Ugaritic lists of liquid measure (e.g., 4.279.1–5). For the possibility that the word is a
loan, see Watson 2000a:570; cf. M. Cohen 1947:124, #226. For BH kad as a storage
jar for water or flour, see Kelso 1948:19.
18
For cognates, also with the *qatl base, see Pentiuc 2001:55.
19
Sivan 1997:63.
20
Cf. the syllabic evidence for ma illu, “cymbalist,” see Huehnergard 1987b:171.
21
The root is common Semitic. For the noun širu in an Ugaritic polyglot, see
Huehnergard 1987b:181.
22
For syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:131.
cat 1.3 i 97
Baal’s “Daughters”
Commentary
semantic word/
parallelism syllable
count
2–4 ‘abada ’al’i[yāna] ba‘la abc 3/9
sa’ida zabūla ba‘la ’ar i a’ b’ c’ 4/10
Although the word count appears imbalanced, with the unusual feature
of the second line showing an apparently longer unit than the first, the
syllable count reflects overall symmetry in line-length. Most prominently
binding the two lines together is the name of Baal in the first line and
the use of the same noun as part of his title in the second line. The
b and l of zbl in the second line echo the name of Baal, and perhaps
23
Gt-stem of the root *’mr, “to see,” cognate with Amorite *’mr and Akkadian amāru,
“see,” and Eth ’ammara, “show, know”; see Sanmartín 1973:265–6; Barr 1974:4–7;
Greenfield 1993:26–27 (with criticism of Barr); Zadok 1993:3. For the phonological
change, see Sivan 1997:32, 130; UG 520. For Afro-Asiastic cognates, see M. Cohen
1947:78, #9.
24
Pl. with masc. suffix, bnth = *bināta-hu. See the next note for the singular form.
25
Sg. bt = *bittu < *bintu, so in syllabic spelling in PNs in Akkadian texts from Ugarit,
etc.; see Gröndahl 1967:119; Sivan 1997:62, UG 249. Cf. Arabic bint.
98 cat 1.3 i
As with the preceding tricolon, the unusual syntax of the first line differs
markedly from the second and third lines, which stand together syn-
tactically. Read by themselves, these two lines may be seen as a simple
bicolon with fundamental semantic, syntactical and morphological
parallelism: a b c//b' c', with bi-kil’atê yadê-hu standing as a semantic
cat 1.3 i 99
Watson (1994b:131, 472) includes the initial line here among examples
of parallelism within single lines. It is difficult to make strong claims
regarding this bicolon’s parallelism, as the interpretation of the lines is
highly debated. If correctly interpreted, the syntactical parallelism of
direct objects for vessels followed by modifying phrases is evident in the
two lines, as with the objects ks//krpn in the next bicolon. In both lines
12–13 and lines 13–15, a two-syllable word for a vessel would be paral-
lel to a three-syllable term (and in the case of the three-syllable terms,
r and n appear in both). Morphological parallelism of at least the initial
term in the two lines follows suit. Finally, the single m in the first line
might be seen as echoing three times in the second line; the observation
might be increased under the rubric of bilabials, b and m.
versus “male” contrast between this bicolon and the preceding one,
see Watson 1994b:472.
Watson (1994b:319) takes the two lines here with the following as a
tricolon and then claims that with the second line of the next bicolon,
the four lines together comprise a four-line stanza. Despite the lack
of syntactical and semantic parallelism, some sonant parallelism is
apparent. The sequence b-d stands out in the middle of both lines.
Moreover, the triple occurrence of m in the second line echoes the
single use in the first.
The second line is perhaps a syllable longer relative to the first line.
The sort of disparate syntax between the two lines (specifically with
no verbal syntax in the second line) somewhat recalls the syntax in
the preceding bicolon. Indeed, the verb yšr in this bicolon semantically
marks this bicolon as an expansion of the topic in the preceding bicolon.
Sonant parallelism here is more limited: the single use of b in the first
line is echoed twice in the second line, complimented further by the
bilabial p in the last word. On the assumption that the words involved
are vocalized correctly, perhaps noteworthy in connecting the end of
the first line with the beginning of the second is the resonance between
qāái and ‘al. By the same token, each line also has its own alliteration,
with r twice in the first and twice in the second.
cat 1.3 i 101
The lines are balanced in the length and overall syntax. (The initial
word of the third line is unusual, from the perspective of poetic syn-
tax, but since it fits the length of line well, there is no need to view it
as intrusive or mistaken. Beyond the strong morphological, syntactical
and semantic parallelism, sonant parallelism is particularly evident in
the bilabials and secondarily with the letters ‘ and l, echoing the main
protagonist’s name in this scene. Sonant emphasis placed on the names
of divine protagonists is hardly confined to this tricolon. Fitzgerald
(1974:61) notes Baal and Yamm in the alliterative pattern of 1.3 III
36–39, as well as the name of Baal in 1.19 I 42–46 and 1.101.1–2. A
similar alliteration echoes the title of Athirat in 1.4 I: the paranomasia
of her title rbt with rbtm in line 30 and rbbt in lines 28 and 43 further
evokes the vastness of the goods made for her benefit throughout the
rest of the column (for further discussion, see the Commentary at 1.4
I). Watson (1994b:436) suggests that the names of the women “are held
over to the second and consecutive lines,” thereby showing a “delayed
identification” for these figures, a poetic feature he notes elsewhere as
well (e.g., 1.2 I 34–35).
Introduction
The surviving portion of this column is clear on the whole, especially
in lines 2b–22. These lines describe a feast prepared and served for
Baal’s benefit and form an identifiable unit. Lines 22f. may likewise
belong to this scene, but the context of the lines is so unclear that it is
impossible to be sure. The location of the scene here is not mentioned
(at least not without some ambiguity; see the discussion of lines 21–22
below), but it may be safely inferred from CAT 1.3 IV. When Anat
travels to Baal following his summons, she arrives at Mount apan,
and Baal sends his women away, presumably because of the nature
of his meeting with Anat (cf. Zamora 2000:581). These are probably
the same women mentioned at the end of 1.3 I, and it is evident from
this narrative link that Mount apan is the site of Baal’s activity in
both columns.26 Given Baal’s presence on Mount apan in 1.3 I, the
26
For a discussion of Mount Sapan (with references), see Fauth 1990; Koch
1993a; UBC 1.122–23, 232–33 n. 26. Sapan appears in god-lists (RS 24.264.4, 14
102 cat 1.3 i
27
Cf. El and Athirat’s sexual relations in the West Semitic myth of Elkunirsha and
Ashertu (ANET 519; Hoffner 1965; 1998: 90–92; Beckman 1997:149).
104 cat 1.3 i
Lines 1–2
Very little of certainty can be determined about this section. Line 1 is
seriously damaged, and the first word of line 2 is ambiguous. In line
1, tgl is thought to derive from a root that is either geminate or final
weak. Assuming the latter, Aartun (1967–68:294) reconstructs ’al tgl[y
r’a/’išthm] on the basis of tgly ’ilm r’išthm in 1.2 I 23. Since the context
is unknown, the reconstruction lies beyond verification (see SPUMB 68).
The word prdmn in line 2 is likewise problematic. Many commentators
take the vocable as a PN serving as the subject of the verbs in lines 2f.
(e.g., CML2 47). Pardee (1980:274) has noted that “inclusion of prdmn
in this poetic line results in a line length of fourteen or fifteen syllables
(depending on the vocalization of prdmn), longer than any line in this
column . . .Moreover, the second line of the bicolon in ll. 2–3 has only
ten syllables.” Accordingly, prdmn probably belongs with the preceding
words, now lost. It may be that the subject of the verbs in line 2 and
following could be impersonal or unnamed (“he”), referring back to
prdmn (ANET 135; GA 84) or rdmn, if p- were taken as a separate particle
(meaning “so,” perhaps with a temporal connotation of “then” or “at
that moment”). Prdmn has no parallel while rdmn has been compared with
Akkadian PNN rādimu, radmanu, ESA PNN rdmn, rdmyn, rdmw, Tham.
PN rdm (so SPUMB 68). De Moor also notes a possible relationship to
the Greek god Radamanthys, a deity of foreign origins thought to rule
over the Elysian fields (Odyssey 4:561f.); see also Loretz 2002b. In a
particularly original stroke, Dahood (1979:146 n. 21) took the vocable
as two words meaning “mule of destiny.”
The full title, zbl b‘l ’ar , “Prince, Lord of the Earth,” appears for the
first time in the Baal Cycle. The second word is the same as Baal’s
name and may be regarded as a pun. Or, the title could be translated
“Prince Baal of the Earth” (cf. Athirat’s title, rbt ’a rt ym, “Lady Athirat
of the Sea”; Astartu ša a-bi, “Astarte of the sea” (?), e.g., Emar 373.92',
452.17', but other possibilities are discussed in Pentiuc 2001:20, 21–25).28
The appearance of Baal’s full title here may not be accidental, as the
placement of epithets may signal a particular aspect of a deity in a
given context. This specific epithet may signify that now that Baal has
defeated Yamm, Baal has become lord of the earth.
28
To the list of attested variants on the motif of Astarte and the Sea (UBC 1.23–24),
Houwinck ten Cate (1992:117–19) adds KBo 26.105, possibly a song belonging to the
“Cycle of Kumarbi.”
106 cat 1.3 i
29
This phrase has been interpreted alternatively as a “good fatted goose” (see UT
19.119, 19.482; Sivan 1997:74), but in view of the other uses of ml t as salt, this
approach seems less appealing.
cat 1.3 i 107
so SPUMB 72). The verb *‘šr (Dietrich and Loretz 1991:313) applies
to meal-service in CAT 1.16 I 39–41: krtn db db mlk ‘šr ‘šrt, “Kirta
made a meal, the king served a feast” (cf. CAT 1.43.2: ‘šr ‘šr). In the
prayer recommended in 1.119, addressees are to include the words
(lines 32–33), tp b‘l nml’u ‘šrt b‘l [n‘]šr, “A tp-offering for Baal we will
fulfill, a feast for Baal [we will of]fer” (for the possibly related aširūma in
Akkadian texts from Ugarit as a designation of a profession, see DUL
189; Lackenbacher 2002:239 n. 814; cf. CAD A/2:440). Similarly, the
verb *šqy might evoke a ritual libation (cf. šqym in 1.115.11; del Olmo
Lete 1995:46; Pardee 2002:67; cf. 1.86.24, 25, 4.246.8). This tricolon
uses two standard terms for vessels, ks//krpn (see Kelso 1948:109–20
concerning BH kôs). These are two common terms for drinking vessels.
For example, they appear in parallelism in 1.15 II 16–18.
In contrast, lines 12b–17 stress the superlative quality of Baal’s
drinking vessel, first in terms of its appearance, second in terms of the
limits on who may behold it, and finally by way of its immense volume
(for a full survey of views of lines 12–15, see Loretz 2002b). With a
series of appositional clauses (enjambment; see Watson 1994b:138), the
vessel is described initially in line 12 as large, bk rb. The word bk has
been compared commonly with Greek bikos (Lipiński 1970:81; Zamora
2000:524). Apparently an Indo-European Kulturwort, bk may evoke the
larger atmosphere of international trade and the accompanying cos-
mopolitan life enjoyed by the upper class at Ugarit (see the discussion
of kd below).
In line 12, there has been considerable discussion as to whether
the letters r’idn should be taken as one word or two, r’i and dn. If one
were to view r’i as a form of the verb r’y, “to see,” and connect it to
the first bicolon, then the line could be translated as, “A large vessel
great to behold.”30 The succeeding word dn often has been taken as the
name of a receptacle for liquid, related to Akkadian dannu, “vat,” and
Arabic dann in this meaning in DUL 276; cf. also CML2 145). But CAD
D:98–99 points out that dannu appears quite late in Akkadian, only in
the first millennium, and, in addition, that it was probably a late loan
word into Aramaic and Arabic.
30
Smith, UNP 106. Similar renderings include: Jirku (26): “mächtig zu sehen”; and
Pardee 1997a:250: “mighty to look upon.” For comparable expressions for positive
appearance, Pardee 1988b:19 cites Josh 22:10 and 1 Sam 16:12. See also BH rō’î in
the inverse expression for unpleasing appearance in Nah 3:6.
cat 1.3 i 109
for singer (2 Sam 23:1; Pss 81:3; 135:3; 147:1; Ben Sira 45:9).31 RSV
renders: “the sweet psalmist of Israel,” but “Favorite” (CMHE 236) is
also possible in this instance (cf. Levenson 1985:66; Barré 1992:627–28).
The sense of n‘m as “singer” stands in the Psalm verses, yet the Uga-
ritic noun may be understood as denoting a physical attribute, either
that the figure is handsome or is a figure with a good voice, parallel
to “good ( b) of voice” in the next colon (suggested as a possibility by
B. Zuckerman, personal communication; for the semantic range, see
Huehnergard 1987b:60), based on an expression found in 1.23.29,
¿[zr]m g b, “the l[ad]s with a good voice” (see UNP 209). Cassuto
compared BH yĕpeh qôl, “beautiful of voice” in Ezek 33:32 (GA 112).
Taking Ugaritic n‘m as “singer” would entail an etymological difficulty.
Arabic attests to both *n‘m, “to live in comfort, enjoy” (cf. nu‘m, “favor,
good will, grace” in Wehr 980) and *n¿m, “sing, hum a tune” (Wehr
981; cf. KB4 705). Ugaritic, which has both consonants ‘ayin and ghain,
would be expected likewise to use *n¿m and not n‘m for “singer.” It is
possible (though irregular) that the two roots had already coalesced in
Ugaritic, in which case perhaps the word’s range included both senses
(Cross 1998: 140; see pp. 243–44 below), perhaps with some word-play
involved. The translation, “virtuoso,” is an attempt to retain the ety-
mological sense of Arabic n‘m and BH n‘m operative in the word-field
pertaining to music suggested by Arabic n¿m.
Cymbals are the player’s instrument of choice (m ltm; see also in 1.19
IV 26, 1.108.4; cf. BH mĕ iltayim in Ezra 3:10 and el elîm in 2 Sam
6:5; Sivan 1997:72, 79). Professional cymbal players are attested in the
Akkadian documents from Ugarit as lúma- i-lu (Rainey 1973a:4). Caubet
(1996:10, 25) notes that excavations at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) and Minet
el-Bheida have yielded five pairs of bronze cymbals. According to Cau-
bet, this type of cymbal seems to be original to the Levant, with Late
Bronze Age examples known from Megiddo, Tell Abu-Hawam, Hazor,
Shiqmona, Tell Mevorakh and at Pyla Kokkinokremos in Cyprus. Paul
and Dever (1973:248) describe later Iron Age examples at Beth-Shemesh
and Achzib: “They were shaped like plates with a central hollow boss
and a metal thumb-loop; their average diameter was about 4.5 cm.”
(see also Eaton 1984:92). The example drawn in Caubet 1996:29, fig. 1
31
See GA 111–12; Lewis 1989:52; UBC 1.65 n. 126. Note also Ps 81:3 where nā‘îm
is predicated of the lyre (kinnôr). For a derivation of Greek neuma from Semitic *n¿m,
see Kugel 1981:113 n. 36.
cat 1.3 i 115
32
The construction *bn + PN produced by way of analogy *bn + common noun to
denote belonging to a category named by the noun. For example, BH ben ayil, literally
“son of strength,” is a strong person.
cat 1.3 i 117
33
For attraction and its other psychophysiological responses with some discussion
of their chemical bases, see Fisher 1998:30–39; for arousal and its effects on the brain
more generally, see LeDoux 1998:288–90.
118 cat 1.3 i
to enjoy sexual congress. This pairing may underlie a much later ref-
erence to the two of them in a late Aramaic text written in Demotic,
Papyrus Amherst Egyptian 63 (Bowman 1944:227): “May Baal from
Zephon bless you; Pidra[i]/<i> from Raphia—she should bless you”
(Steiner 1997:313).
Baal’s “women” (’a t),34 are known by the collective epithet klt knyt,
“honored brides” in 1.4 I 15 (and reconstructed in the parallel passages
in 1.3 IV 52, V 44; see GA 113). Akkadian kallātu at Ras Shamra may
denote fiancée and not bride, according to Lackenbacher (2002:233
n. 794).
The names Pidray and Tallay evidently reflect their meteorologi-
cal nature (see Wiggins 2003 for a recent review). Like Baal’s epithet,
“Cloud-rider” (rkb ‘rpt), the name Tallay and her epithet contain expres-
sions for precipitation. Tallay means “Dewy” ( ly < * ll + -ay feminine
ending; see Layton 1990:244; also Pope 1978a:30 n. 8; CMHE 56 n.
45; cf. the theophoric element á-la-ya listed in PTU 359). Her name
may also be reflected in an Amorite PN ÌR-d a-li-tum (YOS 13, 6;
Zadok 1993:331). Her title means “daughter of showers” (bt rb < *rbb;
cf. BH rĕbîb). The Ugaritic word-pair l//rbb is attested elsewhere (1.3
II 39–40, IV 43–44, 1.19 I 44–46; Avishur 1984:57; for biblical refer-
ences to dew and rain, see DDD 250). 1.101.5 appears to present the
goddess Dewy as a feature of Baal’s cosmic face: “Tallay is between
his eyes” ( ly bn ‘nh). The association of dew with the storm-god is
attested in less symbolic modes elsewhere. In 1.3 II 39–40, “dew of
heaven” stands in parallelism with “showers of the Cloudrider.” The
storm-god Adad is the recipient of the following request in Atrahasis:
“in the morning let him (Adad) make a mist fall, and during the night
let him furtively make dew fall” (CAD N/1:203; Lambert and Millard
1999:74, 75, II ii 16–18).
As for Pidray, an Akkadian letter from Ugarit provides a syllabic spell-
ing of her name as dpí-id-ra-i (RS 17.116.3; Izre’el 1991; Lackenbacher
2002:120; cf. PRU IV, 132 and n. 2 reading bi-it-ra-i). Wyatt (1998:72
n. 11) proposes a connection with Greek Pandora. The etymology of
Pidray’s name is highly debated. Gray (1979b:315 n. 3), apparently
followed by Pardee (1997a:250 n. 69; 2002:15, 282), connects Arabic
afzar, “fleshy,” despite the irregular correspondence of the second radical
34
For the form, see Sivan 1997:65. Cf. Amarna Akkadian aššatu used for both woman
and wife in the Byblian corpus (so Marcus 1973a:283); BH ’iššâ.
120 cat 1.3 i
(noted by MHP). Similarly, Wyatt (1998:71 n. 11) calls her “Fatty” citing
BH peder, or “cloudy” (without cognates). Pope (in Smith 1998b:654)
commented: “PDR may be related to Arabic badr which relates to perfec-
tion, youthful maturity, and to shining (of sun or moon).” Instead, one
might compare Arabic ba ar, “scattering,” hence “Flashy” (see Ginsberg
1945:10 n. 19b) or Arabic badray, “rain that is before. . .or in the first part
of winter” (Lane 166; cf. Smith 1985:290). Under either of these two
interpretations, Pidray’s name is meteorological. Her title also has some
natural connection: bt ’ar means either “daughter of light,” “daughter
of lightning” (cf. BH ’ôr in Job 37:15; Ginsberg and Maisler 1934:249
n. 15; Ginsberg 1945:10 n. 19b; cf. Gray 1979b:315 n. 2), or perhaps
least convincing, “daughter of honey-dew” (see CML1 85, 135; de Moor,
SPUMB 82–83, and 1975:590–91; Gray 1979b:315 n. 2). It may be
noted in circumstantial support of the first of these three alternatives
that one deity list from Ugarit equates Pidray with Hebat, evidently a
celestial goddess (DDD 392, 725). Wyatt (1998:72 n. 11) claims further
an attestation of this goddess’ name as a title of Ishtar.
Biblical texts offer interesting associations between light and dew. Isa
26:19 juxtaposes ’ôr and al: kî al ’ôrōt allekā, “for dew of lights is your
dew.” The context in this biblical verse involves the resuscitation of the
dead; the meaning of the elements of dew and light in this context is
unclear (DDD 250). The two meteorological terms in Pidray’s name
and title have been connected to Isa 26:19, which is characterized as “a
hint of the ultimate transformation of the natural order” (Blenkinsopp
2000:370). Another passage possibly bearing mythological overtones for
dew (Ps 110:3; cf. Isa 18:4) is also difficult to interpret (DDD 250). Both
Ps 110:3 and Isa 26:19 may convey a picture of cosmic well-being. One
might speculate that much like Baal’s rains, the meteorological associa-
tions of the names and titles of Baal’s females likewise communicate a
sense of cosmic well-being.
The final intelligible clause of the column is pdr yd‘ in line 25. The
subject of the verb is problematic. This epithet appears also in CAT
1.49.4, 1.50.5 and 1.92.33 (SPUMB 82, 188; TO 1.156 n. n; MLC 609;
Ribichini and Xella 1984:271; see also PTU 172). It is possibly a title
of Baal (TO 1.78; CML2 47 n. 1). Or, it is the name of Baal’s atten-
dant here as in 1.92.33 (so Dijkstra 1994:121; see also Ribichini and
Xella 1984). Or, there may be a haplography here, masking the name
Pidray: pdr<y>.yd‘, “Pidray he [Baal] knows” (de Moor 1987:4 n. 19).
If the former is correct, it would be interesting that Baal bears a title
related to the name of one of his women. While the verb presents no
cat 1.3 i 121
35
For the language of request (*’rš) in prayer, see 1.108.20. To request and to give
(*ytn) appear in Ugaritic letters (see also 5.9.7–16). Note also miriltu in a letter to the
king of Ugarit (Arnaud 1991:219). Similarly, mēreštu used with nadānu in CAD M/II:22
(including letters); of the examples cited the closest seems: “The wish will be granted
to him” (mēreštum nadnaššu; ZA 43 92:41). See also the correspondence from Ebla:
“whatever desire you express, I shall grant and you, (whatever) desire (I express), you
shall grant” (Michalowski 1993:13–14).
122 cat 1.3 i
36
Either singular or plural is possible. If the former, the reference could be to Baal
as suggested by the parallelism, as N. Wyatt (personal communication) notes; the plural
is the standard cliché, however. Note the prayer in 1.108 that ends in line 27: w n‘mt šnt
’il, “for the goodly years of El” (see Pardee 2002:195); comparison with the formulas
in 5.9.1–6 suggest that this means ‘d ‘lm, “forever.”
37
The verbal forms of * wy are taken as D-stem passive forms. De Moor and
Spronk takes these forms as active transitive and assume that Baal is the subject, but
the absence of an object has been taken against this view (see van der Toorn 1991b:
46). Van der Toorn’s translation of the occurences of * wy, “he comes to life” has
difficulties. As Marcus (1972) shows, * wy in these cases is a D-stem (see the Ugaritic
D-stem infinitive syllabic form u-PI-ú = / uwwû/ in Huehnergard 1987b:123; see
also Sivan 1997:41, 169, 170). The translation, “comes to life,” would not appear to
be within the usage of the D-stem of this verb. Like other commentators, van der
Toorn deletes wy (before y‘šr) due to dittography. To be on the conservative side, it
has been retained here.
38
The reconstruction [dy]‘nynn is suggested by Spronk. For *‘ny in this sense, see
KAI 202:2.
39
See also Spronk 1986:152–54; Baldacci 1999 and ip. In contrast, van der Toorn
suggests that the analogy may be drawn between Baal and Aqhat: in exchange for
his bow, Anat promises to give to Aqhat the return to life commonly associated with
Baal (see van der Toorn 1991b:46). Clemens (1993:66 n. 19; Clemens’ underlining)
cat 1.3 i 123
likewise takes the analogy to be drawn between Baal and Aqhat, with “the reception of
life through Anat’s intervention (cf. 1.5.VI–6.IV), to which the image of Baal giving
life is foreign in this context.”
40
De Moor 1987:238–39. See also de Moor, SPUMB 42; and Spronk 1986:151–
61.
41
For problems in the evidence, see Marcus 1973b; Grabbe 1976; UBC 1.62–63,
99, 109. Despite difficulties, de Moor’s understanding of the agricultural year is quite
sensitive. For the putative biblical and Mesopotamian evidence, see van der Toorn
1991a. Loretz 1999 reviews the biblical evidence; see also Loretz 1990:96–109.
124 cat 1.3 i
42
Note also the possible late summer/early autumn backdrop of 1.24: the name
of the moon-goddess, Nikkal (< nin.gal, pronounced Nikkal according to DDD 783)
wa-’Ib, “Great Lady and One-of-the-Fruit” (< inbu, “fruit”; see DDD 783); the title,
mlk q , “king of summer” (or ”summer fruit”) in lines 2, 17 and 24; and perhaps the
metaphor of the vineyard in line 22 (for 1.24, see Theuer 2000:135–266, with full
discussion and relevant bibliography). Curiously, 1.24 escapes de Moor’s list of fall
texts (de Moor 1987: “It seems likely that this text was used in connection with an
ordinary wedding ceremony.”). For a later association of fruit with the new moon
(mentioned in lines 5–6 and 41), see also “Fruit” as a title of the moon-god Sin in
NA and SB texts (CAD I/J:146, sub inbu, 1d; cf. the name of the tablet series, “the
Fruit, lord of the new moon” mentioned also in CAD A/2:260, sub ar u, 2a). It is to
be noted then that the group of texts in 1.20–1.24 revolves around the fall harvest.
For some biblical evidence concerning cultic contexts for grapes and wine in the fall,
see Walsh 2000:167–92; the feast of Sukkot is addressed briefly on pp. 137–42. While
some Egyptian and Mesopotamian evidence is brought into the discussion (Walsh
2000:21–27), the Ugaritic data go untreated.
cat 1.3 i 125
1.23.6 (cf. the very difficult lines in 1.23.72–76). Following figures such
as Gaster, de Moor is therefore to be credited with noting the connec-
tions between the late summer/early autumn and a variety of Ugaritic
texts, including some passages of the Baal Cycle. By the same token,
we would read the Baal Cycle as a literary text evoking and incorpo-
rating such seasonal themes, not as a liturgical or drama for cult. 1.3 I
presents the victory-feast of the divine king. As the divine patron of the
Ugaritic dynasty, Baal may have been expected to support the human
monarch in battle (see UBC 1.114–18; see further for Mari, Guichard
1999). The post-battle feast may follow suit. Finally, de Moor’s basic
insight need not necessarily point to 1.3 as the initial tablet of the cycle
(as he as well as Fisher, Knutson and Rummel argue), only that some
prior religious material about Baal has been introduced into the liter-
ary presentation about the god in this context. Evoking the imagery
of the same time of year, namely the autumn, the presentation of the
Baal Cycle does not suggest a linear sequence based on meteorological
imagery. Instead, it shows an impressionistic or perhaps kaleidescopic
incorporation of natural and religious material into a great religious
epic. Stated differently, out of liturgical experience came a brilliant
piece of religious literature.
CAT 1.3 II
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1938:11–28, pls. II, IX; 1937a: 85–102; CTA 15–16, fig. 8,
pls. IV, VI; KTU 10–11; CAT 10–11.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 25–26; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.157–61; Cas-
suto, GA 85–89, 113–23; Clifford, CMCOT 73, 142–53; Coogan 1978:90–91; Diet-
rich and Loretz 1981:83–84, 1997:1137–40; Driver, CML1 84–85; Gaster, Thespis
236–38; Gibson, CML2 47–48; Ginsberg, ANET 136; Good 1981; Gordon, UL
17–18, 1977:76–78; Gray 1947–53, 1979, LC2 40–44; Jirku 27–28; Lloyd 1996; de
Moor, SPUMB 85–101, 1987:5–7; del Olmo Lete, MLC 180–82; MLR 67–69; Pardee
1997a:250–51; Pope 1977b:352–53, 606; Smith, UNP 107–9; Wyatt 1998:72–76;
Xella 1982:98–99.
1 x[ ]š[ ]
kpr.šb‘.bnt.r .gdm
w’anhbm.kl’a2t.t¿rt
bht.‘nt.wtqry.¿lmm
5 bšt.¿r.whln.‘nt.tm
t .b‘mq.tμ t [ ].bn
qrytmtm .2l’∑im. pμy[ ]
t mt.’adm. ’at.š[ ]š
t th.kkdrt.r’i[ ]
10 ‘lh.k’irbym.kp.k.q μm
¿rmn[ ]kp.mhr.‘tkt
r’išt.μlbmth.šnst
kpt.b bšh.brkm.t¿μl
bdm. mr. lqm.bmm[ ]
15 mhrm.m m.tgrš
šbm.bksl.qšth.mdnt
whln.‘nt.lbth.tm¿yn
tštql.’ilt.lhklh
wl.šb‘t.tmt h.b‘méx
20 t t b.bn.qrtm.t ‘r
ks’at.lmhr. ‘r. l nt
l b’im.hdmm.l¿zrm
m’id.tmt n.wt‘n
t t b.wt dy.‘nt
128 cat 1.3 ii
25 t1¿dd.kbdh.b q.yml’u
2lb1h.bšm t.kbd.‘nt
tšyt.kbrkm.t¿llbdm
mr. lqm.bmm‘.mhrm
‘d.tšb‘.tmt .bbt
30 μt t b.bn. l nm.ym
μbbt.dm. mr.y q.šmn
2šlm.b .tr .ydh.bt
[ ]t.‘nt.’u2 b‘th.ybmt.l’imm.
[ ]fi 1 .ydh.bdm. mr
35 [ ] b‘th.bmm‘.mhrm
[ ]‘r[ ]ks’at.lks’at. l nt
μl l1 .hdmm.t ar.lhdmm
[ ]ÁÏpn.mh.wtr
[ ]μlμšmm.šmn.’ar .rbb
40 [ ]1kμb[ ]‘rpt. l.šmm.tskh
[ ]μb] ]nskh.kbkbm
Textual Notes
Line 7. l ∑im The /l/ is fairly certain. Only the left two wedges have
survived, but they are both thin, indicating that a third, thick wedge
followed. The /’i/ is also damaged, with no trace preserved of the
lower vertical. Context argues for the /’i/ rather than /h/.
pμy The /y/ at the end of the line is uncertain. If it is /y/, then
the left half has been preserved, and the right half could have been in
the margin, which is broken here. But if that is the case, there is very
little room to place a lost /m/ into the margin, as normally restored
here. CTA 15, n. 2, may be correct in suggesting that the scribe
cat 1.3 ii 129
accidentally wrote only the left half of the /y/, so that the /m/ was
placed in the now damaged margin. For the reading py[m], see Pardee
1980:275 and KTU.
Line 9. r’i[ ] There are no traces left of the letter following /r’i/.
Line 12 ∑lbmth The /l/ is assured by context. Only the right side of
the right wedge is preserved.
Line 13. t¿∑l The only trace of the /l/ at the end of the line is the
interior of a long vertical wedge. There is certainly no room for an
additional /l/ as proposed by CAT.
Line 16. mdnt All three heads of the wedges of n are visible along
the lower line (cf. Pardee’s reading md’at). The final /t/ breaks across
the right margin into column III.
Line 19. b m x The /q/ is certain, although most of the right wedge
is lost in the margin depression. In the area between the two vertical
margin lines is the right side of a large vertical wedge. It is not part of
the /q/, but is very clear. Is it perhaps a word divider?
Line 21. l nt The final /t/ is placed in the margin and intrudes
slightly into column III.
Line 25. t¿dd CAT suggests that there is a /d/ underneath the /¿/.
There are traces that resemble the heads of verticals to the left of the
130 cat 1.3 ii
upper diagonal of the /¿/, and perhaps a hint that the horizontal of
the /¿/ may have had multiple wedges (i.e., was first the horizontal
part of a /d/. But none of these potential traces is certain, and they
may all be simple damage to the surface.
Line 26. 1 lb1h The /l/ is certain. A crack along the bottom of the
letter makes it superficially resemble a /d/. The /h/ is also damaged.
Only two wedges are visible here.
Line 28. mhrm The right wedge of the /r/ is significantly reduced
in length in order for the scribe to get the final /m/ on the line. That
/m/ is written with the horizontal running across the margin, and the
very thin vertical actually in column III.
Line 30. ∂t t b Only the right tip of the first /t/ is preserved, but
context argues for the reading. Most of the right side of / /is lost.
Line 31. bμ 1bt The first /b/ is virtually destroyed, but a bit of the
lower line is visible, and the upper right corner of the right vertical is
preserved. Parts of all four wedges of the second /b/ are preserved.
Line 32. 2šlm Only the right wedge of the /š/ is preserved, but the
reading is certain.
Line 33. [ ]t. nt.ybmt. We see no traces of the /l/ which certainly
began the line.
’u1 b th The / / here is in a unique form, in which the left half of
the letter has two wedges, while the right has the regular one vertical.
This is presumably a scribal mistake.
l imm. The final /m/ of the line has been placed in column III.
A word divider follows it to mark it off from the beginning of column
III 37.
Line 34. [ ]fi 1 The /r/ is certain by context. Only the right wedge,
and a possible right tip of a middle wedge have survived. The / / is
badly damaged, with the left wedge preserved along the left line, and
only the upper right corner of the right wedge.
Line 37. ∑l l1 The /l/ is certain from context. Only the right wedge
of the letter survives. Both / / and the /n/ are damaged, but certain.
Context strongly argues that a /t/ has been left off the form, cf. Line
21.
Line 38. [ ]μ ∂ pn We see no trace of the first letter on the line (/t/
in CAT). The / / is probable, although the lower left wedge, which
distinguishes it from / / is not definitely preserved (perhaps vague
traces of the latter are visible, but this remains uncertain). The / / is
also badly broken, with only part of the left wedge preserved. But the
width of the letter assures that it is not an /l/. The center of the /p/
is poorly preserved, but the letter is certain.
Line 39. [ ]∑l[ ] The beginning of this line is also badly damaged. We
see no evidence of CAT’s reading / / at the beginning of the line.
The first traces that do appear are two very poorly preserved verticals,
which could represent / / or /l/. Context argues for /l/. We see no
trace of a succeeding word divider.
∂šmm The /š/is also uncertain. One can make out the bottom tip
of the middle vertical and the right side of the right wedge.
Line 40. [ ]1kbμ [ ] The outline of the /k/, though abraded, is sub-
stantially preserved. Only the right lines of the /b/ are visible, and
thus the letter remains uncertain.
rpt The upper lines of the / / still survive.
Line 41. [ ]μb[ ] The upper right side of a vertical wedge, joined to the
upper part of a horizontal is preserved. Context argues for a /b/.
nskh The /n/ is certain. Traces of all three wedges are preserved,
including the point at which the left two wedges meet, along with the
right tip of the letter. The latter has been the basis for the reading t
(Virolleaud, Gaster, Gordon [CTA p. 16 n. 4] and Pardee).
For parallels between this column and CAT 1.7, see Dijkstra
1983:26–28.
132 cat 1.3 ii
1 x[ ]š[ ]
2–3 kpr.šb‘.bnt.
r .gdm/w’anhbm.
3–5 kl’at. ¿rt/bht.‘nt.
wtqry.¿lmm/bšt.¿r
5–7 whln.‘nt.tm/t .b‘mq.
t t [b].bn/qrytm
7–8 tm .l’im. py[m]/
t mt.’adm. ’at.š[p]š
9–11 t th.kkdrt.r’i[š]/
‘lh.k’irbym.kp.
k.q m/¿rmn.kp.mhr.
11–13 ‘tkt/r’išt.lbmth.
šnst/kpt.b bšh.
13–15 brkm.t¿l[l]/bdm. mr.
lqm.bmm[‘]/mhrm.
15–16 m m.tgrš/šbm.
bksl.qšth.mdnt
17–18 whln.‘nt.lbth.tm¿yn/
tštql.’ilt.lhklh
19–20 wl.šb‘t.tmt h.b‘mqx/
t t b.bn.qrtm.
20–22 t ‘r/ks’at.lmhr.
‘r. l nt/l b’im.
hdmm.l¿zrm
23–24 m’id.tmt n.wt‘n/
t t b.wt dy.‘nt
25–27 t¿dd.kbdh.b q.
yml’u/lbh.bšm t.
kbd.‘nt/tšyt.
27–28 kbrkm.t¿llbdm/ mr.
lqm.bmm‘.mhrm
29–30 ‘d.tšb‘.tmt .bbt/
t t b.bn. l nm.
30–32 ym /bbt.dm. mr.
y q.šmn/šlm.b ‘.
32–33 tr .ydh.bt/[l]t.‘nt.
’u b‘th.ybmt.l’imm.
34–35 [t]r .ydh.bdm. mr/
[’u] b‘th.bmm‘.mhrm
36–37 [ ]‘r[.]ks’at.lks’at.
l nt/l l n<t>.
hdmm.t ’ar.lhdmm
38–40 [t] spn.mh.wtr /
cat 1.3 ii 133
[ ]l[.]šmm.šmn.’ar .
rbb/[r]kb[.]‘rpt.
40–41 l.šmm.tskh/
[rb]b[.]nskh.kbkbm
1 ...
2–3 Henna for seven girls, kupru šab‘i bināti
With scent of musk and murex. rī i gadīma wa-’anhibīma
Anat’s Battle
3–5 The gates of Anat’s house closed, kula’tā1 a¿arātu2 bahatī3 ‘anati4
She met youths at the foot of the wa-taqriyu ¿alamīma bi- šiti ¿āri
mountain.
5–7 And look! Anat fights in the valley, wa-halluna ‘anatu timta i u5
bi-‘amuqi6
Battl[es] between the two towns. ti ta i[bu] bêna qiryatêmi7
1
It is evident from the form of the verb that it is not plural (which would be *kl’a;
see UG 466); it could be either dual or singular. Assuming that the verb’s subject is
“gate(s)”, which stands in construct to the following noun (see n. 3 below), the verb
could be either dual or singular. Pardee (1997c:250) and Tropper (UG 464) favor a
singular here. Since a set of gates belonging to an entry to Anat’s house makes good
sense, Piquer-Otero (2003:206) prefers the dual. It is possible that an unnamed feminine
singular agent is the subject of the verb, which would then be third fem. sg. active
(see ANET 136; Pardee 1980:275). In contrast, Gordon (UL 17) had taken the form
as the substantive “both.” In this view, the syntactical connection of the clause to its
context is unexplained.
2
For the possible syllabic evidence of the word, see Huehnergard 1987b:188. For
cognates, including loans into Egyptian, see Hoch 1994:273–74.
3
The form without -m indicates that this noun stands in construct to the following
name of the goddess, as recognized in particular by Ginsberg (ANET 136), Gordon
(UL 17), Jirku (1962:27), and Pardee (1980:275; 1997c:250), followed by Smith (UNP
107). Several translations have taken the verb in the active voice with Anat as its subject
(e.g., CML2 47; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1137; Wyatt 1998:72; for a defense of this
view, see SPUMB 89).
4
For vocalization, see the syllabic form discussed in Huehnergard 1987b:161.
5
Cf. the Ugaritic noun mi ī i, apparently a type of tool or weapon (Huehnergard
1987b:146). For the word, see further Heltzer 1982:123; and in addition to the standard
lexica, see M. Cohen 1947:190, #469.
6
The syllabic evidence (Huehnergard 1987b:160–61) militates in favor of this
vocalization (cf. BH ‘āmōq) as opposed to ‘imqu (cf. BH ‘ēmeq).
7
The sg. form appears as qryt in 1.14 II 28, IV 9 (DUL 715; UG 195, 291). For
134 cat 1.3 ii
17–18 And look! Anat arrives at her house, wa-halluna ‘anatu lê-bêti-ha
tim¿ayuna
this base of the noun, see also BH qiryat (KB 3.1142–43), Arabic qaryat (Lane 2988).
The noun appears in a different base as qrtm in line 20 below. The root of the noun
is evidently *qry, “to meet,” (see BDB 899, 900). This verb is attested in line 4 (see the
poetic analysis for the additional discussion of this verbal connection).
8
See the discussion of uppu, “shore” (?), Huehnergard 1987b:129.
9
For the vowel of the prefix of the D-stem *yqtl indicative, see UG 544–46. Trop-
per would reconstruct /a/ for the first person sg. form, but /u/ for the other forms.
Despite the comparative evidence in favor of /u/, the first person sg. form may reflect
the prefix vowel operative in the other forms.
10
The form is vocalized as suggested in UT 9.36, which describes geminate verbs in
the D-stem prefix indicative vocalized with a long vowel in the second syllable; cf. BH
prefix indicative verbal forms in comparable thematic usage in Judg 6:9 and 20:45.
11
For the syllabic forms, see Huehnergard 1987b:119. Like other biconsonantal
nouns lacking a corresponding verbal root in Semitic languages, this one may be traced
back to an early, Afro-Asiastic stratum; see M. Cohen 1947:154, #335.
12
For cognates, see DUL 559; Leslau 23; see also M. Cohen 1947:189, #467.
13
For the syllabic form in Ugaritic, see Huehnergard 198b:175.
cat 1.3 ii 135
14
For this verb (*šql) and its Gt-form, see Gaster 1936:234; Greenfield 1979; UG 525;
cf. Dietrich and Loretz 2000b:190 and DUL 699, who take the form as the Št-stem of
*qyl. Pertinent to the latter etymology, the C-stem of *qyl means, “to cause to fall” in
1.17 VI 43–44 when Anat threatens the life of the hero Aqhat: bntb g’an ’ašqlk, “on the
path of rebellion I will bring you down.” In a different context, 1.22 I 12–13//1.4 VI
40–42, the C-stem of *qyl//* b are used for slaying animals. The form yšql is also used
for trimming vegetation in 1.23.10. These usages undermine a posited Št-stem of *qyl
as a verb of locomotion. If a Št-form were involved, the semantics would approximate
better what DUL 699 cites as ql II (< *qll, “to go quickly, run”).
15
For a recent discussion of cognates, see Mankowski 2000:51–52, especially for
the issue of initial h- in West Semitic forms versus Akkadian ekallu < Sum É.GAL. As
opposed to the well-known view that Akkadian ekallu (derived from Sumerian E.GAL)
was the source for the West Semitic forms, the initial h- in the West Semitic forms
does not comport with a borrowing from Akkadian into the West.
16
For this form, see DUL 715, UG 189 (including qa-ri-t[u4 ] in an Ugaritica V polyglot,
discussed also in Huehnergard 1987:175). For the base of this form, see also Ph qrt
(DNWSI 1037), BH qāret in Prov 8:3, 9:3, 14, 11:11 (Ginsberg 1973:134 n. 19). Cf. above
in line 7 for the same word with a different nominal base (qrytm). For another noun with
this same base as qrt, see mt, “wall” (for discussion, see Huehnergard 1987b:125).
17
See Emar kissû (Fleming 1992:258–59) and BH kissē’. For discussion of the word
with cognates, see p. 291 below.
18
Cf. BH hādôm; Egyptian hdm/Demotic htm; see Hoch 1994:221–22; and possibly
Hurrian atmi according to Watson 1996; DUL 335. See also Watson 2000a:569.
19
With the ’i-aleph evidently closing the syllable, the word might be vocalized ma’da
(cf. syllabic *ma’du (?), discussed in Huehnergard 1987b:144; Sivan 1997:64).
20
For cognates, Akkadian kabattu, BH kābēd, Aramaic kabdā, Arabic kabid (kabd-, kibd-),
see DUL 425–26 and Pentiuc 2001:93. See further the discussion below.
136 cat 1.3 ii
Her heart filled with joy, yimla’u libbu21-ha bi- šim ati
Anat’s innards with victory. kabidu ‘anati bi-tušiyati
27–28 Knee-deep she gleaned in birkama ta¿allilu bi-dami
warrior-blood, amiri
Neck-deep in the gore of soldiers, alqa-ma bi-mam‘î
mahīrīma
29–30 Until she was sated with fighting ‘ad tišba‘u tamta i i bi-bêti
in the house,
With battling between the two tables. ta ta ibi bêna ul anīma22
21
In addition to the well-known cognates (e.g., BH lēb, lēbāb, Akkadian libbu, Arabic
lubb; DUL 489), see Leslau 304–5. For possible cognates in Egyptian and other African
languages, see UT 19.1348; M. Cohen 1947:18, #443. See further the discussion below,
especially Excursus I.
22
Given the plural with -t in line 36, this form is apparently dual (so Sivan 1997:80).
If correct, the use of the dual form perhaps is driven by the parallel image in lines
19–20, where “valley” in line 19 is paralleled by “house” in line 29, and the dual, “two
towns” (line 20) is paralleled by the dual “two tables” (line 30).
23
So UG 512, 668.
24
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:170.
25
For the first /i/, cf. West Semitic li-me-ma (“peoples”) in EA 195:13, and Moran
1992:273 n. 2). For the second /i/ (unless the plural is unexpectedly not a “broken
plural,” hence *li’mīma, also in accordance with the rule of the three alephs and owing
to vowel harmony found in words with alephs), correcting UBC 1.196. As indicated
by the discussion of the word in UBC 1.196 n. 149 (see further below), the word may
be narrower in meaning, designating a “clan.”
cat 1.3 ii 137
Commentary
Despite the highy divergent syntax of the two lines, some resonance
between them is evident in bahāti and bi-šiti (b plus final cluster -ti ) and
‘anati and ¿āri (gutteral plus medial a vowel and final -i ending). The
lines are also balanced in length.
26
Beyond well-known cognates (e.g., BH mayim), see Leslau 376. Like other bicon-
sonantal nouns lacking a corresponding verbal root in Semitic languages, this one may
be traced back to an early, Afro-Asiastic stratum; see M. Cohen 1947:191–92, #485.
The -h in the Ugaritic form may reflect an expansive element (cf. medial -h- in plural
forms of weak nouns, see Huehnergard 1987a:182; UBC 1.235 n. 29).
138 cat 1.3 ii
The syntax of the second line, namely main verb plus prepositional
phrase closely follows, and is dependent on, the first line’s syntax
involving: w- + presentative particle + subject + main verb + prepo-
sitional phrase. Despite a longer prepositional phrase in the second
line than in the first, the first line remains quite a bit longer in both
the number of words and syllables. Some sonant parallelism may be
detected: the verbs share a number of consonants (due to both the root
letters and the infixed -t of their Gt-stem form) as well as vowels (the
latter due to morphological parallelism of these verb forms); and the
final word in the two lines both contain m and q in addition to the final
case ending. A final note: the last word in this bicolon, qrytm, picks up
the verb tqry in the preceding bicolon. Accordingly, Anat’s fighting in
the area of the two cities (qrytm) may be seen as developing the action
of her meeting (tqry) her retinue at the gate. Given the disparity of
line-length, one might suspect anacrusis in whln.27
The parallelism of this first tricolon in the column is marked first syn-
tactically: prepositional phrase (referring to the goddess’ body) + prepo-
sitional phrase of comparison + subject in the first two lines, extended
in the third line by a longer comparative phrase + longer subject. The
terms of comparison are likewise parallel in content in the second and
third lines: kp is compared with some aspect of locusts.
27
See the discussion of ’any in the lacuna before 1.3 IV 47 (below on p. 287).
cat 1.3 ii 139
The lines here are the same length, and the parallelism closely follows
suit. The single departure in the syntactical parallelism, created by the
fronting of the prepositional phrases, focuses attention on the semantic
parallelism.
See lines 5–7 above for similar parallelism and line-length. The main
difference involves the initial element in the first line that governs the
two Gt-stem forms. The new element contributes no further parallelism
of great significance (though note the main verbs’ minor addition of
final -t to the initial t- of the two Gt-stem verbs).
Apart from the fronted adverbial accusative, the parallelism is tight (as
is the line-length): Gt-stem *yqtl verb (of battle) + w- + G-stem *yqtl
verb (of vision). A particularly strong sonant parallelism marks the
end of the two lines: the final verb of the first line shares all the same
consonants as the goddess’ name at the end of the second line. Watson
(1986a:159) observes that the root * dy may also mean “to rejoice,”
and so he proposes that it may form here a case of “Janus parallelism”
with the following lines. However, Noegel (1995:91–92) has argued that
Ugaritic maintains a clear distinction between * dy, “to see, gaze,” and
* dw, “to rejoice.” For this reason, he rejects Watson’s proposal for
Janus parallelism here. In Watson’s defense, it is to be noted that * dw
is not clearly attested in Ugaritic. The citations by Gordon (UT 19.933)
for this root, on whose work Noegel depends for this point, in fact do
not exist in the texts, and neither DUL nor CPU has an entry for this
root (apart for possibly related PNs). Despite the separate etymological
origins of the two roots, as correctly noted by Noegel, it is not clear
that Ugaritic maintained a clear distinction between them.
Although the first line contains one more word than the second line
(the initial word, a verb that governs the rest of the bicolon), the latter
contains some longer words, which help to balance out the line length
of the bicolon. The parallelism is close on all levels except for sonant
parallelism, which is generated mostly by shared morphology. However,
the sonant parallelism of and t in anatu and u bu‘āti and of b and t
in batu[la]tu and yabimtu may be noted.
The same syntax of the same verb and direct objects of the prior bico-
lon carry over into this bicolon. This bicolon reintroduces prepositional
phrases paralleled in the bicolon in lines 27–28 (see also the discussion
of the poetic features in lines 13–15 above).
The second and third lines develop the theme of the “water” introduced
in the first line. As such, the latter two lines provide a list of standard
forms of precipitation that the more general term “water” may assume.
The Ugaritic word-pair l//rbb is attested elsewhere (1.19 I 44–46; see
Avishur 1984:57). The use of a “list” here constitutes a less common
form of parallelism. The tricolon demarcates the first line from the
rest by “front-loading” the two verbs there, rather than placing them
cat 1.3 ii 143
Introduction
Following a long lacuna of about twenty-five lines and an unintelligible
first line, the text opens with the end of a scene. Lines 2–3a refer to
cosmetics. One of these terms, ’anhbm, appears in Anat’s application
of make-up later in 1.3 III 1–2 (Pope 1977b:353). Perhaps the scene in
part of the lacuna preceding II 2–3a and the scene in II 30b–III 2, in
which Anat and her palace are cleansed from the gore of battle, were
intentionally designed as a contrasting envelope to surround the violent
battle scene of lines 3b–30a. Anat’s conflict with her enemies is clearly
the central element of this part of the story. Two battles are depicted
here, in lines 3b–16 and 17–30.28 Thus, if correctly understood, this
section may be divided into four basic parts:
28
One may note that the two battle accounts have coalesced into a single one in
1.7.1–9.
144 cat 1.3 ii
Lines ?–II 3
The first item in lines 2–3, kpr, has been identified as lawsonia alba/iner-
mis, a fairly large shrub that can grow up to ten feet in height. It was
(and is) common in the Levant and has been used as a hair dye (Pope
1977b:352). In English this dye is known as henna (see ANET 136;
Thespis 236; CML2 47; Pardee 1997a:250). The root appears in Song
of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 as a perfume (Thespis 236; Pope 1977b:352;
Brenner 1982:153). Whether or not the West Semitic root is related to
the word for the reddish metal, copper, is debatable (Lambert 1991:186
n. 13). In line 2 kpr may stand in construct with šb‘ bnt, “of seven girls,”
perhaps as a reference to a great amount (Kapelrud 1968; Pardee
1997a:250; cf. the temporal use of “seven times” in the Amarna cor-
respondence meaning “over and over” (Moran 1992:xxx n. 85); and
“seven roads” in Deut 28:7 meaning all sorts of directions. Or, šb‘ bnt
could form an asyndetic relative clause meaning “(which) gratifies girls”
(Pope 1977b:353). Or, bnt may refer to tamarisk (see Wyatt 1998:72 n.
15, citing Akkadian bīnu and Syriac bīnā, “tamarisk”). De Moor (1987:5)
understands seven girls to be the ones putting the cosmetics on Anat.
Line 2 mentions a further term, gdm. It is often considered to be
coriander, based on the parallel occurrence in 1.23.14 (there formerly
thought to be a “kid,” with its mother’s milk as in Exod 23:19; 34:26;
Deut 14:21; see Haran 1978, 1985; Keel 1980; Milgrom 1985; Ratner
and Zuckerman 1985, 1986; and Smith 2006: 52–57). Pope (1977b:353)
renders “smell of musk for r gdm, which perhaps captures better the
sensual appeal of the words. Similarly, de Moor (1968:214 n. 5) prefers
saffron for gdm (though this word in Arabic is written with ghain).
cat 1.3 ii 145
The battle itself in lines 5b–16 shows a basic balance: Anat’s battling
in lines 5b–8 and gleaning for captives in lines 13b–16 on either side
of her attaching of body-parts to herself in lines 9–13a.
The description as a whole shows an integrated sequence of verbal
clauses and repetition of nouns. Lines 3–5 open the narrative sequence
with a transition from the prior action in lines 2–3 marked by the verb
*kl’at. Piquer Otero (2003:207; cf. UG 692) would view kl’at ¿rt bht ‘nt
as the logical protasis to the second line of the bicolon, wtqry ¿lmm bšt
¿r, with wtqry beginning the narrative sequence. It is also possible that
kl’at initiates the sequence of *yqtl verbs, beginning with wtqry (this read-
ing conforms more closely to the bulk of *yqtl verbs preceded by w- in
Piquer Otero’s analysis, as discussed above on pp. 24–5). In either read-
ing, the bicolon of lines 3–5 initiates the narrative sequence. The two
following bicola in lines 5–8 continue the narrative sequence with four
*yqtl verbs. The only significant departure involves w- + the presentative
particle hln at the beginning of the sequence; this addition is to provide
a dramatic foregrounding for Anat and her battling. What follows in
lines 9–13 is a description of the results of the actions in lines 5–8, as
indicated by the departures in syntax. The tricolon of lines 9–11, a
series of nominal clauses, describes the results of Anat’s battling. The
bicola in lines 11–15 elaborate two resulting actions stemming from
the situation described in lines 9–11. First, the bicolon of lines 11–13
with its switch to *qtl verbs, describes what Anat does with the heads
and hands introduced in lines 9–10 (see Greenstein 2006:92). Second
and parallel, the bicolon of lines 13–15 with its switch in syntax to
*yqtl clauses fronted by adverbial accusative nouns, explains what Anat
does finally with the warriors first introduced in line 11. The repeti-
tion of the nouns in particular suggests this reading of lines 11–15 as
actions stemming from the situation presented in lines 9–11: r’iš//kp
in lines 9–10 is followed by r’išt//kpt in lines 11–13, and mhr in line
11 is followed by mr//mhrm in 13–15.29 Lines 15–16 mark a shift in
29
For the variation of ’aleph in the spelling of r’iš and r’ašt, see Sivan 1997:63; UG
295, 299. Dahood (1965:37) compared the collective use of Ugaritic r’iš with the BH
rō’š attested collectively in Num 24:18; Hab 3:13; Pss 68:22, 110:6; Job 22:12.
cat 1.3 ii 147
perspective. Anat turns from the dead to the living. The weapons are
fronted before the verb in this bicolon, perhaps as a rhetorical means
to highlight the goddess’ victory over the living. The *yqtl form of the
verb tgrš would suggest narrative continuity from the *yqtl verbs in lines
7–8, themselves following the verbs in lines 5–7.
The battle scene opens in line 3b with a bicolon locating the action
in the environs of Anat’s house. The “house” here may presuppose
the image of a fortified palace located on top of the mountain at the
base of which (bšt ¿r) the battle takes place. The word ¿r may compare
possibly with ESA ¿r and BH ‘ār in Num 21:15, Deut 2:18, 29, etc. (see
KB 2:876), and perhaps not, as commonly assumed, with BH ûr and
Aramaic ûrā.30 Anat’s mountain is named in other passages as ’inbb (1.1
II 14; 1.3 IV 34; 1.13.9, 32; 1.100.20; CML2 47 n. 3; CMCOT 86–87)
and perhaps ’u¿r (1.3 IV 34, but see Wyatt 1998b:82 n. 58).
The theme of the divine dwelling on a mountain is well attested,
both at Ugarit (especially, of course, Mt. apan) and in the Hebrew
Bible (Exod 15:13, 17–18 and Ps 48:2–3). De Moor (1987:5 n. 25) sug-
gests that the names Inbb and U¿r refer to Ugarit and its harbor “in
mythological disguise.” This is unlikely, however, since the name Inbb
appears not just in mythological texts, but as a genuine, terrestrial loca-
tion, clearly not Ugarit, in 1.100.20. In this way it is similar to Mount
Sapan, which is also described as a mythic location and as the terres-
trial mountain, Mt. Cassius, several miles north of Ugarit. Anat is also
referred to occasionally as Anat of apan, suggesting either that she is
sometimes viewed as living on the same mountain as Baal, or that her
mountain is in the same mountain range covered by the term apan
(CAT 1.46.17; 1.109.13–14, 17, 36; 1.130.26; Pardee 2002: 26–33).
The iconography of the storm-god shows him standing on top of his
mountain (for discussions, see EHG 54, 73 n. 86; Dikjstra 1991; for seals
from Ugarit and Emar, see Beyer 2001:48–49, 301, 302, A3).
In line 4, bht ‘nt is a construct phrase (the absolute form elsewhere
being bhtm). Therefore, Anat is not the subject (cf. UG 464, 622); instead,
the verb is evidently passive (ANET 136; Pardee 1980:274–5). Anat’s
two gates or double-gates are said to be closed or bolted shut. The
final -t of the *qatala form would suggest a singular or dual subject (UG
463) and the form of the noun may be construed as dual (cf. singular
¿r), as recognized by Piquer Otero (2003:206–7). In BH, the root *kl’
30
See UBC 1.173 n. 108. For a proposal to interpret rrk in Ps 8:3 as the divine
stronghold, and as cognate with ¿r/‘r, see Smith 1997:640–41.
148 cat 1.3 ii
means to “shut up, restrain, withhold” (see BDB 476; DCH 4:413). It
also appears with the word, “house,” as in the phrase bêt (hak)kele’ in
1 Kgs 22:27//2 Chron 18:26, 2 Kgs 17:4, 25:27, Isa 42:7, but this
expression refers to a prison (as in Akkadian bīt kīli; see BDB 476). The
palace gate is a point of departure to battle or returning from it (cf. Ps
24:7–10; Ezek 44:2; cf. Ps 118:19–20) and a site for conflict itself ( Judg
5:8, 11). The latter motif is an old one in Mesopotamian literature as
well, as illustrated by the following speech pronounced by the divine
warrior Nuska in a fragment of the Assyrian recension of Atrahasis
(2:15–17//25–27; Lambert 1980:73):
Who is responsible for battle
[Who is responsible for hostilities]?
Which is the god who has started [war],
So that battle has come up to [my gate]/the gate of Enlil?
Like the palace of Anat, the house of Kirta has a gate (1.16 I 52, II 26).
One may wonder if the goddess’ gate in this literary context reflects an
older or contemporary ritual notion of the goddess exiting her temple
gate in order to begin ritual combat against her enemies? (For general
considerations of this sort, see Kilmer in Barnett 1981:20.)
The foot of the mountain is the site where Anat meets the figures
called ¿lmm, presumably her retinue, since her foes appear in lines 7–8
(see Pardee 1997a:250 n. 72). The term *¿lmm is used for Baal’s retinue
in 1.5 V 9. Perhaps comparable is Emar 370.90’ (Fleming 1992:213)
where the warrior-goddess Astarte is the recipient of ritual obeisance:
“The men of battle wi[ll fall] at her feet” (LÚ.MEŠ ta- a-zi a-na GÌR.
MEŠ ša i-[ma-qu-tu]). Fleming (1992:213 n. 29) raises the question of
whether the priests who accompany the ark into battle in Joshua 3 and
1 Samuel 4 represent a similar sort of ritual personnel. In these cases,
the ritual personnel may reflect a mythological notion of the deity’s
retinue. The verb, tqry, “she meets,” appears in a context of violence
in 1.17 VI 43–44 when Anat threatens the life of the hero Aqhat:
hm l’aqryk bntb pš‘ [. . .] bntb g’an ’ašqlk, “if I meet you on the path of
transgression . . . on the path of rebellion I will bring you down” (Gray
1979b:317 n. 10; for *qry, see DUL 714 and Hoch 1994:296–97, includ-
ing West Semitic loans in Egyptian). Both here and in 1.3 II the word
seems to signal an aspect of conflict on the goddess’ part, anticipating
the destruction to come. Yet in the immediate context the root refers
to the goddess’ retinue joining her.
cat 1.3 ii 149
The battle scene depicts Anat at her most savage. Her propensity
toward violence and warfare is a consistent theme of the mythological
texts. In 1.1 III 19–20, 1.3 III 14–17 and IV 8–10, she is commanded
by Baal to desist from war. In 1.6 II Anat kills and dismembers Mot,
the god of death and enemy of her beloved brother Baal. In 1.3 V
24–25 and 1.18 I 11–12 she threatens to beat El’s head to a bloody
pulp. In 1.18 IV she arranges for Aqhat’s death. She describes her
conflicts with a number of divine enemies in 1.3 III 38–46. A brief
description of a similar battle is found in 1.83 (on these passages, see
Pitard 1998). Her portrayal as a warrior goddess extended far beyond
Ugarit and is attested in texts from Egypt to Mari. Anat’s popularity
in New Kingdom Egypt has left some traces. To what is noted in the
discussions above, the following may be added: the PN Anat-em-nekhu,
“Anat is a Protection”; an Egyptian stele depicting Anat carrying a
spear; and a description from a papyrus, in which she is called, “Anat,
the goddess, the victorious, a woman acting (as) a man [i.e., a warrior],
clad as a male and girt as a female” (ANET 250, esp. nn. 18 and 21; see
Stadelmann 1967:91–96). Beth Shean stratum V yielded an Egyptian
stele dedicated to Anat (Rowe 1930:pl. 50, n. 2; 1940:33–34, pl. 65a,
no. 1). In addition, the dedication at the outset of a Phoenician-Greek
bilingual text from Lapethos in Cyprus (KAI 42:1) refers to ‘nt m‘z ym,
which may be rendered either “Anat the stronghold of life” (so DNWSI
668), or “Anat, strength, life,” which would be more proximate to the
Greek text, Athēna Sōteira Nikē, literally, “Athena, Savior, Victory.” For
Anat in other sources, see DDD 36–43.
The etymology of the name Anat is ambiguous. Lambert (1988:132,
following an older proposal in RLA 1:104–5, cf. DDD 36, 39–40) argued
that the name is to be identified with anat, a goddess mentioned in
the Mari archives as a goddess of the Amorite group, the anaeans.
From the Mari evidence Lambert deduced that Anat was originally an
Amorite deity.31 This seems plausible. The same could be suggested
concerning Baal (see UBC 1.112–13; for linguistic discussions of Ugaritic
in this direction, see Greenfield 1969b and Israel 2003). It remains only
to be said that even assuming the validity of Lambert’s identification of
31
Lambert (1985a:526 #14, 534) also notes a city in the Mari texts called d a-na-
atki, located some 125 km south of Mari, and connects it with the anaean goddess.
P. L. Day (DDD 43), however, notes a glitch in Lambert’s theory, namely that the city
of anat was not located in primarily anean territory. A city of Anat is also attested
in the Emar tablets (Bassetti 1996).
150 cat 1.3 ii
Anat with anat, the issue of the etymology of her name remains to
be explained; he does not address the question of the root and meaning
behind anat (see UBC 1.195–96 n. 147; DDD 36).32
The battle account begins in line 5 with the word hln. It is a presen-
tative particle not unlike BH hinnê (UBC 1.337). It gives an immediacy
to Anat’s action, the bloody battle which the first bicolon, lines 5b–7a,
describes as taking place in a valley lying between two towns. The
topographical description evokes the image of two armies engaged
in battle on the open field. Several scholars have proposed specific
locations for this battle. De Moor (SPUMB 94 n. 3) identifies the two
cities as Ugarit and its port two miles away at the modern Minet al-
Beida (CML2 47 n. 4; Gray 1979b:317 n. 11; cf. Pope 1977b:607).
Pope (1977b:607) and Pardee (1980:275) suggest the possibility that bn
qrytm, “between the two cities,” refers to ’U¿r and ’Inbb, i.e., Anat’s
mountainous abode (for references see above; see also CMCOT 86–90).
While this seems possible, one should note that there is no evidence that
Inbb was understood to be a city rather than a mountain like apan
(see above for the discussion of the mountain). The character of U¿r
is even more ambiguous.
Anat’s battle at her mountain abode appears to contain elements
related to the wider literary representation of Volkerkampf, the motif of
foreign enemies opposing the divine warrior at the divine mountain (e.g.,
Ps 48:5–8; cf. Joel 4:9–14; Zech 12:3–4; 14:2). Clifford (CMCOT 142–53)
32
There are at least five other suggestions (see Deem 1978; Gray 1979b:321–22
n. 42; Walls 1992:114–5):
1. To “sing” as in a dirge (Kapelrud 1969:28), assuming the root *‘ny, although the
word does not have this meaning in Ugaritic.
2. Gray (1979b:321) compares Arabic ‘anwat, “violence,” lacking for evidence in
Ugaritic.
3. Albright (1957:373) suggests “sign” (followed by McCarter 1987:137–55) con-
necting her name with Akkadian ittu, “sign.” The goddess is the sign of the presence
of the god (for discussion, see Gray 1979b:321–22 n. 42). See also Dahood (1958:81):
“sign, indicator of purpose, active will.”
4. “Vorsorge, Vorsehung” (Pope 1965:238), related to *‘nw/y, “to answer” (Zadok
1993:320).
5. Deem (1978:30) relates the goddess’ name to a putative BH root *‘nh, “to love, to
make love,” and with an agricultural term m‘nh/m‘nt, “a turn of the plow, a furrow.”
On the basis of Anat’s sexual activities, Deem (1978:26) concludes: “It would appear,
therefore, appropriate to seek an etymology of her name to reflect this aspect of love
and fecundity.” While it is true that sexual connotation may be found in some pas-
sages with the root *‘nh, it is unclear whether a separate root *‘nh denotes sexual love.
Indeed, the passages cited in support of this view (Exod 21:10, 23:6, 18; Hos 2:16–17,
23–25) are difficult and have been interpreted in other ways.
cat 1.3 ii 151
has plausibly connected this biblical motif (Ps 2:1–2) with the human
enemies of Anat here and Baal in 1.4 VII 35–36. However, only in
Anat’s battle do human enemies meet in battle at the deity’s mountain.
And only in Anat’s battle—and not Baal’s—are there motifs of divine
scorn and laughter, characteristic of some of the biblical parallels (see
Clifford 1975:302 n. 7, 305). Similarly, the depiction of the violence in
the battle (EHG 61–64) is characteristic in Ugaritic literature only of
the descriptions of Anat’s behavior, not Baal’s.
Psalm 2 deploys the Volkerkampf motif in service of Yahweh’s defense
of the king, a form of divine protection for the monarch also attributed
to Anat in New Kingdom Egypt and perhaps implicitly underlying the
use of this material at Ugarit. Ramses II calls himself “beloved of Anat”
and “nursling of Anat.” In an inscription Anat is said to declare to him:
“I have borne you like Seth” (identified with Baal in the New Kingdom
period). A chariot team of Ramses II was named “Anat is content, his
sword Anat is victorious.” One of his dogs was called “Anat protects.”
He also calls Anat and Astarte his shield (ANET 250).
The verbs of the next bicolon, *m //* mt (lines 7b–8), also appear
in Anat’s description of her battle with cosmic monsters in 1.3 III
43–44, though not in parallel (for * mt used of Anat, see also 1.18 IV
38; cf. BH * mt in BDB 856; UT 19.2176; DUL 786–87). The bicolon
describes the vast size of the combatant army, encompassing the people
from the west and the east. The terms used to indicate west and east
form a merismus, suggesting not only the world-wide origins of Anat’s
enemies, but also the world-wide implications of the battle (cf. Pardee
1997a:250 n. 74). The sense, “west,” has been deduced from the literal
phrase, “shore of the sea.”33 This view appears apt in view of the paral-
lel phrase indicating the east, ’at špš, “rising of the sun” (= * i’atu šapši;
see Sivan 1997:62, 64 for the forms). Anat engages all human enemies
in battle (Dahood 1965:42; 1979:146; TO 1.158 n. j; Pardee 1980:275).
At that point, it is important to note Pope’s studies of Anat (1965, 1974,
1977b:606–11), which have transformed the understanding of this god-
dess’ battle (see also Fensham 1965; Walls 1992). Those familiar with
Pope’s comparisons of Anat with other goddesses of love and death,
notably Egyptian Hathor, Sumerian Inanna, Akkadian Ishtar and Indian
Kali, will recognize the debt owed his work (Pope 1977b:608–10) in the
33
For “shore” used in reference to Anat’s bathing in an Egyptian context, see Hoch
1994:241–42.
152 cat 1.3 ii
after a plague.” This section of the battle receives the most attention
in both length and placement. Ceresko proposed seeing a chiastic
arrangement of hands and heads in lines 9–12: A r’i[š], “head” (line 9);
B kp, “hand” (line 10); B kp, “hand” (line 11); A r’išt, “heads” (line 12).
This view of the poetics does not take into consideration the further
reference to kpt in line 13. The more significant shift appears to be
the switch from singular nouns in 9–11 to their plural forms in 12–13,
which perhaps signals an intensification of the imagery. Severed heads
and heaps of hands from battle are stock motifs. Like Anat, Inanna is
praised for her smiting of human heads:
That you smite the heads—be it known!
That you devour cadavers like a dog—be it known!34
A relief from Medinet Habu depicts a heap of hands severed from the
enemies of Ramses III (ANEP #348; for similar imagery cf. Judg 8:6;
ANET 254; Černy 1958:96*). In 2 Kgs 10:8, Jehu orders that heaps of
heads from the slaughter of the Omride princes are to be laid out at
the entrance of the city-gate. In both cases, the heaps serve as an object
lesson to those who see them. In our passage the spectacle occurs in a
literary context rather than in a visual relief (as at Medinet Habu) or
in an ostensible historical narrative (as in 2 Kings 10), and its function
is to dramatize the goddess’ power.
The hands and heads are compared in lines 10–11 with insects,
denoting their profusion. Cognates for irbym are well known from
Hebrew ( arbeh) and Akkadian (erbu). For q m, commentators compare
Arabic qa āmu, “locust”; qa amu, “locust eggs” (Dozy 2.360; Pope
1974:293; Pardee 1980:275). The word ¿rmn, which follows q m in line
12, is somewhat more ambiguous. Working from the cognate terms BH
‘ărēmâ, “heap,” Syriac ‘rmt, “heap,” Arabic ‘aramatu, “heap of grain,”35
Pope (1966:236; 1974:293) took the word with the following phrase and
34
Hallo and van Dijk 1968:30–31; lines 126–127; cf. Groneberg 1997:xiii–xiv, 61–62,
66–67, 71, 76–77, 123, 125 for descriptions of Ishtar in battle. In a late bilingual text
from Babylon, the goddess brags: “in the battle I fly like a swallow, I heap up heads
that are so many harvested rushes” (Hallo and van Dijk 1968:51; for the iconography
of the winged goddess, see Wiggermann 1994:239). Closer to the world of Ugarit,
a seal of Mukannishum of Mari depicts the goddess (Ishtar, though possibly Anat),
holding a sickle sword and standing on corpses behind a male figure who also tramples
on corpses while chopping up another victim with his sickle sword (Pope 1970:82; see
also Gordon 1953:249, no. 32). Isa 34:2–3 describes the stench of the victims’ corpses
and their bloody viscera (cf. Isa 63:6).
35
Apparently an Aramaic loan; see Pardee 1980:275.
cat 1.3 ii 155
36
For a different image of locusts in divine warfare, see Jer 51:27.
156 cat 1.3 ii
like, based on Aramaic ‘ll, “to enter” (ANET 136; LC 2 41; Kapelrud
1969:50; SPUMB 88; TO 1.159; CML2 47: Pardee 1997a:250; note the
GN t¿ll in a place-name in 1.19 III 50). However, Aramaic *‘ll does not
show this particular nuance of “wading” (i.e., entering water). Good
(1982:56–58) insightfully suggests that Anat “gleans” for captives, by
arguing that Ugaritic *¿ll is related instead to BH ‘ōlēl ( Judg 8:1–2;
20:44–46) and Arabic ¿alla, “to give forth agricultural produce.” It
is the combination of etymological support and comparable literary
contexts that makes Good’s proposal persuasive. As Good observes, the
notion that warfare involves “gleaning” (that is, “clean-up operations”
or the like) is evident from the agricultural imagery used in military
contexts, not only in Judg 8:1–2 and 20:44–46, but also Jer 49:9 and
Obad 5. This idea of an action of “cleaning up” following the activ-
ity of combat also fits the context of the battle description here: first
she fights, resulting in warrior heads and hands around her, then she
clothes herself in heads and hands, and finally she “gleans” (*¿ll) the
battlefield for captives.37
As support for his view of *¿ll, Good cites CAT 1.13.3–7 as another
passage that describes Anat’s battle with this sort of viticultural imagery
(see SPUMB 95; Caquot 1978; see below, pp. 178–80):
3–4 ] rm n ym/m Devote to destruction for two days,
šp[k dm (?) l ] ymm Po[ur blood (?) for three] days,
4–5 lk/hrg ’ar[b‘] ymm Go, kill for fo[ur] days.
5–6 b r/kp šsk [dm?] Harvest hand(s), pour out [blood?],
6–7 l bšk/‘tk r’iš[t] To your waist attach heads.
Like *¿ll in 1.3 II 13 and 27, *b r in this passage draws from agricul-
tural imagery, in this case from the wine vintage, in order to dramatize
Anat’s grisly harvest. These two West Semitic roots appear together
in the military context of Judg 8:2. Harvest imagery is also used for
Inanna’s battle, in Enheduanna’s hymn: “I heap up heads that are so
many harvested rushes” (Hallo and van Dijk 1968:51).
Anat fights through warrior-blood knee deep, even neck deep. For
the second noun, Rendsburg (1987:628) compares Arabic alq, “neck”
(following UT 19.867) as well as Mehri and Harsusi elqemōt and Jibbali
alqut, meaning “Adam’s apple” or “side of the throat.” (Based on the
South Semitic cognates, Rendsburg regards final –m “an integral part
37
Psalm 137:9 may involve a pun on this root in its curse that “your sucklings”
(‘ôlālayik) be dashed against the rock (Ogden 1982:93).
cat 1.3 ii 157
38
For pointing out this passage, Mark Smith is grateful to Dr. Alan Yuter. It may
be noted further that the verse refers only to Jacob’s arm, not the “smooth part” of
his arm. Similarly, no “smooth part” need be assumed of the neck.
158 cat 1.3 ii
and King Zimri of Israel (cf. Num 25:14; see WSS 495 for further PNs
with the element). Perhaps, as mhr emphasizes the skill of the warrior,
so mr emphasizes the warrior’s strength.
The final colon of the first battle-scene (lines 15b–16) depicts Anat
driving away the survivors. The words used for the captives, šbm//mdnt
have been translated in a number of ways. A number of scholars have
rendered them as “old men”//“townspeople” (CML2 47) and “old
men”//“weaklings” (Gray 1979b:318). Pope (in Smith 1998b:654)), in
order to explain Anat’s strong reaction, proposed translating them as
“revilers”//“wretches” who “provoked the goddess’ violence.” Held
(1965b:404 n. 122) argued that they are best understood as terms
for enemies, specifically “captives” and “foes” (cf. Pardee 1997a:250:
“captors” [!]//“opponents”). For the first word, šbm, Held compared
šby// r in Ps 78:61 and šbyh//’wyb in Deut 32:42 (the latter having other
relations to our passage; see below for discussion). The second word,
mdnt, is an m- preformative noun, with final -t denoting an abstract
for concrete noun. The question is whether the word’s root is *dyn or
*dnn (biforms?); in either case, a form of the word is evidently attested
as mĕdānîm in Prov 6:19, where it means “discord.”39 Mesopotamian
texts likewise narrate the capture of captives following major conflicts.
In Enheduanna’s Hymn to Inanna (lines 46, 50; Hallo and van Dijk
1968:20–21), the army surrenders after the battle and is taken captive
by Inanna: “It (the mountain) leads its army captives before you of
its own accord . . . It drives its young adults before you as captives.”
Somewhat more distant thematically, Marduk rounds up Tiamat’s army
after he defeats her in the Enuma Elish (IV 105–128). The verb *grš is
used in a slightly different context in 1.2 IV 12, where it expresses the
intention to drive Yamm from his throne. Here it is used in a context
after the defeat of the enemy.
Anat drives the captives toward her palace with two weapons, one a
staff (m m), the other a bow (literally a bow-string, bksl qšth). The former
can refer to a common staff (1.19 III 49; 1.23.47), but it can also des-
ignate a weapon. In Hab 3:9, 14 the noun stands in parallelism with
qšt, “bow,” and in this context it may mean “shaft” or perhaps “arrow”
(CMHE 23 n. 59; Pope 1979:706; CML2 47 n. 8). In line 16, bksl qšth
serves as a metonymy for bow and arrows. Renfroe (1992:124) compares
Arabic kisl, “sinew on the bow with which cotton is carded” to the first
39
Reference courtesy of Dr. Alan Yuter.
cat 1.3 ii 159
noun in the phrase (see also Held 1965b:401–2). Anat’s use of bow and
arrows comes up in her conversation with the young Aqhat. In 1.17 VI
39–40 Aqhat boasts to Anat: “Bows are [weapons for] warriors. Shall
women now hunt [with it]?” Aqhat appears unaware that this weapon
is in fact her regular one. Anat later (1.19 I 14–15) says: “So I struck
him for his bow (qšth), for his arrows (q ‘th) I did not let him live”.
At the end of the battle scene in lines 17–18, Anat “then” (whln)
takes her captives to her palace, ostensibly for a feast that continues to
use the language of battle. The switch in scene from the battlefield to
the house marks the end of this major battle section.
sequential nature). This is quite different from the account of the first
battle, where no indications of Anat’s emotional state are mentioned.
The success of this battle is described with the same words as in the
first battle (lines 27–28//13–15), while the final two lines, lines 29–30,
indicate the resolution of Anat’s dissatisfaction that had been described
in lines 19–20. Thus the first battle results in Anat’s victory, but does
not assuage her anger. It is only the second event that brings her back
into an emotional equilibrium.
Lines 17–18, rendering Anat’s return to her house with her captives,
make use of rather stereotypical phrases attested in a number of other
texts that belong to various genres (see 1.100.67–68, 1.114.17–18; for
another context with the same roots in parallelism, see 1.100.72). The
scene continues (lines 19–20a) with the description of Anat’s lack of
satisfaction with the previous battle. The suffix on tmt h indicates that
this word and its parallel term in line 20, t t b, are verbal nouns depen-
dent on the preceding verb, šb‘t, and not independent verbs following
sequentially on šb‘t. Given the verbs’ lack of expressed objects, Pardee
(1997a:250 n. 73) explains their -t infix as “plausibly a sort of middle:
‘she smites for her own benefit’.” However, this type of notion for a
middle sense is far from certain. Several forms in the Gt-stem involve
verbs that are related to the use of the body (see Greenfield 1979).
In lines 20–28 Anat’s voracious appetite for human destruction enters
a second phase. The motif of a goddess’ bloodlust appears also in the
Egyptian “Deliverance of Humanity from Destruction” (ANET 10–11;
Lichtheim 1997:36–37). Dissatisfied with her slaughter of humanity,
Hathor-Sekhmet continues her carnage, to the anxiety of Re. He devises
a plan to stop her. He sends servants to prepare beer mixed with red
ochre that looks like blood and has it poured out on the battlefield.
The goddess, thinking it is blood, drinks it, gets drunk and falls asleep.
By this ruse Re prevents the complete destruction of humanity. Anat
in contrast is not restrained at all. The use of language describing her
eventual satisfaction emphasizes that she is under no compulsion to
reign in her emotions.
Lines 20b–22 describe Anat’s preparations for her captive victims.
Commentators generally have been hard put to explain Anat’s arrange-
ment of her furniture just before the resumption of her battle. As
Gray (1979b:318 n. 21) observes, it seems “surprising to find tables
and chairs prepared for the victims.” Scholars have made a number
of suggestions to explain these lines. Ginsberg (ANET 136), took * ‘r
in lines 20b–21 to be related to the rather dubious Hebrew verb, š r
162 cat 1.3 ii
II, defined in BDB 1045 as “to calculate, reckon” and translated the
passage as “She pictures the chairs as heroes,/pretending tables are
warriors,/And that footstools are troops.” His idea is that this second
battle is only in Anat’s imagination. This proposal has met with little
acceptance. Gray (1979b:319 n. 21) seems closer to the mark: Anat
indulges her blood-lust on her seated human victims. The description of
the arrangement of furniture indicates that it is a feast that is involved
here (more on this below).
This merging of battle and feasting imagery is well attested in the
Hebrew Bible. For example, Yahweh says in Deut 32:42:
I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
and my sword shall feed on flesh:
the blood of wounded and captives,
the skulls of enemy leaders.
Unlike Hathor, Yahweh is never said explicitly to consume the blood;
rather that image is left metaphorically to the divine sword, as in Isa
34:6–7 (Pope 1977b:606–11). This passage uses the imagery of sacrifice,
the terrestrial counterpart to the type of divine feast that Anat enjoys
in 1.3 II 19–30:
Yahweh has a sword;
It is sated with blood,
It is gorged with fat,
With the blood of lambs and goats,
With the fat of the kidneys of the rams.
For Yahweh has a sacrifice in Bozrah,
A great slaughter in the land of Edom.
Wild oxen shall fall with them,
And young steers along with the mighty bulls.
Their land shall be soaked with blood,
And their soil made rich with fat.
The terms used for animals appear elsewhere as terms for political
and military leaders (P. D. Miller 1970a), and the overtones of such
terminology are likely at work in this biblical passage (cf. Ezek 32:3–6;
Isa 49:26; Rev 19:17–21). More broadly speaking, battle and sacrifice
in this passage and elsewhere in Israelite literature ( Jer 46:10; Zeph
1:7) share the feature of immense bloodshed (TDOT 3:239). In sum,
in order to describe human destruction, Israelite literature drew on
a constellation of traditional West Semitic motifs, including wine for
blood and animal sacrifice for human destruction. This may help us to
understand the meaning of Anat’s arranging of the furniture, appar-
cat 1.3 ii 163
40
See Renfroe 1992:30–31 for the semantic development underlying the root *¿dd
in Arabic and Ugaritic; see also Watson 1996a:76–77 for the argument that the word
here may connote swelling as well as joy.
cat 1.3 ii 165
in Ugaritic are kbd and lb, usually translated “liver” and “heart” respec-
tively. A selective survey of Israelite, Ugaritic and Akkadian literatures
will be helpful for understanding the use of this language, and some
considerations from the field of psychobiology will aid in clarifying the
reason for this sort of usage.
Lam 2:11 uses BH kābed in describing the personal distress caused
by the neo-Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem:
My eyes (‘ênay) are worn from tears,
My guts (mē‘ay)41 are in ferment,42
My liver/innards (k^bēdî) are poured out on the ground,43
Over the destruction of the daughter of my people (‘ammî),
As babes and infants faint44 in the city squares.
Apart from Lam 2:11, BH kābēd is rare at best in expressions of emo-
tions, but it has been read by emendation in a number of Psalms. It
has been claimed that the consonantally similar word kābôd, usually
rendered “glory,” should be reinterpreted as kābēd in some psalms that
express human emotion. Ps 16:9 MT reads (and Vulgate assumes)
kĕbôdî, “my majesty, glory,” but LXX has glossa mou, “my tongue,” and
Targum bĕśārî, “my flesh.” Scholars suggest emending to kĕbēdî, “my
41
According to J. M. Sasson (1989:24), *mē‘îm, “refers to the bowels, intestines,
i.e. the internal organs below the abdomen.” The Ugaritic cognate mm‘ denotes what
comes out of the human body due to violence done to it, specifically used in CAT
1.18 I 12 of oozing brains and in 1.3 II 14, 35 of bodily viscera flowing with blood
out of the corpses of slain soldiers. Accordingly, the word might be translated “guts.”
The word is used with the heart in Jer 4:19 and elsewhere, but not for emotions in
the Psalms. Ps 22:15 uses this word in an emotional context, locating the heart in it;
but this word is not said to be the internal part that experiences the emotion. Pss 40:9
and 71:6 are the only other Psalm verses which use this word; neither instance involves
emotional expression as such. For further biblical evidence, see BDB 588–89; J. M.
Sasson 1989:24. A relation of the word to Ethiopic *m‘‘, “to be angry” is viewed as
“unlikely” by Leslau 325.
42
On the reduplicated form of the verb, see Joüon-Muraoka, para. 51b. The mean-
ing seems evident from the context here, cf. Job 16:16.
43
Cf. RNAB’s translation: “My gall is poured out on the ground.” This rendering
nicely preserves a general sense of kābēd. “Gall” in general English usage may refer to
liver bile, although liver bile and gall bladder bile are differentiated medically. On this
point, see Moore 1992:190. However, the BH word for “gall” is *mĕrôrâ (e.g., Job 20:14;
see BDB 601) and such a word used with the phrase *špk l’r (as in Job 16:13) would
evoke a picture of bile pouring out of the body (see Pope 1980:124; for comparable
Akkadian usage, see CAD M/2:299). The picture in Lam 2:11 seems more proximate
to 2 Sam 20:10 which uses *mē‘îm with *špk ’r h to denote disembowelment.
44
On the infinitive as a possible G-stem form, see GKC para. 51l; Joüon-Muraoka,
para. 59b. For the expression, see Lauha 1983:105 (reference courtesy of T. N. D.
Mettinger).
166 cat 1.3 ii
liver, innards” here and in other Psalm passages (Pss 7:6; 30:13; 57:9;
108:2).45 The best case for emendation in these passages is based on
three criteria: (1) a text-critical difficulty with the word; (2) the absence
of honor as a theme, or the absence of parallelism with words such
as “I” (as in Pss 30:13, 57:9 and 108:2), “my life” ( ayyāy) (as in Ps
7:6) or “my self/soul” (napšî) (also in Ps 7:6); and (3) the presence of a
parallel internal body part such as lēb, “heart.” Ps 16:9 is the only case
that meets all three criteria. In this case (but possibly others), the word
may have been secondarily interpreted as kābôd, “majesty, glory.” If,
however, the emendations are not accepted, only Lam 2:11 uses kābēd
to communicate emotion. This single instance stands in sharp contrast
with BH lēb, “heart,” which commonly conveys emotional distress (Ps
13:3) and joy (Pss 4:8; 13:6; 16:9; cf. 9:2). To advert to one particular
expression of the heart, “a broken heart” in Hebrew does not refer
to unrequited love as in English, but to more general grief and sor-
row (Pss 34:19; 51:19; 147:3; Isa 61:1; cf. Jer 23:9). It conveys what in
English would be called a “crushed spirit,” and indeed this expression
is found in contexts with the “brokenhearted” (e.g., Ps 34:19).46 Given
that BH lēb commonly expresses emotion while kābēd does not, the use
of the latter in Lam 2:11 is all the more striking, and the reason for
its selection is perhaps due to other considerations.47
In any case, both thought and emotions are attributed to the heart,48
while the liver/innards appears only in expressions of emotion. In
contrast, other organs symbolize psychological processes apart from
emotions. Fat ( ēleb, cf. Pss 17:10, 119:70; cf. Judg 3:22) serves as a
metaphor for human unreceptivity.49 Dahood (1966:97) comments:
“fatness sometimes connotes arrogance; cf. Deut xxxii 15; Jer v 28, and
especially Ps lxxiii 7–8.” Kidneys (kĕlāyôt) are the organs that Yahweh
examines for human malice or goodness (Pss 7:10, 11:2, 26:2, 73:21; cf.
Jer 11:20; 17:10). According to Ps 16:7 the speaker’s kidneys discipline
45
Stensman, TDOT 7:22. See also Johnson 1964:75 n. 5. So also on Ps 7:6 see
Hillers 1992:106.
46
See Collins 1971a:32–33, 1971b:189. In Ps 147:3 the expression corresponds to
wounds on the outside of the body.
47
Similarly, was the choice of mē‘ay in Lam 2:11 instead of *libbî dictated at least
in part by assonance with ‘ênay in the same verse? Cf. the end-rhyme between kĕbēdî
and ‘ammî in the following couplet.
48
For a listing see BDB 524–25. For a survey, see Fabry, TDOT 7:412–34.
49
BDB 316. See further 4Q424, frg. 3, l. 6; Harrington 1996:61–62.
cat 1.3 ii 167
50
Cf. CAT 1.16 VI 26: “his gullet instructed him” ( ywsrnn ggnh). See below
p. 690.
51
Ps 73:21 is a possible exception in its pairing of heart and kidneys, but the image
may be one of self-conviction, which would be appropriate given the context of the
psalmist’s self-questioning. Prov 23:16 associates the kidneys with emotional expression,
namely rejoicing. The larger context of this verse includes the human heart (v. 15);
perhaps the mention of the kidneys with emotion in this context is derived from the
combination of the heart and kidneys elsewhere in the general sense of innards (see
the following note).
52
Kidneys along with the heart are said to be vulnerable to arrows ( Job 16:13; Lam
3:13; cf. CAT 1.82.3). The word for “kidneys” in these instances might be understood
metaphorically as innards or “vitals” in general (see Pope 1973:124; Hillers 1992:113).
Job 19:27 locates *k^lāyôt in the êq, normally translated “bosom.” If correct, *kĕlāyôt
would refer not specifically to kidneys, but innards.
53
The kidneys were one part of the body read for omens in Mesopotamia. While
there is no Israelite evidence that animal kidneys were read for signs, the Akkadian
cognate, kalītu, figures prominently in omen literature. See CAD K:74–76. For liver
models in Mesopotamia and the Levant, see Stensman, TDOT 7:15; and the essays in
Dietrich and Loretz 1990.
54
Johnson 1964:74–81; Wolff 1974:40–58, 64. For a review of scholarly literature
in this vein, see Lauha 1983:7–24. For his discussion of lēb, “heart,” see in general
Lauha 1983:46–50.
168 cat 1.3 ii
55
Cf. Lauha’s critique of attempts to recover an ancient Israelite understanding of
pyschology based on the use of terms such as lēb, nepeš and rûa . See especially Lauha
1983:239–41, 244.
56
For Akkadian evidence, see Dhorme 1923:112–30 (reference courtesy of A. Fitz-
gerald); CAD K:11–4, CAD L:164–75. For Ugaritic information, see Collins 1971a:36.
57
Dhorme 1923:119–20; CAD K:11–14.
cat 1.3 ii 169
data about the use of the imagery of heart and liver/innards in Israelite
texts. The evidence of the usage of kbd in Ugaritic (outside its tech-
nical usage in sacrificial or divination texts) will also be helpful here.
The starting point for this investigation is cross-cultural information
supporting the hypothesis that specific emotions are associated with
the heart and innards because they are physically experienced there.
Social science research has recently produced findings that strongly
support this idea. In the journal, Cross-Cultural Research, several scholars
compared their findings on how anger, envy, fear and jealousy were
reported to be felt by various parts of the human body among people
from Germany, Mexico, Poland, Russia and the United States.58 The
results indicate that people across cultures have several similar notions
about the relationship between certain emotions and particular parts
of the body. This finding may be applied to aspects of the Israelite and
Ugaritic association of various parts of the body with specific emotions.
It seems likely that the peoples of the Near East associated emotions
with the internal organs where those emotions were perceived to have
been felt physically. Or, as Hupka et al., put the point, “Metaphors in
emotion words similarly may identify particular corporeal sites and
body processes.”59
This point applies to the heart and innards. Before proceeding to
these two cases, one other instance may serve to show the heuristic
value of the study by Hupka et al. Biblical idioms to express anger
involve a group of expressions centered on the image of the burning
breath, issuing from one’s nose (or nostrils) and mouth. “Burning rage”
(NJPS), in Ps 124:3, is literally “burning of their nose” (* ărôt ’appām).
Ps 106:40 applies the same image to God: “And the nose of Yahweh
burned against his people” (wayyi ar-’ap yhwh bĕ‘ammô). Ps 18/2 Sam
22:9 describes Yahweh’s furious anger in more detail:
Smoke went up from his nose (‘ālâ ‘āšān bĕ’appô),
And fire from his mouth consumes (wĕ’ēš-mippîw tō’kēl).
The question is: why does the expression of anger center on such
a physical image? The study of Hupka et al., answers this question.
According to their survey, “anger was felt in the face, head, heart,
58
Hupka, Zaleski, Otto, Reidl and Tarabrina 1996:243–64. For more general
background to the correlations between emotions and organs of the body, see Plutchik
1994; reference courtesy of J. Chapman. See further below.
59
Hupka, Zaleski, Otto, Reidl and Tarabrina 1996:245.
170 cat 1.3 ii
and the throat in all nations.”60 Thus the biblical texts correlate quite
well to the findings of the study. Evidently the Israelites associated the
emotion of anger with the physical locations where this emotion is
felt.61 This point seems to hold a key to emotional expressions felt in
the heart and innards as well.
It is evident from both the Psalms and other biblical books that the
heart is the locus of many emotional states. It is the organ express-
ing both joy (Pss 4:8; 13:6; 16:9; cf. 9:2) and grief (13:3). Hupka et al.
1996 indicates that this relationship is widely felt across cultures. The
heart, in fact, appears to be the most significant organ in terms of its
relationship to emotion. The study indicates that cultures connect a
wide range of emotions to the heart, including anger, envy, fear and
jealousy.62 This is no doubt related to the fact that the heart physically
changes during the experience of these emotions, increasing its pump-
ing speed and capacity.
The word kbd is a different matter. Usually identified as the liver, this
specific meaning is attested for BH kābēd in divination (Ezek 21:26), as
well as sacrifices in priestly literature (e.g., Exod 29:13, 22; Lev 8:16, 25;
9:10, 19), and paralleled in Syro-Mespotamian texts and liver models
(Landsberger and Tadmor 1964).63 It is known in technical contexts of
sacrificial cult and the “scholarly” polyglot published in Ugaritica V (see
Huehnergard 1987b:135). The noun is evidently related to the common
Semitic verb *kbd, “to be heavy,” perhaps due to the liver’s large size.64
The liver is the largest gland in the body, accounting for about 2% of
body weight in human adults and about 5% in infants. It is also the
largest abdominal organ (Moore 1992:190).
Outside of technical usages, Ugaritic literature uses the word kbd in
two ways. The first is physiological, not for the liver specifically, but
60
Hupka, Zaleski, Otto, Reidl and Tarabrina 1996:250.
61
This physiological explanation for anger was touched upon by Johnson 1964:49.
62
Hupka, Zaleski, Otto, Reidl and Tarabrina 1996:255. We prescind from the
problem of why the heart is attested also for thought. West Semitic languages have
no word for brain as such, and functions often accorded the brain in English are
expressed with the heart. For example, self-conscious thought is expressed as “saying
in the heart” (e.g., Pss 10:6, 11, 13; 14:1 [= 53:2]; 15:2). The heart is also the location
of malice (Ps 5:10).
63
It is to be noted that the priestly literature on sacrifices employs *qereb to denote
the internal viscera in general including the internal organs. For references, see BDB
899, sub qereb #3. For discussion, see Dhorme 1923:109–12; Milgrom 1991:159.
64
So Gesenius citing Galen; see BDB 458’; and Leslau 273.
cat 1.3 ii 171
65
Watson 1991:175. Scholars take the particle l- as a negative or an asseverative.
The issue does not affect the question of kbd’s meaning here. For Hebrew m‘ym used
for pregnancy in a manner comparable to 1.13.31, see Tobit 4:2 in 4Q200, fr. 2, line
2. Both refer to bodily insides.
66
For ’irt in 1.3 III 5, see below on pp. 218–19.
172 cat 1.3 ii
Like the biblical and Ugaritic usages, the Akkadian word appears in
contexts of emotion (both happy and unhappy) and thought, sometimes
in parallel with libbu, “heart.”67
Finally relevant to this interpretation of kbd is the observation made
by medical doctors and psychobiologists that strong negative emotions
are not distinctly felt in the liver (see Plutchik 1994:30). In contrast,
the innards, including the digestive tract, feel strongly in negative situ-
ations. More specifically, strong negative emotions are felt in the lower
abdominal region. In responding to a “flight or fight” situation, the
body’s sympathetic nervous system induces several bodily changes:
dilation of pupils; inhibition of tear glands and salivation; opening of
respiratory passages; increase in heartbeat and blood pressure; release
of sugar into the blood for energy; and most importantly for situating
innards in emotional expressions, inhibition of digestive secretion and
stomach contractions, as well as movement of blood from the digestive
system to muscles in arms and legs used for physical activity.68 Stomach
contractions and movement of blood from the digestive system to the
muscles in the limbs prepares the body of a person to address a per-
ceived threatening situation. In distressful situations stomach contrac-
tions and the movement of blood are felt as a physical experience of
anxiety (cf. English “stomach tied up in knots” and “butterflies in the
stomach”). The use of “innards” for distress (for example, in biblical
literature) fits these symptoms of the sympathetic nervous system. Anat’s
joy in 1.3 II 25–27 reflects the opposite physical response, namely the
restoration of blood to internal organs as her complete victory becomes
clear. She is physiologically and emotionally restored and relieved, and
she exults in the result. In short, the use of the nose and mouth to
express anger, the innards for distress and joy and the heart for a range
of emotions suggests that ancient West Semites identified emotions with
some particular bodily parts where these emotions are physically felt.
There are two other aspects of emotion that have been studied by
psychologists, which appear to be further useful in dealing with ancient
texts. The first is the communicative function of emotions, an aspect
that often has not been properly appreciated in biblical research. While
67
The Amarna Akkadian word kabattuma, an adverb denoting “on the belly,” likewise
shows a more general meaning (CAD K:14). Cf. the meaning “belly” for Ethiopic kabd,
according to Leslau 273.
68
For a detailed list of symptoms, see Moore 1992:29–30. See Baron 1992:51, 388;
Gleitman 1996:61 (references courtesy of J. Chapman). For a discussion of these physi-
cal reactions in the context of dream experience, see Hobson 1999:161.
cat 1.3 ii 173
many believe that they feel their emotions first and then communicate
them, psychologists have observed that people communicate emotions
as, or even before, they recognize them cognitively.69 Accordingly,
emotions are part of the larger process of human communication. A
number of psychologists, including Richard S. Lazarus, Nico Fridja and
Andrew Ortony, have emphasized the role that emotions play in help-
ing people address and adapt to situations around them (see Plutchik
1994:4). Emotion “is said to be a form of readiness for adaptive action.
In other words, emotions change an ongoing situation and help the
individual prepare for appropriate action” (Plutchik 1994:4). Following
this approach, the emotions expressed in West Semitic literature may
be viewed as serving to address an ongoing situation and to help figures
move toward action. This emotional communication is a religious and
ritualized reaction to situations of disaster or relief.
The second psychological aspect to note is the function of emotions
in maintaining psychological continuity. Two models predominate in
the current discussion in the research. The more traditional view is
espoused by the psychologist Plutchik (1994:262):
Emotions may thus be conceptualized as homeostatic devices (patterns of
inner and outer action) that are designed to maintain a relatively steady
(“normal”) state in the face of environmental emergencies. Emotions
represent transitory adjustment reactions that function to return the
organism to a stable, effective relationship with its immediate environment
when that relationship is disrupted.
In contrast, a non-homeostatic model has been proposed. D. A. Oren,
a clinical psychobiologist specializing in mood disorders, comments:
We were taught in college biology two decades ago that the function
of physiology is to preserve homeostasis. The Plutchik view follows this
dictum well. But, it is increasingly clear that the homeostasis paradigm
is wrong. The powerful evidence of a biological clock in animals that
69
See Plutchik 1994:4–5. See further Kandel and Kupfermann 1995:595–612 (refer-
ence courtesy of J. Chapman); Gleitman 1996:345–50; LeDoux 1998. For decades the
timing between physical-emotional response and the cognitive recognition or labeling of
that response has been a major point of debate among psychologists. The idea of simul-
taneous development of emotional feeling and bodily reactions has been associated with
the studies of Walter B. Cannon, while the view that emotional feeling follows physical
reaction is associated with the names of William James and Conrad Lange. Although
the view of Cannon presently dominates the discussion, research on some forms of
depression (e.g., Seasonal Affective Disorder) supports the view of James and Lange; so
D. A. Oren (personal communication), citing Young, Watel, Lahmeyer, and Eastman
1991:191–7. See further discussion in LeDoux 1998:45–48, 87–92, 292–93.
174 cat 1.3 ii
70
In a letter dated January 16, 1997 (Oren’s italics), used with permission. Beck’s
research can be found in his 1996 article; see also Oren 1996 (references courtesy of
D. A. Oren).
cat 1.3 ii 175
“I fought against the city and seized it, and I killed all the people. The city
became a possession (hyt l) of Kemosh and of Moab.”71 Of the con-
quest of Nebo he says (lines 15–18): “I fought against it from the
break of dawn until noon, and I seized it, and I killed everyone, seven
thousand, men and resident aliens, women and female resident aliens,
and servant women, for I had devoted them to destruction (h rmth) for
Ashtar-Kemosh. I took from there the [ ]s of Yahweh and dragged
them before Kemosh.”72 These descriptions of erem match the kind of
practice found in the Hebrew Bible, and certainly relate thematically
to the description of Anat’s battle in 1.3 II. Like the biblical texts,
the Mesha Stele indicates that the slaughter of the people is a sacred
action dedicated to the god. One key difference to note between the
erem tradition here and 1.3 II is that Anat does not appear to capture
or kill noncombatants as we find in the Israelite and Moabite versions
of the practice.
Moving beyond the Levant, we find examples of a female goddess
undertaking a campaign against human forces in both Mesopotamian
and Egyptian texts. As noted above, Inanna/Ishtar in Mesopotamia is
well known for her martial exploits. A particularly interesting parallel
is found in the hymn to Inanna attributed to En eduanna (late third
millennium BCE), lines 43–50 (Hallo and van Dijk 1968:20–21):
In the mountain where homage is withheld from you
vegetation is accursed.
Its grand entrance you have reduced to ashes.
71
Following the reading of Lemaire 1987:206–07; cf. also Parker 1997:45. On ryt, the
more traditional reading, see Stern 1991:32. The latter reading cannot be completely
dismissed. Stern relates this form to the BH root rwh in Isa 34:5, where it appears in
a context specifically related to erem, and in 34:7 and Jer 46:10. If this were the cor-
rect reading and etymology, the two latter cases would provide support for interpreting
ryt here as “satisfaction.” Lemaire’s reading, which matches the traces on the stone
(and, according to Lemaire, personal communication, also on the squeeze), makes fine
grammatical sense of the text. Schade (2005) has argued for ryt from his examination
of the stone and squeeze, but his attempt to find the r is unconvincing. As Lemaire
has pointed out to us (personal communication), Schade’s proposed r is much too low
on the line. It is better to see the top line of his triangle as the lower horizontal of a
h. In addition, Schade’s proposed r on the squeeze shows little relationship to the one
he proposed on the stone—its head is much bigger and the proposed lower line is at
a different angle from what he suggests on the stone.
72
Iconographic representations of captives being brought before a god may be seen
in Cornelius 1995:21–23, 24, 33–36, figs. 10–15; Amiet 1992:123, figure 292; Bounni
and Lagarce 1998:61 n. 69, 62, figures 91:5, 92:1–2, 103–104.
cat 1.3 ii 177
Blood rises in its rivers for you, its people have nought to drink.
It leads its army captive before you of its own accord.
It disbands its regiments before you of its own accord.
It makes its able-bodied young men parade before you of their
own accord.
A tempest has filled the dancing of its city.
It drives its young adults before you as captives.
Here we have several themes familiar from the texts thus far surveyed.
The people punished by Inanna were rebellious, in this case, having
failed to give proper homage to the goddess. The settlements have been
destroyed, and so many have been killed that the rivers are polluted
with blood to the point that no one can drink the water. The survivors
surrender to the goddess and are taken captive. It might also be sug-
gested that in 1.3 II Anat’s opponents are presumed to be rebels against
her power. But there are differences between this passage and both the
Levantine erem tradition and 1.3 II as well, particularly in the fact that
there is little explicit indication that the captives are to be killed.
The Egyptian story of Hathor/Sekhmet’s near-destruction of all
humanity, apparently dating to the Middle Kingdom (Lichtheim
1976:197; see also ANET 10–11), also provides significant parallels to
Anat’s battle. In this story humanity plots against Re, the sun god, so
he sends out Hathor to fight against the people. She slaughters them in
the desert for a while, then returns to Re, and announces, “As you live
for me, I have overpowered mankind, and it was balm to my heart”
(line 14, Lichtheim 1976:199). Re appears to be satisfied with the pun-
ishment, but Hathor, now also known as Sekhmet, is ready to continue
until she kills all of humanity. Re arranges for beer that has been col-
ored blood-red with ochre to be poured on the fields where Hathor will
fight. When she sees the beer, she believes that the rest of humanity
has been destroyed. She drinks the presumed blood, gets drunk and
returns home satisfied. Thus Re saves the remnant of humanity. As in
the other accounts discussed above, this story uses the motif that the
slaughter is brought about by the wickedness of humanity, here plot-
ting against Re. But it also contains elements found in 1.3 II. Hathor
here refers to her pleasure at slaughtering humans, a trait that Anat
shares with her. We also find a two-stage battle in the Egyptian text,
as we have in 1.3 II, although in the Hathor story the second battle is
short-circuited by Re. However, it is clear that Hathor intends to wipe
out all remaining survivors in the second battle, as Anat actually does
in hers. Of course, neither the Mesopotamian nor the Egyptian texts
178 cat 1.3 ii
calls the battle erem, but the overall similarities of the stories to the
erem accounts strongly indicate a close relationship.
The significant similarities between all this material and 1.3 II suggest
that the conflict described here is also related to the concept of erem.
This is supported by another Ugaritic text, CAT 1.13, lines 3–13, which
describes a very similar conflict between Anat and an enemy army. In
this passage the cognate root * rm itself seems to be used in the context
of divine warfare. The passage reads as follows (See Images 91–92):
3–4 ]μ rm. n.ym/m. Devote to destruction (?) for two days,
šμp[k dm (?) l ]ymm. Pour [blood (?) for three] days,
4–5 lk./hrg.’ar[b‘] ymm. Go, kill for fo[ur] days.
5–6 b r/∑kp šsk.[dm?] Harvest hand(s), pour out [blood?],
6–7 l bšk/‘tk.r’i1š[t] To your waist attach heads.
[ b?]lmhrk [Return?] to your soldiery,
8 w‘p.ldr[‘].nšrk. And fly at the arm of your raptors.
9 wrb .l¿rk.’inbb. And repose at your mountain, Inbb,
10 kt ¿rk.’ank yd‘t The dais of your mountain (that) I know.
11 [ ]n ’atn ’at To the dais (that) I give, come (?).
m bk b’a (?) To your throne, come (?).
12 [š]mm rm lk To the high heavens, go,
12–13 pr kt/[k]bkbm Then rule the dais [of the s]tars (?).
Textual Notes73
Line 3. While the / / is not entirely certain, the reading seems the
most probable. Only a single short low vertical is preserved, and could
be part of a / /, /y/, /z/ or /s/.
It is theoretically possible to reconstruct [ ’a] rm or some other root
besides * rm, but none makes good sense. * rm fits with the parallel
command lk hrg in lines 4–5. The Ugaritic root occurs in syllabic form,
a-ri-mu, in the Ugaritic column of Ugaritica V, text 137 ii 39’, 40’, 42’.
Huehnergard (1987b:41, 89–90, 126) translates the first instance, which
he normalizes as an adjective / arimu/, by “foe,” and the other two
cases, “desecrated” (see also UG 261, 474), which he relates to a differ-
ent root. He relates the first instance to BH causative verb he ĕrîm, “to
declare sacred, exterminate” and Arabic aruma, “to become sacred, be
forbidden.” De Moor compares the use of * rm in line 3 with the bibli-
cal usage of Josh 8:24, 26 where Ai is put under the warfare ban.
73
For standard translations, see MLC 487–94; de Moor 1987:137–41; TO 2.19–
27.
cat 1.3 ii 179
Line 5. Reading b r as “to harvest” (so Good) rather than “in anguish”
(so de Moor). The cognate in Hebrew is regularly used for the harvest-
ing of grapes (Lev 25:5; Deut 24:21; Judges 9:27 etc.)
Line 7. The š of riš[t] appears certain, although only the upper left part
of the left diagonal of the letter is preserved. The restoration between
rišt and lmhrk is based on the likelihood that another imperative verb
should go here. Since mhr here has the second fem. sg. possessive suffix
on it, the soldiers are probably not the enemy (as the term was used in
1.3 II 11, 15, 21 and 28), but Anat’s own soldiers, and thus the verb
is probably not a battle-based one.
Line 8. For Anat as a flyer, see CAT 1.108.8: w‘nt d’i d’it r pt (Tuttle
1976); and 1.18 IV. For discussions, see Fensham 1966; Pope 1971.
Line 10. For kt, see 1.4 I 30. The phrases for Anat’s abode beginning
in line 9 recall a series of terms for Baal’s abode in CAT 1.3 III 29–31,
IV 19–20. The first and second person forms in line 10 indicate direct
discourse, either a prayer (so de Moor) or a speech of a deity to Anat,
possibly Baal. Caquot takes the latter part of the text (from line 21) as
a prayer to bless the king with a formula reminiscent of El’s blessing
of king Kirta in 1.15 II 25–27 (TO 2.20, 25–27).
Line 12. For [š]mm rm, perhaps compare b‘lt šmm rmm, Anat’s title in
CAT 1.108.7. See also šmm rmm, perhaps the name of a Sidonian
district in KAI 15; and a descendant of the Levantine sacred moun-
tains, “Samemroumos, who is also called Hypsouranios” in PE 1.10.10
180 cat 1.3 ii
74
For šmm rmm and its various reflexes, see further Weinfeld 1991.
cat 1.3 ii 181
story. But again we may get some clues from the Mesopotamian and
Egyptian texts described above, along with a further examination of
the biblical descriptions of Yahweh and erem-warfare. These provide
us with references to the devouring of the enemy as the climax and
conclusion of the battle. We will shortly draw this theme into our
discussion of Anat.
Enheduanna’s Hymn to Inanna provides us with a startling descrip-
tion of the goddess in the latter part of the poem (lines 125–127, Hallo
and van Dyke 1968:30–31):
That you devastate the rebellious land, be it known!
That you roar at the land, be it known!
That you smite the heads, be it known!
That you eat bodies like a dog, be it known!
The context of this description indicates clearly that the goddess’
devouring of bodies takes place within the context of divine participa-
tion in battle. And in the story of Hathor’s Destruction of Humanity,
the story climaxes when Hathor, seeing what she believes to be the
aftermath of the slaughter of all humanity, drinks what she thinks is
blood until she gets drunk. Thus these texts show two goddesses, each
with characteristics closely related to those of Anat, completing their
battles against the wicked by either devouring their bodies or drinking
their blood.
Turning to the biblical texts, we find elements of this notion of
devouring the enemy preserved in accounts describing Yahweh as tak-
ing part in erem-warfare. In such passages as Isa 34:5–6 and Jer 46:10,
the language of erem is mixed with language of eating and of sacrifice
in a particularly interesting way. For example, Jer 46:10 reads, “That
day belongs to the Lord Yahweh of Hosts, a day of retribution to be
avenged upon his enemies. His sword shall devour and be sated, and
it shall drink its fill of their blood. For a sacrifice belongs to the Lord
Yahweh of Hosts in the land of the north, as far as the Euphrates.”
Here we find the connection between a battle in which God slaugh-
ters the enemy, the notion that the slaughter is a sacrifice and the
idea that the slain are devoured. In this case, however, it is Yahweh’s
sword that does the devouring, rather than Yahweh himself. Isa 34:5–6
reads: “When my sword is satisfied in heaven, it will come down upon
Edom and upon the people of my erem for judgment. Yahweh has a
sword—it is filled with blood, it is gorged with fat, with the blood of
lambs and goats, with the fat of kidneys of rams. For Yahweh has a
182 cat 1.3 ii
75
One should note that, while the practice of human warfare cannibalism is attested
in some societies (Harris 1987:204–34; Sahlins 1979:45–47; 1983:72–93; cf. Sanday
1986:125–50), there is no evidence of such a practice in the ancient Near East. erem-
warfare cannibalism seems restricted to the divine realm. For further anthropological
discussion of cannibalism in myths, see Sanday 1986:41–44, 152–54, 179–81.
cat 1.3 ii 183
76
One may also see a somewhat similar development in Mesopotamian thought
about the nature of sacrifice. There too we find a long tradition of the notion that
sacrificial offerings constitute food for the gods. This is visible in the ritual texts that
describe the presentation of food to the gods each day (Oppenheim 1964:188–189).
But at the same time, some people rejected this idea. There is no obvious statement in
Mesopotamian texts like the one we have in Psalm 50, but there are clear indications
in some important literary texts that there was an attempt to downplay the notion
of sacrifice as meals for the gods. Tigay (1982:224–29) pointed out that when the
Flood Story from the Old Babylonian Atrahasis Epic was adapted into the Standard
Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (late second millennium BCE, or perhaps
early first), the adaptor intentionally deleted every passage in the earlier text that men-
tions either the gods being hungry or their eating (see also Anderson 1987:16–19).
He particularly pointed out the following sections: Atrahasis III.iii.30–31 reads, “The
Anunna, the great gods, were sitting in hunger and thirst.” This comes into Gilgamesh
XI:113–144 as “The gods feared the Flood. They retreated and went up to the heaven
of Anu.” Atrahasis III:iv.15–23 reads: “The gods wept with her for the land, she was
sated with grief, thirsty for beer. Where she sat, they sat weeping. Like sheep they
filled the trough. Their lips were feverishly athirst, they suffered in starvation.” But
Gilgamesh XI:124–126 reads in parallel: “The gods of the Anunnaki were weeping
with her. The gods humbly sat weeping. Their lips burned; they were taken with fever
sores” (for Atrahasis, see also Lambert and Millard 1969:94–101). The Gilgamesh text
changes the Atrahasis line, “They (the gods) gathered like flies around the sacrifice,”
to “The gods gathered like flies around the one who made the sacrifice.” It also leaves
out Atrahasis III.v.36: “[After t]hey had eaten the offering.” Not all of the elements of
the story related to eating are removed from the Gilgamesh version—it doesn’t entirely
remove the story of Atrahasis/Utnapishtim offering the sacrifice and the gods smelling
the sweet savor—but the most explicit elements are gone. One might also notice how the
184 cat 1.3 ii
story of humanity’s creation in Atrahasis is reworked in the later Enuma Elish. In the
older work, the lower gods are forced to grow the food that feeds the upper gods. They
go on strike until Ea comes up with the idea of creating humans to grow the food.
In the Enuma Elish, the creation of humanity is part of the original creation of the
world. There is no clear context to indicate exactly which burdens the humans will
take from the gods. But it is clear that for the Enuma Elish, growing food to feed the
gods plays no real role.
77
Lloyd (1996:157) has made a similar proposal that this passage is informed by
“ritual sacrifice of prisoners-of-war before cultic statues.” He argues that Anat is
destroying them, which hardly explains the need for tables and chairs in 1.3 II. For
this reason one may maintain for this context a specific sort of destruction in the form
of a divine meal, in other words warfare cannibalism.
cat 1.3 ii 185
78
The unnamed war goddess of Ashqelon was called phane bal on Greek coins;
perhaps the goddess in question was Anat (see CMHE 28, 31; cf. Ginsberg 1945:10).
If correct, phane bal would reflect her close identification with Baal. Iconographic evi-
dence may likewise reflect this alliance of divine siblings. The theme of the battling
god with the winged goddess is well-known from seals attested from Syrian sites (Tes-
sier 1984:79–80, 241–7; Amiet 1982:30–33), including Emar (Singer 1993:185, seal 2);
the figures of Baal and Anat seem to be one Syrian literary version of this theme, as
Anat’s fighting here as in 1.6 II may be to aid her brother. Schaeffer-Forrer (1979:42)
identifies the winged goddess depicted on cylinder seals with Anat.
186 cat 1.3 ii
79
Without discussing Batto’s otherwise valuable proposals in their entirety, it is untrue
that the Baal Cycle here involves “a newly created humanity.” Batto assumes this view
on the basis of his helpful comparison with “The Deliverance of Humanity from
Destruction” (ANET 10–11). While an older mythic tradition about Anat thematically
akin to this Egyptian text may have existed prior to, and/or independent of, the Baal
Cycle, such a tradition certainly has been placed in 1.3 II–III largely in the service of
the Baal Cycle’s presentation of Baal.
80
Lines 1–3 are part of the smaller separate fragment of CAT 1.3, RS 2.[014],
while the following lines of column III belong to the main piece of this tablet.
cat 1.3 ii 187
(2) Anat’s restoration of the furniture to its proper place (lines 36–37);
and (3) Anat’s further washing and application of cosmetics (lines 38–1.3
III 1–2). The two outside descriptions of cleansing frame the inside
narration about the furniture’s return (ABA’). It is suggested above at
the outset of the commentary to column II that this section balances
with Anat’s application of cosmetics before the battle, when this column
becomes legible (lines 2–3b). Lines 31b–41 are also tied in two ways to
the preceding section, lines 19–30a. In this prior scene Anat is engrossed
in the blood of warriors, while in this scene she washes herself of the
warrior-blood. In the preceding scene Anat arranges furniture for her
victims and then destroys them, whereas in this scene she returns the
same items of furniture to their place.
The initial action in the first section involves wiping away blood
from her palace, followed in the same bicolon by the pouring of oil in
a bowl (lines 30b–32a). It is also possible to render the verbs as active
voice impersonal verbs in the singular81 (“one wipes.., one pours”; see
Dietrich and Loretz 1981:93). The other issue in this bicolon is the
precise nature of šmn šlm, usually rendered “oil of peace” or the like.
It is possible that this is oil which is provided as a “peace-offering” (see
CML2 48; Sanmartín 1976:462; MLC 629; del Olmo Lete 1978:41;
see SPUMB 96, 104). However, Levine (1974:13) rejects a specifically
sacrificial nuance here. He comments: “it is more likely that the use
of oil was for the purpose of anointing the goddess, as a form of
purification or as a means of investing her in a cultic office” (for the
latter, see the case of Emar 369.3–4, 20–21; see Fleming 1992:10,
20, 49, 51, 77). While there is no sign of cultic office apparent in this
context, the notion that anointing with oil is used for purification seems
likely. In CAT 2.72.29–32, we find such a use of oil: “He also took oil
in his horn82 and poured it on the head of the daughter of the king
of Amurru. Whatever sin she has committed against me, you should
know it has been atoned” (Pardee (1977:4). In this case the symbolic
act of pouring oil signals a transition from sin to purification (see the
fine discussion of Pardee 1977:14–17). A transition of state or status is
found also in the anointing in RS 8.303 (8.208; PRU III, 110–11). In
this text, a servant is released by her owner, Kilbi-ewri, who “poured
oil on her head and rendered her pure” (Lackenbacher 2002:329–30,
81
The plural is unlikely, as t- marks the third person plural (Dobrusin 1981).
82
For the motif, cf. 1.10 II 21–23; and 5.23.1–2 (?).
188 cat 1.3 ii
83
Reference courtesy of Professor O. Goelet.
cat 1.3 ii 189
see the discussion in UBC 1.196 n. 148; see also J. M. Sasson 1979:29;
Pardee 1997a:243 n. 12). The second word refers to peoples or clans
(UBC 1.196 n. 149; for the term at Emar, see Fleming 1992:74 and
Pentiuc 2001:110–11; and at Mari, see Malamat 1998:165–67). Alter-
native interpretations of the phrase go back at least to Løkkegaard
(1953:226). More recently Wyatt (1992:418) reads ybmt l’imm as a variant
of ymmt l’imm (attested once, though usually regarded as an error; see
p. 197) and compares Arabic yamamat, “pigeon, dove.” This approach
requires interpreting the single occurrence of ymmt l’imm as the key
to the multiple occurrences of ybmt l’imm (1.3 II 33, IV 22 [partially
reconstructed], 1.4 II 15–16 [partially reconstructed], 1.10 III 3 [par-
tially reconstructed], 1.17 VI 19, 25), an approach which is possible,
but problematic. Wyatt (1992:419) and Pardee (1997a:243 n. 12) read
l’imm as the name of the Amorite deity Li’mu. But to do this, they must
regard the second m- on Ugaritic in each instance as enclitic—possible,
but not compelling. Critics rightly point to the fact that the precise
significance of this epithet, “the In-Law of the peoples,” is unknown.
The title may express Anat’s relations to the world and humanity, but
it is difficult to determine a more precise sense. The word as a term of
expressing Anat’s familial relation to humanity need not be regarded as
being “nonsensical” (Pardee’s characterization), or showing “implausibil-
ity” (Wyatt), even if it could stand further elucidation. An alternative,
“sister-in-law to the terrible ones” (i.e., the gods) has been proposed
by Fox (1998), who otherwise musters no other cases of Ugaritic *’imm
without prefix l- in this meaning, much less any other application of
this meaning to the word to deities.
The third bicolon (lines 34–35) augments the description of Anat’s
washing. In other words, lines 32–33 inform that Anat washes her hands,
while lines 34–35 explains either what Anat washes from herself or in
what she washes herself (see below). In Watson’s terms, the first bicolon
delays the identification of the persons’ blood until the second bicolon
(Watson 1994b:436). Accordingly, lines 34–35 do not represent a new
narrative action, but a specification of the action first identified in lines
32–33. Many commentators take this bicolon to mean that Anat cleans
the blood from herself (ANET 136; GA 89; Thespis 237; Moroder 1974:
252; CML2 48 and n. 3; Pope 1977b:606; Wyatt 1998:75). This view
would accord with common suppositions about cleaning and blood,
that blood is something to be cleaned from oneself and not a liquid
to use to wash oneself. Yet, when it comes to blood, Anat is extraor-
dinary. According to Driver (CML1 85), Aartun (PU 2:22) and Pardee
190 cat 1.3 ii
(1980:276), the line does not mean that the goddess “washes from her
hands warrior-blood,” which would more likely be expressed by *bydh
dm mr (followed by Smith, UNP 108). Instead, the syntax ydh bdm mr
would appear to indicate that she washes “her hands in warrior-blood”
(see also Smith, UNP 108; cf. de Moor 1968:212).84 Pardee comments:
“bathing in victims’ blood was part of the process of restoring peace
after wiping out enemies.” However, the reasoning of Driver, Aartun
and Pardee is unnecessary, as shown by the syntax in 1.16 VI 10. The
passage describes the healing of Kirta by Shataqat: tr nn bd‘t. 1.16 VI
10 means: “She washes him of sweat.” (It hardly likely that Shataqat
washed Kirta “in” sweat.) As this line shows the identical syntax of 1.3
II 34–35, it appears reasonable to translate the latter lines similarly:
“She washes her hands of the warrior blood, her fingers of the gore
of the soldiers.” At the same time, the parallel does not definitively
disqualify the view of Driver, Aartun and Pardee. In any case, the
prepositional phrases here (bdm mr//bmm mhrm) echo lines 27–28 as
well as the earlier lines 13–15, suggesting a sense of overall continuity
with these parts of 1.3 II.
Lines 36–37 similarly echo lines 20–22 (as noted above). They
describe the restoration of the furniture, perhaps another indicator of
the return to routine life following the violence. In line 37, the major
crux is t ar. The other occurrences in lines 20–21 (and presumed for
line 36) derive from the similar sounding root * r, “to arrange,” a root
that applies to food (1.3 I 4), furniture (1.3 II 20, 21) and apparently
hinges (1.24.35), although a clear etymology is lacking.85 Since the
ordinary meaning of * r seems to involve blood-relations or revenge
(see UBC 1.250–51), an unlikely verb in association with furniture, it
would seem that a scribal error is involved here and that the word
should be emended to r.
Lines 38–1.3 III 2 return to the theme of Anat’s ablutions. The first
phrase, [t] spn mh, presumably in preparation for washing, is somewhat
unclear. The verb is a word that seems to apply broadly to liquids,
since it used also with reference to wine (1.91.29, 36) and dew (1.19 II
84
Moroder, Gibson and Pardee compare Ps 58:11: “The righteous will rejoice when
he sees the vengeance; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.” Other bibli-
cal passages which may reflect such an idea include Ps 68:24; cf. 1 Kgs 21:19, 22:38
and 2 Kgs 9:36. The combination of applying both blood and oil to persons may be
found in the cultic contexts of Exod 29:21 and Lev 8:30.
85
See TO 1.153–4 n. f for suggestions, all somewhat problematic; cf. Pentiuc 2001:117
for a proposed connection with Emar maš’irtu, a kind of vessel.
cat 1.3 ii 191
86
This expression, found quite commonly in Hanson’s work, suggests that elements
of a ritual constitute a pattern in literary texts such as the Baal Cycle or Zechariah 9.
The question is the evidence for the actual ritual lying behind this pattern, an issue
that Hanson does not address. In support of Hanson’s use of this term, it is precisely
rm-warfare and destruction of enemies discussed above that is the ritual informing
this pattern (or more precisely, group of shared elements).
192 cat 1.3 ii
(cf. Gen 49:25, “blessings of the Deep lying below”; see the suggestion
along these lines in Bordreuil 1990 and Smith 1995). However, such a
proposal is not necessary.
The goddess’ contact with death and blood apparently involves two
of the more “polluting” phenomena that would require ritual purifica-
tion. Scholars have compared purification ideas from other cultures with
Anat’s washing in this context. Some have related this sort of cleansing
to the removal of defilement following contact with corpses in Israelite
cult. Cassuto (GA 140) compared Numbers 19 that prescribes washing
following contact with a corpse. Cassuto also noted Num 31:19, which
involves purification for those who have had contact with corpses and
return from battle.
As a heuristic contrast, we may note Kali’s contact with blood and
death. Kinsley’s discussion of Kali is perhaps illustrative of these ritual
sensibilities (1996:83–84):
Kali . . . is almost always associated with blood and death, and it is dif-
ficult to imagine two more polluting realities in the context of a purity
minded culture of Hinduism. As such, Kali is a very dangerous being.
She vividly and dramatically thrusts upon the observer things that he or
she would rather not think about. Within the civilized order of Hindu-
ism, the order of dharma, of course, blood and death are acknowledged.
It is impossible not to acknowledge their existence in human life. They
are acknowledged, however, within the context of a highly ritualized,
patterned, and complex social structure that takes great pains to handle
them in “safe” ways, usually through rituals of purification. For those
inevitable bloody and deathly events in the human life cycle, there are
rituals (called sa skāras, “refinements”) that allow individuals to pass in
an orderly way through times when contact with blood and death is una-
voidable . . . . Kālī, at least in part, may indicate one way in which Hindu
tradition has sought to come to terms with the built in shortcomings of
its own refined view of the world . . . Kālī puts the order of dharma in
perspective, or perhaps puts it in its place by reminding the Hindu that
certain aspects of reality are untameable, unpurifiable, unpredictable, and
always threatening to society’s feeble attempts to order what is essentially
disorderly: life itself.
This description of Kali provides a helpful contrast to Anat. Both god-
desses of death and bloody conflict, Kali and Anat are young females
unbound by the patriarchal order of divine society. In Kali’s case, this
unboundedness carries over to her unpurified state. As in Hindu society,
purification is a regular feature of West Semitic cultures. Compared
to Kali’s apparently permanent condition of defilement, Anat’s wash-
ing in this context may reflect two sides of blood and purification
194 cat 1.3 ii
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1938:26–58, pls. III, IV, XI, 1937b:256–70; CTA 16–17, fig.
8, 9, pls. IV, VI; KTU 11–12; CAT 11–12.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 26–28; Albright 1941a; Caquot and Sznycer, TO
1.162–69; Cassuto, GA 90–93, 123–35; Clifford, CMCOT 66–75; Coogan 1978:91–92;
Cross, CMHE 119; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1140–43; Driver, CML1 84–87; Gaster,
Thespis 238–40; Gibson, CML2 48–50; Ginsberg, ANET 136–37; Gordon, UL 18–20,
1977:78–79; Gray, LC 2 45–47, 1979:315–6; Jirku 29–31; Loewenstamm, CS 91–92,
465–70; P. D. Miller, DW 45–46; de Moor, SPUMB 102–8, 1987:8–12; del Olmo
Lete, MLC 183–85; MLR 69–71; Pardee 1984; 1997a:251–52; Pitard 2007; Smith,
UNP 109–11; Wyatt 1998:76–80; Xella 1982:99–102; van Zijl, Baal 52–66.
Text (See Images 08–12, and Images 13–14 for letters on the
right edge of the tablet. We have no image of this side of the
small fragment, RS 2.[014], that contains lines 1–3).
1 ttpp.’anhb[ ]
’uh.bym[ ]
[ ]rn.l[ ]
[ ] μy[ ]∂mštr’imt
5 l’irth.μšr.l.dd.’al’iyn
b‘l.yd.μpdry.bt.’ar
’ahb2t[ ]2 ly.bt.rb.dd.’ar y
bt.μy‘bdr.km¿lmm
w.‘∑rbn.lp‘n.‘nt.3hbr
10 wql.tšt wy.kbd.hyt
wrgm.lbtlt.‘nt
ny.lymmt.l’imm
t m.’al’iyn.b‘l.hwt
’al’iy.qrdm.qryy.b’ar
15 μ1l mtšt.b‘prm.ddym
sk.šlm.lkbd.’ar
’arbdd.lkbd.šdm
šk.‘ k.‘b k
‘my.p‘nk.tlsmn.‘my
196 cat 1.3 iii
20 twt .’išdk.dm.rgm
’i .ly.w.’argmk
hwt.w.’a nyk.rgm
‘ .w.l št.’abn
t’ant.šmm.‘m.’ar
25 thmt.‘mn.kbkbm
’abn.brq.dl.td‘.šmm
rgmltd‘.nšm.wltbn
hmlt.’ar .’atm.w’ank
’ib¿yh.btk.¿ry.’il. pn
30 bqdš.b¿r.n lty
bn‘m.bgb‘.tl’iyt
—————
—————
hlm.‘nt.tph.’ilm.bh.p‘nm
t .b‘dn.ksl.t br
‘ln.pnh.td‘.t¿ .pnt
35 kslh.’anš.dt. rh.tš’u
gh.wt .’ik.m¿y.gp .„ ’ugr
mn.’ib.y3p‘[ ]lb‘l. rt
lrkb.‘rpt.lm št.mdd
’ilym.lklt.nhr.’il.rbm
40 l’ištbm.tnn.’ištmx∫h
m št.b n.‘qltn
šly .d.šb‘t.r’a1šm
m št.mdd’ilm.’år[ ]
mt.‘gl.’il.‘tk
45 m št.klbt.’ilm.’išt
klt.bt.’il. bb.’imt .k‚p
’itr . r . rd.b‘1l
Textual Notes
Line 5. μšr The /m/ is certain. The entire horizontal survives, and
the left side of the vertical is preserved along the break. mšr often
has been emended to tšr, based on the parallel passage from CAT
1.101.17. Yet Pardee (1997a:251 n. 83; cf. the substantial discussion in
Pardee 1980:276–77) defends the text as it stands. The emendation is
to be resisted in view of other differences between this text and CAT
1.101.
Line 8. μy bdr The /y/ is certain by context, although only the upper
right wedge is preserved, with slight traces of the indentations of the
two wedges below it.
Line 9. ∂rbn The left side of the /r/ is damaged, so only the three
right wedges of the letter are preserved, thus making it look like a /k/.
But there is plenty of room for the two left wedges in the break.
3hbr The /h/ is damaged, but the lower line of the bottom hori-
zontal and the right point of the upper one are preserved.
Line 10. kbd.hyt There is a small word divider between the two words,
not noted in previous editions.
Line 11. wrgm CAT reads a word divider after w. We see no trace
of it.
Line 15. μ2l mt The upper line of the first /m/ is visible, as is the
lower tip of the vertical. The three tips and part of the right side of
the right wedge of the /l/ are preserved.
198 cat 1.3 iii
Line 19. tlsmn The /n/ has four wedges, rather than the usual three.
Line 21. w. There is a clear word divider between /w/ and /’argmk/,
as noted by CAT (and Virolleaud’s original drawing).
Line 27. rgmltd There is no word divider after /rgm/ as CAT pro-
posed.
wltbn There is a break after the /w/, but there are no clear traces
of a word divider here, as proposed by CAT.
Two horizontal lines are inscribed across the column following line 31.
Line 35. tš u The /š/ is damaged, but parts of all three wedges survive.
Line 36. gp . Only two wedges of the /n/ are preserved, but con-
text assures the reading. The interior of the /w/ is also largely gone,
but the reading is certain.
Line 37. This line begins well to the right of the margin, since line
33 of column 2 has come over the margin line. The scribe placed a
word divider between the end of 1.3 II 33 and the beginning of 1.3
III 37.
yp [ The only surviving part of the / / is the deep interior of the
wedge. None of the edges survive. No clear remnant of a word divider
after this word is preserved, but there likely was one.
Line 40. ’ištmx∫h The last two letters are uncertain. Following the
/m/, we find the upper left edge of a vertical wedge and possibly the
upper right tip of another vertical on the right side. CAT’s reading of
the first wedge as a word divider seems unlikely. The possible readings
include /l/, /b/, /d/, /s/. The area of the letter is wide, suggesting
either /l/ or /d/.
The final letter on the line is also uncertain epigraphically. All that
is preserved are two horizontal wedges, one above the other. The
lower part of the letter is destroyed. The upper wedge is long enough
to suggest either /h/ or / i/ here, with context arguing for /h/. The
translation below assumes reading ’ištm∑dh. See Pardee 1984:252–54 and
the Commentary below.
cat 1.3 iii 199
Line 42. .d. This letter has four verticals, rather than the usual
three.
r a2šm The /š/ is badly damaged, but fragments of the left and
right wedges are visible.
Line 43. ilm The i is made with four horizontals instead of the
usual three.
’år[ The two surviving letters of this word are damaged. The lower
line of the /’a/ shows evidence of two wedges, although breakage has
destroyed the entire interior of the letter. The /r/ is in better shape,
with all five wedges preserved. There appear to be no traces of the
next letter (š) as read by CAT.
Line 44. gl. il Both l’s are made with four vertical wedges instead of
the usual three.
Line 45. klbt The /l/ of /klbt/ has four wedges. This is not a word
divider plus regular /l/, as proposed in CAT (cf. Pardee 1984:254,
who already noted this). See earlier discussions about the supposed
word divider, in Watson 1978:397–98; del Olmo Lete 1978:51 n. 20).
1–2 ttpp.’anhb[m.]
[d’alp.šd]/ ’uh.bym
2–3 [ ]/[ ]rn.l[ ]
1
For the syllabic form, see Huehnergard 1987b:117; see further UG 234–35. The
relative pronoun d-, like biconsonantal nouns lacking a corresponding verbal root in
Semitic language (e.g., dm and ’ab), might be traced back to an early stratum of the
Afro-Asiastic family; see M. Cohen 1947:158, #347. For the comparable case of mono-
consonantal p-, “mouth,” see the cognates proposed by Cohen 1947:171, #380.
2
Cf. UBC 1.169 n. 96; DUL 809. For the vocalization, based on the syllabic spell-
ing in Ugaritic polyglot, see Huehnergard 1987a:55, 180. This term might instead be
Ugaritic šd, Akkadian šiddu, referring to a surface measure of land. See p. 280 n. 8.
3
For prefix forms of I-’aleph verbs with the ’u-’aleph, see UBC 1.268 n. 93.
4
For the syllabic form of the divine name knr, see Huehnergard 1987b:138; UG 178.
202 cat 1.3 iii
5
See UG 760.
6
For the syllabic forms, see Huehnergard 1987b:120–21; UG 171, 194. Tropper
reconstructs *hôwatu < *hawayatu. Cf. Akkadian awatu.
7
See UBC 1.203 n. 158. A D-stem imperative is also plausible.
8
For the syllabic evidence for this word, see UG 167.
9
The context here suggests an ever-widening range of objects: tree and stone,
heaven and earth, the Deeps and the stars. None of the appearances of šmm/’ar
elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts suggest a meaning of “Underworld” as the opposite
for “Heaven” (1.16 III 2; 1.3 II 39; 1.23.62; 1.47.12; 1.118.11; 1.148.5, 24). In the
Hebrew Bible, the overwhelming meaning of ’ere when joined to šĕmāyim is “earth,”
not “Underworld” (Gen 1:1; 2:1; 2:4; 14:19, 22; Isa 1:2; 49:13; 51:13, 16; 55:9; 69:35;
89:12; 115:15, etc.)
But ’ar can also mean the netherworld in Ugarit and elsewhere. See DUL 107;
UBC 1.145, 176 n. 118. A similar meaning occurs for Akkadian er itu, “earth”. See
CAD E:310–11; Wassermann 2003:84. The biblical passages with ’ere in this sense
sometimes show some contextual indicator, such as ša at in Jon 2:7, or the image of
the underworld swallowing up (*bl‘ ) the enemy in death in Exod 15:12 (see CMHE
129 n. 62). For discussion of the biblical evidence, see Tromp 1969:23–46; some of
the examples marshalled are debatable.
10
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:184–85.
cat 1.3 iii 203
32–34 There! Anat perceives the gods; halum ‘anatu taphî ’ilīma
On her, feet shook, bi-ha pa‘nāmi ta i ā17
Around, loins trembled, ba‘dana kisalū ta burū
Above, her face sweated. ‘alêna panū-ha tadi‘ū18
34–35 The joints of her loins convulsed, ta¿¿u ū pinnātu kisalī-ha
Weak were the ones of her back. ’anašū dūtu āri-ha
35–36 She raised her voice and declared: tišša’u gā19-ha wa-ta û u20
11
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:182.
12
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:108; UG 178, 208.
13
See the discussion in Huehnergard 1987b:185.
14
See the discussion in UBC 1.173 n. 108, to which add Talmon 1986:110.
15
For the syllabic spelling, see Huehnergard 1987b:101, 173; Sivan 1997:65. Cf.
the qutl base of BH qōdeš.
16
See the Ugaritic PN gáb-a-na cited in DUL 292 and Pentiuc 2001:31–32, who
further compares Emar ga-ab-a (Emar 373.104’).
17
The root here is *n (cf. Arabic and Eth n ; DUL 653). The root is also compared
to BH *nw (BDB 630), attested only in Ps 99:1 (CML2 152). Geminate/middle weak root
biforms are attested in *m (11QPSa 28:2)//*mw (see BDB 556), also in the meaning,
“to totter, shake.” Cf. *nwb and *nbb, discussed below on p. 417.
18
Cf. BH zē‘â, Akkadian zûtu, Syriac dû‘ta, meaning, “sweat” (UT 19.686).
19
For the length of the case vowel, see the discussion of Huehnergard 1987a:189.
20
The root is middle weak (cf. BH * wh and the BH noun ĕwā â (BDB 846); cf.
Akkadian iā u (see Rainey 1987:402).
204 cat 1.3 iii
36–38 “Why have Gapn and Ugar come? ’êka ma¿iyā gapnu wa-’ugaru
What enemy rises against Baal, mannu ’ibu21 yapi‘u lê-ba‘li
What foe against the Cloud-Rider? arratu22 lê-rākibi ‘urpati
38–40 Surely I struck down Yamm, the la23-ma aštu24 mêdada ’ili
Beloved of El, yamma
Surely I finished off River, the la-kallitu nahara ’ila rabba-mi
Great God,
Surely I bound Tunnanu and la-’ištabimu tunnana
destroyed (?) him. ’ištamvdu-hu
41–42 I struck down the Twisty Serpent, ma aštu ba na ‘aqalatāna
The Powerful One with Seven šalliya a25 dā- šab‘ati ra’ašīma
Heads.
43–44 I struck down Desi[re], Beloved ma aštu mêdada ’ili-ma ’ar[š]a
of El,
I destroyed Rebel, Calf of El. ammitu ‘igla ’ili ‘ataka
45–47 I struck down Fire, Dog of El, ma aštu kalbata ’ili-ma ’išita26
I annihilated Flame, Daughter kallitu bitta ’ili abība27
of El,
21
The noun ’ib corresponds to syllabic Ugaritic e-bu and Amarna i-bi (EA 252.28,
so Sivan 1997:158), like the base of BH gēr from *gwr (so Huehnergard 1987b:57).
Tropper (UG 188) prefers to see here a *qatl form (cf. abstract BH ’êbâ, “emnity” versus
*qātil form underlying the concrete BH ’ôyēb).
22
The fem. sg. abstract (< * rr) used for concrete (DUL 792). NJPS (p. 1356, n. d)
cites the same usage for this root in Nahum 1:9: lō’-tāqûm pa‘amayim ārâ, “No adversary
opposes Him twice!”
23
For the assevertive l- (which might be vocalized lu), see Huehnergard 1983; UG 810.
24
For m št from *m , see Held 1959 and Sivan 1997:23, 28. See below.
25
For *šl , “to be powerful,” cf. BH šallî , Aramaic šallī ā; Arabic sul an, the loanword
into English “sultan”). The consonantal spelling with -y- might mark a long i-vowel or
more likely a secondary expansion of the vocalic base of the noun as rendered in the
vocalization above (see Blau and Loewenstamm 1970:28; Sivan 1997:15, UG 53, 602,
with discussion of other possibilities). Caquot and Sznycer take the -y- as a diminutive
(so TO 1.168 n. l), which, however, in Aramaic forms precedes the third radical.
26
For the syllabic forms ’išit[u4 ] and iš-tu4, see Huehnergard 1987b:110; UG 182, 249.
Tropper hypothesizes that the original form of the former was *’išatu > ’išitu perhaps
through vowel harmony. Van Soldt (1991:732), followed by Fox (2003:73), reads the
Ugaritic syllabic forms as ’ištu.
27
The initial consonant bears an irregular correspondence with proposed cognates
Akkadian šibūbu, “spark, sparkle, scintillation,” BH šābîb, and Aramaic šbībā, “flame”
(CAD Š/2:399; HALOT 4:1392; see further M. Cohen 1947:133, #259); see WUS 2710
and others cited in HALOT 4:1392. For dbb instead derived from BH zĕbûb, Arb. ubab,
see UT 19.719, DUL 285; HALOT 4:1392. Context argues in favor of the former sug-
gestion (see the discussion in Commentary on p. 263), while rules of consonantal cor-
respondence among the Semitic languages militate in favor of the latter. However, for
the question of Ugaritic possibly corresponding to Hebrew (etc.) shin, see Greenfield
1969:95; for another possible example in Ugaritic d = Akkadian šadû, “mountain,”
see UBC 1.187 and the discussion on p. 325 n. 1.
cat 1.3 iii 205
Commentary
semantic word/
parallelism syllable
count
1–2 tatāpipu ’anhib[īma] ab 2/8
[dā-’alpu šadû]/ i’u-hu bi-yammi cde 4/11
28
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:139.
29
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:130; UG 172.
206 cat 1.3 iii
The lines are well balanced, though the second line is slightly longer.
As with the preceding lines, this bicolon shows strong parallelism in
part because of the divine names and epithets, especially ’al’iyāni and
’al’iyi.
The word-pairs in this unit nicely mark out the structure of this tri-
colon: within the first line, the nouns ‘ and ’abn form a pair (Avishur
1984:593–94), as do šmm and ’ar , and thmt and kbkbm in the second and
third lines (for a less convincing, but interesting interpretation of the
parallel words here, see Avishur 1984:353–54; 566–67; 593–94). The
second and third lines are clearly more proximate in their syntactical
parallelism (in chiastic arrangement), and accordingly, the first line may
be viewed as leading into the other two. (This structure resembles that
in other tricola such as 1.3 II 38–40, though here verbs predominate
in the initial line; see also below, in this column, lines 28–31.)
within the larger cascading effect of words repeated down through this
message (in particular, rgm in both nominal and verbal forms as well
as hwt and ’ar ), šmm in line 26 picks up the same word in the preced-
ing tricolon in line 24. Similarly, on the sonant level, ’abînu in line 26
picks up the similar form of ’abni from the preceding tricolon in line
23 and issues in word-play.
The syllable counts show the overall balance of the four lines, which
constitute a complex unit. The first line provides the verbal structure
that governs the other three lines, which are clearly more parallel in
syntax and semantics. The last two lines are particularly close in both
aspects, perhaps suggesting a more basic bicolonic unit, but the second
line shows roughly the same syntax, especially with its beginning b- +
object of preposition + further noun phrase. Moreover, the second and
third lines share the noun ¿r. There are differences, however. The sec-
ond line shows the final noun phrase in apposition (hence the comma
in “x, y” above), while the third and fourth lines contain a double
prepositional phrase, the final one in each consisting of a construct
phrase (hence “of ” in “x of y” above). The last two lines each use the
preposition b- twice, where the second line has only one phrase headed
by b-. Finally, a nice final touch is apparent in the sonant chiasm in
the final two syllables of the words at the conclusion of the last two
lines: na lati-ya and tal’iyati.
of sonant terms. The initial words in the second, third and fourth lines
cascade down, with b- in the second and third lines, and then ‘ and
-na in the third and fourth. Two verbs contain dentals that echo the
morphological parallelism of prefix ta- in all three verbs.
The verb in the first line governs both lines of the bicolon, and the
second line in turn expands the subject phrase by adding the explicit
marker of the construct state (see below lines 41–42 for the same
phenomenon), in this case the plural form, dt. With -tu in both pinnātu
and dūtu, this particle adds to the sonant parallelism otherwise gener-
ated by morphological parallelism (as in line-ending, -i-ha and perhaps,
more distantly, the final sibilant plus -u in the first word in each of the
lines).
The similar text in 1.4 II 21–24 suggests that the initial line is formulaic
and can be attached to different succeeding lines. This construction, a
formulaic line prefixed to a bicolon or tricolon, is a common charac-
teristic of oral poetry. While all three lines are similar in length, the
last two lines show syntactical parallelism, with the verb in the second
line governing both of them. The elements in the last line are longer
than their counterparts in the second line, thereby balancing the verb
in the latter; this is particularly true of the two-word epithet in the third
line parallel to the name of Baal in the second. Despite the semantic
and syntactical disjunction between the first line and the other two,
these latter two lines do show some slight sonant echoes of the initial
212 cat 1.3 iii
line, with the syllable ma- in the first and second lines and the u-vowel
+ p-consonant in the first and third lines. Furthermore, bilabials are
notable in all three lines.
With the verb governing the nouns in both lines, the second line offers
longer expressions of the object: the initial word in the second line is a
syllable longer than its counterpart in the first; the second line adds the
explicit marker of the construct (see lines 34–35 for the same phenom-
enon); and contains a two-word description compared to its one-word
counterpart in the first line. The single instance of š in the first line
is echoed strongly throughout the second line. Of lesser strength, the
combination of the consonants l and t connects the last word of the
first line with the first word of the second line.
This unit resembles lines 38–40 above, with a verb plus a direct object
in the first two lines and two verbs with their objects in the third line
(also Gt-stem prefix verbs as in line 40). The verbs in the third line
also belong to a different word-field from that of the verbs in the first
two lines. In a sense, the third line provides additional closure to the
action rendered in the preceding two lines. It also shows inner-line
parallelism.30
Introduction
1.3 III may be divided into four parts. The first section consists of lines
1–2 of the column, preserved on the smaller fragment of CAT 1.3. In
these lines Anat applies cosmetics to her face in the continuation of
the account of the cleansing of her palace and herself after the battles
described in column II. Following this, there is a lacuna of about twenty
lines before the main fragment of the tablet picks up the story. After
the lacuna, we find ourselves in the middle of a speech by Baal as he
gives instructions to his messengers, Gapn and Ugar, concerning a mes-
sage to Anat that they are to deliver. This section as preserved opens
in the middle of a description in lines 4–8 of someone performing a
song about Baal and his women. It is unclear whether the performer is
Anat or someone else (see Commentary below). Immediately after this
description, Baal turns directly to the message he wishes to send to Anat
30
For the two nouns in intercolonic parallelism, see also 1.4 I 25–26; discussed
in Watson 1994b:129; see also Nahum 2:10. On the parallelism of these words in
Hebrew, Akkadian and Sumerian, see RSP I:234–35, and de Moor and van der Lugt
1974:16.
214 cat 1.3 iii
(lines 8–31). The final section of the column, lines 32–47, begins the
account of the messengers’ arrival at Anat’s palace that continues into
column IV. The part of the story here in column III deals particularly
with her fearful reaction to seeing them approach.
Baal’s message to Anat represents the beginning of the story about the
building of Baal’s palace that will extend from here to 1.4 VII. Most of
the narrative of this episode focuses on the process by which Baal gains
El’s permission to construct the palace (1.3 III–1.4 V). The long and
detailed account of the negotiations, with Baal sending first Anat, then
Athirat to El as intermediaries, seems puzzling to the modern reader.
But it is clear that this element of the narrative was considered a key
component in the story that could not be trimmed down. As indicated
in the Introduction (pp. 35–41) we have concluded that a major reason
behind this circumstance has to do with the importance of royal protocol
and family etiquette (which often overlap), particularly with regard to
events revolving around the succession to the royal or family leadership.
The appointment of a royal successor while the older king is still alive
raises a number of issues about authority. In this episode, the poem
explores both proper and improper etiquette with regard to significant
symbols of royal power that the young successor might wish to take
on. We will argue below that Baal’s behavior in sending intermediaries
to ask El for permission to build the palace is presented in the poem
as the appropriate way to handle the issue. Anat’s unsuccessful appeal
provides a negative example of how inappropriate behavior fails to
produce the desired results. Athirat’s intercession, on the other hand, is
presented as a model of the protocol involved in making such requests
and is successful in its conclusion.
Scholars have often criticized Baal’s failure to come before El him-
self and have viewed it as another example of how the Cycle presents
Baal as a weak character. We believe on the contrary that a case can
be made that Baal’s behavior here is not being portrayed negatively
in any way, but rather is illustrative of the appropriate protocols in a
royal court. Although we have no preserved texts that specifically dis-
cuss court etiquette in the ancient Near East, the importance attached
here to the negotiations, along with narrative examples from elsewhere
in the Ugaritic corpus and the Hebrew Bible, suggest that important
issues such as this one were regularly handled through intermediaries.
Perhaps the best examples of this are found in 1 Kings 1–2. In 1 Kgs
1 David has become old, and it is clear that a successor needs to be
appointed. Adonijah, the eldest son and obvious heir, presumptuously
proclaims himself king without consulting David (a negative example
cat 1.3 iii 215
yield of) a thousand fields” (see Thespis 310; for resumptive suffixes in
relative clauses, cf. 1.14 III 41: dk n‘m ‘nt n‘mh, “whose beauty is like the
beauty of Anat”). That such murex may be used to rouge a female, is
mentioned more explicitly in 1.19 IV 42–43: t’adm31 t’id(!)m b¿lp y[m],
“She reddled herself red with the shell (?) of the se[a].”
31
For the root, with syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:104.
cat 1.3 iii 217
Since neither CTA nor KTU/CAT read anything before 1š2t in line 4,32
many scholars have simply used the parallel in 1.101 to read [t]št in
III 4, and have also emended mšr to tšr. However, with the clear indi-
cation that line 4 has mšt, such readings now must be rejected. At the
same time, it remains quite plausible to identify the singer with Anat.
The passage could be a description of what Baal expects Anat to be
doing when the messengers arrive. At the same time, it is also possible
to propose that the singer is a male here, who, according to Baal, will
be entertaining Anat when the messengers arrive.
Two words for musical instruments appear in parallel here, knr and
r imt. The first term occurs also in 1.19 I 8 and 1.108.4. It is cognate
with Akkadian kinnāru (attested also at Emar, discussed in Pentiuc
2001:98) and BH kinnôr. The importance of this instrument in ritual
at Ugarit can be seen in the fact that it appears in a deified form in
three god lists (1.47.32, 1.118.31, and in a syllabic form, RS 20.024:31)
and one list of sacrifices (1.148.9; see Pardee 2002:11–19; 44–49, and
2000:310–11). There can be little doubt that the knr listed in these texts
is a deified harp and not simply a god with a similar name, since the
syllabic version of the deity list provides the word with the giš, “wood”
determinative (d.giški-na-ru) typical of the musical instrument. In addition,
the knr is preceded in the lists by a deified censer ( u t), another impor-
tant utensil in ritual activities (for deification of musical instruments
in Mesopotamia, see Selz 1997). The lyre is known archaeologically
as early as the mid-third millennium from the Royal Tombs of Ur,
where the remains of eight lyres were found (see Zettler and Horne
1998:30–31, figs. 27 and 28; p. 37, fig 34; pp. 53–59; cf. also pp. 77–78,
#17, a cylinder seal depicting a female musician playing a lyre, and
p. 79, #19, another seal on which a woman plays a bull lyre). It also
appears on depictions from Late Bronze Age contexts, including an
ivory plaque from Megiddo that shows a lyre player in a line of figures
standing before the king sitting on a cherub throne (ANEP, title page,
#332; Bunimovitz 1995:327, pl. 2; cf. also the depiction from Kamid
el Loz, Lawergren 1996:1017, fig. 3g and Caubet 1996:13). An early
eighth century pithos from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud depicts a figure playing on
a lyre to the right of a couple (Avigad 1978:148, fig. 10, 149), whom
some scholars have interpreted as Yahweh and his consort. In general,
lyres from the ancient Levant had a “rectangular soundbox, the unequal
32
Herdner (CTA: 16, n. 6) already indicated that traces on the tablet made the
restoration of a /t/dubious.
218 cat 1.3 iii
arms and the oblique yoke. With a few exceptions it is held in a slanting
position, the upper end away from the player, with the shorter support
downwards” (Avigad 1978:150). In his more comprehensive survey of
ancient lyres, Lawergren (1998) distinguished between thin and thick
types and noted the presence of the former at Ugarit (see especially
1998:1015, fig. 2). He also argues that knr is a West Semitic term (by
implication then a loanword into Akkadian) and that it specifically
designates the thin type of lyre (which he notes at Ebla, Mari, Alalakh,
Hattusas, Ugarit, Emar, Egypt and Israel, 1998:59). The distribution of
both the word and the thin type of lyre across the Levant (as opposed
to the thick type, giant lyres or harps) suggests that knr indeed refers
to this particular type of lyre. The importance of the lyre in temple
ritual is underlined by an inscription of Hammurapi that mentions the
dedication of a lyre and a bronze kettledrum in the Emeslam Temple at
Kutha, “for holy songs, which please the heart” (Frayne 1990:345–46,
lines 31–34).
The word r’imt in line 5 is more difficult to define securely. There
are two plausible cognates in Hebrew, each of which has been used
by scholars to understand r imt. The first is råe ēm, “wild bull,” and the
second is rā’môt, “corals.” Since the meaning “bull” does not obviously
fit in the context, several scholars have taken the other cognate as more
likely and translate r imt accordingly, assuming that it refers to a type of
pectoral ornamentation that the goddess places on her clothing (Gordon
1977:78; CML2 48; Løkkegard 1982:133). But others have argued that
there should be a closer parallelism between knr and r imt. Greenfield
(cited in Pope 1977b:294) argued that r imt was a form of lyre and
compared it to the Mesopotamian harps decorated with bull heads (see
Lawergren 1996:1012–14; Wiggermann 1996:217; see also examples
in Dumbrell 1998:plates 22–28, 31–36). Watson (1996a:78) compares
*ra’, “to sing” in Burunge, perhaps suggesting Ugaritic r’imt as a musical
instrument that accompanies singing. Lawergen’s study suggests that
bull-lyres are primarily a Mesopotamian and not Levantine type (see
1998:60 n. 5), but in the absence of further specific information, this
point of realia does not preclude the use of a name for a lyre that no
longer corresponds to its original form. In any case, the unusual word
selection might be attributed to the alliteration that it forms with the
following word, l’irth.33 This latter term perhaps hints at a Mesopotamian
33
For possible syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:109. For cognates Akkadian
irtu, iratu (AHw 386; CAD I/J:183–84), see DUL 110. For further proposed cognates,
see UT 19.326; M. Cohen 1947:178, #411.
cat 1.3 iii 219
34
Cf. the name of the hemerological series, inbu bel ar i, “the Fruit, lord of the new
moon” (CAD A/2:260a, #1d). Part of this association between the new moon and fruit
is evidently based on analogy of the two as self-renewing on a cyclical basis. According
to C. Rochberg (personal communication), this notion is reflected in a bilingual hymn
to Sin (cited in Tallqvist 1938:445), which calls the deity enbu ša ina ramanišu ibbanu,
“fruit, which is brought forth of its own self.” This same point apparently underlies
1.18 IV 9: ’ik ’al y d yr , “How will Yarikh not be renewed?” (UNP 65). It would seem
that the shared round shape of the two also played a role in the association, although
we are not aware of any texts that explicitly make this connection. In his work on the
moon entitled On the Decisive Days, Galen wrote that “the moon makes fruits swell,”
apparently based on an ancient notion of “natural sympathy” between different parts of
nature, in this case not only the moon and fruit, but also the onsets of female menstrual
periods and the periods of epileptics (for citation and discussion, see Stol 1993:123).
For the associations of fruit and the moon in Mesopotamian texts, see further CAD
A/2:260; Parpola 2000:175–76. Note also passages discussed in Livingstone 1986:23
(K 2164 obv. 13), 28, 29 (K 2670) and 30, 31 + 45 (K 170); these come courtesy of
Professor Rochberg. The first of these texts departs from natural associations in favor
of mathematical equations and verbal associations.
220 cat 1.3 iii
35
In view of the similar context in Song of Songs 1:4, A. Yuter (personal com-
munication) asks if mêšārîm in this verse might refer to love-songs.
36
De Moor and van der Lugt (1974:14) have suggested that the two uses of yd
remain slightly distinctive semantically, that yd in 1.23.33–35 indeed refers to penis,
but in 1.4 IV 38 it means affection. The semantic distinction is suggested, to them,
by the difference in grammatical gender: the former governs a feminine verbal form
(t’irkm), while the latter takes a masculine verbal form ( y ssk). However counterintuitve
cat 1.3 iii 221
38
Wyatt 1998:76–77 suggested that the singing is taking place in Baal’s palace while
he gives the instructions to the messengers. He also takes mšr as a masc. sg. participle
and identifies the singer as a male. This interpretation does not address the lack of
any introduction to the speech of Baal, if it is beginning in line 8b.
cat 1.3 iii 223
in the city.39 They may thus be entirely literary characters. The assumed
but unspecified setting for this scene is Mount Sapan, last mentioned
in column I and mentioned later in IV 38. Since Baal is participating
in a feast in column I and appears to be doing the same in column IV,
it seems likely that the scene here in III also takes place at the same
feast, which simply continues throughout the narrative of 1.3.
In the tricolon of lines 8b–10, the two gods are told to go to Anat
“like youths (attendants)” (km ¿lmm) and to follow the divine etiquette
of inferiors bowing down before their superiors (Smith 1984b). The
phrase km ¿lmm precedes w‘rbn, the initial imperative (with nunation)
of a series of imperatives that continue over the next four lines. Blau
(1977:90) usefully describes this structure (non-verbal element + w +
verbal clause) elsewhere as a sentence adverbial construction modify-
ing the whole verbal clause. According to Piquer Otero (2003:219), the
phrase km ¿lmm is a nominal apodosis to the verbal protasis constituted
by w‘rbn. The bicolon in lines 9b–10 is formulaic, with variations paral-
leled in 1.3 VI 18–20, 1.2 I 14–15, 30–31, 1.4 IV 25–26, VIII 26–29).
The first line of the bicolon (lines 9b–10) begins with a prepositional
phrase like its predecessor, in lines 8b–9a. Such a structure in Piquer
Otero’s analysis would customarily signal a shift in the line of verbal
syntax.
The following bicolon in lines 11–12 continues the series of com-
mands, with two imperatives concerning the recitation of Baal’s message.
The description given in lines 8–12 of the messenger bowing down
before an official before announcing the message appears to reflect
the standard practice of the royal court. Lines 13–14 provide the mes-
sengers’ introductory formula for proclaiming their message. There are
several parallels to this bicolon, e.g. 1.5 I 12; II 10, 17; 1.6 IV 10; 1.14
VI 40. On epistolary style and terms, see the earlier discussion in UBC
1.169–70, 282, 289, 304–5; for further discussion and clarifications,
see Pardee 2003; and for etymologies proposed for t m in line 13, see
Watson 1999; cf. DUL 865.
Much of the message here in lines 14–31 is paralleled in 1.1 II
19–23 and 1.1 III 10–16, and it is repeated in full in 1.3 IV 8–31.
Readers may find treatment of the parts of this speech found in 1.1
in the commentary to those sections (UBC 1.173–81, 195–209; see
also SPUMB 106–8). The comments here focus on specific differences
39
See Pardee 2000:962–96 for a comprehensive list of deities mentioned in the
ritual texts.
224 cat 1.3 iii
found in 1.3 III 14–31, as well as the general significance of the speech
in this context. One point insufficiently stressed in the discussion in
UBC 1 regards the use of the word rgm, itself a common epistolary
term used in requesting from addressees word about their well-being
(e.g., 2.12.14, 2.14.17, 2.16.20, 2.24.12; cf. 2.13.16). In one letter, RS
92.2010.18–19 (Bordreuil and Pardee in Études Ougaritiques, 376; Trop-
per 2002a:113–14), the king’s communication is characterized as rgmk
n‘m, “your goodly word.” In his message to Anat, Baal refers to his
word as rgm, and the quality of n‘m applies to his mountain, found in
the message’s conclusion.
Examining the different accounts of the message and its implemen-
tation, one can see that it consists of three basic blocks of material:
(A) the message to desist from war, a section only given to Anat in
both 1.1 II 19–21 and 1.3 III 14–17, IV 8–10 (and repeated by the
goddess in IV 22–25 and 27–31); (B) an order to hurry to the sender
of the message, first given to Anat by El in 1.1 II 1–3a, 21–23, then
to Kothar by El in 1.1 III 10–12a, and then to Anat by Baal here in
lines 18–20 and in IV 11–12; and (C) a reference to a further secret
message that will be given to the recipient when he or she arrives at the
abode of the sender (to Kothar in 1.1 III 12b–16a, and to Anat here
in lines 20–31 and IV 13–20). The following synoptic chart indicates
the correspondences more precisely:
The verbal syntax clearly demarcates part (A) of the message, with its
series of imperatives, from part (B) with its initial line (here line 18)
consisting of three infinitives used as imperatives (see UG 492 and UBC
1.159 n. 76), each with an attached pronominal suffix: šk ‘ k ‘b k. An
alternative interpretation of line 18, found in MLC 184 and Wyatt
1998:78 understands the line as the imperative of * šk followed by two
nouns, and b with 2nd fem. sg. suffixes, thus meaning, “Grasp your
spear (and) your mace,” but this view founders on the fact that there
is not a single additional appearance of any of the proposed words
in Ugaritic. The three infinitives form a verbal exclamation point as
cat 1.3 iii 225
40
Evidence for the meaning of the root, *rgm, “to speak,” is provided by an Ugaritic
polyglot; see Huehnergard 1987b:177. For the root in the Baal Cycle (including the
parallel passages to 1.3 III 20–28), see UBC 1.49, 169–70, 175, 180.
226 cat 1.3 iii
41
The term ar in the phrase šmm w ar may actually be a general term for what
we call earth and the Underworld, i.e., all the landbound areas in which humans, in
one way or another, exist.
cat 1.3 iii 227
referring to heaven and the netherworld. The deeps (thmt) and the
stars represent the regions of the universe that are the most remote
from each other. The deeps are the primordial waters below the earth
(and the netherworld), while the stars, for example in Gen 1:16–17,
were believed to be actually placed on the solid dome that represents
the upper limit of heaven. Thus, in the three lines here we may have
a series of opposite locations that become increasingly remote from
one another until the third set, which stand as far from each other as
is possible. These would show the universality of the significance of
Baal’s message. We may also note that rgm in lines 22–25 is qualified
by a series of discourse terms, as noted by Watson (1983b:263). The
terms evoke language that traverses the universe, and depending on
the interpretation of t’ant, either the more neutral “converse” (CMCOT
68–69; cf. Ps 19:2–5) or the more negative sounding “lamentation” or
“groaning” (CML2 159; Watson 1983b:263; cf. Rom 8:22), the passage
may convey an additional urgent communication within nature wait-
ing to be understood by humanity. Two significant examples of this
type of communication between heaven and earth are found in the
Gilgamesh Epic IV:101 and VII:166 (George 2003:592–3; 642–3): (1)
“The heavens cried aloud, while the earth was rumbling;” and (2) “The
heavens thundered, and the earth gave echo.” In both cases the events
described here open an account of an ominous dream.
Line 26 begins with an ambiguous word, abn. It may be taken as a
noun (as it is in line 23), here the construct plural, “stones.” If this is
correct, the series of nominal clauses begun in line 22b continues on
through this and the following line. The word may also be interpreted
as a 1st singular *yqtl of the verb *byn, “I understand” (TO 1.165–66 n.
k; Wyatt 1998:78; see also de Moor and van der Lugt 1974:11). If one
takes it as a noun, the resulting phrase, abn brq, “stones of lightning”
(so EUT 99; MLC 184), is fairly ambiguous, but possible, and a nominal
phrase here makes reasonable sense of the syntax in the context. Based
on the occurrence of ’abnê ’ēš in Ezek 28:14, Pope (EUT 99–101; cf.
Fensham 1959) translated the first two words as “stones of lightning”
and interpreted the phrase as an allusion to Baal’s house. However,
the putative connection with Ezek 28:14 has been strongly criticized
by Wallace (1985:82).
The interpretation of abn as a verb seems more plausible. The tri-
colon in lines 26–28 focuses on knowledge and understanding, clearly
emphasizing Baal’s superiority, not just to mere mortals, but to the
heavens themselves. By taking abn as a verb, one finds a clear chiastic
228 cat 1.3 iii
structure to the verbs in the tricolon: abn: td : td : tbn. The other three
verbs are preceded by the negative partical l, thus emphasizing the
contrast between Baal and the rest of the referents. This emphasis on
Baal’s knowledge is an element of this message that is not paralleled
in the earlier message of El in 1.1 III 10–16 (Smith 1984a). There
the tricolon also found in lines 22b–25 is followed directly by the lines
found in 27–28. The reference to Baal understanding “the lightning
which the Heavens do not know” is only found here in Baal’s message
(1.3 III 26 and IV 17–18; pace Xella 1997:440—this line cannot be
reconstructed in 1.1 III 12a–16). It therefore may be assumed to have
a significant point to make about Baal and his character. As the god
of storm, Baal’s connection to lightning and thunder is very clear. It
is also clear that the real message that Baal will give to Anat when
she arrives at Mt. apan, one that is echoed in 1.1 II and III, is that
the god must have a palace as a foundation for his kingship. Baal’s
full manifestation of his power will only come when his house is built
(see 1.4 VII 29), where, upon completion of the palace, Baal utters
his “voice” (ql ), that is, his thunder. Line 26 here emphasizes Baal’s
unique mastery of the lightning (cf. Pardee 1997a:251 n. 86) . It may
be that he has not yet made the lightning manifest in the heavens,
since Anat, in her response to Baal’s message (1.3 IV 25–27), suggests
that its appearance is something that will occur in the future, rather
than in the present: “May Baal set his bolts [in the heavens,] may [the
Clo]ud-[rider] radiate his [ho]rns.” The lightning will thus be the sign
of Baal’s kingship (similar in some ways to Marduk’s bow hung up after
battle in Enuma Elish VI:82–90; or Nintu’s fly-necklace in Atrahasis
II.v.46–vi.4; cf. Gilgamesh XI:163–165; and the bow in Gen 9:12–17;
so Batto 1987:191, 194–95).
In lines 26–28a, the addition of this line affects the way the following
two lines are understood. When the latter lines appear without line 26 (in
1.1 III 15; 1.3 IV 15–16) the opening word of the first line, rgm retains
its standard meaning, “word.” However, when this line is added, rgm
becomes the second part of the word pair brq//rgm, where it apparently
means “thunder” (see SPUMB 107; TO 1.166 n. l; Pardee 1980:277;
see also Smith 1984a). The semantics create a new understanding of
these phenomena, which Wiggins (2000:581) has noted:
The semantic field of byn encompasses cognitive abilities rather than
physical ones, although “understanding” may indeed lead to effective
action. What Baal lays claims to in this statement is likely the cognitive
ability needed to act effectively in regard to lightning. In an era before
cat 1.3 iii 229
42
This is the most widely-held view (Ginsberg, ANET 129; CML2 49; TO 1.166;
MLC 184; de Moor 1987:10; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1141; Pardee 1997a:251; Smith,
UNP 110; Wyatt 1998:78).
230 cat 1.3 iii
43
See Pardee 2002:134–148, for both discussion of the language of the Ugaritic
omen texts and for translations. The four preserved omen texts cover malformed fetuses,
both animal and human (CAT 1.103+1.145 and 1.140), lunar omens (1.163) and dream
interpretation (1.86). See also the more detailed discussions of these texts in Pardee
2000a: 532–64 (1.103+1.145), 763–65 (1.140), 859–71 (1.163), and 457–68 (1.86).
cat 1.3 iii 231
44
The closest thing we have to a prophetic message at Ugarit is the account of the
inquiry made by the enigmatic adn ilm rbm, “lord of the many gods” to a certain dtn,
perhaps the deified founder of the clan to which the king of Ugarit belonged, concern-
ing the sickness of a child (CAT 1.100). Dtn answers the enquiry with instructions on
how to care for the child. Several elements of this text remain obscure (see Pardee’s
rendering and discussion 2002:170–72).
45
From the Levant, see the oracle delivered to the king of Byblos in the story of
Wen-Amun (Lichtheim 1976: 225), the message of Baal-Shamayn to Zakkur, king of
Hamath and Luash (KAI 202:13–15), and the Balaam vision from Deir Alla, Jordan
(Hackett 1980:25–30). There are numerous messages from the gods in the Mari letters.
See, for example, Durand 1988: 413–15, letter 192, in which messages from three gods
are sent to Zimri-Lim; and pp. 417–19, letter 194, in which a message from Shamash
to Zimri-Lim is given. See the discussion of prophetic texts at Mari on pp. 377–412.
More directly pertinent, in his discussion of M.15297, Durand (1988:332) characterizes
the rigmu of the storm-god Addu as “un moment de la fixation du term de validité
d’oracle.” He comments in a vein quite fitting to our context here: “Certaines fois,
l’arrivé de la pluie semble être, par contre, un presage bénéfique”.
232 cat 1.3 iii
46
This god plays an important role in the Ugaritic incantations RIH 78/20 (CAT
1.170) and CAT 1.100 as well.
47
The latter rendering is not certain. The word translated “sweat” is d t, which
can also mean “knowledge,” in this context either supernatural and incantational
knowledge. Both readings of the line fit into an incantational interpretation of the
larger context.
cat 1.3 iii 233
Dalix 2001: 400). In this context the secret probably has to do with the
healing of sickness (or safe delivery of a child), which is clearly not the
specific concern of the Baal Cycle, but its use of the theme of Baal’s
secret knowledge is certainly related to the similar theme that is the
focus of 1.3 III 26–31.
The imagery focused on nature here and in other West Semitic
texts might reflect a mythology of natural elements, which in the Baal
Cycle have been integrated into a larger narrative centered around
anthropomorphic divinities (cf. Shepherd 1995:28). Other texts provide
some hint of the sensibility about natural elements that may lie in the
background of Baal’s speech to Anat. In Ugaritic ritual literature, one
snake-bite incantation (1.100.1) invokes “the daughter of the spring,
the daughter of stone,//The daughter of the heavens and the abyss”
in terms reminiscent of the cosmic locales evoked by Baal in his speech
to Anat (see Pardee 2002:186–87). More relevant for the context of
Baal’s speech is a Sumerian cosmological account (sometimes referred
to as the “Barton Cylinder”). In this text, the raging of the storm is
represented as the speech of heaven and earth to one another (Alster
and Westenholz 1994; Clifford 1994:25): “Heaven (An) spoke with Earth
(Ki), Earth (Ki) spoke with Heaven (An).” This image is presented in
the context of the beginning of a creation account. In Baal’s message,
the speech of nature may evoke old cosmological elements that now
sing of the world’s impending renewal, thanks to the anticipated palace
of the storm-god and the full manifestation of his natural power in the
storm. In this connection, it is worth noting a more recent proposal
suggesting that “tree” and “stone” are allusions to the building-mate-
rials which will be used to build Baal’s house (Good 1999), although
neither word appears in the building narrative later in 1.4 V–VII. If
this proposal is correct, echoes of both divination and old cosmological
elements may be at work here.
According to van Binsbergen and Wiggermann (1999), divination of
cosmic elements and astrology predate the dominance of anthropomor-
phic deities. In their view, in the attested texts, these older features of
the ancient Syro-Mesopotamian religious landscape were situated and
partially submerged within the wider praxis of the anthropomorphic
divine cosmos.48 Or, in the terms posed by Horowitz and Hurowitz
(1992:115), psephomancy in Mesopotamia “was assimilated to prevailing
48
The argument is involved, and for readers interested in this view, an examination
of the article is recommended.
234 cat 1.3 iii
49
This theme of the angels at the beginning of creation is attested also in Jubilees
2:2–11 and other Second Temple literature (as recognized by Skehan 1975, followed
by VanderKam 1994:14, 16, 2000:505–10, and Weinfeld 1995). Its antecedent appears
in Job 38:7, as noted by VanderKam (2000:506, 509–10). This biblical passage in turn
reflects an older astral divine family headed by El (Smith 2001a:61–66).
50
For the homology between temple-building and creation, see the discussion in
UBC 1.75–87 (with some criticisms in its application to the Baal Cycle).
cat 1.3 iii 235
The root n l here is legal in character, derived from the realm of fam-
ily inheritance in West Semitic (Amorite) cultures, attested at Ugarit
(n l/n lt in DUL 627–28; see also Pardee, ABD VI:713; Schloen 1995:
68), Emar (Arnaud 1995; Pentiuc 2001:177), and Mari (ni latum; see
CAD N/2:219; AHw 712 which identifies the word as a Canaanite loan).
Greenfield (1993:36) compared Baal’s n lt to a passage in a Mari letter
(A.1121+A.2731.4, 31–33) in which the storm-god Addu of Kallassu
demands the town of Alahtum as a ni latum (Durand 2002:137–38;
Fleming 2000b:114, 138; Malamat 1998:109). Both the Baal Cycle and
the Mari letter apply n lt to the divine property analogically: just as
the family has a legal right with respect to the family land, so too the
deity has a legal claim to his/her sanctuary. From the more mundane
aspect, this reflects, as the Mari letter shows, the practice of the deity’s
priests making the legal claim explicitly for the god and implicitly for
themselves.
A poetic reference to the beauty of the divine mountain (bn m, line
31) is less commonly attested, but Cassuto (GA 129) and Greenfield
(1990:164) compare n‘m in Ps 27:4: “One request I have of Yahweh, it
I seek, for me to dwell in the house of Yahweh all the days of my life,
to gaze on the pleasant place (n‘m) of Yahweh and to make inquiry in
his temple.” To capture the aesthetic quality of the divine mountain,
BH also uses the word, *ypy, “beautiful,” yĕpēh nôp, “beautiful of height”
(Ps 48:3); and miklal-yōpî, “utterly beautiful” (Ps 50:2).
The last three lines, 29–31, contain terms applied to Baal’s enthrone-
ment in 1.101.1–4 (see Irwin 1983):
b‘l y b k bt ¿r Baal sits (enthroned), like the sitting of a mountain,
hd r[‘y] k mdb Hadd the she[pherd], like the flood,
btk ¿rh ’il pn In the midst of his mount, Divine Sapan,
b[m] ¿r tl’iyt On the mount of victory.
In both passages the mountain appears to take on its patron’s divinity,
becoming “the Divine apan” (see Lambert 1990; Smith 2001a:93–97).
This is not simply poetic license. Mt. apan appears in the god and
offering lists from Ugarit (e.g., CAT 1.118.14; 1.148.6, where a ram
(š ) is listed as the offering; 1.41.34, 42; 1.46.4, 7, where the offering is
an ewe (dqt); 1.105.24, where it is a bird ( r); and the Akkadian text
RS 20.024.14, where the name is written d UR.SAG. a-zi [Mt. azzi
= Mt. apan]; see Pardee 2002:12–16, 26–29). The notion that Mt.
apan was divine was not restricted to Ugarit. Mount Hazzi appears
also in an Anatolian ritual from Emar with the dingir sign, Emar
476.21’; cf. dKur gal, another divinized mountain, in Emar 378.3). In
236 cat 1.3 iii
This speech is perhaps the most beautiful poem in all Ugaritic lit-
erature. While certain elements of it were apparently drawn from a
formula for divine messages, the particular version here, with its addi-
tions of the reference to lightning in line 26 and its description of Mt.
apan in lines 29–31, may be placed in the ranks of the finer literary
works of Mesopotamia and Israel.
Baal’s message is followed by a pair of horizontal lines demarcating
it from the following scene, which shifts, rather abruptly, to Anat spy-
ing the messengers as they approach her palace (Horwitz 1979:392).
Such lines, while relatively rare, were used for a variety of purposes
on tablets written by Ilimalku. For example, the scribe used them at
times to mark the text off from the colophon at the end of the tablet
(see 1.6 VI, after line 53; and RS 92.2016, after line 39). Double lines
were also used often, but not consistently, to mark the end of a column
(1.4 I; 1.6 II; 1.12 I and II; 1.14 II [here apparently a single line]; 1.15
I and II). But in two, possibly three cases, including the one under
discussion (along with 1.4 V, after line 41 and probably 1.4 VIII, after
line 47—see below), the lines have a different function. The occurrence
that illuminates most clearly their particular role within the text is the
set of lines in 1.4 V. In the preceding lines (lines 35–41), Baal prepares
to build his palace, and in line 41 he sends for Kothar-wa-Hasis. At
this point on the tablet Ilimalku drew two horizontal lines across the
column, below which he placed the following instruction: “And return
to the recitation about when the lads are sent.” This note is followed by
another horizontal line before the story resumes with Kothar’s arrival
at Baal’s mountain. It is clear that the two lines mark a point at which
the person reciting the story is expected to fill in the account of the
messengers journeying to the palace of Kothar, summoning him to
Baal and his journey there. Ilimalku has made this explicit in 1.4 V
with his instructions. But it is clearly a similar situation in 1.3 III as
well. The double lines following 31 also indicate a missing section of
the story, which was expected to be filled in by the storyteller during his
recital. Here less of the story has been left out, but it seems likely that
the storyteller is supposed to describe the journey of the messengers,
using the common formulas for such accounts. Some hint of what
the missing section contained may be found in 1.2 I 19–20 and 1.5 I
9–11, which contain standarized accounts of the messengers hastening
on their journey. Dijkstra (1986:152) suggested that the entirety of the
battle described in column II would have been repeated here in order
238 cat 1.3 iii
to set the scene for the messengers’ arrival. While this is possible, there
is no certainty about this.
Athirat in 1.4 II; she expresses concern for her children (lines 24–26).
In both passages, the description of the goddesses’ physical reaction is
followed by a verbal outburst. This type of description (physical reac-
tion to a visitor, followed by verbal reaction) appears to be a set literary
convention. We can also see it in passages such as 1.4 IV 27–39, in the
story of Athirat’s arrival before El. Here, in a cordial context, we still
find the description of El’s reaction to her arrival. Here it is one of
happiness and anticipation, rather than fear. Like 1.3 III 32, this pas-
sage also begins with hlm followed by a form of the verb *ph(y), and it
continues with several formulae present in 1.3 III 32–36//1.4 II 12–26.
The narrative then continues with a speech by El. It is worth remem-
bering that this order corresponds to current physiological theories that
argue that the body often reacts to an unexpected situation prior to
the conscious identification of an emotional reaction by the individual
(LeDoux 1998; see Excursus I above on pp. 164–74). One may note that
in the lines preceding Athirat’s noticing the arrival of Baal and Anat,
she is described as taking part in her characteristic activities of doing
the domestic chores (lines 3–11). With the strength of the parallels in
the succeeding lines, we may suggest that Anat too may be assumed
to have been performing her characteristic activities prior to the point
where she sees the messengers approaching. It would seem that those
activities would likely be washing and beautifying herself (1.3 II 38–1.3
III 2), and perhaps singing (1.3 III 4–8).
Descriptions of this kind of physical collapse are not confined in
Ugaritic literature to Anat and Athirat. Such descriptions represent a
standard convention in West Semitic literature (cf. Ginsberg 1946:46;
Held 1965b; and Hillers 1965). The phrases in 1.3 III 32–35 and 1.4
II 16–20 are used again in 1.19 II 44–47 (in a slightly different order)
to describe Danil’s reaction to the news of Aqhat’s death (Parker
1989b:124). The response of the divine council to the arrival of
Yamm’s messengers in 1.2 I 21–24 is also described in physical terms,
as they lower their heads to their knees (for a more precise analysis
of the divine council’s reaction as deference or submission, see UBC
1.297–300). Biblical parallels presented by Hillers (1965) as well as Held
(1965b) are discussed below.
The first line of the passage, hlm nt tph ’ilm, is a formula (see also in
1.2 I 21b–22a). Each of the three following lines consists of three words
in identical syntactical order, namely a prepositional phrase, noun, and
a verb denoting the effect on the body-part. The syntax of the first line,
bh p‘nm t , is clear, but that of the second and third is more ambiguous.
240 cat 1.3 iii
In the first line the singular suffix on the preposition b, followed by the
dual noun p nm shows that the suffix does not govern this noun as an
anticipatory pronoun. Thus we read literally, “Upon her, the two feet
shake.” (For another example of initial adverbial ‘l, see 1.19 IV 46: w l
tlbš np a t, “and on top she put on a woman’s garment.”) Because of
the identical positioning of the elements of the second and third lines,
it seems likely that they contain the same syntax, and thus the nouns
here are not objects of the preceding prepositions. However, it is theo-
retically possible that the two lines differ syntactically from the first line
and join the nouns with the preceding prepositions. Such is attested in
the bicolon in 1.16 VI 48–50: lpnk ltšl m ytm/b‘d kslk ’almnt, “You don’t
feed the orphan who faces you, /Nor the widow who stands at your
back” (Greenstein, UNP 41). However, the poetic parallelism would
tend to support the former interpretation. In this case the nouns are
best understood as the subject of the verbs, taken as *yaqtul indicatives
(at least the first two verbs, t and t br would be *yaqtul since the puta-
tive subjects are dual or plural, while the third verb td‘ could be either
*yaqtul or *yaqtulu given the singular form of its subject). Alternatively,
the nouns might be interpreted as adverbial accusatives, with Anat
understood as the subject of the verbs, which would then be *yaqtulu
indicative forms.
The reactions described in this tricolon all have parallels in other Near
Eastern literature. The first line in the description of Anat’s reaction is
perhaps comparable to Belshazzar’s knees knocking together upon see-
ing the disembodied handwriting on the palace wall (Dan 5:6; cf. ANET
132 n. 18; Held 1965b; Waldman 1969:251–52). The second line reads,
“Around, (her) loins tremble” (cf. b‘dh in 1.100.71–72), translated perhaps
more prosaically, “her back muscles snap” (so Pardee 1997a:252). The
Enuma Elish (4:87–90; cf. Watson 1978:401) describes Tiamat’s reaction
to Marduk’s challenge to single combat in very physical terms: “Her
lower limbs (išdāša) trembled everywhere, to their roots.” In biblical
literature, this reaction is attested in Ezek 21:11, “As for you, son of
man, moan with breaking of loins (bĕšibrôn motnayim), and with bitter-
ness shall you moan before their eyes” (as noted by Ginsberg in ANET
132 n. 18). BH motnayim is comparable to Ugaritic ksl. In Isa 21:2–3
the prophetic figure expresses fear at the divine message, the “hard
vision” ( āzût qāšâ) which he is receiving. So he responds: “This is why
my loins (motnay) are wracked with shuddering; I am seized with pains
like the pains of a woman in labor; I am too distressed to hear, too
afraid to see.” Just as the speaker of this verse has a negative physical
cat 1.3 iii 241
reaction to the divine message, so too the bodies of Anat and Athirat
(in 1.4 II 12–20) are wracked with fear at the sight of the messengers
because of the disastrous message which they may bear (cf. Job 41:17).
Nahum 2:11 includes a melting heart (lēb nāmēs), buckling knees (ûpîq
birkayim) and trembling loins (we al ālâ bĕkol-motnayim) as responses to
panic at the news of destruction.
In the third line, Anat’s face is the subject: “Above, her face sweats.”
Biblical descriptions of panic at bad news rarely include mention of the
face, but it is found in Nahum 2:11, just cited above: ûpnê kullām qibbĕ û
pā’rûr, “all faces grow pale(?)” and similarly in Joel 2:6: kol-pānîm qibbĕ û
pā’rûr, “Every face grows pale(?)”. In these two prophetic passages, as
well as in other biblical texts (e.g., Ps 48:6–7), the response of panic
involves “trembling” (* w/yl).
The next bicolon (lines 34–35) continues the description of Anat’s
physical reaction, now with a *yqtl indicative verb in initial position,
the customary means of signaling the continuation of the narrative
(APO). In these lines, the focus is on her bones: as Pardee (1997a:252)
renders: “her vertebrae rattle, her spine goes weak” (for the ellipsis of
the antecedent of dt, see Sivan 1997:215). In this rendering, as in the
translation offered in this commentary above, ’anš is understood as a
verb parallel to t¿ . Given the rarity of these two roots in parallelism,
and given the common pattern of a verb appearing only in the A line
of a biclon, it is possible that ’anš is the nominal (or nominalized pas-
sive participle?) antecedent of dt (“the weak [or weakened] ones of her
back”?). In either case, this reaction, like the other ones, has parallels.
As noted above, it is mentioned in Yamm’s battle with Baal in 1.2 IV
17–18//25–26 (see UBC 1.349–51). In Job 4:12–15 Eliphaz describes
the fear engendered by the appearance to him of a mysterious super-
natural being. In the passage he states, “and all my bones were filled
with dread” (wĕrōb ‘a môtay hip îd). Like the prophetic figures mentioned
above, Daniel physically suffers upon receiving the divine message (Dan
10:8, 16–17). These verses convey the notion of a loss of physical
strength because of the experience of revelation.
Anat’s physical reaction is matched in lines 35–38 by her verbal
reaction, which voices her particular concern. The narrative introduc-
tion to Anat’s speech with tš’u (an indicative *yqtl verb) in the initial
position, marks narrative continuity with the preceding actions; it
is also a common formula (note that it occurs also in the identical
context in 1.4 II 21 and 1.19 II 47b–48a, but it is used passim; for
parallels and discussion, see Polak 2006:290–95). The following wt ,
242 cat 1.3 iii
51
There are some other examples of the process of coalescing roots. West Semitic
’i , a sacrificial term in Ugaritic, and ’iš, “fire” (cognate with Ugaritic ’išt) coalesced in
BH ’iššeh as an offering made by fire (BDB 77–78). It seems unlikely the biblical authors
recognized BH ’ēš and ’iššeh as two entirely different words. One Hebrew root may
serve as a further illustration, namely the verb ta‘ăzôb in Ps 16:10, often derived from
the old or original root *‘ b > BH *‘zb, “to put, place,” as suggested by the parallelism
with *ntn, “to give” (Dahood 1966:90–91). The meaning “abandon, leave” from the
PS root *‘zb which merged with the root *‘ b (both became *‘zb in Hebrew) does not
suit the context, and it may be argued that the original root therefore was *‘ b > BH
*‘zb, “put, place.” For the author of this psalm, however, this distinction did not exist;
rather, the author associated within this one Hebrew word the range of meanings
and connotations of the two original roots, *‘ b and *‘zb. Another case may be ‘ôlām
in Eccles 3:11, but the word is highly debated, and a discussion of it lies beyond the
scope of this digression (see Smith 2001b:217, 236 n. 163). The delineation of other
examples of words in West Semitic languages with coalesced consonants remains a
desideratum in lexicographical research.
cat 1.3 iii 245
within the council of the gods.52 In fact, these deities, like Yamm in 1.2
and Mot in 1.5–6, are portrayed here specifically as enemies of Baal,
not particularly as foes of Anat or of the cosmic order as such. How-
ever, one should also keep in mind that this passage could represent a
separate, parallel tradition about Baal’s conflict with Yamm, in which
Anat played a key role, but which was unused in the Cycle except for
this reference. In this case we would assume that the poet made no
effort to harmonize the two distinct traditions (cf. Cross 1973:149).
A general issue still unresolved about these lines is whether these cola
are declarative sentences or questions. Many commentators regard them
as questions (e.g., Ginsberg, ANET 137; Caquot, TO 1.167), perhaps in
keeping with the question which frames the speech, but this view is not
necessary, and these cola may just as easily be regarded as declarative
statements (Pardee 1984; 1997a:252). There appears to be no clear way
to resolve this issue, and in the translation they have been rendered as
statements, although the alternative remains plausible.
The verb that clearly dominates this section and serves as a Leitwort
for this part of Anat’s speech is *m , in the G-stem form, “to strike
down, smite, crush, and in the Gt-stem, “to fight” (the form m št almost
certainly derives from this root, the dissimilating to š when followed
directly by the t; see Held 1959; Sivan 1997:23, 28; Hutton 2006:78–80).
The passage from line 38b to 47a may be subdivided into a tricolon,
two bicola and a second tricolon, each unit beginning with the verb
m št (cf. Pardee 1984:252–55, and 1997a:252, who divides the lines
differently in each case). There can be no doubt that this verb is 1st
common sg., as it stands in parallelism with four certain first person
forms in lines 40 and 46b–47a (Ginsberg 1941:13). Four of the five
other verbs used in these lines are closely related semantically to *m ,
though only two of them are without serious ambiguity (klt, “I finished
off,” and mt, “I destroyed”; for the latter, see 1.3 II 8). The twice-used
klt (<*kly) is applied also to Baal’s destruction of Yamm at the end of
1.2 IV 27, and a form of the root mt is found in 1.3 II 8, in parallel
with a form of m , as we find here. The other two are less certain
in meaning: ’ištbm, often thought to derive from šbm, “to muzzle” (?)
52
Pardee (1997a:252 n. 91) suggests that this battle might have been a sequel to
Baal’s conflict with Yamm in 1.2, or perhaps related to the broken reference to someone
being driven from his throne in 1.1 IV 24–27. Gibson (1984:211) suggested that the
episode constitutes the first encounter between Yamm and Baal and perhaps belonged
in the lost first column of 1.1.
246 cat 1.3 iii
(Dietrich and Loretz 1982; see further below); and ’ištm[ ]∫h which suffers
from key epigraphical uncertainties, with correspondingly ambiguous
etymological origins. The most likely restoration of the latter is ištmdh,
“I destroyed him,” or, as plausibly suggested by Hutton (2006:80–81), “I
harnessed him” (see below). The fifth verb, itr , in line 46b–47a, moves
this part of Anat’s speech into a different subject (see below).
The pair of *qtl forms, m št and klt, appear in parallel twice, in the
two tricola, lines 38b–40 and 45–47, thus framing the small section of
the speech in lines 38–47. Each pair is accompanied additionally by a
third colon that contains two first person singular Gt-stem *yqtl verbs.
The third line of the final tricolon begins appropriately with imt , a
form of the dominant root for conflict in the passage.
Another Leitwort of this section is ’il/’ilm, appearing entirely within
the enemies’ epithets. The word appears in the two epithets of Yamm/
Nahar, mdd ’il and ’il rbm, but does not occur in the following three lines,
where tnn, b n, and šly are described. Then the remaining four beings
each have an epithet that includes either ’il or ’ilm. These epithets show
an interesting and ambiguous pattern. In line 43, Arish is described as
mdd ’ilm, while the following creature, Atik, is called gl il. The pattern
of mimation on il in the first line of the bicolon, then lack of mimation
in the second line is repeated in 45–46, where IšitÏu is called klbt ilm,
while abibu is called bt il. The mimation may be interpreted in two
ways. It could be the marker for the plural, so that the two phrases mdd
’ilm and klbt ’ilm would be understood as “the beloved of the gods,” and
“the (female) dog of the gods.” But it seems more likely that all four
of the beings described here are related specifically to El and that the
-m is enclitic. The two larger stories of conflict in the Baal Cycle, those
about Yamm and Mot, both emphasize the fact that Baal’s enemies
are particularly beloved by El. Especially in the story of Yamm, El’s
support of Baal’s rival is overt and constitutes a legal legitimization of
Yamm’s claims (see Wyatt 1985; Szubin 1993, 1995). The four enemies
in III 43–46 appear to belong to the same category. If the word ilm
is correctly identified as the proper name El, the epithets in lines 43
and 45 would mean, “Beloved of El” (as is the case for mdd il in line
38b–39a; cf. Pardee 1997a:252) and “dog of El.” Thus in her speech
Anat explicitly emphasizes that her previous conflicts have been with
deities closely allied to El. The latter’s dominant position and his lack
of support for Baal in the past may explain her fear that new enemies
have emerged from the camp of El.
cat 1.3 iii 247
i.e., the cosmic waters (cf. Pss 29:3; 93:4; so TO 1.167 n. h), if rbm here
were elliptical for mym rbm, “great waters.” The former seems preferable
(but cf. Yamm’s epithet in Isa 51:10, tĕhôm rabbâ, “the Great Deep”).
Nahar may appear alone in a small and somewhat obscure text (CAT
1.133) that presents a brief speech by Mot (lines 1–11) in which the
god apparently speaks of Nahar as his servant: “Indeed, Nahar mixes
my cup, and my seven portions in a bowl” (so Pardee 2002: 212–13).
But the passage is ambiguous, and others read nhr here as “in torrents”
(cf. DUL 599, sub mt III). The reading of the word as the divine name
seems the most natural way to understand the syntax, although this
would be the only hint that Nahar has a relationship with Mot.
3. The third name in the tricolon (lines 38b–40) is tnn, which may be
taken as a proper name or as an epithet, “the dragon.” The word tnn
appears to be vocalized in the Ugaritica V polyglot (# 137: 8’) as tu-un-
na-nu (see Blau and Greenfield 1970:16; Huehnergard 1987b:72, 186;
Sivan 1997:70). Unfortunately, the Sumerian, Akkadian and Hurrian
equivalents are not preserved on that tablet. However, #135: 15’, which
is probably a parallel text, reads MUŠ = i-i-ru, “snake” in the Sumerian
and Akkadian columns.53 The dragon is also found in an uncertain
context in CAT 1.82.1, where it is preceded before a break by ]m .
b l[. This strongly suggests that the line is describing a conflict between
Baal and Tunnan. The name almost certainly appears too in 1.83.8,
where the text reads t an. The context of the passage, with references to
Yamm/Nahar (lines 4, 6, 11–12), as well as the appearance of the root
šbm directly after t an in line 8 (the verb that also occurs with tnn in III
40), seems to assure that the a in t an is a mistake for n (simply missing
a third horizontal wedge; cf. Pitard 1998). A third additional reference
to Tunnan, alongside arš, is found at the very end of the Cycle, in 1.6
VI 51. It will be discussed below, in the commentary on arš. Finally,
the word may appear in the PN bn tnn (4.35 I 13, 4.103.42).
Tunnanu is clearly related to Hebrew Tannin, also a mytho-
logical being, related closely to Yamm/Nahar/Leviathan/Rahab in
53
With regard to identifying tu-un-na-nu with the tnn of our text, note should be
made that the word in the polyglot vocabulary apparently is equivalent to the natural
creature, the snake, not the monster described in our text. It is thus possible that our
tnn was pronounced differently from the standard word, tunnanu, listed in the polyglot.
See Landsberger and Hallock 1955 for the Mesopotamian texts of this syllabary, esp.
p. 34.
cat 1.3 iii 249
4. The fourth and fifth terms for Anat’s enemies are both epithets rather
than proper names. The first, b n qltn, in line 41 means “the twisting
snake.” The noun, b n, appears most often in Ugaritic literature with
reference to the natural snake (1.6 VI 19; 1.17 VI 14; 1.19 IV 61;
1.166.28; 1.169.3; 1.175.11, RS 92.2014:4, 6, cf. Bordreuil and Pardee
2001:387 and Pardee 2002:158–59; and in 1.100.73–76, where it is
parallel to n š ). However, in this line and twice in 1.5 I 1–3//27–30, it
refers to a cosmic monster. It is modified by the adjective ‘qltn, “twisting,
winding” (Syriac *‘qll, “to twist”; cf. Arabic ‘aqala, “to bind a camel’s
folded fore-shank and arm together”; Lane 2113; see also DUL 177), the
same adjective ( ăqallātôn) that describes Leviathan, “the twisting snake
(nā āš )” in Isa 27:1 (cf. the comparable semantics for the reduplicated
form in Judg 5:6).
The cosmic foe in the form of a snake-like dragon is common
throughout the Near East. The term bašmu, presumably cognate to b n,
is used of some of the monstrous offspring of Tiamat that form her
army against the young gods (Enuma Elish I:141, II.27, III.31 and 89).
In a mythological text, KAR 6, a huge snake-like dragon, also called
a bašmu, threatens the gods, and Nergal is called upon to defeat him.
The story of his confrontation with the bašmu is not preserved, but the
text clearly suggests that the creature is powerful enough to threaten
the gods (see Foster 2005:579–80). His close connection with the sea is
clear from the description of his birth in the unpersonified ocean (i-na
A.AB.BA ib-ba-ni mušba-[aš-mu], KAR 6 ii 21, as cited in Lewis 1996:31, n.
18). CT 13:33–34 offers a similar story, in which Tishpak must fight a
gigantic snakelike dragon that also has characteristics of a lion (Lewis
1996:31). In the preserved portion of the text, the monster is regularly
called a labbu, “lion,” but in lines 5–6, which are unfortunately broken,
he is called a snake (the Sumerian determinative MUŠ, “snake” is pre-
served before the break; ba-aš-mu is the most likely restoration for this
lacuna; see Lewis 1996:31; Foster 2005:581–82). Here too the monster
threatens the gods, who then send off Tishpak as their champion after
offering him the kingship. In this story, the monster performs the role
that Tiamat plays in Enuma Elish and that Yamm plays in CAT 1.2.
250 cat 1.3 iii
The combat with the monster leads to confirmation of the heroic god’s
kingship.54 The b n may also appear in an Ebla incantation, ARET V,
4, as ba-ša-nu (Fronzaroli 1997).
The term does not appear as such in the Hebrew Bible, but many
commentators (listed in Day 1985:113–19) have proposed seeing at least
an allusion to the b n behind the geographical reference to Bashan in
MT Ps 68:23: “The Lord said: ‘From Bashan I will return (mibbāšān
āšîb), I will return from the depths of sea ( āšîb mimmĕ ulôt yām).’ ” The
lack of a definite article on yām suggests that it is to be understood as
a proper name. If so, then the reference to bāšān might be a reference
to the cosmic monster. One could suggest further that the second colon
of the verse has been misdivided by the Massoretes and that the verb
here is cognate with *šbm from III 40 and 1.83.8. We could thus read
ešbōm mĕ ulôt yām, “I will muzzle the depths of Yamm.” From here one
could also suggest that the m before Bashan is misplaced and originally
belonged to the āšîb of the first colon, allowing us to read, bāšān ešbōm,
“Bashan (the snake) I will muzzle.” This, of course, is highly speculative
(cf. Day 1985:113–19), but given the apparent antiquity of Psalm 68
and its allusions, it is certainly possible that later tradents might not
preserve such an allusion intact. At a minimum, it seems possible that
an allusion or wordplay on the bašan-serpent is to be found here.55
5. The epithet in line 42, šly d šb‘t r’ašm, is an extended title that
provides a striking element of description of the cosmic enemy as a
seven-headed dragon. This type of monster is an old and well-known
motif in ancient Near Eastern iconography. The Tel Asmar seal (ca.
2200) depicts a god battling a seven-headed dragon (ANEP #691; van
Buren 1936:3, 1946:19–20; Gordon 1966a:4, pl. I; Rendsburg 1984;
Lewis 1996:29; A. Green 1997:141, 155, fig. 14; see UBC 1.346–47).
A shell plaque of unknown provenience (ANEP #671) portrays a god
54
Note should be made that snakes and dragons play a much larger role in Mesopo-
tamian mythology and art than we have discussed here. Wiggerman 1997 describes the
use of snake imagery among chthonic/netherworld deities, where their primary home
is in the earth, rather than the sea. There is also a netherworld god named Bašmu who
appears to be an upstanding member of Ereškigal’s court and fully anthropomorphized
on the seals; see Wiggerman 1997:39). Many of the snake/dragon deities do not
appear to be connected to the forces of chaos and destruction. Wiggerman points out
the relationship between some snake deities and the administration of justice (p. 43).
Dragons are also portrayed on a number of seals as their mode of transportation.
55
We are grateful to J. J. M. Roberts for bringing this issue to our attention.
cat 1.3 iii 251
56
See Lugale-e in Jacobsen 1987:243; Wiggermann 1992:153, 162; and van Buren
1936:3 for references to seven-headed dragons in some early Babylonian lists and in
the omen literature.
252 cat 1.3 iii
line of a bi- or tricolon, then referred to in the next line or two with
epithets.57 It is unlikely that such epithets would be used to introduce
a completely different character in a context such as we have here. We
may also be fairly certain that the two epithets themselves describe a
single entity. Similar examples of this type of usage abound in Ugaritic
poetry. An example is just above in 1.3 III 29–31:
In the midst of my mountain, Divine Saphon,
In the holy mountain of my heritage,
In the beautiful hill of my might.
An even better example is found in 1.5. I 1–3, where the same epithets
appear in the second and third lines of a tricolon in which the monster
Litan is named in the first line.
ktm .ltn.b n.br
tkly.b n. qltn
šly .d.šb t.r’ašm
When you struck down Litan, the fleeing snake,
Annihilated the twisting snake,
The powerful one with seven heads
There can be little doubt that the second and third lines describe Litan,
particularly since there is the clear connection between ba na bāri a,
“the fleeing snake,” Litan’s epithet in line 1, and ba na ‘aqalatāna, “the
twisting snake” (note that Leviathan is described as both nā āš bāria
and nā āš ăqallātôn in Isa 27:1, just as we find here; cf. also Job 26:13).
Looking back at 1.3 III, it seems most reasonable to argue that the
two epithets must refer back to the character named in the previous
line. In this case, that creature is Tunnan (line 40). It seems reasonable
then to argue that the first five names/epithets in lines 38–42 refer to
no more than two distinct beings.
Pardee, in his translation (Hallo and Younger 1997:252), recognized
the relationship between Tunnan and the epithets in the two lines that
follow, and thus he proposed joining line 40 to those lines as a trico-
lon. However, the appearance of the thrice-repeated l in lines 38–40
57
For bicolonic examples, see 1.4 IV 23–24 and par.: “She comes to the mountain
of El/and she enters the tent of the King, the Father of Years.” 1.5 II 8–9: “Go, say
to Divine Mot,/Recite to the Beloved of El, the Hero.” 1.5 VI 9–10: Dead is Mightiest
Baal,/Perished the Prince, Lord of the Earth.” 1.6 IV 10–11: “Message of Bull El,
your father,/Word of the Beneficent One, your begetter.”
cat 1.3 iii 253
58
Lines 3–6 are extremely difficult because of the broken context. The number
of different translations is about equal to the number of scholars who have studied
the text. There is even some uncertainty about whether the text is actually poetic, or
whether it simply is using elegant prose (Dijkstra 1999a:152). Nor is the division of
254 cat 1.3 iii
does not play a significant role in the issue at hand, however. Below is
the passage translated with the verbs as 3rd fem. sg.
3 [ ] . . . on the earth.
4 With m nm, (do something to) Yamm!
5–7 With (her) tongues she licks the heavens.
With (her) twin tails she . . . . . . . . s Yamm.
8–10 She sets a muzzle on Tunnan.
She binds him on the heights of Lebanon.
the lines, particularly lines 3–4, clear, if we assume a poetic structure (see, for example,
the proposals of Loewenstamm 1980:357–58; Parker 1997:192).
59
Several scholars understand ym in lines 4 and 7 as references to the non-personified
sea (e.g., del Olmo Lete 1999:131; Mazzini 2003:392). They have often assumed that
the description in lines 4–7 must be of the dragon rather than its opponent. This is
certainly possible. However, one should note that such a large circumstantial descrip-
tion of the enemy in such a small text seems odd. In addition the shift of the verbs
from 3rd dual to 3rd fs with no clear indication of the shift in subject seems awkward.
It still seems better to argue that all these lines have the same subject, and that ym in
lines 4 and 7 is a proper name, just as it is in line 11.
cat 1.3 iii 255
Turning back to 1.3 III 38b–42, one may note in these lines a few
features that suggest the identity of tnn and Yamm/Nahar here as
well. First, the appearance of Tunnan in the third line of the tricolon,
parallel to Yamm and Nahar, is suggestive of their identity, particularly
in light of the close relationship between the three names in 1.83 just
discussed. Secondly, as mentioned above, five of the opponents listed by
Anat here are explicitly linked with El by epithets (i.e. Yamm in lines
38b–39 and the four creatures that follow the section we are concerned
with, in lines 43–46). Since Nahar in line 39 is clearly equivalent to
Yamm, then it is only Tunnan (with his epithets, b n and šly , in lines
41–42), who does not have an epithet relating him to El. This situation
would seem surprising, and it seems more plausible suggest that Tunnan
is in fact to be identified with Yamm, so that mdd ’il in lines 38b–40a
refers to him as well. If all five of the names and epithets belong to
a single divine being, then line 40, the third line of the tricolon, with
its mention of tnn, becomes a pivot, connected to the preceding lines
and to the following lines, joining them together in one large, elegant
description of Baal’s powerful enemy.
If we are to identify the five names in lines 38–42 as a single char-
acter, then we must also address the fact that Yamm is not portrayed
as a multi-headed sea monster in 1.2. In the description of Baal’s
battle with Yamm (1.2 IV) the latter appears to be portrayed in fully
anthropomorphic style. He has shoulders (ktp) and hands (ydm) (1.2 IV
16–17), a single head and a pair of eyes (1.2 IV 22–23).60 However,
this does not preclude his appearing in literary texts in other forms.
In the first instance, it is important to remember that even though
he is portrayed anthropomorphically in 1.2 IV, he is also the sea and
the rivers, the waters upon the earth, and therefore not humanlike at
all. We see a similar multiformism in the presentation of Tiamat in
the Enuma Elish. At certain points in the narrative she is specifically
the water of the Ocean (cf. I:4–5), but elsewhere she is clearly being
portrayed anthropomorphically (cf. I:29–34, II:92, 144 [where she is
called si-in-iš-tu, “woman”]; see Foster 2005:440, 449, 451).61 Then she
60
Matthiae (1992) has identified an anthropomorphic figure on a number of
second millennium north Syrian cylinder seals as a depiction of Yamm. This seems
an uncertain identification. Perhaps the most troubling problem is that the deity is
regularly shown with wings, a characteristic that is hard to connect with any of the
known aspects of Yamm.
61
The same multiformism can be seen with Apsu, who is the fresh water at the open-
ing of the epic, but who is described in I:53–54 in clearly humanlike terms. Eventually,
in I:69, he is tied up and killed by Ea, a difficult feat if he is water.
256 cat 1.3 iii
seems to show a different shape again in the climactic battle, where she
opens her mouth, apparently to swallow Marduk (IV:97–104). Here she
appears to be a dragon with a ferocious maw. Upon her death, Marduk
splits her in two, “like a fish for drying” (IV:137) and later on coils up
her tail to make “The Great Bond” (V:59). Within this same section
that deals with Tiamat’s dismemberment there are also references to
her strictly as ocean (e.g., IV:140: “he ordered them not to let her
waters escape”). Thus, within the Enuma Elish we see three different
forms of Tiamat, sometimes used within the same scene. Wiggerman
(1997:37–39) shows examples of iconographic multiforms on cylinder
seals. On several seals that he discusses (51, fig. 2c; 52, fig. 3c; 53,
fig. 4a), an anthropomorphized god who is related to snakes is portrayed
as a human with snake-heads emerging from his shoulders or feet. In
view of these multiform presentations of deities in the surrounding
cultures (particularly that of Tiamat), there is no reason to preclude
the notion that Yamm/Nahar might be also portrayed as a dragon/sea
monster in a poetic description such as we find in 1.3 III 38–46.62
While the Mesopotamian evidence is helpful in the discussion of this
issue, biblical passages that use both yamm and tannîn together provide
little firm evidence about Israelite views concerning the relationship
between the two names. Ps 74:13 places Tannin (the MT reads it as a
plural, though it probably was originally the singular with an enclitic
-m) in parallel with Yamm: “It was you (Yahweh) who destroyed Yamm
with your might./You shattered the heads of Tannin upon the waters.”
Although one could easily identify the two here, the context is not
precise enough for certainty. In Job 7:12, Job asks God, hă-yām ānî im
tannîn, “Am I Yamm or Tannin that you set a guard over me?” One can
interpret this passage as indicating either that the two are the same or
are two distinct characters. Isa 51:9–10 is a fascinating passage, where
62
Wiggerman has recently proposed identifying a Mesopotamian god directly with
tnn (1997:35 n.15). He notes the appearance in the An-Anum godlist (V 234) of a deity
named dDan-ni-na, which he identifies with Ugaritic and Hebrew tnn. This identification,
however, is problematic. The deity appears in a section of the An-Anum list devoted to
netherworld gods, where Dannina appears as one of the deities in Ereškigal’s court.
Ugaritic and Israelite tnn has no obvious connections to the netherworld. The Akkadian
word, danninu, is in fact a name for the netherworld (“the Strong Place”, or perhaps,
“the Stronghold”), and the deity is certainly a personification of that name. There is
no evidence in An-Anum for identifying him as a snake or dragon-like god, much less for
connecting him to water, as tnn/tannîn regularly are. Nor is there a compelling reason
to relate the Ugaritic/Hebrew root tnn to Akkadian danānu, “to be strong,” although
the meaning would be an attractive one.
cat 1.3 iii 257
63
For the classic study of much of this material from before the discovery of the
Ugaritic tablets, see Gunkel 1895:3–88.
64
This theme can also be found in Aegean iconography; see Buchholz 2000.
258 cat 1.3 iii
that land monsters emerge from the sea in Daniel 7 make it impossible
to make a firm decision.
Moving beyond the Ugaritic material, little help for defining this
deity can be found. The biblical corpus provides no parallel material.
Dahood (1965:52) suggested that a god named pothos, “desire,” a son
of Kronos and Astarte according to Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History
(PE 1.10.1) and Damascius’ De Principiis might be a reference to Arš
(see Attridge and Oden 1981:36–37, 76 n. 26; 102–3; Baumgarten
1981:96–97, 110–111). Gray (1979b:316 n. 5) argued that the name
was an “ ’aph‘el-type adjective from r’aš,” and proposed rendering it as
“the many-headed.” Unfortunately this explanation does not account
readily for the loss of the middle root-letter (’aleph), and so the proposal
seems unlikely.
7. The deity named ‘tk stands in parallelism with ’Arš, but its distinctive
epithet, “calf of El” (‘gl ’il ), might suggest a separate identity. The name
of this figure has been understood in two ways. It has been translated
“the Attacker” or the like (see CML2 50 n. 9; Gray 1979b:316 n. 6),
based on Arabic ‘ataka, “rush to attack” (cf. directional use in an ESA
prepositional phrase, ‘tk/‘d ‘tk, “(in) the direction of,” cited in Biella 388).
Another rendering, “Binder” (Pardee 1997a:252) is more defensible,
based on *‘tk attested elsewhere in Ugaritic, apparently in the meaning
“to attach” (in 1.3 II 11//1.7.2//1.13.7; cf. DUL 191).65
The epithet of tk, namely gl il, provides some information about
this being. There is little doubt about the meaning of gl, “calf,” known
from the cognate in Hebrew, ‘ēgel.66 While in English the term, “calf,”
perhaps gives a sense of youth and weakness, it is clear that the word
may evoke a connotation of divine power in West Semitic religion. In
the context of III 38–46, tk the calf is a powerful enemy of Baal and
Anat. In the Hebrew Bible ēgel is used of the “molten calf ” made by
Aaron in the wilderness (Ex 32:4, 8) and the golden images of Jeroboam
for the temples at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28, 32). Gray (1979b:316
n. 6) compared tk to the Bull of Heaven in the Gilgamesh Epic VI,
though the term used there is GU4 = alpum, “ox.” At the same time,
the use of a title that is a diminutive, suggests both the subordination
65
The semantics are unclear, however. It is to be noted that the BH word ‘atak is
attested as a place name in the Negev.
66
The Akkadian cognate, agalu, is more ambiguous and likely refers to a different ani-
mal, perhaps a type of donkey. See CAD A/1:141 for a discussion of the problem.
cat 1.3 iii 261
of the person to his superior (here, El) and perhaps even a familial
relationship (“calf ” of Bull El the Father?) A number of Akkadian
names show the use of animal names as indicators of subordinate sta-
tus to a god. For example, a number of personal names use the noun
būru, the Akkadian equivalent of gl, with a DN: Bur-dAdad, “Calf of
Adad,” Bur-dIštar, “Calf of Ištar,” Bur-dDamu, “Calf of Damu,” etc.
(see CAD B: 342, būru A2b). A few names using the Akkadian cognate
agalu also are attested: Agal-dMarduk, “Donkey (?) of Marduk” (Koenen
1994:399 n. 5) and Agal-Shimegi, ”Donkey (?) of Shimegi” (attested at
Emar, Fleming 2000b:31).
The epithet of ‘tk here might appear in CAT 1.108.9, 11: ’aklt ‘gl
’i!l . . . ’il ¿nt ‘gl ’il. Both lines are problematic. Line 9 reads gl. l, but
the /t/ has been circled, perhaps to indicate it is a mistake. Pardee
(1988a:106–7) argues persuasively for emending the text to il. The
second occurrence of gl il in line 11 is certain, but the meaning of
the phrase within the context of the line is very unclear.67 L’Heureux
(1979:180) suggested that this passage describes a divine banquet where
deities dine on the flesh of the cosmic enemy. L’Heureux observes: “the
present text may be the earliest existing prototype of the biblical tradi-
tion of the eschatological banquet at which the mythological dragon
is served as food.” Leviathan appears in this very capacity in 2 Esdras
(4 Ezra) 6:52 and 2 Baruch 29:3–8. However, the ambiguity of the
passage precludes any certainty for this proposal.
The second noun in ‘gl ’il has most commonly been rendered as the
name of the god El (so ANET 137; GA 93; CML2 50; Coogan 1978:93;
West 1992:383; Pardee 1997a:252). This seems most likely in the con-
text. Others, however, have translated it as a generic noun indicating
divinity, i.e., “the divine calf ” (TO 1.168; MLC 185) or have taken it as
a superlative use of ’il, indicating the greatness of the creature, i.e., “the
mighty calf ” (Thespis 240). None of these can be entirely ruled out.68
67
Context does not allow a determination as to whether the word ¿nt is a verb or a
divine name. Thus the meaning of il is also ambiguous here. It could be the god-name
El, or it could be the common noun “god.” See Pardee 1988a:109–10.
68
The same ambiguity also affects the translation of the phrase in 1.108.
262 cat 1.3 iii
Dog (Bitch) of El” (e.g., Pardee 1997a:252; Wyatt 1998:80), or “of the
gods” (TO 1.168; CML2 50), or “the Divine Bitch” (ANET 137; Coogan
1978:93; West 1992:383, MLC 185), or finally, “the Mighty Bitch”
(Thespis 240). As discussed above, the first rendering seems most likely.
For this epithet there is additional support for the rendering “Dog of
El.” Akkadian sources mention a number of deities who have divine
dogs who attack their enemies, including Marduk (who has four such
dogs), Ea, Damkina, Gula, Ninkarrak, “the Lady of Byblos,” and
others (see CAD K:71, sub kalbu 1f ). The “Dog of El” fits well into
this context. In the same way that gl il suggested both strength and
subordination to another deity, so the title klbt il does the same. Dogs
can be ferocious enemies, but they, like calves, have an inferior status
in the social order.69
One may ask why “calf ” and “dog” and not other animals are
used to express this sort of status and relationship. The usage seems
to derive from their domestication; under normal conditions, they are
safe and pliable servants. To be sure, dogs could be threatening. ARM
III 18:15–16 remarks on the stereotype of the biting “mad” dog: “Like
a mad dog I do not know where he will bite (next)” (Marzal 1976:52).
One Ur III incantation, refers to “a furiously biting dog” (Velduis
1993; for another case, see Sigrist 1987). Exod 11:7 mentions dogs as a
potential problem, and Ps 22:17 draws on the image of menacing dogs
in referring metaphorically to enemies as dogs. See a similar metaphor
cited in CAD K:69b: ana qāte UR.GI7.MEŠ muššurāni, “we are delivered
to the dogs” (ABL 1431 rev. 4, line 4, NB). Firmage (1992:1143) com-
ments: “Feral pariah dogs roamed in packs on the outskirts of town
(Ps 59:6, 14; cf. Rev 22:15), where refuse was plentiful.” Dogs, however,
also helped humans care for their flocks ( Job 30:1) and accompanied
69
The el-Amarna correspondence regularly uses kalbu, “dog,” to express subservient
status, specifically vassalage to Pharaoh (EA 67:16–18; 76:12–16; 84:6–10, 16–18; 90:19–
26; 91:3–5; 108:25–28; 134:11–13; 201:9–16; 320:16–25; cf. 109:44–49; 130:31–38;
138:95–97; see Galán 1993:174). The juxtaposition of this title with “servant” (ardu)
is especially indicative of this understanding of “dog”: “What is Abdi-Ashirta, servant
and dog, that he takes the land of the king for himself ?” (EA 71:16–19; cf. 60:1–9;
88:9–11). The question implicitly identifies Abdi-Ashirta as a dog, which is supposed
to be obedient to its owner. ARM I 27:28 likewise refers to captive princes as “dogs”
(Marzal 1976:53; see also the self-disparaging expression of “dead dog” discussed in Paul
1993:242–44). Subservience is the point of the term in a Lachish letter as well (KAI
192:3–4; cf. 195:3–4, 196:3) and in 2 Kgs 8:13. To be sure, “dog” was used as a term
of derision for a disobedient servant as well. The point of both usages is servitude.
cat 1.3 iii 263
them on journeys (see Tobit 6:1).70 Humans were helped also by calves
as beasts of burden (1 Sam 28:24). Iconographic representations depict
dogs in human company (for examples, see van Buren 1936:11–15;
Eichmann 1997).
70
For domesticated dogs, see CAT 1.16 I 2, 15. For examples of domesticated dogs
in shepherding and hunting, see CAD K:71a.
264 cat 1.3 iii
Fox,” in which the wolf says of the dog, “The mother who bore you
is Fire ( girra) . . . Your brothers are Flames” (Lambert 1960:196, lines
19–20; Watson 1978:397). Here we have fire and flame connected to
the dog, as in our text, although, as Watson notes, the connection is
quite vague to us. Finally, it is to be noted that of all the cosmic foes,
only bb is called El’s daughter, a term denoting both proximate affili-
ation and subordination.
The enemies that Anat describes here appear to be divided into two
groupings, water-based and land-based figures (for discussions about this,
see above, and BOS 2.116; see also Pardee 1997a:252 n. 92 and 93). The
former, with five names and epithets, appear to represent either one or
two beings (Yamm/Nahar, Tunnan/Snake/Powerful One). The latter
set of four may be interpreted as separate deities, perhaps all closely
related in an otherwise unknown story of conflict (they presumably
have little or nothing to do with a story of pre-creation cosmic conflict,
which is usually related to the cosmic waters). But it is also possible to
view each pair, Aršu/ Ataku and Išatu/ abibu, as a single deity, since
the epithets of each pair may easily be understood as complementary,
each consisting of a relational and an animal designation (mêdada ili-
ma/ igla ili, “beloved/calf of El” for the god Aršu/ Ataku, and kalbata
ili-ma/bitta ili, “dog/daughter of El” for the goddess Isǎtu/ abibu).
In addition, the names in each bicolon, “Desire/Binder” and “Fire/
Flame” can be seen as reasonable parallel names for a single deity. But
because nothing else is known about these gods, no firm conclusion
can be reached. None of these names appears in any of the offering
or deity lists from Ugarit (cf. Pardee 2000:962–96).
The two sets of enemies seem distinguished not only by realm,
but to some degree by their identification with various animals. In
the first group we find snake-dragon(s) (on this type in Mesopotamia,
see Wiggermann 1997). Snakes are wild animals, clearly viewed as
enemies to humanity (cf. the snake-incantations). The four land figures
are manifest, however, as domesticated species such as calf and dog,
but in their specific relation to El, not in any formal nature as cosmic
enemies. In this context, one might see the enemies as divided according
to their association with two different gods: the first group of names
is associated (or completely identified) with Yamm, while the second
is attached to El. But because Yamm in 1.1–1.2 is the protégé of El
(mdd il in lines 38–39), everything leads back to the latter god’s lack
of support for Baal.
cat 1.3 iii 265
The last tricolon of 1.3 III (in lines 45–47a) ends with a reference
to the spoils of silver and gold, presumably the result of Anat’s victory
over these enemies. This line brings in a political element to the battle(s)
that accords well with the idea that Anat’s conflict here is not so much
cosmogonic; it is primarily related to the theme of Baal’s achievement
of authority among the gods. In a political conflict, the seizure of booty
is a prime indicator of the extent of the victory. The Mesopotamian
monarchs never tire of recording the booty taken from their defeated
enemies. The same can be seen in the Hebrew Bible. For example,
2 Sam 12:30 mentions gold as part of the spoils brought to David after
Israel’s victory over the Ammonites. Zech 14:12–14 refers to the gold
and silver of the nations that will be gathered as spoils in the end-times.
The political importance of seizing this booty is also clear in CAT 1.2
I 19//35, in which Yamm’s message to the divine council is, “Give up
Baal that I may humble him,//The Son of Dagan, that I may possess
his gold” (cf. TO 1.130 n. r, 168 n. o; Pardee 1984:255; for discussion
see UBC 1.293). Gold and silver were the two most precious metals in
the Near East, gold naturally being the more valuable (Stieglitz 1979;
Heltzer 1977; Nasgowitz 1975), but the reference to silver and gold
here has to do with less acquisition of wealth as such, and more with
the symbolism of victory. It emphasizes Anat’s complete overthrow of
these enemies of Baal and also confirms her fierce loyalty to Baal and
her clear readiness to come to his aid.71 Anat’s speech continues in the
following column, 1.3 IV.
71
The importance of this line in concluding the discussion of the conflict in lines
38–46 assures its placement as part of a tricolon with the two previous cola, rather
than with the following section of the speech (as found in Pardee 1997b:252).
CAT 1.3 IV
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1938:56–68, pls. IV, V, VI, XII; CTA 17–18, fig. 9, 10, 11,
pls. V, VI; KTU 12–13; CAT 12–13.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 28–30; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.169–73; Cassuto,
GA 94–97, 135–39; Clifford, CMCOT 86–90; Coogan 1978:93–95; Dietrich and
Loretz 1997:1143–46; Driver, CML1 86–89; Gaster, Thespis 240–2; Gibson, CML2
50–52; Ginsberg, ANET 137; Gordon, UL 20–22, 1977:79–82; Gray, LC2 47–49;
Jirku 31–33; de Moor, SPUMB 109, 1987:12–15; del Olmo Lete, MLC 185–88;
MLR 71–74; Pardee 1997a:252–54; Smith, UNP 111–15; Wyatt 1998:80–84; Xella
1982:102–5; van Zijl, Baal 67–73.
Text (See Images 16–19, and Images 20–21 for letters on the
right edge of the tablet)
About 15 lines are missing. The following lines appear on the smaller
fragment, RS 2.[014].
[ [ ∂l [
kbn[
bnh.m[
50’ m b.pdr[
ly.bt.r[
bt.y‘bdr[
knyt.wt‘Â[
y bly. r.’iμl [
55’ y b.ly.wlh.[
Textual Notes
Line 1. ∂k. xx The end of the line has been damaged. There appears
to be the left line of a fairly large word divider after the /k/, although
this may simply be damage. Following the / / is a damaged letter with at
cat 1.3 iv 269
least one long vertical still preserved. We see no certain traces of other
wedges. Thus it could be /g/, / / or, least likely, /l/, since there does
not appear to be enough room for three wedges here. There appear
to be highly damaged remains of short horizontals at the end of the
line and along the edge, which make the proposed /r/ possible, though
not certain. The translation assumes the reading k r (so also KTU and
Pardee with qualifications).
Line 2. udnh The first three letters each have more wedges than
usual. The / u/ has four verticals, the /d/ has four verticals as well,
and the /n/ has four horizontal wedges.
Line 4. mnm. ib The /n/ has four wedges. The / i/ has four hori-
zontal wedges.
/lb l./ There is a clear word divider after this word, contra CAT.
Line 5. [ ] n There are no traces of the first letter of the line, contra
CAT.
/y nyn/ The two/n/’s both have four wedges.
Line 6. ∑lb l Only the right wedge of the first /l/ is preserved, along
with the lower tip of the middle wedge and the possible lower right
edge of the left wedge. Context assures the reading. The second /l/
has four verticals.
Line 9. b 1pμr m The /p/ is certain. The letter certainly consists only
of the two horizontal wedges. The /r/ is represented only by the right
tip of the right horizontal, but the parallels to this passage assure the
reading.
Line 10. l1k1b1d. 1afi The letters /kbd. ar/ have all been damaged, but
there are traces of each that strongly support the reading. /k/ is certain,
with both left wedges and the upper left part of the right wedge well
preserved. The lower line of the /b/ is visible, as is the general line
of the top of the letter. The /d/ is more fragmentary, with only the
three vertical wedges preserved. The lower line of the / a/ is visible,
and parts of the right three wedges of the /r/ survive.
270 cat 1.3 iv
Line 11. [ ]šk In the damage at the beginning of the line, there is
an indentation that is probably what CAT read as a fragment of / /
here. But it is part of the damage, not an element of a letter. While it
appears to be part of the upper line of the right wedge of the / /, it
is actually far too much to the left to be that part of the letter.
[ ]∂ k We see no hint of an / / in the second break, contra CAT.
The following / /, while certain from context, is only barely preserved
along the right side of its right wedge.
Line 12. [ ]my The damage in the break is generally in the shape of an
/ /, but no actual traces of the letter itself appear to be preserved.
Line 13. ]3w afigmk The upper wedges of the /w/ are visible. While
badly damaged, the r is certain, with parts of all five wedges preserved.
The rest of the line is clear.
Line 15. ] .nš[ Only the right slope and the deep interior of the / /
have been preserved.
Line 16. [ ]fi2 .[ For the first /r /, the /r/ is badly damaged, but
three short horizontals on the left side are preserved and assure the
reading. The probable / / is also badly damaged. The left vertical is
only preserved along its right line. Most of the right vertical survives,
with only its head missing. Most of the word divider is visible. There
do not appear to be any certain traces of the succeeding /t/ proposed
by CAT.
Line 17. 2t∂hm2t.∑ [ The lower line of the /t/ is preserved, and only the
lower line of the bottom wedge of the /h/ survives. Only a portion
of the lower line of the second /t/ is discernable. All of these letters
are assured by parallels. The lower left portion of a wedge follows the
damaged word divider. Its base seems almost completely horizontal,
suggesting an / / like those in line 11 above. Context argues for the
reading as well.
Line 18. dl.t[ The /d/ has four vertical wedges. The left side of the
word divider is preserved here. To its right one can the see the lower
part of the left side of the /t/.
]m3m[ The first /m/ is very clear and largely preserved and was noted
by CAT. Only the tops of the two wedges of the second /m/ are visible.
cat 1.3 iv 271
Line 19. ’i3b[ The left horizontal and the lower half of the right
horizontal of the /b/ are preserved, as are some of the indentations of
the tops of the two verticals. The reading is certain also by context.
]r∑∫y.[ ]∂ l The /y/ is certain by context. Only two vertical wedges of
the right half of the letter are visible after the break. This is followed
by a short, but deep, vertical wedge, which sits very low on the line.
CTA and CAT read this wedge as a word divider. But it is extremely
low for a word divider. It is also possible that it is the lower vertical
of the / i/, although no traces of the horizontals are visible above or
to the right of the wedge. There are a few examples of / i/ in which
the vertical is substantially separated from the horizontals (see Ellison
2002:II:189, fig. 764), but they are rare. The /l/ is certain by context,
although only two large verticals are preserved.
∑p[ The /p/ is only preserved along its left side. No traces survive
anymore of the following /n/, which must have been visible at one time.
Virolleaud’s drawing (CTA II, fig. 10, line 63) suggests that it and the
full lines of the /p/ were visible. There appears to have been further
deterioration of this break since then.
Line 20. bq∑d[ The upper left line of a vertical wedge follows the /q/.
This is compatible with /d/, which is assured by context.
∫b¿[ Following the break after /bqd/, the lower lines of the two
horizontal wedges of the /b/ are preserved, as is much of the lower
diagonal of the following /¿/, along with what appears to be the very
bottom of the indentation of the horizontal stroke of that letter. We
see no traces of the succeeding /r/recorded in CAT.
]Â3 lty Following the second break, two wedges of the /n/ are
visible, with the right side of it and the left side of the / / lost in
another break.
Line 21. w2t[ ] The /t/ is damaged, but easily discernable. We see no
traces of letters following it, contra CAT, which reads / n/ there.
Line 24. ∑dd[ ]∂m Both of the initial /d/’s are badly damaged. The
context assures the readings. Only the lower parts of the horizontals still
survive on the first one, while most of the interior of the second has
been destroyed. The right side of the /m/ is the only part preserved,
but the context argues for the reading.
Line 25. ’ar[ ]∑d∏. The /r/ is certain, though only three horizontals are
preserved. The bottom half of the right horizontal of a /d/ is clearly
visible on the tablet. Its identity as a /d/ is assured by context. The
lower tip of the following word divider is also discernable, as is a bit
of the impression of the upper part of the wedge.
∂l kb[ The /l/ is assured by context, although only the upper part
of the right wedge is preserved.
]∑dm The /d/ following the second break is also preserved only at
the bottom, with the lower left part of the left horizontal and the right
tip of the right horizontal still visible. The interior of those wedges sug-
gests that the letter had four horizontals, rather than the usual three, a
characteristic fairly well attested on this tablet.
Line 26. ∂b[ ]b l Fragments of both vertical wedges of the /b/ at the
beginning of the line are preserved, as is part of the indentation of
the left lower horizontal. We see no other traces of letters or a word
divider before /b l/, contra CAT, which records an /m/in the break
and Pardee, who discerns the left-hand wedge of a /š/ directly after
the /b/. The restoration /bšmm/, advocated by Driver (1956:88) and
Good (1984:81), is plausible. The /l/ has four wedges.
mdlh The /d/ of /mdlh/ is certain, in spite of only two vertical
wedges being visible. There are clearly three horizontals in the letter.
The /h/ has four wedges.
cat 1.3 iv 273
Line 27. [ ]∑p∑t.[ ]rnh.’aqry The right tips of both wedges of the /p/
are visible, as is most of the /t/. Pardee’s suggestion (1997a:253 n. 95)
to read the three wedges as the right part of an /r/ seems unlikely, since
the point of the lower left horizontal meets the large horizontal at a level
much higher than the lower horizontal of an /r/ normally does. The
reading /pt/ seems more likely. The head of the word divider is located
at the right tip of the /t/. There is sufficient room to fit the reconstruc-
tion /rkb. r/ in the broken section of the line preceding /pt/.
Line 28. ’1a1n[ ] The lower line of the /’a/ is largely preserved. The
lower line of the /n/ is also visible, along with the upper line of the
right horizontal. The restored /k/ fits the damaged space very well.
]b’a[ ] We do not see the word divider CAT places before /b a/.
Nor are there any traces of the /r/ that follows in CAT (correctly
reconstructed by context).
Line 29. ] pμr∂m The upper line of the / / is preserved. Both wedges
of the /p/ are also visible. To the right are two damaged horizontals,
one above the other. Only the left side and the lower left corner of the
lower wedge survive, but a fair amount of the upper wedge is visible.
The right line of the vertical of the following /m/ is preserved. The
readings are assured by context.
ddy3m. All that is preserved of the /m/ is the left part of the hori-
zontal and the lower tip of the vertical. The right side of the succeeding
word divider is preserved.
Line 30. lkb[ ] The /l/ has four wedges. Contra CAT, there are no
traces of the /d/ that context indicates followed /lkb/.
’aw The /w/ is certainly a scribal error for /r/.
Line 31. ]’ap There are no traces of the /m/ CTA places before
/’ap/. The depression that CTA and CAT identify as a word divider
before /’ap/ appears to be damage, rather than a wedge.
Line 32. 2l∂k.lk The first /lk/ is badly broken, but parts of all three
wedges of the /l/ are preserved. Only the lower left wedge and a section
of the lower line of the larger right horizontal of the /k/ survive.
Line 33. w
3 an The /w/ is damaged, with much of its interior missing,
but the reading is certain.
274 cat 1.3 iv
Line 40. pnn∂h Only the top wedge of the /h/ is preserved, but the
context argues for the reading.
Line 44. kbkbm. There is a word divider at the end of the line.
Line 45. š∑d Only a few traces of the /d/, certain from context, are
preserved. One can make out the vague lines of two verticals and the
left side and lower line of the horizontals.
Line 46. ∑ ’∑u[ ] The first letter could be /q/ also, but context argues for
/ /. It is not likely to be / / as proposed by CTA, since the indentation
that would indicate the upper vertical of the / / is much too small. It
appears to be a break. The context argues that the upper left part of
a vertical next to the / / is part of a /’u/. There are undistiguishable
traces of letters further on down the line.
Line 49. bnh.m[ There are no clear traces of the /t / read by CAT
after the /m/.
cat 1.3 iv 275
Line 53. knyt. The right half of the /y/ has four wedges, while the
left half has three.
wt Â[ Only the left wedge of the /n/ survives, but context argues
for the reading.
Line 54. μil The /l/ is broken, with only the left wedge preserved.
24–25 ’ask.[šlm.]lkbd.’ar /
’ar[bd]d.lkb[d.š]dm.
25–27 yšt/b[šmm.]b‘l.mdlh.
yb‘r/[rkb.‘r]pt.[q]rnh.
27–29 ’aqry/’an[k.]b’a[r] .ml mt/
’ašt[.b]‘prm.ddym
29–31 ’ask/šlm.lkb[d.]’ar(!) .
’arbdd/lkbd.š[dm]
31–32 ’ap.m n.rgmm/’argmn.
32–33 lk.lk.‘nn.’ilm/
’atm.bštm.w’an.šnt
34–35 ’ugr.lr q.’ilm.
’inbb/lr q.’ilnym.
35–36 n.m pdm/t t.‘nt.’ar .
l .mt .¿yrm
37–38 ’idk.lttn pnm.
‘m.b‘l/mrym. pn.
38–40 b’alp.šd.rbt.kmn/
hlk.’a th.b‘l.y‘n.
tdrq/ybnt.’abh.
40–42 šr q.’a t.lpnnh/
št.’alp.qdmh.
mr’i’a.wtk/pnh.
42–43 t spn.mh.wtr /
l.šmm.šmn.’ar .
43–44 l.šm[m.ts]kh/
rbb.nskh.kbkbm.
45–46 ttpp.’anhbm.
d’alp.šd/ ’u[ h.bym]
[About 15 lines are missing, including the following two bicola and
the first two words of the bicolon in lines 47b–48. The following lines
appear on the smaller fragment.]
[’any.ly . r ’il.’abh]
[’il mlk.dyknnh]
[ y .’a rt wbnh.]
[’ilt.w brt.’aryh.]
47–48 [wn.’in.bt.]μl [b‘l.km.’ilm.]
[w r]/kbn[’a rt.]
48–49 [m b.’il.m ll]/bnh.
m[ b.rbt.’a rt.ym]
50–53 m b.pdr[ y.bt.’ar.]
[m ll]/ ly.bt.r[b.]
[m b.’ar y]/bt.y‘bdr[.]
[m b.klt]/knyt.
cat 1.3 iv 277
53 wt‘n[.btlt.‘nt]
54–55 y b ly. r.’il[.’aby]/
y b.ly.wlh.[ ]
1
The plural form would be theoretically possible as well, but the singular is used of
Baal’s mountainous abode in 1.3 III 29–31; cf. the singular form for the divine mountain
in Ezek 20:40; cf. 2 Kgs 19:23 = Isa 37:24; Jer 49:16, 51:53; Ezek 17:23; Obad 3.
2
The word is attested for example in 1.6 II 36 and 1.23.38. See the syllabic evi-
dence and further discussion in Huehnergard 1987b:162. Avishur (1984:612) connects
Ugaritic ‘ r with Akkadian i ūru in contrast to Hebrew and Aramaic pwr and Arabic
‘u fur. CAD S:155 similarly distinguishes Akkadian ibāru, Arabic ‘u fur, Hebrew ippôr
and Aramaic ippārā from Akkadian i ūru and Ugaritic ‘ r. The distinction works apart
from the anomalous Arabic ‘u fur, which would suggest a more complex situation. In
contrast to CAD, Pope (1977b:575) identifies Ugaritic ‘ r with all the other terms except
for Akkadian ibāru, which he does not mention.
3
The word is usually derived from Semitic *nw , “to rest” (see DUL 630). In his
discussion of the word, Watson (1995:227) compares Hurrian, na a-, “to sit” (cf. GLH
175–76: “sens inconnue”).
278 cat 1.3 iv
5–6 “No enemy has risen against Baal, lā-’ibu yapi‘u lê-ba‘li
No foe against the Cloudrider. arratu lê-rākibi ‘urpati
7–8 Message of Mightiest Baal, ta mu ’al’iyāni ba‘li
Word of the Mightiest of Warriors: hawatu ’al’iyi qarrādīma
8–9 ‘Offer in the earth war, qiriyi(y) bi-’ar i mal amata
Place in the dust love; šîti bi-‘apari-ma dûdayama
9–10 Pour peace amid the earth, siki šalāma lê-kabidi ’ar i
Tranquility amid the fields. ’arabbvdadi lê-kabidi šadîma
11 You must [ha]sten! [ ā]šu-ki [‘ā] u-ki ‘abā u-ki
You must [hu]rry!
You must rush!
11–12 To me let your feet [ru]n, ‘imma-ya pa‘nā-ki [talsu]māni
[ T ]o me let your legs race, [‘im]ma-ya tiwta ā ’išdā-ki
Anat Responds
4
*ma nê is the vocalization based on ma-aš-nu-ú in Ugaritica V polyglot, see Sivan
1982:212–13. For the etymology of *rgm, see UBC 1.169 n. 97. See below for the
discussion of the phrase.
5
The root is *šnw, as indicated by 1.96.1: hlkt w šnwt (Sivan 1997:161, 162; for a
different derivation, see UG 597, 670). Therefore, the *qatala base is *šanaw-, suggesting
the vocalization here (so too Sivan 1997:162 with a question-mark).
6
For the vocative in the genitive case, see Greenstein 1998:414, who proposes that
the genitive is indicated for the vocative in 1.17 I 23 by the presence of the -y first
person suffix on the noun *’ab. But according to Gordon and Sivan this suffix is added
also to a noun in the accusative case (for discussion and examples, see UT 6.6; Sivan
1984:51–52). Tropper (UG 215, 216) points out the complexities of the use of -y on the
accusative. He also (UG 314–15) provides examples that suggest that either genitive or
accusative forms can be used for the vocative. So it remains unclear which case is used
in the vocative. The comparative evidence available is also insufficient to resolve the
question. However, according to Greenstein (personal communication), “the reason the
genitive is used for vocative is that it is preceded sometimes (or in deep structure) by
the preposition li-.” In other words, in Greenstein’s view, the vocative l- is a subusage
of the preposition l-, which takes the genitive case.
7
The vocalization of this word is unknown. The vocalization here is based on the
assumption that a vowel intervenes between the second and third consonants (since
*-nb- might be expected to assimilate to *-bb) and between the third and fourth con-
sonants (since otherwise only a single b would be represented).
280 cat 1.3 iv
8
It is difficult to render šd and kmn into the English or American systems of spatial
measurement. We settle for a mixture of British and American terms (cf. “rods”//
“furlongs” in UNP 58). The Ugaritic words are not distance measurements as such,
so that Wyatt’s rendering, “miles”//“leagues” (1998:82), is not accurate. They are
measurements of field-size in Akkadian documents (noted by Loewenstamm 1956
and since followed; UBC 1.169 n. 96). For šiddu as one-sixth of an ikû at Emar, see
Arnaud 1991:13 n. 2; Westenholz 2000:xiv; Mori 2003:104–5. Here the nouns are
collective singular.
9
For the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:105; UG 172.
10
For the root, see Huehnergard 1987b:119–20. It is generally understood as a Dt-
stem verbal noun, but it could also be a t- preformative noun.
11
For the length of the case vowel, see Huehnergard 1987a:189. In addition to the
standard lexica, see M. Cohen 1947:77, #4. As Cohen’s discussion might suggest, old
biconsonantal bases without corresponding verbal roots in Semitic languages may be
traced to an older Afro-Asiastic linguistic stratum.
12
The form is vocalized here as *qatala (as in Sivan 1997:138; UG 599), but it could
be an infinitive (as could be the following verb).
13
See UG 777. Or, is a dittography involved?
cat 1.3 iv 281
[There is a gap of about 15 lines. The extant text picks up with Baal’s
complaint about his need for a palace.]
14
For ly r ’il ’abh implying * (w) l-, “to cry to,” see Pardee 1997a:255 n. 113.
15
For the syllabic evidence for ibbiru, see Huehnergard 1987b:169. It is possible that
an alternative base such as * ibburat- underlies the alphabetic form.
16
For the syntax, see the examples in the Commentary below; cf. 1.10 II 4: ’in b‘l
bbhth.
17
For nominal complementation in this instance, see Sivan 1997:203.
18
For the syllabic spelling mu-ša-bu = *mô abu < *maw abu, see Sivan 1997:71;
Huehnergard 1987b:135; UG 188.
19
The Akkadian cognate for this word is rabītu (see discussion on pp. 404–6). It might
be that the vocalization here should follow suit.
282 cat 1.3 iv
Commentary
lines 2–3 with 1.2 IV 12–13 (UBC 1.322, 326, 341, 343)
lines 5, 6 with 1.3 III 37–38 (UBC 2.211–12)
lines 7–20 + 22–25 and 27–31 with 1.1 III 10–16 (UBC 1.159–60,
162–63, 173–81), and 1.3 III 13–31 (UBC 2.207–10), and recon-
structed at the head of 1.1 II to lines 2 and repeated in lines 17–24
(UBC 1.195–96, 197, 198–199, 202–9)
lines 32–36 with 1.1 III 17–21 (UBC 1.160, 163–64, 181–84).
lines 37–38 with 1.1 III 21–22 (UBC 1.160, 164, 184, 186; see also
195, 199)
line 38, reconstructed at the beginning of 1.1 II and in line 15 (UBC
1.195, 199)
lines 42–46 with 1.3 II 38–41, III 1–2 (UBC 2.142–43, 205)
lines 47–53 with 1.3 V 35–44, 1.4 I 4–17, 1.4 IV 47–57 and 1.117.1–7
(Pardee 1988a:257–60).
cat 1.3 iv 283
For the formulas in this bicolon, see the discussion of Parker 1989b:15,
UBC 1.153, 343.
For the unit in lines 5–6, see above 1.3 III 36–38.
For the units in lines 7–20, see above 1.3 III 13–31 and the Commen-
tary below.
For the problem of the position of this third line, see the discussion
below. As it stands, the line might be viewed as summing up the pre-
ceding description.
Lines 22–25 and 27–31 each have two bicola, four lines, all beginning
with ’a- (Watson 1980:446). For the rest of the parallelism in these four
bicola, see above in lines 8–9.
This bicolon is the only one in Anat’s response that is not paralleled
in Baal’s message. The two preceding and the two following bicola
directly echo his request in lines 8–9 above. Because of the lacunas, it
is difficult to ascertain the full force of the parallelism here. However,
the line-initial *yqtl volitive verbs are notable, and if the reconstruction
for the end of the second line is correct, then the objects with their
third sg. masc. suffixes are likewise parallel.
For the formula of this bicolon, see above UBC 1.159, 161.
and third lines show a high degree of parallelism. A parallel, but more
complex version of this passage is found in 1.4 II 12–16, describing the
arrival of Baal and Anat at Athirat’s house. In this passage, the narra-
tive has been expanded into four lines, set up as two bicola, instead of
a tricolon. The initial line of our passage is missing and is replaced by
a line that describes Athirat lifting her eyes and seeing. The next two
lines both begin with hlk, as does the second line of our passage, the
first describing the advance of Baal, the second one the advance of
Anat. The fourth line is directly parallel with the previous line about
Anat, referring, as does our third line, to the approach, tdrq, of Anat
(for more details, see below, pp. 437–38). These lines in 1.4 II 12–16
might best be viewed as an expansion of the more basic presentation
of the formula as it appears in 1.3 IV (specially with the duplication
of hlk + DN.
The second and third lines of this tricolon are closely matched both in
line-length and parallelism. The same two lines appear as the second
and third lines of a tricolon in 1.4 V 44–46, with a different preceding
line. In that passage, the first line describes the arrival of Kothar-wa-
Hasis at Baal’s home. The first line here contains some syntactical
and sonant elements that connect it with the following two lines. The
verbs stand in initial position in both the first and second lines, and it
is possible that they are the same form (*qatala). Both verbs also begin
with the same consonant. Furthermore, one may discern a further
slight resonance between these lines, with the ending -at appearing
both with the direct object in the first line and the verb in the second.
Despite their morphological and syntactical differences, lê-panī-nhû and
’alpa offer further sonant parallelism. The prepositional phrase in the
first line, lê-panī-nhû, also echoes with panī-ha in the third line. Together
the two phrases form the outside terms of a chiasm with qudmi-ha and
wa-tôka as the inside terms. In short, there is a significant degree of
parallelism, especially sonant parallelism, between the first line and
the other two lines.
Restored from the parallel passage in 1.3 V 36–37. The syntax and
semantics manifest clear and regular parallelism. In addition, the name
of the goddess in the first line is picked up by ’ary in the second line;
perhaps such resonance was the reason for the choice of this otherwise
rare noun. Final -a, on five forms over the length of the bicolon, is
generated by three instances of the accusative case and two instances
of the third fem. sg. suffix.
We have treated wa-na and wa- as distinct units in defining both the
semantic parallelism within these lines and in the word count. This is
in order to draw attention to their parallelism. Making this distinction
for such relatively minor particles is defensible on the grounds that
wa-na itself is not a proclitic. But one could also render the semantic
parallelism and word-count without considering them as separate units
by emphasizing that wa- is, after all, a proclitic. This would yield the
following (and more seemingly regular) parallelism: a b c d/b’ d’; and
a word count of 5/3. In any case, the syllable count reflects a general
balance in line length, and the semantic and syntactical parallelism
match closely. Apart from what the shared syntax provides, parallelism
in this unit shows no special features, except for the partial resonance
between ba‘li and banī.
This bicolon largely follows the pattern of the preceding one, except
that the term m b is used at the beginning of each line, and the final
epithet characterizes all three of Baal’s women.
cat 1.3 iv 289
Introduction
This column concludes Anat’s speech from the preceding column,
then goes on to describe the delivery of Baal’s message by Gapn and
Ugar, Anat’s response and subsequent journey to Mt. Sapan, Baal’s
reception of the goddess and his announcement of his desire for a
palace. The latter element will motivate the action of the rest of 1.3
and most of 1.4.
This column provides the first exposition of Baal’s lament over not
having a palace appropriate for his position. It becomes clear here that
Baal requires the permission of El in order to build such a palace. The
requirement focuses attention on the fact that while Baal is taking on
the position of ruler of the divine council, he is still subordinate to the
older god, who remains the patriarch and retains the title “king,” in
spite of sharing it with the younger deity. In the overall context of the
story as we understand it, it is not until El gives Baal his permission
for the palace that the former is officially granting his recognition of
Baal as his coregent. See the discussion on the relationship between El
and Baal in the Introduction, pp. 16–17.
in support of Baal, now returns to the question with which she began the
speech—has a new enemy attacked Baal? Here she expresses her worst
fears. Has the enemy forced Baal from his mountain and removed him
from his kingship, so recently established by his defeat of Yamm?
The ambiguity of the passage centers on two issues. The first is the
uncertainty of the forms of the verbs, rd and grš. Each of these could
be understood as a *qatala form or as an active participle. The other
verb in the passage, mš , is a participle, but its presence does not clarify
the forms of the other two. The second issue is whether b l in the first
colon should be understood as the subject or object of the verbs in
these lines. Both of these issues can be resolved only through careful
consideration of the context of the passage within the speech of Anat,
and even then certainty cannot be reached. Some grammatical com-
ments will precede the discussion of interpretation of the passage.
The first verb, rd, is rare in Ugaritic, occurring elsewhere only in
two or three broken passages (1.151.3; 4.428.3; cf. 1.6 VI 1). But it is
well known in other Semitic languages (AHw 1380). The context here
is suitable to the Akkadian and BH meaning, “to drive away, pursue.”
The terms, * rd and *grš (cf. Avishur 1984:69), both denote expulsion
from one’s home or property (see Greenfield 1977b:187). The second
line of this bicolon is the most problematic part of the passage. On
the face of it, the line consists of a C-stem participle from *n , “to
flee” (DUL 648), followed by a comparative that probably reads, k‘ r,
“like a bird,” and the direct object ’udnh. The general sense of the
overall image may follow from a somewhat similar line, 1.117.10: ’a
kn , “I will take flight like a bird” (Sanmartín 1978c; cf. Pardee 1980:
278; 1998a:259, 260). Regarding ’udnh, Gray (LC 2: 47; see also Pardee
1997a:252; DUL 20) offered a contextually suitable explanation by con-
necting ’udn to the root, * dn, related to the noun ’adn, “lord, father.”
The apparent *qutl form of this noun likely expresses an abstraction,
“lordship.” On the whole, this seems superior to interpreting ’udn as
“ear,” and rendering the line, “the One who pecks his ear like a bird”
(so CML2 50; Smith, UNP, 112). The usage of the bird imagery here,
if correctly understood, is striking and rare, since more commonly
comparison to a bird is related to a person being caged in like a bird
or being snared in a trap, rather than to a person fleeing away.20 We
20
For images of a bird to express royal conflict, cf. also EA 74:45–48: “Like a bird in
a trap, so am I in Gubla” (Moran 1992: 143; for discussion of the passage, see Gianto
cat 1.3 iv 291
1995:69). See also 79:35–36, 81:34–35; cf. 105:8–10, 116:18–19; cf. Ps 124:6–7; Eccles
9:12; Amos 3:5. Also see Tiglath-Pileser III’s Calah Annals 23:11’ (Tadmor 1994:78–79)
and the Sennacherib Prism, col. 3:27–28 (cf. Hoch 1994:155; COS 2.286, 303).
292 cat 1.3 iv
of Baal that Anat defeated (Pardee 1997a: 252, see also Wyatt 1998:
80; Ginsburg in ANET 137):
I have smitten for silver, have (re)possessed the gold of
Him who would have driven Ba lu from the heights of Sapanu,
Him who would have caused (him) to flee like a bird (from)
(the seat of ) his power,
Him who would have banished him from his royal throne
From (his) resting-place, from the seat of his dominion.
There are reasons to be skeptical of this rendering. First, it ignores
the strong evidence that lines 46b–47a belong as the conclusion to the
previous pair of lines, paralleling grammatically and prosodically the
third line of the tricolon earlier in the speech (lines 38–40, see Com-
mentary above). Second, this rendering requires that III 46b–IV 1 be
read as a case of enjambment of a type that is not attested elsewhere
in the Ugaritic corpus. Enjambment is very rare in the Ugaritic poetic
texts (Watson 1994b:138 n. 165). Several of Watson’s proposed examples
are quite uncertain and can be read without invoking enjambment (cf.
1.3 III 10–15; 1.19 IV 58–59; 1.23.62–63; three of the eight listed in
Watson 1994b:138). Otherwise, most of the other cases occur under
two circumstances: (1) when the formula apnk PN + epithet appears as
a single line with a second line providing the verb (1.6 I 56–58; 1.17
V 28–29; 1.19 I 38–40); and (2) when the formula in which a series of
days pass, i.e., “One day and two”, is used, so that these verbless phrases
are continued in the next line (e.g., 1.17 I 5–13; II 32–40). Two certain
cases of enjambment are found in 1.14 VI 36–38 and 1.16 I 44–45.
But we are not aware of another case in which the break between the
lines comes in the middle of a construct phrase, as proposed for this
passage. Third, this interpretation is somewhat impressionistic. If these
lines continue to describe the enemy that Anat defeated in the past,
then with the exception of the framing question, “What enemy rises
against Baal,//What foe against the Cloudrider?”, the entire speech
refers only to Anat’s battles in the past. This seems unlikely, since it is
clear from the context of the speech that she intends to register her
concern about Baal’s current safety.
Caquot and Sznycer (TO 1.169) read these two bicola as separate
from what has gone before and take Baal as the subject of the first
and third verbs, i.e., “Baal a repoussé loin des hauteurs du apon/celui
qui . . . [ ] son oreille. Il l’a chassé loin de son trône royal.” However,
this reading does not seem to fit the context, since Anat is clearly
cat 1.3 iv 293
The final bicolon, line 4, is identical with the opening bicolon of this
speech in III 37–38, as noted in the Commentary on that passage (see
p. 242–44 above). It provides a frame for the passage that emphasizes
Anat’s fear and concern.
1. This presentation of the speech omits only the final words of line
31, bn‘m bgb‘ tl’iyt. There appears to be no major significance to this
omission.
2. There is also a reversal of material here: the bicolon, rgm ltd nšm/
wltbn hmlt ar , has been moved up, forming a tricolon with rgm ‘
wl št ’abn (lines 14–16). The two lines that constituted the second
and third lines of this tricolon in 1.3 III 24–25, now follow the new
tricolon and form the first two lines of a new tricolon along with
abn brq dltd šmm as the final line (lines 16–18). None of this shift
21
The anomaly of the negative l- prefixed to a noun was noted by Cassuto and
Ginsberg (see Ginsberg 1946:46). C. L. Miller (1999:348, esp. n. 55) takes the negative
l- here as modifying the verb and not the noun as such; technically this view is gram-
matically correct. Nonetheless, it is significant that the particle fronts the noun and not
the verb. (Miller’s appeal to a theoretical gloss of “non-foe,” if l- were to be taken as
modifying the noun, is potentially misleading; one may understand the thrust of l- as
a negative of ib to signify “no enemy.”) A contextual argument may be added to this
point. Just as l- precedes the noun and not the verb, so too mn, which precedes ib in
the goddess’ corresponding question, modifies the noun and not the verb; the phrase
means “what enemy . . .?”.
cat 1.3 iv 295
of series of cola beginning with the same sound: lines 22–24 with a,
lines 25–27 with y, lines 27–31 with a, lines 33–35 with an initial , and
lines 35–36 with t. The only line that doesn’t follow the pattern is line
32b: lk lk nn ilm, “Go, go, divine servants.” From this Watson argues
that line 32b must be the “main content of her message and therefore
the focus of interest.” While it is clear that initial alliteration is indeed a
significant poetic device here, the content of the speech argues against
viewing this one line as the central element of Anat’s response. In fact,
her assent to Baal invitation and her announcement of her immediate
departure are more central to the speech than line 32b.
Lines 22–25 and 27–31 closely follow the wording of Baal’s com-
mands delivered in 1.3 IV 8–10 and earlier in III 14–15 (and also by
El to Anat in 1.1 II 19–21; cf. UBC 1.202–09), with the imperatives
changed into first person imperfects. One additional element, the first
person independent pronoun, [ a]n, appears in the first line of the
speech. The pronoun in this context is not grammatically necessary
since the verb that follows it is first person singular. Adding the personal
pronoun in this manner may be viewed (see UBC 1.180 n. 125) as a
means to emphasize Anat’s agreement to Baal’s summons. It is possible,
but not necessary, to regard the pronoun as a casus pendens (“As for me,
I will . . .”). The repetition of the content of lines 22–25 in lines 27–31
probably serves to confirm her willingness to accede to his wishes.
The bicolon in lines 25b–27a introduces the only new content into
this part of the conversation between Anat and Baal’s messengers. In
response to Baal’s promise to reveal his profound secret, Anat expresses
a wish in this bicolon which, because of its damaged state, has occa-
sioned considerable debate over its reconstruction and significance
(see Baal 67–69; de Moor 1966, SPUMB 109; Good 1984:81; cf. Batto
1987:200–1). The common reconstruction reflected in these treatments
is the following:
yšt/[ bšmm.]b‘l.mdlh. “May Baal set his bolts [ in the Heavens],
yb‘r/[ ’il.hd. q ]rnh. May [the god Hadd ] radiate his [‘ho]rns’.”
The reading of the first colon has been improved with the recognition
of parts of the b at the beginning of line 26. The restoration šmm seems
quite plausible, though it is by no means certain. The restoration of
the second line has also been illuminated by collation of the tablet. It
is evident that the second line calls for a title to match the mention of
Baal’s name in the first line. With the improved reading which shows
evidence of the letters pt on the line, it is clear that the epithet here is
cat 1.3 iv 297
[rkb ‘r]pt, “Clo[udrider],” rather than the proposed [’il hd ]. This title
is especially appropriate to this sort of meteorological setting, and as
indicated in the epigraphic notes, the reconstructed letters fit nicely
into the damaged space before ]pt.
The word mdl is attested as a meteorological phenomenon associated
with the rainstorm in 1.5 V 6–8. This passage lists mdlk with clouds,
wind and rain. But the exact meaning of the word in this context is
uncertain. The word as a noun appears nowhere else in the Ugaritic
texts and its etymology remains obscure. Three main interpretations
have been proposed. First, a verb, mdl, appears in Ugaritic in 1.4
IV 9 and 1.19 II 3, 9, where it clearly has to do with harnessing a
donkey. Some have argued that the noun mdl here means something
like “harness,” and is intended to evoke the image of Baal’s storm
chariot (Weider 1965:164; cf. also Thespis 210 and Baal 68, n. 1). This
is the common mode of transport for Near Eastern storm-gods. The
Sumerian storm-god Ishkur is said to ride on the storm (CT 15, pls.
15–16, line 7; see ANET 578). His “seven storms” are harnessed for him
to ride (line 17). Marduk’s storm-chariot is described in Enuma Elish
IV:50–51. If this is the correct interpretation of mdl, the list of elements
in 1.5 V 6–8 is paralleled precisely by the Storm-god’s weaponry in
the Kumarbi myth: “rains,” “winds,” “clouds” and “carts” (Güterbock
1952:14–17, tablet 2.III. 9’–13’; Weinfeld 1973:424). Yahweh likewise
rides a meteorological chariot, assumed in a number of biblical verses
(e.g., 2 Sam 22:10–11 = Ps 18:10–11). The storm chariot becomes a
central image in the biblical book of Ezekiel (see especially chapters
1–3). Baal’s common epithet, “Cloudrider” (rkb ‘rpt), assumes the con-
text of a storm-chariot (see EHG 50; cf. *rkb for Adad, for example in
Atrahasis, see Lambert and Millard 1999:122, 123, in line 5 of the rev.
of the Assyrian recension U). In spite of the frequent occurrence of
this imagery, however, the use of a term that might mean “harness”
to refer to the storm chariot is not elsewhere attested and may seem
excessively allusive in this context.
Second, a rather obscure Akkadian noun, mu-du-lu, “pole,” also has
been proposed as a cognate (de Moor 1966; cf. SPUMB 109; Baal 67–
69). From this etymology, de Moor suggested that the word might have
the meaning of “bolt,” with an extended meaning in a meteorological
context of “lightning bolt.” This etymology seems unlikely. The clear
cognates of the Akkadian word are BH m> îl and Aramaic mĕ al, both
of which also mean “pole or javelin.” This strongly indicates that the
Akkadian word, which is only attested in a single Sumerian/Akkadian
298 cat 1.3 iv
lexical text, and has not yet appeared in a literary context, should be
read as mu- ù-lu, rather than mu-du-lu and that it has no relationship
to mdl.
Third, Gaster (Thespis 210) proposed connecting the word with
Akkadian madlû, “bucket, pail,” from the root, *dly, also attested in
BH as a verb, “to draw water.” He suggested that in the Ugaritic
context the term refers to the objects from which the rain is poured
out. Pardee (1997a:253, cf. n. 95) follows this etymology, rendering the
word, “watering devices.” This proposal has the advantage of deriving
the word from a root with a transparent connection to water.22 Though
it remains uncertain, the first view remains preferable to the other two
proposals, in view of its connection with traditional storm-god imagery
and the attestation of mdl elsewhere in Ugaritic.
We have discussed above the restoration in the first gap of line 27 and
have argued that it reads [rkb r]pt. This leaves the issue of a restoration
for the latter part of the colon, ]rnh. The most common suggestion has
been [q]rnh, “his horns,” generally understood to refer to lightning.
Another possibility, proposed by Pardee (1980:278), but later rejected
by him (1997a:253 n. 95),23 is to read [m ]rnh, i.e. m r, “rain,” with
sufformative -n (cf. Smith 1984a:297). Space considerations make this
reading less likely, since an m and would have to fit very snugly into
the break between pt and rnh. But it is indeed a possible restoration.
In this case, the verb yb‘r would not mean “to burn, to radiate,” as
it would if reconstructing [q]rnh, but “to bring” as in 1.14 II 48 and
IV 27. M r and mdl appear together in the list in 1.5 V 8–11, but m r
does not have a sufformative here or elsewhere. If the reconstruction
of [q]rnh is correct, then the “horns” might refer here metaphorically
to Baal’s double-lightning attested in iconography. A similar radiance
from the head of a god is attested in the description of Marduk as he
22
Good (1984:81) has proposed that *mdl might underlie the very difficult text in
Hab 3:4, which reads, qarnayim miyyādô lô, “(With) his rays (literally, horns) from his
hand.” This passage, like ours, appears in the context of a theophany, and, if the
reconstruction [ q]rnh is correct, they both contain the noun qrn, “horn” (cf. also Batto
1987:201 n. 42).
23
Pardee rejected this reconstruction because he read the wedges that we read as
pt in the center of line 27 as an r. So he proposes reading m r as the word before the
one that ends ]rnh. If our reading of the line is correct, then Pardee’s reason for not
reading [m ]rnh is moot.
cat 1.3 iv 299
prepares for battle with Tiamat (Enuma Elish IV:39–40, 58; for cognates
of b r, see SPUMB 109).
The thrust of this bicolon seems to be Anat’s desire for Baal to
manifest his royal power in the cosmos, perhaps as a sign to the world
that hostilities have now ceased. (This sign may then be compared to
the bow which Marduk hangs up after battle in Enuma Elish VI:82–90
and the rainbow in Gen 9:12–17, as suggested by Batto 1987.) The
manifestation of this sign will initiate an era of divine well-being,
human peace and natural fructification. It may be inferred from the
larger narrative of the cycle that because this sign is expressly given
by Baal after he installs the window in his palace (1.4 VII 25–31), the
palace marks the new era of universal fructification. From here on the
narrative will move, albeit somewhat laconically, toward the climax of
the construction of Baal’s palace.
The beginning of the second part of Anat’s speech is marked by
the expression in lines 31b–32a, ’ap m n rgmm ’argmn. This appears to
be a common way to raise a second topic in a speech (see 1.4 I 19–20
and 1.17 VI 39). In a rather different context, two omen texts, m n rgmm
is best rendered, “ditto” (1.103 + 1.145.6,18, on which see TO 1.171;
Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975b:136–37; Pardee 2000:555, 1211
and 2002:139; and 1.86.10, Pardee 2000:465, 1211 and 2002:146). A
Ugaritic letter also seems to contain the word m n[ (2.60.1) in a broken
context, but its usage in a letter comports with its occurrences in the
literary texts. Etymologically related to m n is Akkadian šanītam, “a sec-
ond (matter),” which provides a parallel also in usage to the Ugaritic
literary and epistolary contexts. As in the Ugaritic literary texts, šanītam
regularly introduces a new topic in letters from Boghazkoi, Byblos
(e.g., EA 126:14), Mari, Rimah, Taanach and Ugarit.24 The geographical
distribution would suggest a West Semitic provenience for the usage.
In the first bicolon of this part of her speech (lines 32–33), Anat
commands the messengers to depart with an urgency expressed in the
double use of the imperative (cf. ‘ûrî ‘ûrî in Judg 5:12 and Isa 51:9 as a
double imperative to battle). The second line contrasts the messengers’
apparent delay with Anat’s determination to hasten toward Baal. In
the second bicolon, lines 34–35a, Anat indicates the great distance of
24
For a listing, see CAD Š/1:387b–88a. The West Semitic usage continues to be shown
in more recently published texts from Mari: see, for example, A.999.59, 71 in Durand
1988:83; A.163+A.4240.66 in Durand 1988:88; A.416.19 in Durand 1988:92.
300 cat 1.3 iv
her abode from Baal’s mountain as a reason for the urgency of her
command that the messengers leave and for her immediate departure.
The bicolon may presume the conventional notion that the deities cover
enormous, superhuman distances in their travels (e.g., 1.4 V 22–24; cf.
the distance of fifty bēru or over 500 km per day covered by Gilgamesh
and Enkidu in the Gilgamesh Epic IV:34–36; George 1999:31; for bēru,
often translated “league,” see CAD B:208b–211a. For this case and other
examples, see Hallo 1996:79).
The third bicolon, lines 35b-36, seems to describe the underground
route which Anat presumably will take on her journey to Mt. apan.
The two difficult words here are m pdm and mt . Context suggests that
both of them are terms of distance or measurement. Unfortunately, no
precise cognate has appeared for m pdm, although several scholars have
cited Arabic * fd, “one thing set upon another” (see Renfroe 1992:154;
UBC 1.183; DUL 605–6). The proposed cognate would suggest “layer”
or the like. However, the site of Emar has recently provided a precise
cognate for mt in texts containing instances of mata u specifically used
as a measurement of length, for example in a legal contract for the sale
of a field (Beckman 1996:84; Mori 2003:105; see also Emar 168:14’
and Arnaud 1991:11). This Akkadian cognate from Emar suits the
Ugaritic term both etymologically and semantically (Pentiuc 2001:123).
The word is also attested in texts from Ekalte and Tell Hadidi (for ref-
erences, see Mori 2003:105 n. 19; cf. the less precise cognates, Arabic
matta , “long,” Lane 2688; Akkadian matā u, “to carry, transport; to
lift,” CAD M/1:403b–405a; BH *mt , “to stretch out” in Isa 40:22; DUL
599; HALOT 2.654). Given the lack of a plural ending for mt , it seems
evident that this word is best understood syntactically to be in construct
with the noun that follows, ¿yrm (cf. UBC 1.183). Most commentators
have construed the numbers at the beginning of each line ( n and l )
as being in construct with the two measurements that follow them
(e.g., Pardee 1997a:253). However, the occurrence of mt in construct
here might suggest instead that both lines are either nominal clauses
(“two are the m pdm’s beneath the springs//three, the mt -lengths of the
caves”) or appositional (“two, the m pdm’s beneath the springs//three,
the mt -lengths of the caves”). This syntactical interpretation is paral-
leled elsewhere in the Baal Cycle (1.4 VIII 12–14). Semantically, the
bicolon in lines 35–36 elaborates upon the distance of Anat’s home
from Mt. apan mentioned in the preceding bicolon, and so implicitly
the lines are to be understood: “two are (their, i.e. UGR and INBB)
m pdm’s (of distance) beneath the springs//three, the(ir) mt -lengths of
the caves.”
cat 1.3 iv 301
25
Cf. also the compositional structure—and also sometimes redactional technique—of
BH ’z plus *yqtl.
302 cat 1.3 iv
this line marks a shift in perspective from the person of Anat to that
of her brother.
The second and third lines of the tricolon begin with a word pair,
the nouns hlk//tdrq. The first is a common West Semitic root, probably
the infinitive (“construct,” so Sivan 1997:125; for a similar construction,
see 1.17 V 10–11). The second, either a t- preformative (verbal?) noun
(WUS 794) or infinitive (UT 8.48), has been compared with Arabic
daraqa, “to reach, overtake, follow” (Lane 873–74; cf. Dietrich, Loretz
and Sanmartín 1974:24–25, 37; Huehnergard 1987b:120). The only
syntactical question for the second line involves the placement of the
verb at the very end. In a parallel usage in 1.4 II 13–14, the asseverative
k- particle prefixed to the verb shifts the verb to the end of the clause;
whether such an understanding is implicitly operative in the place-
ment of the verb in the final slot in 1.3 IV 39 cannot be determined.
According to Sivan (1997:213), the subject plus verb serve as a “pivot”
between the two object phrases preceding and following.
These two lines also provide parallel epithets of Anat. The first is
common, but the second is enigmatic. In the second line of the trico-
lon she is called ’a th, “his sister,” which is common enough. But the
parallel epithet in the third line is ybnt ’abh, whose meaning is unclear.
As noted above in the Textual Notes, the scribe may have begun to
write ybmt l’imm, but then perhaps switched after the second letter to
bnt ’abh. We have rendered the phrase in the translation tentatively
as “Daughter of his Father,” while indicating the possible element of
ybmt, “In-law,” as underlying the peculiar form that is present here. It
is usually assumed that Anat’s father here is El, but it is to be borne in
mind that Anat is well attested as Baal’s sister and that Baal’s paternity
is hardly simple (see Introduction on pp. 51–2). Baal’s familial status in
the Ugaritic texts and his sibling relationship to Anat raises a question
about her own family status: how was Anat’s paternity understood, or
was it just not regarded as an issue?
In the next tricolon, lines 40–42, Baal’s response at his sighting of
Anat is a positive one. Immediately he prepares an extravagant meal
for her. Preparations for hospitality customarily follow directly on the
host’s sighting of the approaching guest (1.17 V 9–25; cf. Genesis 18;
Xella 1978), but Baal first attends to one further detail. Baal dismisses
his “woman” or collectively “women,” presumably Pidray, Tallay and
Ar ay (see p. 49) or simply one of them. The *qtl form of the verb šr q,
an initial C-stem form standing in initial position, may convey either
circumstantial information or, less likely, the beginning of a new nar-
cat 1.3 iv 303
26
For example, one text commonly cited as providing evidence for sexual relations
between Baal and Anat, 1.10, does not in fact do so. In this case, where Anat is identi-
fied with a cow that has sexual relations with Baal and produces a calf, Anat actually
plays the role of the announcer of the offspring’s birth (and perhaps nursemaid as
well). It is unlikely that Anat would be both the producer of the offspring and the
announcer of the birth.
27
ANET 15. The value of this evidence for Anat as Baal’s consort has been chal-
lenged, however, by Te Velde 1967:29–30), seconded by Walls (1992:144–52) and
P. L. Day (1991, 1992). Te Velde’s chief argument is that except in this one text Anat
is otherwise never called the consort of Seth. On the one hand, the uniqueness of this
characterization of Anat might be viewed as arguing in favor of its authenticity as a
witness to the West Semitic tradition, but on the other hand, Te Velde may be correct
that it is better understood as an eccentric text.
304 cat 1.3 iv
28
The only difference between the two passages is that 1.3 II contains a line (lines
39b–40a) that is missing from 1.3 IV. It should also be noted that the fragmentary
beginning of column II (lines 2–3) indicates that Anat beautifies herself before the
battle too.
cat 1.3 iv 305
53 (wt n [ btlt nt] ). Only the left sides of the lines on the small frag-
ment are preserved, and the speech is already in progress on the first
preserved line. The parallel sections in 1.3 V and 1.4 IV contain two
bicola prior to the point where the extant text of 1.3 IV picks up (line
48) that probably are part of the speech here:
[ ’any.] [ In lament]
[ ly . r’il.’abh] [He indeed cries to Bull El his Father,]
[ ’il/mlk.dyknnh] [ To El the King who created/established him.]
[ y .’a rt/wbnh.] [ He cries to Athirat and her children,]
[ ’ilt.w brt.’aryh.] [ The goddess and the band of her brood:]
On the face of it, Baal might not be expected to speak of himself in
the third person to Anat, as this reconstruction assumes. Baal is Anat’s
intimate, and the first person would seem more appropriate. However,
the third person may fit the context here better. Since the extant part
of the speech is reiterated by Anat to El in V 30–44, then it seems
likely that the version here is being given by Baal as part of his instruc-
tions to Anat on what to say to El. Since messages tend to be repeated
verbatim or virtually so, Anat’s delivery of the message in 1.3 V 29–45
should provide the text for our passage. There she uses the third per-
son in speaking of Baal from lines 35–38, i.e., the two bicola we have
reconstructed above, and the first line of the complaint, “There is no
house for Baal.” It would be highly unusual for a messenger to change
persons in delivering a message (see, for example, 1.2 I 16–19//33–35;
1.3 III 11–31//IV 7–20).29
It is less certain whether Baal’s speech here would have included
any of the earlier lines with which Anat opens hers in 1.3 V 30–34.
Messengers sometimes preface their message with their own words (cf.
1.3 IV 5–6 just above), and all these lines may be such a preface. But
they also could be an element of Baal’s careful instructions to Anat and
thus be part of the content of our lacuna. The two bicola that occur in
1.3 V 32–34 in particular may be legitimate to reconstruct in here:
[mlkn ’al’iyn b‘l] Our king is Mightiest Baal,
[ p n ’in d‘lnh] Our ruler, with none above him.
29
The broken state of the small fragment would allow for one to reconstruct the
first line of Baal’s complaint as [wn in bt] l[ y k ilm], “For I have no house like the
gods,” following a parallel text, CAT 1.117.5. But the fact that the message is repeated
elsewhere with lb l each time argues for reading the latter here as well.
306 cat 1.3 iv
30
Cf. Watson 1994a:230; for the form, see UT 12.9; PU 1:65 and n. 4; UBC 1.257
n. 77. The particle wn arguably consists of coordinate w- plus -n, analogous to adver-
sative or contrastive p- plus -n (in BH, pn, “lest”; so also in 1.114.12, so DUL 674).
Might hn be understood accordingly as deictic h- plus -n? If so, final -n in these three
particles might serve to explicitly mark it as governing a clause.
cat 1.3 iv 307
31
This form is evidently G-stem active participle, 3 masc. sg., nominative case or
possibly *qtl indicative masc. sg. The root is *’ny, evidently a verb of speech attested
also in the t- preformative forms t’ant/t’unt (SPUMB 107; CMCOT 68–69). The typical
translation is “groaning,” (Gibson CML2 159;Watson 1983:263; Pardee 1997a:255;
Wyatt 1998:87; cf. MLC 191: “suspirando.” Cf. also BH ’ny, “to groan.” and Ugaritic
’un, “complaint” (CAT 1.79.3; see Pardee 2002:119). The specific nuance of lamenta-
tion was at one time thought to occur with this root also in 1.16 I 8 and II 46, where
the word was thought to be written ’any in 1.16 I 8, but nny in 1.16 II 46. Recently,
scholars have been taking the latter as the correct reading, rather than the former (cf.
Dijkstra (1991:337) and Greenstein, UNP 31, 35 and 46 n. 109, following Bordreuil
1989; cf. Brody 1998:15–16 n. 30). In fact, the upper line of the letter in 1.16 I 8
shows indications that there are three wedges here, and thus that the letter is n in both
occurrences, as read by CAT.
32
For the L-stem form as the D-stem of middle weak and final weak verbs, see Sivan
1997:159, 174.
cat 1.3 iv 309
of Yahweh in Deut 32:6 with the same verbal form: “Is he not your
father, who fashioned you, who made you and created/established you
(waykōnĕnekā)?” The root *‘śh in this context would likewise militate in
favor of the meaning “to create” rather than “to establish.” These terms
and the titles that follow show Baal’s capacity to invoke the pantheon’s
head as his father,33 even though technically El would not seem to be
Baal’s “birth-father” (cf. Baal’s appellation elsewhere, bn dgn, “son of
Dagan”). These epithets are standard ones for El, but in this context
they may further indicate Baal’s generally belonging to the family of
the gods and even his acknowledged need of El’s help. He therefore
addresses El with conventional titles, perhaps as a signal of traditional
respect expected especially from someone requesting help from El.
The second reconstructed bicolon adds Athirat and her family
as invoked parties of the lament. Both this and the previous bicolon
(attested clearly in 1.3 V 35–37 and 1.4 IV 47–50, and less so in the
badly damaged 1.4 I 4–8) are governed by the same verb, y . This
suggests that both bicola may be understood as referring to a single
act of lamentation directed at El and Athirat and their royal family.
Athirat’s children are first called “her children,” bnh, and then the
“band of her brood” ([w brt ’aryh]). The first term, bnh, has usually
been rendered more literally as “her sons,” but the banquet scene in
1.4 VI 38–59 specifically describes the bn a rt as including both gods
and goddesses (see the discussion below, pp. 628–30). The first word of
the second phrase refers to a collection or grouping, therefore Athirat’s
“band” (Gordon 1977:110 n. 77; see also Pope in Smith 1998b:654).
The BH meaning of * br is “to heap up,” as a verb used for grain in
Gen 41:35, 49 and dead frogs in Exod 8:10, and “a heap” as a noun
referring to severed heads in 2 Kgs 10:8 ( MHP). Applied to people in
Ugaritic and post-biblical Hebrew, it signifies a group or community.34
Within our context, it designates Athirat’s extended household of the
pantheon. The second word *’ary is more ambiguous; the parallelism
would suggest a familial designation. Different cognates have been
proposed. Gordon (UT 19.349) compared Egyptian iry, “companion.”
Pope, assuming that the language of an animal group stood behind the
term (1977b:34, 504–5), compared the Arabic use of ry with reference
33
It may be noted that in the Hurrian-Hittite story of “Elkunisha and Ashertu”
(ANET 519; Hoffner 1998:90–92), the Storm-god addresses Elkurnirsa as “father.”
34
So UT 19.2142; Dietrich and Loretz 1974:35; TO 1.193; Heltzer 1976:70–71; MLC
613. For this usage in post-biblical Hebrew, see Pirqe Abot 2:2 ( Jastrow 1274).
310 cat 1.3 iv
to a manger and eating at the same manger (with another animal); Pope
also proposed a verbal use of the root in Ps 80:13, meaning perhaps
“to eat.” He further connected the word to BH ’aryeh, “lion.” However,
this element of the etymology seems less likely now that the word for
“lion” in Ugaritic has turned up as ’arw (CAT 6.62.2; DUL 111; cf.
M. Cohen 1947:83, #34).35 Renfroe (1992:83–84) notes Akkadian ayaru,
“young man” (CAD A/1:230). DUL (111) compares Hittite LÚ ara- as
well as Egyptian ’iry and Akkadian erâ/irâ (an adverb meaning “side by
side”; CAD E:254). As the proposals of Gordon and DUL would seem
to suggest, a loan-form may be involved. In any case, the language
evidently denotes here a family unit. The same word occurs in 1.4 VI
45 in a tricolon that also deals with the children of Athirat. Here the
word is paralleled with “his brothers,” a h, and with “the seventy, the
children of Athirat.” Baal’s relationship with the children of Athirat is
rather rocky. Although he holds a feast for them in 1.4 VI 38–59, he
eventually fights and defeats them in 1.6 V 1–4 (cf. Ashertu’s 77//88
sons whom Baal slays in the West Semitic myth of Elkunirsa, attested
in Hittite-Hurrian; ANET 519; see Beckman 1997). El and Athirat act
together in 1.6 I in regulating the course of divine politics, and in our
passage Baal expresses the reality that their support is required to secure
recognition of his own divine kingship. Yet Baal does not ask for the
support of El and Athirat only; his lament implicitly enlists the support
of their children. In general, the family of El and Athirat generically
constitutes the pantheon, and this list of invoked parties betrays Baal’s
problematic status. It is evident from the second bicolon that Baal him-
self does not belong to the family of El and Athirat properly speaking
(see the discussions at UBC 1.91–94; Smith 2001a:34, 61–66).
The complaint in lines 47–53 compares Baal’s unfortunate situation
to that of several other gods who live happily in theirs. The point of
this section is quite clear, but the exact syntax involved is ambiguous.
Two primary interpretations have been proposed. Driver (CML1 89),
Caquot and Sznycer (TO 1.172–73), Pardee (1997a:253) and Wyatt
35
One should note, however, that an originally III-w root may retain the final -w
root letter in some forms but otherwise may conflate with III-y. For example, bnwt and
bnwn but *bny elsewhere, or even both forms in a single expression, bny bnwt (see DUL
233; and below p. 447). Whatever the relationship between the two roots, the Hebrew
pun that Pope sees in Judg 14:14 (connecting the reference to “eater” with the “lion,”
but without mentioning the root ary), is still plausible.
cat 1.3 iv 311
36
Smith earlier in UNP 115 proposed reading bnh in line 49 as “his children,” but
this seems unlikely, since it would suggest that all of El’s offspring lived in his dwelling,
and thus had no separate homes of their own. This would undercut Baal’s argument
for a palace of his own. In addition, the reference to Baal’s three women in the fol-
lowing lines suggests that the reference to bnh here refers to Baal.
312 cat 1.3 iv
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1938:71–84, pls. VI, VII, XII; CTA 18–20, fig. 11, 12 pls.
V, VI; KTU 13–14; CAT 13–15.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 30–31; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.173–77; Cas-
suto, GA 98–103, 142–51; Coogan 1978:95–96; Cross, CMHE 184; Dietrich and
Loretz 1997:1146–49; Driver, CML1 88–91; Gaster, Thespis 242; Gibson, CML2 52–54;
Ginsberg, ANET 137–38; Gordon, UL 22–23, 1977:82–84; Jirku 33–35; de Moor,
SPUMB 110–15, 1987:15–18; Mullen 1980:62–67; del Olmo Lete, MLC 189–91;
MLR 74–76; Pardee 1997a:254–55; Smith, UNP 115–18; Wyatt 1998:84–88; Xella
1982:105–6; van Zijl, Baal 74–81.
1 [ ]m .nn.k’imr.l’ar
[ ]∂k.šbth.dmm.šbt.dqnh
[ ]xd.lytn.bt.lb l.k’ilm
[ ]∂r.kbn.’a rt[ ] n∫m
5 [ ]’„r .’i2d[ ].[ ]Âm
[ ]mb1kÂhfi∫m[ ]b.[ ]
[ ]tm.tgl. [ ]’i[ ]wt∂b’u
[ ]š.∫m[ ]k.’a1b[ ]t r
[ ]b’u. d∫m. tnμy[ ]’å2dn.[ ]l∫m
10 lh.yš[ ]. r.[ ]« l.’abh.μy[ ]μy
bšb t. [ ]rm.[ ]mn[ ]
sgrt.g[ ]x[ ]∂b∂h[ ]
n. k[ ]
ln. [ ]
15 lp‘n.,gl[ ]m[ ]
m’id.’ax[ ]∂ n[ ]
nrt.’il∫m.špš[ ]∂rx
l’a.šm∫m[ ]∂bμy[ ]t
wt n.btlt. ∑n[ ]bht
20 k.y’ilm.bnt[ ]∂bh[ ].’a[ ]1šm
’al.tšm .b∂r[ ]∂kl[ ]
’al.’a dhm.by∫mx.[ ]∂b[ ]
bgdlt.’arkty[ ]’am[ ]
qdqdk.’ašhlk.šbt∂k[ ]
25 šbt.dqnk.mm‘m[ ]y‘ny
’il.bšb‘t. dfiμ.b mnt
316 cat 1.3 v
’ap.sgrt.yd [ ]bt.k’an[ ]
k’in.b’ilht.qμl[ ]∂k.mh.t’aršÂ
lbtlt. nt.wt[ ]Â.btlt. n[ ]
30 t mk.’il. km[ ] kmk
‘m.‘lm. yt. t.t mk
mlkn.’al’iyn.b l. p n
’in.d lnh.kμ lnyy.qšh
nbln.klnμyy.nbl.ksh
35 ’any.ly . fi.’il.’abh.’il
mlk.dy1k«nh.y .’a rt
wbnh.’ilμ t.w brt.’ar h
wn.’in.bt[ ]lb‘l.km.’ilm
r.kb[ ] rt.m b.’il
40 m ll.b[ ] b.rbt.’a rt
μyμ.m b[ ]y.bt.’ar
[ ] lμy[ ]rb.m b
[ ]μ2 3 b
ca. 15 lines missing
The small fragment, RS 2.[014] (See Image XX):
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
50 [ ]μfi
[ ]
Textual Notes
Line 3. [ ]xd.lytn Only a right large horizontal survives for the first
letter. From context, the most likely reading is /k/, as Pardee reads,
but epigraphically one cannot be certain. The /l/ of /lytn/ is unusual
for its very small right wedge. The scribe has failed to impress it deep
enough into the clay.
cat 1.3 v 317
Line 4. [ ]∂r The first letter surviving on the line has three preserved
horizontals, thus looking like a /k/, but the context argues for /r/.
] n∫m CTA identified the remains of a /p/ preceding / n/, and this
is certainly the correct reading of the line. The damage to the tablet
at this spot is horizontal and creates the look of a /p/. But there are
no clear traces of any actual remains of wedges along the break. The
/ / is certain; most of it is preserved. The /m/ was not noted in either
CTA or CAT. While it is badly damaged, the left part of the horizontal
is clearly preserved. This word appears as p nm in both parallel passages,
1.4 V 21 and 1.17 VI 46.
Line 5. [ ]’„r .’i1d[ Both wedges of the /’a/ are preserved. The /d/
is almost entirely effaced, but the general shape of the letter survives.
]Âm Only the right horizontal of the /n/ survives, but the context
assures the reading.
Line 8. [ ]š.∫m[ The /m/ is damaged. The left wedge is fine, but
there is only a hint of the left side of the vertical.
]k.’a1b[ The /b/ is represented only by the left upper corner of the
left vertical and the upper line of the right vertical.
]t r As Pardee (1997a:254 n. 102) recognized, the first letter of this
word is /t/, not /m/ as previously read. The lower center part of the
318 cat 1.3 v
Line 9. [ ]bu. d∫m.t nμy[ This is a badly damaged line. The /m/ is
not entirely certain. The preserved wedge appears to be the vertical,
but it leaves a fairly limited space for the left horizontal. What is read
here as /t / has been read as a /q/ in the other editions, but this is
unlikely. While there is a horizontal wedge on the left, the indenta-
tions on the right do not resemble the Winkelhaken wedge of a /q/,
but rather the complex indentations of the / /. In addition, reading
this complex as a /q/ makes the letter unusually long. The /y/ seems
fairly certain, although only the left half of the letter survives. Pardee
(1997a:254 n. 103) reads as here.
]’å1dn[ The /’a/ seems very likely, although it could theoretically
be a /n/ or /w/. The /d/ is fairly certain, with the entire line of the
top of the letter preserved, as well as the lower left horizontal and the
right tip of the right horizontal. The upper line of the letter gives no
clear indications of the number of verticals in the letter, but the width
of the letter argues for /d/ over /b/.
]l∫m The final letter seems likely to be /m/, although only the
horizontal is preserved. Its shortness fits with an /m/ better than as
a truncated /t/(so CTA). The gap between adn and ]lm is easily wide
enough for two to three letters. Undoubtedly the last word should be
reconstructed as i]lm, but there is also room for the proposed restora-
tion, /bn/. Pardee (1997a:254 n. 103) discerned traces of the i in this
position, but we could not identify any such traces. CAT’s proposal
[bn i]lm seems plausible.
Line 10. lh.yš[ ]. r.[ The right wedge of the/q/ is completely pre-
served, as is part of the lower line of the horizontal. We see no traces
of letters /m / between /yš/ and /. r/, as proposed by CAT.
]μ l.’abh.μy[ ]μy Following the break after / r./ is the faint trace of
the right side of a vertical, probably the right vertical of /l/. The
/y/ following /’abh./ is epigraphically uncertain. Two short verticals
indicate that it is either /y/ or / /. In context the former seems more
likely. Following the break, there are the tops of two vertical wedges
side by side. This was read by CTA as /l/. But because the right wedge
is significantly higher than the left wedge, it is more likely that this is
a /y/. (The wedges of /l/ are usually, but not always, at the same
height.) Pardee (1998b:87) reads y[‘n]y.
cat 1.3 v 319
Line 11. [ ]rm. Contra CTA, there are no traces of a letter between
/ / and /rm/. The reconstruction of /d/ is based on the parallel in
lines 25–27.
Line 12. sgrt.g[ ]x[ We see no traces of an /m/ after the second
/g/, contra CAT. The /x/ stands for a large horizontal wedge, pre-
served without context. CTA reads this as part of a / /, but this is
not likely. What Virolleaud and Herdner took as the upper line of the
right wedge of the / / is actually part of the damage on the tablet’s
surface. Nor is there any evidence that a depression below the wedge
is an additional horizontal.
]∫ b∫ h[ Following the break, we find a small vertical wedge, and the
tip of a horizontal below it. The clear space to the left of the vertical
suggests this is probably a /b/. There is often some space between
the verticals in /b/, much less commonly in /d/ (see Ellison 2002.II:
figs 864, 871, 874). This is followed by the three wedges of an /h/
or /’i/.
Line 16. m’id.’ax[ The letter following /’a/ is too badly damaged to
identify. The few traces suggest a letter with a horizontal orientation,
perhaps /t/ or /n/.
]∂ n[ The / / is not entirely certain. The letter looks superficially like
an /m/, but the top of the left wedge seems too horizontal for a /m/.
There seem to be traces of the right line of the left wedge going down
to the same level as the right wedge. It cannot be /y/ as proposed by
CAT, since the right wedge is clearly just a single wedge.
Line 18. l’a.šm∫m The second /m/ only survives in the general shape
of the horizontal. No clear lines of it are visible. No word divider is
preserved after /šmm/.
]∫ bμy[ ]t Only the very tops of the probable /b/ and /y/ are pre-
served, so the readings are epigraphically uncertain. The readings seem
assured by context. We see no trace of the /m/ that Pardee (personal
communication) reads shortly after /by/. Two restorations are plausible
from the parallel passages: by[d.bn.’ilm.m]t is suggested by 1.6 II 24–25,
but by[d.mdd.’ilm.m]t follows 1.4 VIII 21–24.
Line 19. ∂n[ The / / is almost completely gone, but the right edge
appears to be faintly visible.
Line 20. ]∫ bh[ Only the right wedges of the /b/are preserved, and
thus the reading is epigraphically uncertain.
]2šm The /š/ is very damaged, but the left and right wedges are
visible and assure the reading.
Line 21. b∂r[ ] The /r/ is uncertain. The lower line of the letter
suggests /r/, but only two wedges along the bottom of the letter are
certainly visible.
]∫ kl[ The /k/ is likely, although epigraphically, it could also be a
/r/.
Line 24. ’ašhlk. Although CTA read the /h/ as a /p/ and treated it
as a scribal error for /h/, the letter does in fact have three horizontals,
making it a /h/. The middle wedge is very close to the upper wedge,
but is clearly distinguishable from the latter.
šbt∫ k[ Only the bottom half of a short horizontal letter survives
after the /t/. Context, however, argues strongly for /k/.
Line 26. dfiμ The two left upper wedges and the upper line of the
lower left wedge of the /r/ are preserved. Only the upper line and
the right side of the /m/’s vertical survives. But both are certain by
context.
Line 27. k’an[ There are no traces of a letter beyond the /n/, contra
CAT.
∑
Line 28. ql[ ]∫ k The /l/ of /ql/ is epigraphically uncertain. Only two
wedges are preserved, so the letter could be /l/ or / /. The restoration
proposed here, /ql[ ]k/, is plausible from a parallel and argues for the
reading /l/. The same issue affects the /k/on the other side of the
break. Only a long horizontal is preserved for this letter, which allows
it to be interpreted as a number of possibilities. But the reconstruction
seems likely, and the wedge is compatible with /k/.
t’aršÂ The /n/ at the end of the line is also very broken. Only
the left edge of the letter survives, and that could be interpreted as a
number of different letters. The context, however, argues for /n/.
Line 29. wt[ ]Â The left half of the /t/ is preserved, enough to
assure its identification. The right two wedges of the /n/ are visible,
but context assures the reading.
n[ ] There are no traces of a /t/ at the end of the line, as
proposed by CAT.
Line 33. k∑lnyy. The /k/ is certain. The two left wedges are fully pre-
served, and the left edge of the right wedge is partially visible. The /l/
322 cat 1.3 v
is partially preserved, with the lower tip of the middle wedge and the
complete right wedge.
qšh The /h/ has four wedges.
Line 34. klnμyy The right side of the first /y/ is lost in the break, but
the context assures the reading.
Line 35. fi The three right wedges of the /r/ are preserved com-
pletely, and the right tip of the lower left wedge is just visible, assuring
the reading.
Line 36. dy1k«nh The upper left wedge of the /k/ is broken away,
but the letter is certain. The two left wedges of the /n/survive, along
with the lower left corner and the right tip of the right wedge, assur-
ing its reading.
Line 37. il∑t The /t/ is almost completely lost in the break. Only the
left line of the wedge remains. But context assures its reading.
’ar h Based on the parallels, the / / is a scribal error for /y/.
Line 41. μyμ The first two letters are badly damaged. Only the
upper vertical of the right side of the /y/ is preserved. Faint traces of
the upper line of the horizontal and of the interior of the /m/ are
discernable. Context assures the reading.
Line 42. [ ] lμy[ ]rb The left side of the /y/ is partially preserved,
but not the right. Context confirms the reading. Both /r/ and /b/ are
badly damaged, but enough remains of both to assure the reading.
Line 43. [ ]μ2 1b Only the tops of the three letters survive, but all
are certain.
Line 50. ]r The small fragment contains the very right edge of
column V, covering the space of the last eight lines of the column.
Only the two letters, /r /are preserved (we find no traces of the
CAT reads in line 47). The /r/ is certain. The three right wedges are
preserved, with traces of the right tips of the two left wedges. This
assures the reading.
cat 1.3 v 323
33–34 klnyy.qšh/nbln.
klnyy.nbl.ksh
35–36 ’any.ly . r.’il.’abh.
’il/mlk.dyknnh.
36–37 y .’a rt/wbnh.
’ilt.w brt.’ary(!)h
38–39 wn.’in.bt[.]lb‘l.km.’ilm/
r.kb[n ’a] rt.
39–41 m b.’il/m ll.b[nh.]
[m] b.rbt.’a rt/ym.
41–42 m b[.pdr]y.bt.’ar/
[m ll.] ly[.bt.]rb.
42–44 m b/[’ar y.bt.y‘bdr.]
m b/[klt.knyt . . .]
Anat’s Response to Baal Continued (This follows directly upon the last
line of column IV).
1–3 “[. . . I will] drag him to the ground [. . . ’i]m a una-nu ka-’immiri
like a lamb; lê-’ar i
[I will ma]ke his gray hair [run] [’ašahali]ku šêbata-hu
with blood, dama-ma
The gray hair of his beard šêbata daqini-hu
[with gore], [mam‘ê-ma]
3–4 Unless he gives Baal a house like [ ]d lā-yatinu bêta lê-ba‘li
the gods’, ka-’ilīma
[And a cou]rt like that of Athirat’s [wa- a i]ra ka-binī
children.” ’a irati
Anat’s Journey to El
4–7 [She planted (her) fe]et, [and] the [tid‘a u pa]‘nāmi/ [wa-tarra]
earth [shook]; ’ar u
S[o she hea]ded out ’idda[ka ’al tatin pa]nīma
[For E]l at the springs of the [‘imma ’ili] mabbikê
River[s], naharêmi
[Ami]d [the strea]ms of the [Dee]ps. [qir]ba [’appi]qê tahāma]têmi
cat 1.3 v 325
10–12 Her voice Bull [E]l, her Father, qāla-ha yiš[ma‘u] ôru [’i]lu
he[ard]; ’abū-ha
H[e] an[sw]ered from the seven ya[‘ni]yu/bi- šab‘ati
r[oo]ms, u[du]rīma2
1
For this word, see UBC 1.187–89; Watson 1995:221–22; DUL 285. Loretz
(1995b:727) compares d not with Akkadian šadû, “mountain,” but with Akkadian šiddu,
“Seite, Rand; Vorhang.” As a parallel, Loretz cites ARM IV, 10, line 6’ from AHw 1230,
B, #3 ana ši-id-da-at ekallim as meaning “einen Bereich vor Gebäuden” (AHw leaves the
phrase untranslated). Loretz would also see qrš not as a tent-term but “der Raum, in
dem die Gäste empfangen werden.” The advantage of this approach is to understand
the two parallel terms in a single word-field. However, it does not account for evidence
that El’s abode is a tent structure. Furthermore, it is unclear how common the use
of Akkadian šiddu is that Loretz proposes to compare with Ugaritic d. Additionally,
according to AHw 1230 (which Loretz cites), the term seems to refer generally not to
the room itself, but to the long side of a room. The parallelism achieved by Loretz’s
proposal would otherwise be attractive. Akkadian šiddu compares better with Ugaritic
šd where it is parallel to kmn (see p. 280 n. 8). A third possibility for Ugaritic d is to
compare Akkadian šadu, “field,” and hence “encampment” here (see UNP 78). How-
ever, Ugaritic šd covers the meaning “field” (šd//p’at mdbr in 1.23.67, see also lines 13,
28). Therefore, Ugaritic d does not mean “field.” Like Akkadian šadû, it may mean
“mountain” here. The context of d in 1.19 IV 51–52, often taken to mean “camp” or
the like (UNP 77) or “tent” (CMCOT 51–53, CMHE 36 n. 143, 55 n. 43) is problematic.
The view assumes parallelism with <’a>hlm, which in turn requires an emendation
(Pope 1987:223 = 1994:51–52; for further criticisms of Clifford’s etymological argument,
see Renfroe 1992:97–98). An appeal to 1.19 IV apparently complicates the discussion,
as both d and šd appear in its larger context, the former in line 51 and the latter in
lines 48; it is logical to suggest some difference in nuance. If šd means “field” as it does
elsewhere in Ugaritic, then it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that d here has
the same meaning. In short, 1.19 IV 48–52 provides little clarification of the lexical
situation of d (see also the difficult context of lines 58 and 60). In view of the clearer
use of Ugaritic šd for “field,” it would seem better not to see this meaning here, while
“mountain” appears highly plausible (cf. Cross’s earlier view, as noted in CMHE 55
n. 43). Jonas Greenfield (personal communication) suggests that the form d was used
instead of šd for Ugaritic “mountain” because Ugaritic šd was used for “field.” For
more details, see UBC 1.187–88.
2
For the syllabic evidence for this base for the noun, see Huehnergard 1987b:123;
Sivan 1997:67.
326 cat 1.3 v
3
On the syllabic evidence for this form, see Huehnergard 1987b:108.
4
UG 190 favors the plausible reconstruction nûratu (<*nuwrat-), but the admittedly
difficult syllabic evidence would suggest niratu compared to the BH base of nēr; see
Huehnergard 1987b:152.
5
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:183.
6
For the form, see UG 680.
7
The final -t supports taking this form as a noun (e.g., DUL 232 citing Akkadian
binītu).
8
For the vocative y-, see UG 804.
9
The particle ’al takes a jussive form. The verb derives from *’ d, with ellision
of root letter ’aleph of the first person prefix form (as vocalized here) or less likely a
participle; see Sivan 1997:32, 116.
cat 1.3 v 327
10
For the root, with syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:110; UG 547.
11
For the vocative l-, see UG 804.
12
For the verbal use of this root, see kmt in 1.4 IV 41 (the parallel to kmk in the
next line), 1.4 V 3 and 1.16 IV 2. It is also possible that km here is the nominal form,
* ukmu, as in the next line.
13
Cf. syllabic iyyūma (Huehnergard 1987b:124). Accordingly, perhaps yt is to be
vocalized as * iyyātu instead.
14
Alternatively, but unlikely, “the two of us.” See the commentary on these lines
below. For the form, see Pardee 1997a:255 n. 112; UG 224–25. Cf. klnyn in the parallel
passage in 1.4 IV 45.
15
For cognates, see TO 1.176 n. v; KB 4 1150; cf. DUL 717: “all together we shall
carry his tankard.”
16
For the form, see Huehnergard 1987b: 132, 133. If the subject is dual (see n. 14
above), then the vocalization would be nabilā.
17
Cf. the rendering “Athirat and her children” as the subject rather than the object
in Sivan 1997:104. This view overlooks the fact that this is part of a quoted speech
from 1.3 IV 47–53 repeated here and in 1.4 I 4–18.
328 cat 1.3 v
Commentary
The second and third lines are closely parallel, but the first line consid-
erably less so. That this is the case is evident from the description of
Anat delivering this same threat in lines 23–25, which uses a different
initial line, though it is of generally similar semantic content. Accord-
ingly, it is evident that the second and third lines form a bicolon at a
more basic level of composition. The repetition of the word of šbt in
those lines points up the sonant parallelism of dama-ma and daqini-hu
[mam‘ê-ma].
18
The latter count assumes that a vowel precedes or follows the first attested con-
sonant.
cat 1.3 v 329
The second line is considerably longer than the first in this interpreta-
tion (so also CML2 53; TO 1.174; Pardee 1997a:254; Wyatt 1998:84;
cf. Parker, UNP 62 for the parallel in 1.17 VI 48–49), contrary to the
general norm in Ugaritic that the second line is, roughly speaking, either
the same length or shorter than the first line. However, this layout shows
good syntactical parallelism, and there are in fact instances elsewhere the
second line exceeds the first line in length (1.19 III 40–41, IV 15–17;
1.22 I 21–22; apparently also 1.10 II 8–9). As another possibility, the
unit is a bicolon with two verbs in the initial line (see Ginsberg, ANET
137; del Olmo Lete, MLC 189, MLR 74; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1147;
Smith, UNP 116), as in the following layout:
When lines 7–9 are considered together, these four lines appear to
be an example of alternating parallelism, in which the first and third
lines show a close relationship, as do the second and fourth. Here the
first and third lines both have the word ada, and both describe Anat’s
arrival at El’s abode. The parallelism in the second and fourth lines
focuses on the three-word epithets used of El: “the king, the father of
years,” and “the lord of the children of El.” As with the preceding
unit, the first bicolon is a formulaic expression attested elsewhere (1.4
IV 23–24; 1.17 VI 48–49). At the same time, there are close relations
cat 1.3 v 331
between the first/second lines and between the third/fourth lines. The
only outstanding aural resonance between the first and the second lines
may be detected in tabū’u and ’abī. The lines of the second bicolon are
bound by repeated /t/, /b/, /d/and /m/.
This line acts as a transition between the quatrain above and the bico-
lon below. Its length echoes that of the previous line, as does its use
of a three-word description of El. Yet the subject changes here from
Anat to El.
Despite the wide divergence in syntax, the occurrence of ’ilīma and ’ili-
ma plus the resonance of this word with šamîma provides some sonant
parallelism between the lines. Again the longer second line is produced
by a compound epithet (see lines 7–9 above).
This sort of step (or climactic) parallelism appears also in 1.2 IV 8–9.
Both units present the addressee in the third slot of the first line, and
then delay the verb to the second line in final position, and then reverse
its position in the third line. The broken lines in 1.18 I 7–10 appear to
be a parallel text for these lines and for the following bicolon.
Unfortunately, the parallel text in 1.18 I 9–10 does not help to complete
the lacuna at the beginning of the second line. As a result, it is impos-
sible to describe fully the parallelism in this bicolon. In the lacuna one
might expect another verb parallel to a d, or some form of a direct
object (parallel to the suffix on the verb in the first line), or perhaps
another term parallel to bymny (e.g., bšm’aly); and appositional to the
prepositional phrase that follows; for the latter sort of usage, cf. 1.3 III
30 (= IV 20), 31. The BH cognate words for gdlt ’arkt, are also used
innercolonically (e.g., Ps 145:8) and as parallel terms (e.g., Ezek 17:3;
see Avishur 1984:31, 61; see discussion below).
See the discussion of the basically parallel tricolon in lines 1–3 above.
The remaining portion of the parallel in 1.18 I 11–12 aligns with the
version of the tricolon attested here. Unfortunately, it does not help to
complete the lacuna in the first line.
The first two lines of this tricolon are closely parallel, compared with
the third line (see the variety of departures in the third lines of tricola
in 1.3 III 38–40, 45–47, 1.4 I 30–32, 41–43, V 46–48). In addition to
cat 1.3 v 333
the semantic and syntactical parallelism of the first two lines, the use
of both suffix -k and subordinating conjunction k- mark these two lines.
Despite such differences, perhaps btlt in the third line echoes ’ilht in the
second line, and ‘nt in the third line echoes ’anšt in the first line.
The lines convey a staccato rhythm, compared to the lines in the pre-
ceding tricolon. They are shorter and somewhat rhythmic thanks to the
repetition of consonants. These lines reverberate with the consonants
for km, “wisdom.” In this way, the theme of wisdom echoes through
every line (CMHE 184 n. 163). Ceresko (1975:75) also notes chiasm
here: t mk: km:: kmk: t mk.
Apart from the parallelism of the word-pair mlk// p plus the parallel
suffixes on them, the syntax and morphology appear markedly differ-
ent in the two lines. However, the suffix at the end of the second line
is in fact parallel to the last word in the first line, and ’al’iyānu and ’ênu
du-‘alênu are semantically parallel (in antithetical terms). These words
also show a particularly striking sonant parallelism: ’al’iyānu and ’ênu
du-‘alênu-hu.
The repetition of the subject and verb in the two lines highlights further
the sonant parallelism of the direct objects, including their identical
suffixes. A touch of variation is achieved thanks to the chiasm of the
verbs and their direct objects.
For the poetic parallelism here and in the remainder of Baal’s lament,
see the discussion of poetic parallelism in 1.3 IV 47–53 (above pp.
287–89).
Introduction
Lines 1–4a conclude Anat’s response to Baal that began in 1.3 IV 54.
Most of the column describes Anat’s journey to El’s abode and their
conversation, which climaxes with her delivery of Baal’s complaint.
Unfortunately, the column breaks off before we find out what El’s
reaction to Anat’s message is, although the subsequent events in 1.4 I
indicate that he has refused her request.
slaughter of the warriors above in 1.3 II 13–15 and 27–28. The word
šbt (line 2a) is attested also in BH (śêbāh), as “gray hair,” with the derived
meaning of “old age.”
In the extended phrase (šbt dqnh) that parallels šbt (line 2b), the second
word has been understood in two ways. Most commonly it is rendered as
“beard,” thus parallel to BH zāqān (e.g., ANET 137; Pardee 1997a:254).
Others have related the word to another meaning of BH zqn and have
rendered in “his old age” (so SPUMB 112; de Moor and van der Lugt
1974:13). An expression similar to what is found in lines 2–3 appears
in 1 Kgs 2:9 (noted by GA 143 and CML2 52 n. 5). In his last words to
his son (1 Kgs 2:9b), David tells Solomon how he is to treat Shimei:
“you will cause his gray hair to descend in blood to Sheol” (wĕhôradtā
’et-śêbātô bĕdām šĕ’ôl). The locative in final position, Sheol, clarifies the
final end intended by the violence (cf. Gen 42:38, 44:29, 31, where the
phrase is used of death from sorrow, rather than from violence; note also
Tobit 3:10, 6:15). David’s speech also contains the negative expression
of the same idiom (1 Kgs 2:6; for another image of smashing the head,
cf. Ps 68:22). In 1.3 V 1–3 it appears unlikely that Anat is seriously
threatening to kill El, but rather to deliver a beating that would only
be a means of “changing his mind.” This type of hyperbolic bravado,
as we will see, does not appear to be taken too seriously by El.
The following bicolon in lines 3–4 states the conditions under which
Anat would carry out her threat. The lines echo Baal’s lament in refer-
ring to a “house like the gods’, a court like that of Athirat’s children.”
Pardee (1997a:254) takes the l- before ytn as negative (“That is if he
does not give . . .”). An asseverative would read more smoothly (“unless
he surely gives . . .”). In this case, one might compare Arabic ’i a + lā
used in negative conditional sentences in the sense “unless.”19 Perhaps
Ugaritic k + l functions in this manner here, as understood generally
by commentators for this passage.
19
This possibility was suggested by Smith’s student, Tony Badran. For Arabic ’i a,
see Lane 38; Wright 1.291–92, para. 367.
336 cat 1.3 v
20
So too GA 101; for the adverbial accusative with the sense of “from,” see CAT
1.119.28.
21
Pope 1971:402. For the final clause, compare CAT 1.13.8 (see p. 178).
cat 1.3 v 337
rare construction, which taking the noun as subject and relating the
verb to trr does not. Accordingly, we have tentatively translated the
clause as, “and the earth shook.”
This interpretation does not, however, exclude the notion that Anat
takes flight to make her journey to El’s mountain. There are several
references to her travelling by flight (cf. Fensham 1966, Pope 1971).
In addition to the passage from 1.10 II 10–11 discussed above, one
can cite 1.18 IV 17–22, 27–33, which describes the goddess hovering
(*r p) over the hero Aqhat. CAT 1.108.8–9 also makes use of *r p in
describing Anat in the air (cf. Tuttle 1976; Pardee 2002: 194). The
West Semitic myth of Elkunirsa preserved in Hurrian-Hittite (ANET
519; Hoffner 1998:90–92) also has a scene in which El and Athirat
engage in conversation at El’s home, while another goddess, disguised
as an owl, eavesdrops in the background. The second goddess’ name
is written as dIŠTAR in the text. Hoffner has argued that she is to be
identified as Anat and Astarte merged into a single goddess (1975:6).
There may also be iconographic representations of Anat in the form
of a bird or a winged goddess, although the interpretation of these
depictions remains speculative. Pope (1971) proposed an interpretation
of a scene painted on a drinking mug from Ugarit that identifies a
bird in the scene as a representation of Anat, but this interpretation is
disputed (see the Commentary on pp. 505–06). A Ugaritic seal includes
the scene of a figure holding a spear standing before a seated figure
(Amiet 1992:95 and 107, no. 237) with a bird positioned between the
two figures. The presence of the bird might suggest that the standing
personage is Anat, perhaps before the seated El. As noted above (p. 185
n. 78), a well-known theme of seals attested from Syrian sites is that of
a warrior god in the company of a winged goddess. This scene may
reflect the pair of Baal and Anat. Finally, it is to be noted that Anat’s
violent counterpart in Mesopotamian myth, Inanna/Ishtar is also
sometimes depicted as a winged goddess (see above on p. 154, n. 34).22
In short, the passage here may assume the idea of Anat flying even
though it may not use explicit language for this picture.
The tricolon in lines 5b–7a and the following bicolon in lines 7b–8,
which describe the goddess’ travel to and arrival at El’s abode, are
formulaic and are used elsewhere when a deity goes to see El (1.1 III
22
Hallo and van Dijk 1968:17, lines 17, 27. On bird imagery for the gods in Meso-
potamia, see Black 1996.
338 cat 1.3 v
21–24 and 1.2 III 4–5 [Kothar-wa-Hasis]; 1.4 IV 20–24 [Athirat]; 1.17
VI 46–49 [Anat]).23 The nature of El’s abode has been discussed in
UBC 1:188–89 (see also the survey in Homan 2002:94–99). Recently,
Fleming (2000a) discussed an administrative text from Mari (M.6873,
published in Durand and Guichard 1997:65–66) that provides an
interesting description of a large tent that illuminates the presentation
of El’s tent in here in 1.3 V:
23
See UBC 1.184–87, 225. Cf. tgl rendered as “she turns,” in Sivan 1997:101.
24
For this term, see also Durand 1988:114–15, and below p. 671.
cat 1.3 v 339
25
It is possible that qrš is related to Akkadian quršu/guršu (so Loretz 1995b:727).
The phrase E-quršu, “a wedding pavilion” (Mattila 2002:120, line 9, and 313), perhaps
literally “the pavilion house,” appears as one part of an acquired property: “a built
house with its beams and doors in Nineveh, a tool shed, a wedding pavilion, a store-
house, an upper story (with) 4 doors within” (Mattila’s italics). This list distinguishes
the É-quršu from a number of structures, including the first and main structure of the
“built house.”
26
The duality may also be noticed in 1.17 I 31–32 and its parallels, where the duties
of the good son include “to eat his portion in the house of Baal, and his share in the
house of El (bt il).” This passage clearly refers not to the mythic tent of El, but to
the regular site of offerings to the deity, a temple within a town. The only mythologi-
cal text that refers clearly to a house of El is 1.114, which is somewhat unclear in its
geography. It appears that El holds a feast in his house, but in lines 17–18, he seems
to leave his house to go to “his house.” But here too there is no hint that the “house”
is also a tent. Homan (2002:96) suggests the terms such as bt and hkl could be used to
refer to the large tent-shrines, but none of his examples is decisive.
340 cat 1.3 v
down before El (1.1 III 24–25; 1.2 III 5b–6; 1.4 IV 25–26; 1.17 VI
50–51). However, in 1.3 V, uniquely, no such obeisance is mentioned.
Instead, the bicolon (lines 8b–9) describes different actions on Anat’s
part. The first line uses two words from the previous bicolon ([t]b u
dm, “she enters the mountain”), but they are preceded by t r, a word
of uncertain meaning and etymology. Previously read as m r and
interpreted accordingly, much (but not all) of the previous scholarship
on this word must now be rejected. Pardee (1997a:254) was the first
to recognize that the supposed vertical wedge of the m was actually a
break in the tablet and that the text thus read t r. With this reading,
parallels now can help in the interpretation of the word here. Most use-
fully, the same form appears three times in 1.16 II (in lines 25, 26, 34).
This is also a fairly difficult and broken passage, which almost certainly
describes the reaction of Thitmanit, Kirta’s daughter, to the news that
her father is seriously ill. The key to understanding this passage is the
largely preserved bicolon in lines 33–34, which reads:
Although several different renderings have been proposed for these lines
(cf. Gibson, CML2 97; TO 1:557–58, Margalit 1995:281–82), Wyatt
(1998:229 n. 243) has provided a strong defense of this understanding
of the passage, which certainly fits the context better than the other
proposals (Greenstein, UNP 34 and DUL 647 also support this inter-
pretation). The surrounding phrases would suggest that t r is a verb
referring to some kind of emotional cry. This bicolon may be used to
help tentatively reconstruct the earlier bicolon in lines 25–26 as:
27
Lines 25–26 are still quite ambiguous, and it is not entirely clear how the words
we have used from line 25 relate to what precedes them. It is possible that t r here is
second fem. singular and that the line (and maybe the following line) belong to Ilha’u’s
speech. The general meaning of the lines would change little, however.
cat 1.3 v 341
action, and the shout referred to in the first line explains what Anat
repeats in the second line. Anat is clearly not repeating a message at
this point, since no message is even hinted at yet. She arrives at El’s
abode and shouts out at him twice. In the next bicolon he hears her
shout and responds. This interpretation seems more plausible than
Pardee’s, “(she) addresses the lord,” which requires a meaning of * ny
that is unattested elsewhere.
28
For such usage elsewhere in Ugaritic, see UBC 1.189, esp. n. 141. Such an anal-
ogy lies behind the application of the architectural verbs, *bny//*mgr, to the human
person (more specifically, the person praying) in Ps 155 (11QPsa 24:5; see Greenfield
1992:313). From the linguistic side, the analogical use of bodily terms for architecture
and vice-versa may enlighten both the so-called allegory of Eccles 12:3–7 (esp. vv 3–4)
as well as the Christian notion of the individual as a temple of the holy spirit. The
subject bears wider study in West Semitic languages.
cat 1.3 v 343
but their relevance to the scene here is unclear. It is, however, certain
that El’s speech did not contain an invitation for Anat to enter his pres-
ence, since after her response to El in lines 19–25a, the bicolon in lines
25b–27a reiterates El’s separate position in his inner room. Thus during
the entire scene preserved here in 1.3 V, Anat is kept at the entrance
to El’s tent and is never allowed a real audience with the king of the
gods. Such a peculiar situation is unique to this passage. In all other
depictions of a deity’s visit to El, there is a face-to-face meeting. This
includes the thematically similar meeting between El and Anat in the
Aqhat Epic (1.17 VI 46–53), where she also arrives in great anger. But
in that case, she is admitted immediately to El’s presence, bows down
before him, and then makes her plea before proceeding to threaten
him in very similar terms as those in this passage. Why is Anat kept
away from El here? Some scholars have proposed that El is so afraid
of Anat’s violence that he refuses to let her in to his chamber (for
example, Pardee 1997a:254 n. 105; Wyatt 1998:85 n. 64). However, the
old god’s reaction to Anat does not particularly express such grievous
fear, nor is there any indication that Anat’s threats are taken very seri-
ously by him. They do not force him to agree to her demands. There
are formulaic descriptions of such fear found elsewhere in the cycle (cf.
1.3 III 32–35; 1.4 II 12–20), but nothing of the kind occurs here. She
clearly represents no serious threat to El, and his decision in a matter
of importance, such as granting Baal permission to build a palace, will
not be influenced by such theatrics. So why does he refuse to see her?
The most obvious reason is that she has clearly broken court protocol
with her boisterous entry. But El may also have political reasons not to
give her an official audience. In CAT 1.1 and 1.2, El is not a supporter
of Baal for the position of ruler of the council. He instead supports
Yamm and even instructs Kothar-wa-Hasis to build Yamm a palace as
a confirmation of his position. The preserved text of 1.2 unfortunately
gives no indication of El’s reaction to Yamm’s defeat by Baal, but this
passage may. El is certainly aware of Anat’s relationship to Baal, and
as will be discussed below, it appears that he will not grant her request
for a palace. This suggests reluctance on El’s part to support Baal’s
assumption of power. His refusal to allow Anat into his presence may
thus be a political snub, indicating to her and to Baal that he has not
yet recognized Baal’s rise in stature. This highlights again Anat’s rela-
tive weakness in this situation and Baal’s by extension.
Comparing similar stories in Mesopotamian literature further illu-
minates Anat’s comparatively weak position in the context of the story
344 cat 1.3 v
here. Anat uses similar threats in the Aqhat Epic (1.18 I 7–14) and gets
a positive response for her request. In the Epic of Gilgamesh (ANET
84), Ishtar, having been insulted by Gilgamesh after she proposes mar-
riage to him, goes to Anu, to ask for his permission to send the Bull of
Heaven to kill Gilgamesh. She also makes a threat during her request.
Similarly, in the Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld (ANET 107), Ishtar
makes a threat when she demands that the gates of the netherworld be
opened to her, so she can meet with her sister Ereshkigal. The episodes
from the Aqhat Epic and Gilgamesh are closely related thematically,
since in both the goddesses seek permission to kill a person who has
insulted them; in these instances, the requests of the goddesses represent
a matter of honor. And while neither El nor Anu seems particularly
convinced of the need for such a drastic punishment, they do not ques-
tion the basic need to requite those who express contempt for a deity.
Neither of these requests has any impact on the divine sphere and its
governance, unlike the situation in our passage, where the acquisition
of El’s permission for the palace is actually the gaining of El’s full and
final acceptance and authorization of Baal’s kingship.
There is also a significant difference in the types of threats used
by the two goddesses. Anat’s threat is directly against El, a threat to
beat him up. Ishtar’s threat, on the other hand, is not directly against
the deity that she seeks to influence (Anu or Ereshkigal). Instead, she
threatens to endanger the cosmic order, by destroying the gates that
keep the dead in the netherworld from returning to the surface of the
earth. This would set two of the three great divisions of the universe
into chaos. Such a threat clearly suggests the great power of Ishtar as
one of the leading deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon. Compared
to this, Anat’s threat pales in relative significance. Anat’s is personal
and provides no hint that she has a major role in the sustenance of
the universe.
The larger contexts of the goddess’ requests in the Aqhat and Gil-
gamesh Epic show both similarities and contrasts as well. When Ishtar
requests permission to use the Bull of Heaven in her plan, Anu points
out to her that allowing the Bull to attack Gilgamesh will result in a
seven year drought. He asks whether Ishtar has made arrangements for
stocking up food for the people of Uruk and grasses for the animals
so that they will be able to survive the disaster. She answers that she
has provided such stores. Anat’s action of killing Aqhat also results
in a drought situation, but in this case there is no hint that Anat has
made any provision for the people to survive the drought. Once again,
cat 1.3 v 345
Ishtar, while volatile and violent, is still shown to play a major role in
maintaining stability within the universe, while Anat seems to have little
responsibility in this realm. This perhaps relates to her depiction as a
young woman, as opposed to Ishtar’s depiction with greater maturity,
as the great lady. It additionally reinforces the impression that Anat, like
the god whose cause she supports, stands in a somewhat weak position
at this point in the narrative. As CAT 1.4 I–IV indicates, it will require
the help of Athirat to win El’s permission for the palace of Baal.
When the text resumes in lines 17–18, we are confronted with a
formulaic passage that appears also in two other places within the
Baal Cycle (1.4 VIII 21–24 and 1.6 II 24–25).29 The interpretation
of the passage is difficult in the two latter contexts, but is even more
ambiguous here. Its position in 1.3 V suggests that the lines are the
conclusion of El’s spoken response to hearing Anat’s angry shouts.
But exactly how the passage fits into this context is not clear. There is
even uncertainty as to whether it should be understood as a bicolon
or a tricolon. We have chosen to render it as a bicolon (see also CML2
53; Pardee 1997a:254; two similarly unequal bicola appear just above
in lines 7–9). A problem with this division of the lines is the signifi-
cant imbalance this creates between the two parts of the bicolon (the
word/syllable count being 4/11 to 6/15). Because of this, some have
divided the passage into a tricolon (Ginsberg, ANET 135 [1.4 VIII
21–24]; del Olmo Lete 1984:162–67; Smith, UNP 116). Both divisions
appear possible, and because of the uncertainty of the interpretation,
neither can be considered clearly preferable. Neither rendering solves
the additional problem that there is virtually no parallelism between
the lines. The minor advantage of rendering it as a bicolon is that this
allows the passage to be understood as two complete clauses, rather
than one long sentence.
The first line calls the sun-goddess Shapshu, nrt ilm, “the divine
light” (or “lamp”), an epithet commonly given to the goddess in the
Baal Cycle (see 1.2 III 15; 1.6 I 8–9, 11, 13, III 24; IV 8, 17) and
in the Aqhat Epic (1.19 IV 47, 49). The title in the newly published
29
Wiggins (1996:330) expresses doubt about whether these badly damaged lines are
actually parallel to the lines from 1.4 VIII 21–24 and 1.6 II 24–25. While caution is
appropriate in this situation, it seems that all the letters (including the final /t/ on line
18, questioned by Wiggins) match the parallel passages, thus making it likely that they
are parallel. At the same time, one must remember that at this point no clear interpreta-
tion of this passage within the context of our passage has been forthcoming. Thus the
possibility that we are wrongly reconstructing the lines must be kept in mind.
346 cat 1.3 v
mythological text RS 92.2016, line 38’ varies slightly: nrt ’il (EO 394).
This form of the sun-goddess’ epithet suggests that the second word
in nrt ’ilm is singular with mimation, meaning either “El” or “divine.”
In either case, it does not mean “gods.” A similar title, nyr rbt, “great
light,” appears in the funerary text, 1.161.19, and probably in 1.16
I 37. It is against the background of these titles that the biblical title
for the sun, “great light” (Gen 1:16), may be better understood. Many
of the occurrences of the title come in contexts related to sunset and
death, such as we have in this passage (cf. 1.6 I 8–10, 13–15). This calls
to mind Shapshu’s role in the netherworld, which may have involved
her providing light to that region during the night, and with bringing
spirits of the dead to the netherworld (see Lewis 1989:35–46). Thus
the reference to Shapshu here may have to do with her relationship
to the nether realm, even though the context does not provide any
further insight.
The next word, rrt, is also difficult. It derives from * r (on the
reduplication of the final radical, see UG 680). Two primary mean-
ings have been proposed for the verb. It is commonly interpreted
from Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic cognates as describing a color, either
white, yellow, yellowish-red or reddish (cf. HALOT 1019). Reduplication
of the final radical is known for MH color terms (abstracts), such as
’admûmît, labnûnît, ša ărûrît (Brenner 1982:188, 190; cf. aklîlî discussed
in Brenner 1982:130–31). The Arabic IX and XI forms also duplicate
the final radical for a number of colors (see Wright 1.43–44, paras.
58–59), including the cognate for rrt, ’i ārra (Lane 1654; DUL 783).
Reduplication of second and third radicals also takes place in a number
of West Semitic color terms: BH *’ădamdām in Lev 13:42, 49; *yĕraqraq
in Ps 68:14, Lev 13:49, 14:37; and BH šĕ ar ōret in Song of Songs 1:6
versus šĕ ôrâ in 1:5 (for details and a proposal to see “brightness” as
the distinguishing feature of these reduplicated forms, see Brenner
1982:106–10, 121, 124, 129–30, 167, 186, 190, 191). But some mod-
ern South Arabian dialects use the word in the meanings, “to brand,
cauterize” (see Rendsburg 1987:625), which suggests a possible mean-
ing here, “to burn.” Both meanings have been attributed to a word
from the same root in the difficult passage, 1.23.41, 45 (for the first
see SPUMB 114; CML2 125, the second, Pardee 1997a:254). We have
taken it to mean, “to shine red” in our translation. It possibly refers
to the weaker shining of the sun near sunset, rather than the bright,
hot sun of the midday. This view would conform to the notion of the
sun-goddess at sunset, as suggested by some of the other contexts that
cat 1.3 v 347
use the title nrt ’ilm (noted above). This image then may fit with the
image of the heavens’ weakness in the following line.
The next word, l a, is also ambiguous. Many understand it as a verb
meaning either “to be weak” (Pardee 1997a:254 n. 107), or the opposite,
“to be strong” (Sivan 1997:43). The latter meaning is well known, in
particular in Baal’s title, ’al’iyn b‘l (DUL 486), but such a rendering here
seems difficult. The context suggests the former meaning, which is also
attested in Ugaritic (1.100.68; cf. DUL 489): tl’u <m>t, “the venom is
weak” (Pardee 2002:178). In this interpretation of l’a, the final ’a-’aleph
has been understood as indicating the form as third masculine singular
*qatala (e.g., Huehnergard 1987b:292 n. 117). But if so, then the verb
does not match the succeeding šmm, which is plural. Sivan (1997:43),
Tropper (UG 482–83), and Pardee (1997a:254 n. 107) identify it is an
infinite absolute. While one might object that the form might then
appear as l u, contracted from la āyu (cf. Sivan 1997: 42–43 for examples
of the reduction of -ayu to û), Tropper (UG 482) argues that the infinitive
sometimes could also take the accusative or “Absolutivkasus” ending,
-a, thus allowing the contraction from la āya to the form seen here, la â.
Unfortunately, the occurrence of l a in this passage is the only attested
II- /III-y example of this proposed phenomenon, and the ambiguity of
the entire sentence does not allow for certainty in regard to Tropper’s
proposal. A third interpretation of the word as a verb relates it to the
Akkadian D-stem verb, lu u, “to defile, desecrate, sully, soil” (see CAD
sub lu u; DUL 486, sub la ; de Moor 1987: 16). CAD notes a passage in
Maqlu III 48, in which the verb is used with “the heavens” as in our
passage: mu-la- -i-tum ša šamê mulappittu ša er eti, “she is the one who
defiles heaven, desecrates the earth (or netherworld).” De Moor does
not press a sacral meaning for the word in his translation of our pas-
sage, rendering it as “the heavens are soiled by Motu,” and assuming
that it refers simply to the dusty atmosphere being referred to in the
bicolon.30 The word has also been taken as a noun, meaning “strength,
power” (e.g., Wyatt 1998: 85; Watson 1977a) or “orb” (Pope 1981a:168),
as a reference to the sun itself, or “expanse” (Ginsberg ANET, 137), as
a reference to the heavens. If so, the final letter suggests an accusative
case ending, indicating that this word would be a direct object. In this
case, one would have to connect it to the previous verb rrt. But as
30
De Moor 1987:16, see note 87. We thank Juliane Kutter for drawing our attention
to this possibility. She deals with it in her thesis written at Tübingen.
348 cat 1.3 v
discussed above, that verb is in all likelihood a stative verb, and thus
would not take a direct object.
The passage’s final section refers to the god of Death, Mot. This is
the first mention of the god in the Baal Cycle. As a character in the
narrative, he does not appear until 1.4 VIII. While byd, literally “in the
hand of,” seems a generic reference to Mot’s power, it bears a further
sensibility, which may be educed thanks to a Ugaritic letter, CAT 2.10
(Pardee 1987). This text appears to mention “the hand of the god(s),”
i.e., a disease, in a comparative context with mtm, “death/Mot.” Fol-
lowing the introductory identification of speaker and addressee in lines
1–3 and greetings in line 4, the body of the letter in lines 5f. takes up
the matter of the pestilence. In lines 11–13, the speaker describes the
severity of the epidemic (see Marcus 1974:406; Pardee 1987):
The comparison here suggests that the power of death, perhaps even
the god of Death, is proverbial for its strength. In this letter, the power
of death/Mot is manifest as pestilence on the terrestrial level; here
in our formula Mot’s power is expressed on the cosmic level. Despite
the sense 2.10 provides about the perception of death, the passage’s
meaning of “the hand of Death” within the storyline of 1.3 V remains
obscure. Wyatt has attempted to interpret it by appropriating the verb
that precedes the passage in the two parallel occurrences as the verb
for the first line. He proposes:
Will the Luminary of the gods, Shapsh, [carry me off, * t ],
The Burning One, Strength of the Heavens,
Into the han[ds of the divine Mo]t?
He interprets this as perhaps a mocking response from El to Anat’s
threatening arrival. While this rendering actually places it into an
appealing context, the problem lies both with the poetical arrange-
ment, which suggests that the verb Wyatt incorporates into the line
actually belongs with the preceding bicolon. Furthermore, the verb,
* t , appears never to mean, “to carry off,” as Wyatt renders it, but
rather “to crush, grind up, annihilate” (cf. DUL 413). These meanings
fit the context of the previous bicola, rather than those with which we
are dealing. In addition, Wyatt’s interpretation would not fit well with
Shapshu’s role elsewhere in the story, since in this understanding of
cat 1.3 v 349
into his room, her earlier speech to Baal in which she already assumes
a need to threaten him) emphasizes the strained relationship between
El and Anat. A similar outburst appears in Anat’s discussion with El
about Aqhat’s rejection of her in 1.18 I 7–8. The badly broken lines
there only preserve ]k ’ilm, “your_____, O El,” from the first line, and
’al.tš[m ], “do not re[ joice],” from the third. Thus it is impossible to
determine whether the lines there are exactly parallel to 1.3 V 19–21,
or whether only the call for El not to rejoice is identical with our pas-
sage, while the description of what he is not to rejoice in is different.
Whatever the case, in both scenes Anat seems to perceive a smugness
in El that she does not like.
Both speeches continue with an explicit threat against El (1.3 V
22–25//1.18 I 9–12). These latter lines appear to be completely par-
allel. The primary difference between the two passages is that in 1.3
the speech is Anat’s prelude to making her request, while in 1.18, it
concludes Anat’s request, apparently after having received no clear
answer from El following her actual request. In the latter case, the
threat leads to El giving in to her demands. The context in 1.3 seems
quite different, however.
Returning to the details 1.3 V 19–21, it is to be noted that El’s house,
given in the plural form (UBC 1.235), is not said to be a palace, which
is what Baal requests. In contrast, El’s home is a tent. This contrast
between tent-shrine and temple can be found also in the biblical texts,
where the contrast is between Yahweh’s earlier home (the tent) and
his newer home in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7:5–7; see also Ps 78:60; cf. Ps
132:6–7; CMHE 72–73; and the discussion above on p. 339). Despite
the contrast between the two sets of imagery, the verb *bny, “to build,”
presumably can apply to both. As its -t ending indicates, the word bnt
is a noun (DUL 232) and the same may be inferred for the parallel rm
in the third line of the tricolon (the verbal form being rmm; see refer-
ences below). The parallelism with bnt suggests the further connotation
with the meanings of building construction elsewhere associated with
rmm. The BH noun rāmâ is used as a term for shrine in Ezek 16:24
(BDB 928) where it is governed by the verb *bny. The use of the verb
*rwm is found in both Ugaritic and Israelite texts for construction of a
divine palace (1.4 V 52, 54, VI 17; Ezra 9:9; Ben Sira 49:12; see CS
407; Avishur 1980–81; UBC 1.235). Given the parallel usage of bny
and rmm in 1.4 V–VI, their joint appearance here in Anat’s speech
may represent the poet’s anticipation of the language of construction
for Baal’s palace.
cat 1.3 v 351
that El has not granted an actual audience to Anat that would allow her
to bring her request officially before him. This probably foreshadows
an unsuccessful outcome to her mission.
El’s response is short and hardly complementary. His exact meaning
once again, however, is ambiguous because of the uncertainty of the
meaning of the key parallel pair, * nš and *ql (the latter reconstructed
from the parallel, 1.18 I 17). The first word, anšt, can be related to two
roots, nš, one meaning “human, man, person,” and the other, “weak,
ill.” De Moor (1987:17) and Pardee (1997a:254) relate it to the first
of these, and the latter renders the line, “I know you, (my) daughter,
(I know) that [you] are a manly sort.” Others (e.g., Driver, CML 91;
Coogan 1978:95) assume that the word is related to the second verb
and translate it, “you are gentle,” assuming that El is speaking ironically
here. A third approach suggests that an extended meaning of “weak”
can be “angry, furious” (DUL 83, which also gives bibliography for
other suggestions). Such a meaning fits the context here very well, and
is possible also for the appearance of anš in 1.2 I 38, 43.
The second word, ql , is not much less problematic. Three approaches
have been taken here. The first is to relate it to Arabic qalla a (Lane
2559; so DUL 701), “to resist, oppose.” This allows one to translate,
“Among goddesses there is nothing that resists you” (e.g., see Parker’s
translation of 1.18 I 16–17, the parallel in Aqhat, in UNP 63). Pardee
(1997a:254 n. 111) relates the word to Arabic qala a, “to shrivel,” which
he takes here in an emotional sense (“there is none so emotional as
you”). While such a characteristic is an appropriate description of Anat,
this interpretation assumes no real parallelism between the two lines
of the bicolon, and thus remains uncertain. A third approach, sug-
gested tentatively here, is that the word is cognate to BH qls, “scorn,
contempt, mockery” (CML2 54; UNP 117). In terms of the two scenes
in which this speech appears (here and in Aqhat), the meanings of the
two ambiguous words that best fit the context appear to be “angry”
and “scorn.”
In the final line of El’s speech (lines 28–29) the old god simply asks
what Anat wants. It gives no hint as to his inclination to grant the
request or lack thereof. The speech of El also shows no hint that he is
intimidated by the goddess’ bluster, but rather perhaps suggests a bit
of tolerance toward the excesses of youth evident in Anat.
The rest of column V is taken up with Anat’s request on Baal’s
behalf. Her speech divides into two parts, lines 30–34, which constitute
an introduction to the matter, and lines 35–44, which quote the original
cat 1.3 v 353
lament of Baal from the end of 1.3 IV. The second part is treated in
full in the Commentary on 1.3 IV. The introduction (lines 30–34) is
closely parallel to 1.4 IV 41–46, in which Athirat speaks to El about
the same subject. A minor variation between the passages is found in
the second line of the first tricolon, in which the goddess proclaims
El’s wisdom:
As can be seen, the passage in 1.3 uses kmk, a noun with a possessive
suffix, which shows the line to be a nominal sentence (“Your wisdom
is eternal”). In contrast, in 1.4, the text reads, kmt, which is the stative
*qatala form (“You are wise for eternity”). Grammatically, the com-
parison has the value of suggesting the similarity if not the equation
of the two formations. The third line has occasioned some difficulty,
especially with the sense of the first two words. Some of the older
translations presumed an etymological connection between t and BH
, “arrow,” and suggested a relationship of the word to divination by
arrows (bellomancy) with the notion that “good fortune” lies behind
the sense of this line. They also connect yt with ym, “life.” Pope (EUT
43) translates: “Triumphant life is your word.” Cross (CMHE 16, 184)
renders t somewhat similarly: “A life of fortune thy decree.” Accord-
ingly, de Moor (1987:643) suggests: “long live the excellence of your
judgment!” (see also Wyatt 1998:87). Renfroe (1992:52–56) disputes
any relation to bellomancy and translates the expression on the basis
of Arabic a , u wat (DUL 383): “declaration of fate.” Whatever the
correct view of t, it is clear that all three lines praise El’s wisdom,
which is proverbial according to 1.16 IV 1–2 (see CML2 99; de Moor
and Spronk 1982:187; Greenstein, UNP 36):
31
Sivan (1997:98) reads ‘m ‘lm yt, “may you (m.s.) live [ ayêta/ ayîta] forever!” This
approach evidently presumes the division of the unit’s lines as t mk ’il km kmt/‘m ‘lm
yt/ zt t mk.
354 cat 1.3 v
The themes of the god’s great wisdom as well as requests for eternal
life and wisdom given by the deity are West Semitic stock elements.
Requests for long life and well-being were at home in royal prayer (see
1.108.20–27; KAI 10:8–10, 26 A III:2–7; Pss 21:5, 72:15; see Barré
1982; Greenfield 1990:164).
In the context of Anat and Athirat before El, it may seem odd to
view this tricolon of lines 30–31 as part of the plea for Baal, but other
ancient Near Eastern prayers use praise in order to motivate deities to
respond to the supplicant’s wishes (for an example in the biblical corpus,
see Psalm 74). In this regard, a prayer to Ea, Shamash and Asalluhi (a
byname of Marduk) furnishes a constructive parallel to Anat’s praise of
El in 1.3 V 30–31. Here the speaker praises the gods (Foster 2005:646,
lines 6–9, closely paralleled in Foster 2005:648):
“The destiny of life is yours to ordain,
The design of life is yours to draw up,
Your spell is life,
Your utterance well-being,
Your speech is life.”
This prayer uses praise to advance the goal of persuasion to make the
addressees more positively disposed toward the request of the prayer.
Similarly, Anat’s praise of El in this tricolon may serve to prepare him
for her plea for Baal.
The next bicolon of Anat’s speech in lines 32–33 proclaims Baal’s
kingship among the members of the pantheon. The two nouns denot-
ing his position, mlk and p , are both complex and are used in vari-
ous ways. Here both describe Baal, with the additional note, “there
is none above him.” This recognition of Baal is being addressed to
El, who is, in fact, above Baal and who himself will be called mlk by
Anat four lines later (line 36). The term p is most regularly used in
the phrase p nhr, “Judge Nahar,” the parallel term for Yamm in 1.2 I
17, 22, 26, 28, 30, 34, 41. But Yamm is not referred to as mlk, but zbl,
“prince.” It thus appears clear that these epithets are not to be con-
sidered absolute in designating hierarchical status, but rather are used
as more general indicators of authority within various social realms.
This is also suggested by the appearance of such personal names at
Ugarit as dIM-ma-lak, “Baal rules,” alongside špšmlk, ršpmlk and k rmlk
(Gröndahl 1967:157–58).
In lines 32–33, Anat does not say “my king”//“my ruler,” but “our
king”//“our ruler.” A similar characterization occurs also in a commu-
cat 1.3 v 355
nal setting in 1.15 V 21–22: wymlk y b ‘ln, “and so let Yassib reign over
us.” In Anat’s case, she is emphasizing the authority that she assumes
all the gods recognize, even (she hopes) El. This statement is the foun-
dational basis upon which she makes her request. Cross (CMHE 187
n. 176; cf. 183–84) takes the first common plural suffixes as an indica-
tion that this scene transpires in the context of the divine council held
at El’s abode. He also compares the divine discourse spoken in the first
plural (“we,” “us”) in the parallel passage (1.4 IV 41–44) as a hallmark
of divine council language, which is found also in Israelite tradition (e.g.,
Isa 6:8; Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; see also Garr 2003:7–8, 17–21). However,
the instances in Ugaritic do not actually transpire in a divine council
context as such. In addition, the evidence suggests that the mountain
of the divine assembly is a distinct location from the mountain of El’s
abode (UBC 1.230–34), and there are no clear indications of anyone
else present or involved in the scene in 1.3 V.
The expression ’in d‘lnh perhaps plays on Baal’s title, ‘ly, “Most
High,” known elsewhere in 1.16 III 6, 8 (cf. Ps 89:28). Ps 16:2 contains
a similar praise: “I said to Yahweh: ‘You are my lord, with none above
you (bal-‘ālêkā).”32
A remaining question about this bicolon involves its word-order.
Many commentators would take “Mightiest Baal” as the subject and
“our king” as predicate (CML2 60; Pardee 1997:259). In contrast, we
have rendered the passage according to the order given in the Ugaritic;
hence, “Our king is Mightiest Baal,// Our ruler, with none above him”
(UNP 117; cf. Wyatt 1998:87, reading as a tricolon with a different line
division). C. L. Miller (1999:364) notes that it is difficult to render a
judgment for such nominal sentences, but prefers the former approach
since “personal names and epithets are more likely than common
nouns to serve as subjects.” Miller raises a valuable point. But here
we would prefer to see emphasis being placed on the kingship, which
is why it is placed in initial position. However, Miller may be correct
in her assessment.
The next bicolon (lines 33–34) continues the discussion of Baal’s posi-
tion vis-à-vis the other gods. The gods continue to be referred to with
32
The parallel was noted by Dahood 1966:87. Pope took ‘ālêkā as a corruption of
Baal’s title, ‘Aliy (though without versional evidence); see RSP III 457. Sivan (1997:179)
takes w‘lm in 1.164.10 in a comparably way, as “and above all” (= w- + ‘l + adverbial
-m), but see the translation, “And on the next day,” in Pardee 2002:75 (see also in
1.43.9 in Pardee 2002:70–71).
356 cat 1.3 v
first plural suffixes, here in the repeated word, klnyy, “All of us indeed,”
i.e., kl + the first plural suffix n + a doubled emphatic particle y + y;
this is the most common interpretation (cf. Ginsberg’s translation of 1.4
IV 45–46 in ANET 133, Coogan 1978:95; Pardee 1997a:255; Wyatt
1998:87). A few translators (e.g. Gibson, CML2 54) have suggested that
klnyy should be understood as kl + the dual suffix -ny + the emphatic
particle, -y, and that Anat is referring to two specific gods, herself and
one other. However, this view creates the problem of who the second
god would be: Anat and El (cf. the discussion in Pardee 1997a:255
n. 112)? It seems hardly likely that Anat would be suggesting such a
gesture of subordination from the chief deity. Gibson (CML2 54) sug-
gested that the pair is Anat and Athtart, who he proposed might have
accompanied her. This, too, seems quite unlikely, since Athtart is not
mentioned anywhere in this tablet. Interpretation of this phrase as a
reference to the gods in general seems more plausible.
The exact meaning of the gods bringing Baal a chalice//cup is
debated. Some scholars believe that Anat is describing herself and
the other deities as cup-bearers for Baal (cf. the discussion in Pardee
1997a:255 n. 112). Such a position is a traditional one in the royal
court (1 Kgs 10:5 = 2 Chron 9:4; cf. Genesis 40; Neh 1:11) and would
denote subordination of the deities to Baal. While this is a possible
interpretation, it seems unusual to suggest that all deities should in
some way be placed in that kind of office. More likely the point of
these lines is to evoke the notion of the gods bringing tribute to their
sovereign. Cassuto (1942:54) suggested a different nuance by looking
at the usage of the term “cup” in several biblical contexts (Pss 11:6,
16:5). He then proposed the following interpretation: “We have come
to receive the cup of Baal the portion it may please thee to give him.
In other words, we have come to hear from thee the fate that thou wilt
decree upon him.” Cassuto’s interpretation associates Baal’s cup with
the idea of fate or destiny. Despite the thematic connection between
Ps 16:2 and line 33 (noted above), unlike Ps 16:5, Anat’s speech in
lines 33–34 focuses not on a decree of fate or destiny, but proclaims
Baal’s kingship, which the notion of tribute suits. This tribute consti-
tutes symbolic recognition, the body language matching Anat’s verbal
proclamation of Baal’s kingship.
With this introduction, Anat then proceeds in lines 35–44 to present
El with Baal’s lament that he has no palace. This section follows the
wording of what is preserved in 1.3 IV 48–53 and 1.4 IV 47–57 (with
the exception of the line m b klt knyt, which in the latter is transposed
cat 1.3 v 357
to the point before the line m b pdry bt ar). The lament brings us to the
climax of the scene, i.e., El’s response to Anat’s speech. Unfortunately,
the column breaks off immediately after the conclusion of her speech,
leaving us with no information about El’s reaction. The lacuna at this
point probably contained ca. 22 lines in the rest of column V and the
first thirteen lines of column VI. When column VI becomes legible, it
is clear that a new scene is in progress. There has been considerable
disagreement as to whether El agrees to or refuses Anat’s request for
the palace. Many scholars understand Anat’s intercession to be suc-
cessful, sometimes on the assumption that 1.3 and 1.4 are parallel but
independent versions of the narrative (Clifford 1984:189; MLD 9–11;
see the discussion in UBC I:7–11). Others have assumed that because
the parallel scene in 1.18 shows Anat as successful in her pleading, she
must be successful here also. Pardee follows the latter interpretation,
supposing that after Anat wins the permission from El in 1.3 V, El and
Athirat must be further placated in order to win their “final” permission.
This idea of a two-staged permission explains Anat’s putative success
on the one hand, and the need for the very same effort by Athirat, on
the other. Before his discovery that CAT 1.8 belongs to the beginning
of 1.3 VI, Pardee (1997a:255 n. 116 and 256 n. 121) found evidence
for the success of Anat’s mission in Baal’s supposed usage of Athirat’s
own messenger, Qudsh-Amrur, in column VI 9–11. Now that 1.8 shows
that Baal is addressing his own messengers Gapn and Ugar and not
Qudsh-Amrur in this scene, this argument no longer holds.
None of these arguments is compelling. The issue of the relationship
between 1.3 and 1.4 has been discussed in UBC 1.7–11 (cf. pp. 9–10
above). The idea that Anat is successful at gaining El’s permission,
but that then Baal and Anat must go through an elaborate process
of persuading Athirat to get El’s permission a second time, or that
El requires additional inducements (“baksheesh,” as Pardee puts it in
1997a:256 n. 121) also seems very unlikely. Nor can Anat’s success in
the Aqhat Epic be used to assume a similar outcome here. This ignores
the several differences in the contexts of the stories and in the details
of the scenes, as described above.
Other aspects of the scene in column V suggest that Anat’s mission
was a failure. Most significantly, as mentioned above, Anat is never
given an actual audience with El. She is left in the outer room while
El remains in the innermost chamber. In the similar account in the
Aqhat Epic (1.17 VI 50–51), Anat arrives at El’s abode and immediately
comes into his presence, where she bows down before him and honors
358 cat 1.3 v
Bibliography
Text Editions 1.3 VI: Virolleaud 1938:85–90 pls. VIII, XII; CTA 20, fig. 13, pls. V,
VI; KTU 15; CAT 15.
Text Editions 1.8: Virolleaud 1932:158–59; CTA 46–47, fig. 30, pl. I; KTU 30–31;
CAT 30.
Other numbers 1.8: RS 3.364 = CTA 8 = 51fg (Gordon UT ) = KTU 1.8.
Museum numbers 1.8: RS 3.364 = M3353 (Aleppo Museum) = A2738 (Old Aleppo
Number) = AO 16.645 (old Louvre Number).
Dimensions 1.8: 64 × 42 × 10mm
Find Spot 1.8: This fragment was found in the third campaign (1931) at “point
topographique” 339, the same spot where the main fragment of 1.3 (RS 3.363) was
discovered (see Bordreuil and Pardee 1989:32, and the plan on p. 25, fig. 7).
Studies and Translations of 1.3 VI: Aistleitner 31–32; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.177–
81; Cassuto, GA 104–05, 151–55; Coogan 1978:96; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1150;
Driver, CML1 90–91; Gaster, Thespis 242; Gibson, CML2 54–55; Ginsberg, ANET 138;
Gordon, UL 23–24, 1977:84; Jirku 36–37; Maier 1986:3–5; de Moor 1987:19–20;
del Olmo Lete, MLC 192; MLR 76–77; Pardee 1997a:255; i.p.; Smith 1985:279,
101–02, 225–31, 282–84, UNP 118–19; Wyatt 1998:88–90; Xella 1982:107.
Studies and Translations of 1.8: Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.219, nn. w and x; Dijkstra
1983; Driver, CML1 118–120; Fensham 1966:162–64; Gibson, CML2 132; Ginsberg
1944:27–28, n. 13; ANET 131; Gordon UL 38; 1977:102; del Olmo Lete MLC 501;
Wiggins 1993:79; Wyatt 1998:152.
1 [ ]xk.mgn.rbt. a rt
[ ]∫m.m¿ .qnyt. ilm
[ ]xtnbt.lb l.km
[ ]lm.w r.kbn
5 [ ] rt.gm.l¿lmh
3b‘l.y .‘n.gpn
;’ugr.bn.¿lmt
‘mmym.bn. lm[ ]
rmt.pr‘t.’ibfi[ ]
10 rrm. bl[ ]
‘rpt.t t.x [ ]
12 + VI 1 m‘ rm. [ ]∂b
13 gl .’isfi[ ]μr išk
14 m.brq [ ]3bn nkm
360 cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8
15 ymtm [ ]μ . alp
16 + VI 5 šx [ ]ym.rbt
17 x [ ]xbnhrm
1.3 VI 7 [ ]∂brgbl.‘br
q‘l.‘br.’iht
npšmm.šmšr
10 ldgy.’a rt
m¿.lqdš.’amrr
’idk.’al.ttn
pnm.tk. qkpt
’il.klh.kptr
15 ks’u. bth. kpt
’ar .n lth
b’alp.šd.rbt
kμ mn.lp‘n.k
3hbr.wql.tšt
20 wy.wkbdhwt
wrgm.lk r
w ss. ny.lh
yn.d rš.ydm
t m. å∑l[ ]
25 ∂h[
Textual Notes
CAT 1.8
Line 1. ]x The upper right corner of a vertical wedge is visible, as
is the right tip of a low horizontal below it. The possibilities for the
letter are /b/, /d/ or / u/.
mgn The /n/ has four wedges.
Line 2. ]∫m The right side of a badly corroded large vertical wedge is
visible at the break. It is compatible with /m/, as expected by context.
qnyt The /n/ has four wedges.
Line 6. 3b l While the break on the left side of the /b/ might allow for
reading it possibly as a /d/, the context assures the reading of /b/.
y The / / is written over the traces of a vertical wedge, whose
head is visible above the right wedge of the letter, and a thin horizontal,
traces of which are visible across the middle of the two wedges. An
explanation of these wedges is not immediately apparent.
Line 8. mmym The four letters / mmy/ are unusually widely dis-
persed on the tablet. In spite of the gap between the second /m/
and the /y/, there are no traces of a word divider between them, as
proposed by Pardee, i.p.
Line 11. .x[ To the right of the word divider are two small vertical
wedges, the left one well preserved, the right one more damaged. The
size and shape of the left one suggests that the letter is either /b/, /d/
or / u/, although /s/ is also possible.
Line 1.8.15 + 1.3 VI 4. ymt∫m CAT reads n for the last letter on the
right edge of 1.8, but the preserved upper line of the horizontal wedge
shows no hint of multiple wedges. To the right of the horizontal are
vague traces of the head of the vertical wedge.
]μ . ’alp A small part of the left side of the word divider still
remains.
Line 1.8.16 + 1.3 VI 5. šx[ The uncertain letter after the /š/ must be
either /h/ or / i/. It is damaged in the area where the small vertical
of the / i/ would be. Although certainty cannot be reached, Pardee’s
proposal (i.p.) to read š i[r] seems quite plausible.
]ym We do not see any traces of a /b/ before /ym/, as in CAT.
All the indentations to the left of the /y/appear to be breakage.
Line 11. m¿.lqdš The probable word divider after /m¿/ is small and
nearly invisible. The /l/ has four wedges.
Line 13. qkpt Based on the spelling of the word in the following
bicolon, CTA and KTU emend to kpt. Variant spellings of foreign
proper names are not without parallel, however.
Line 18. μkmn The /k/ is damaged in the lower left part, but context
assures the reading. The /n/ has four wedges
Line 19. 3hbr The /h/ is broken, but evidence of all three wedges is
discernable. The interior of the /b/ is also destroyed, but the upper
lines of the two verticals assure the reading.
Line 23. yn.d rš The /n/ has four wedges. There is also an extra
wedge to the lower left of the /š/, which almost looks placed intention-
ally for decorative effect.
Line 24. t m. ål[∑ The letter following the word divider is very dam-
aged, but there appear to be traces of the top lines of two horizontals,
strongly suggesting that the letter / a/. All three tops of the probable /l/
are preserved, although epigraphically this could also be a /d/ or / u/.
Line 25. ∫h[ The upper line of a long, thin horizontal is preserved.
Context argues for /h/, but it could also be /p/.
CAT 1.8
6–9 ‘n.gpn/;’ugr.
bn.¿lmt/‘mm ym.
bn. lm[t]/rmt.pr‘t.
9–10 ’ibfi [gnt]/ rrm
10 bl[ ]
11 ‘rpt.t t.x [ ]
12 + VI 1 m‘ rm. [ ]∂b
13–14 + VI 2–3 gl .’isμr[ ]μr išk/m.
brq[m] 3bn nkm
15–17 + VI 4–6 y mtm
[ ∫]. alp/š i[r b]ym.
rbt x [ ]x bnhrm
1.3 VI 7–9 [‘]br gbl.‘br/q‘l.
‘br.’iht/npšmm.
9–11 šmšr/ldgy.’a rt/
m¿.lqdš.’amrr
12–14 ’idk.’al.ttn/pnm.
tk. qkpt/’il.klh.
14–16 kptr/ks’u. bth.
kpt/’ar .n lth
17–20 b’alp.šd.rbt/kmn.
lp‘n.k <r>/hbr.wql.
tšt /wy.wkbdhwt
21–23 wrgm.lk r/w ss.
ny.lh/yn.d rš.ydm
24–25 t m. al[’iyn.b‘l]/
h[wt.’al’iy.qrdm]
CAT 1.8
1
Literally, “of,” here and in the syntactically parallel following line.
cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8 365
2
The plural is formed with infix -h- pluralizing element, found in words with largely
bi-consonantal or weak root bases (for other examples, see EUT 19–20; UBC 1.235 n.
29). For cognates, see DUL 32.
366 cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8
3
Usually the compound names such as this one occur with w- before their second
element. See 1.4 IV 13; 1.123.26 (in 1.4 IV 16–17, the two elements of the name
appear in parallelism). The lack of w- before the second element of such DNs is,
however, attested elsewhere and thus may not be a simple scribal error (e. g., k r ss
for k r w- ss in 1.123.28). For further discussion, see Smith 2001a:70–72.
4
For post-positional kl + suffix, see UBC 1.166 n. 90 (cf. TO 1.178 n. g; CS 36;
Parker, UNP 58–59, to 1.17 V 21, 31). For another Ugaritic example, see ’a r l klhm
in 1.14 II 42, translated by Greenstein, UNP 15: “After three, all of them.”
5
For the syllabic evidence for the third masc. sg. independent pronoun, see Hueh-
nergard 1987b:120.
6
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:126. The base is the so-called
nomen professionalis, *qattāl (see Sanmartín 1995:177–79, especially for a survey of prose
texts containing this word). For an extensive discussion of the expression, see Dietrich
and Loretz 1999.
cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8 367
Commentary
For 1.8.1–2, see the discussion of 1.4 I 21–22 on p. 400; for lines 3–5a,
see 1.4 IV 62–V 1 on p. 501. Lines 5–12 remain too ambiguous in
meaning for us to attempt a poetic analysis.
The vocative noun here is set off as a matter of anacrusis, which is not
exceptional (see p. xxxiv n. 3). The syntactical parallelism of these two
lines, though not fully understood, is apparent. The semantic parallelism
of these numerals is common in Ugaritic as is for the bodies of waters.
The notable sonant parallelism here involves bilabials, b, p and m.
The syntax and semantics of the two lines are quite close. Only in the
last word in each line, ’a irat and ’amrari, is there any sonant parallelism,
beyond what is generated by morphology.
The travel itinerary here follows a fixed formula (see below; UBC
1.165–66, 220, 224), despite the lack of parallelism.
The basic idea and syntax of these lines are formulaic (see also 1.4 VIII
12–14). Moreover, kpt and kptr, the names of Kothar’s abode (UBC
1.165–66), constitute a fine sonant pair, with both GNs containing the
sequence -kpt- (Smith 1985:103).
17–20 bi-’alpi šiddi ribbati kumāni a b a’ b’ 4/11
lê-pa‘nê kô a<ri> huburā wa-qîlā c d e’ 4/12
tišta wiyā wa-kabbidā huwati e” e” f 3/11
For the epistolary formulas reflected in these bicola, see the Commen-
tary below. The parallelism in this instance stacks the epithets in the
second line, making it longer than the first line (a relatively less com-
mon feature of bicola). The epithets asīsi and arrāši may be viewed
as a minor sonant pair, with each one containing guttural and sonant
plus the same initial and final vowel; however, the differences between
the two words are evident as well.
The nominal syntax of the two lines (reconstructed after 1.3 III 13–14;
IV 7–8) perhaps allows the stereotypical epistolary introduction to
stand out in this narrative poetic context (Watson 1994b:283; see fur-
ther discussion above on pp. 225–26). The initial words of the god’s
titles are basically the same word (discussed in UBC 1.153 n. 65), with
the former differing in possessing a final *-ānu sufformative (for other
Ugaritic examples, see UG 271–73).
Introduction
The final column of 1.3 marks a new departure for the narrative.
Since Anat’s entreaty of El has failed, Baal pursues another avenue.
He sends his messengers, Gapn and Ugar, to Kothar-wa-Hasis to
secure the latter’s aid, specifically to make gifts (1.4 I) designed in turn
to enlist Athirat’s support (1.4 III) and thus her assistance in gaining
El’s permission for Baal’s palace (1.4 IV–V). Dennis Pardee’s recent
discovery (i.p.) that CAT 1.8 comprises the beginning of column VI
(see Introduction, p. 4) has significantly improved our understanding
of the beginning of this part of the story, providing eleven lines that
were completely missing on 1.3 and filling in portions of five additional
lines partially preserved on the main tablet (VI 1–5). In terms of the
narrative itself, the most important improvement here is that we now
know that the messengers Baal is addressing in this column are Gapn
and Ugar, his regular pair. Until now, the broken text had suggested
that Baal was addressing Athirat’s servant, Qudš Amrar, an unusual
situation (1.3 VI 9–11; for Qdš w’Amrr as a single figure, see Ginsberg
1944:25). This misunderstanding is now resolved,7 and it is clear that
7
Lipiński 1973:35–37 had already argued that Baal was speaking to an unnamed
370 cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8
Gapn and Ugar are told to stop by Qudš Amrar’s abode on their way
to deliver their message to Kothar (the purpose of this element of the
trip remains unclear).
messenger who was to rendezvous with Athirat’s servant on the way. Cf. Patrick Miller’s
discussion (DW 16) of other instances in which a servant is commanded by a deity
other than his master.
cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8 371
To see how the latter interpret the passage, we must turn to the second
phrase of the first colon (8a), mmym. A few scholars have taken this as
a further epithet: “Amami’s twain” (ANET 135); “Errand lads” (Gordon
1977:101). Gray (LC 2 54) took it to mean “large-limbed.” But several
scholars see mm as a verb, related to Arabic ¿amma, “to cover, veil,”
and BH mm, which occurs in the Hophal in Lam 4:1 meaning, “to be
darkened.” They usually read ym then as “day(-light)” (cf. Dietrich and
Loretz 1997:1170; CML1 101; Thespis 199; CML2 66; de Moor 1987:65;
Wyatt 1998:111; Loretz 2000:277). Pardee (1997a:263) and Olmo Lete
(MLC 210; MLR 90) take ym to mean “sea.” Good (1983:22) suggested a
different etymology, proposing a relationship between mm and BH ām,
“people,” based on the possible parallel between the forms mm//pr t
here and pĕrā ôt// ām in Jud 5:2.
The fourth phrase in the bicolon, rmt pr t is also open to various inter-
pretations. The first word, rmt, is generally identified as belonging to the
root *rwm, “to be high,” and normally translated as a feminine adjective,
“high, exalted, lofty.” The second word, pr t, is more problematic. There
appear to be two Semitic roots, *pr , the first one meaning, “to be high,
best, first,” and the second meaning, “to have long hair.” The first is
more likely the root involved here, but there is ambiguity about how
it is to be understood in the passage. Most translators understand it as
a feminine noun, literally, “the high one, princess, ruler” (e.g., Aistleit-
ner 46; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1170; CML2 66; de Moor 1987:65;
Wyatt 1998:112). The identity of the princess remains unclear, and the
proposals made depend on how the rest of the bicolon is translated.
Some see the “exalted princess” as the mother of Gapn and Ugar (e.g.,
Aistleitner 46), while those who understand these lines as referring to the
darkening of the world, see this epithet as a reference to the sun-god-
dess Shapshu, who is being darkened (Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1170;
CML2 66; de Moor 1987:65; Wyatt 1998:112). Others have rendered
pr t as an adjective, “lofty” (LC 2 54) or “distinguished” (Gordon 1977:
101). Pardee (1997a:263) takes the meaning “lofty” and substantivizes
it as, “the [highest] peaks,” making this phrase a contrastive parallel
to his rendering of mmym, “The sea is enveloped.”
With the new placement of 1.8 into 1.3 VI, it seems less likely that
these lines are referring to the darkening of the sea/day/princess/peaks.
We are skeptical of reading bn as a preposition + n-enclitic, since the
form is not attested with any assurance elsewhere in Ugaritic (cf. UG
781). The twin contexts appear to suggest rather that this bicolon
constitutes epithets of Gapn and Ugar, and that ¿lmt is probably “the
374 cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8
The title, dgy, is not the common *qattāl form or so-called nomen profes-
sionalis (cf. *dawwāg, “fisher” in Jer 16:16 and Ezek 47:10, and *dayyāg in
Isa 19:8, noted by Pope, personal communication), but another nominal
base with the adjectival suffix -ay/-ayyu (Cross, CMHE 56, esp. n. 45;
cf. Maier 1986:5). The double-name, qdš amrr, which elsewhere is writ-
ten with w- between the elements, has been interpreted as “Holy and
Most Blessed.” This interpretation of the second element understands
the form as an elative type ’aleph-preformative of the root *mrr, “to
bless, strengthen” (Thespis 181; BOS 2.183; Cross cited in Maier 1986:5;
DUL 577–78; see also TO 1.178 n. f ). The exact meaning of *mrr is
not certain, but it appears in 1.15 II 14–15, 1.17 I 23–24, 34–35 and
1.19 IV 32–33 in conjunction with the parallel verb, *brk, the common
word for “to bless” (DUL 577–78).
De Moor (SPUMB 52, 144) and Perlman (1978:81, 187) suggested
that amrr could be an Ugaritic spelling for the DN Amurru. Amurru
was a storm-god (Kupper 1961:245–7; WdM 97–98; CMHE 58; DDD
32–33), with titles such as ramān, “thunderer” (for the title see Greenfield
1976) and bāriqu, “thunderbolter,” as well as dAdad ša a-bu-be, “Adad
of the deluge” (CAD A/1:80).8 An identification of the two cannot
be ruled out. In Mesopotamian texts, Amurru was closely linked to
the goddess Ashratu, i.e., Athirat. In the great god list, AN = Anum,
Ashratu is listed as the spouse of Amurru, and in the Sumerian myth,
“The Marriage of Martu,” Amurru’s wife’s name is dAdgarudu, who
seems to be equated with Ashratu in AN = Anum (on the Mesopotamian
references to the goddess, see Wiggins 1993: 132–50 see also Kupper
1961:61; van der Toorn, DDD 32–34; Klein 1997). Ashratu is also
called “the daughter-in-law of Anu” in an inscription of Hammurapi.
It is evident that her role in Ugaritic mythology is quite different from
that in Mesopotamia. At Ugarit she has become the wife of the head
of the pantheon and is the mother of the gods par excellence. Her
shift to El would exclude a spousal relationship to Amurru. De Moor
and Perlman suggest that Qudš-wa-Amrar might be a reflection of the
eastern mythological tradition that related the two deities, with Amurru
demoted now in the Ugaritic context to a mere servant’s position.
8
Cross’ identification of Amurru with El (CMHE 57), based on the Sargonic DN,
Amurru-kima-Il, “Amurru-Is-Like-Il,” cited in J. J. M. Roberts 1972:15, and on the
similarity between the names El Shadday and Amurru’s epithet, bel šadê, “lord of the
mountain,” seems problematic and unlikely. Amurru appears more closely related to
Adad/Baal than to El in all his characteristics (cf. DDD 33–34).
378 cat 1.3 vi + cat 1.8
stock item; the craftsman god is called b‘l kpt, “lord of Memphis,” in
1.17 V 20–21, 30–31. As noted above, the names qkpt and kpt may
be variant spellings for Memphis, as such variants are not unparalleled
for foreign GNs (see UBC 1.166–67; Watson 1996a:74; see also Smith
1985:102–3), while kptr is evidently Kaphtor, probably Crete but argu-
ably Cyprus or some place on or part of the island (for references, see
UBC 1.167 n. 92). It has been thought, perhaps based on analogies
with Hephaistos’ underground workshop, that Kothar’s home and
more specifically his workshop is to be understood as located in the
underworld (e. g., Pardee 2002:205; see the following column 1.4 I for
Kothar at work in his workshop).
Lines 14–16 present a formulaic insertion within the travel itiner-
ary (Watson 1994b:320), noting Kothar’s ownership of these homes,
couched first in royal language of enthronement (ks’u bth) and then in
terms of familial patrimony (’ar n lth). The language seems stereotypical,
occurring also in the description of Mot’s domain in 1.4 VIII 12–14.
Lines 17–20 command obeisance before Kothar at a great distance,
as a further sign of deference. The distances mentioned in line 17 are
enormous in size, also used for the length covered by divine travel. The
language for obeisance is common (see 1.1 III 1*–6; UBC 1.167–69);
it is aimed, as the final verb suggests, at honoring the great deity. The
commands to speak to Kothar begin with lines 21–25, using terms
stereotypical for such messages (UBC 1.169–70). The only variants are
the names of the addresser and addressee. In this case, these are Baal
and Kothar, and well-known titles of theirs are included.9
With line 25 the text breaks off. Presuming that 1.4 I 4–23 involves
the delivery of the message commanded at the end of 1.3 VI 25f., the
ca. twenty-two line lacuna at the end of 1.3 VI may be plausibly recon-
structed in part as containing the message repeated in 1.4 I 3–23. The
missing lines present the rest of Baal’s message to Kothar—presumably
including Baal’s complaint that he has no palace and his request that
Kothar produce gifts for Athirat—and the beginning of the messengers’
speech to Kothar, which is the scene that we find in progress in the
first column of the next tablet, 1.4.
9
For Baal’s titles here see UBC 1.153. For those of Kothar, see UBC 1.170–72. Note
also d
asisu in Shurpu, tablet VIII 38 (Reiner 1958:41).
KTU/CAT 1.4
Find Spots: The tablet was found in the House of the High Priest on
the acropolis of Ugarit, to the southeast of the Temple of Baal. It was
recovered in six fragments. Two (combined in Bordreuil and Pardee
1989:26 under the number RS 2.[008], since none of the original
inventory numbers from the second season survive) were found in the
second season of excavations (1930), while the other four were recov-
ered during the third season in 1931 (Virolleaud 1932:113). It has
been difficult to identify definitively the original RS numbers of most
of the 1931 fragments of 1.4 because, while the inventory list for the
season is preserved, no comprehensive account that attributed the RS
numbers to specific texts has survived from the original mission team.
Two recent attempts to do exactly this (Bordreuil and Pardee 1989;
Cunchillos 1989) have each produced dramatically different results,
thus indicating the difficulties involved.
A look at both studies with regard to 1.4 will illustrate the issues.
Bordreuil and Pardee 1989:29, 31 reconstruct the fragments in the fol-
lowing way (see Images 28 and 29). They identify the two fragments
found in 1930 as those that constitute the central part of the tablet, the
first being the one that preserves the upper surviving parts of columns
I and II on the obverse and the lower parts of columns VI, VII and
VIII on the reverse, while the second is the fragment that contains the
majority of columns III and IV on the obverse and the central parts
of columns V and VI on the reverse. Of the four third-season frag-
ments, only two could be connected by the authors to RS numbers
from the inventory list. They propose that RS 3.341 preserves the lower
382 cat 1.4
right corner of the obverse (the end of column IV, along with a few
letters from the right side of column III) and the corresponding upper
corner of the reverse (the beginning of column V and some letters of
column VI), while they identify the large fragment that comprises the
lower left corner of the obverse, with portions of columns I and II,
and the upper left of the reverse, with parts of columns VI, VII and
VIII, as RS 3.347. They do not provide the other two fragments with
RS numbers.
The second reconstruction was published independently of Bor-
dreuil and Pardee’s work by Cunchillos, also in 1989 (see Images 30
and 31). He was less certain about the identity of the left fragment
from the 1930 season. He noted that Virolleaud (1931:21) in describ-
ing what had been found of tablet 1.4 in 1930 states: “la plus grande,
qui measurait 23 centimètres de large, comprenait huit colonnes, ce
qui représente un total de 600 lignes, mais le tiers seulement en a été
conservé.” Cunchillos found Virolleaud’s reference to a specific width
of the tablet to be significant. The only two fragments that fit together
and span the entire width are the central right-hand fragment that
Bordreuil and Pardee also identified as one of the 1930 pieces, and
the fragment that the latter identify as one that was found in 1931,
namely RS 3.347. Thus Cunchillos proposed that these two are the
probable 1930 fragments. However, he left open the possibility that the
upper fragment of columns I and II (i.e., the one Bordreuil and Pardee
identify as the left 1930 fragment) was the second fragment.
Cunchillos’ analysis of the 1931 fragments also differed from that
of Bordreuil and Pardee. Most importantly, Cunchillos identified the
RS number 3.347 not as a piece of 1.4, but rather as the main frag-
ment of 1.2 (columns I, II and IV). He did this primarily because the
dimensions recorded in the original inventory list for RS 3.347 (120
mm height by 100 mm wide; see Cunchillos 1989:61) almost exactly
match the dimensions of 1.2 I, II, IV. The dimensions of the fragment
of 1.4 that Bordreuil and Pardee identify as 3.347 are quite different:
140 mm height by 100 mm wide on the obverse and 132 mm height
by 125 mm wide on the reverse.1 In addition, Cunchillos identified the
1
The identification of RS 3.347 with 1.2 I, II, IV is significant for the discussion
of the relationship between 1.2 III and 1.2 I, II, IV. RS 3.347 was found in the same
location as RS 3.346, which is 1.2 III. One argument against identifying 1.2 III as part
of the same tablet as 1.2 I, II, IV has been that the latter fragment (identified with RS
3.367 in Bordreuil and Pardee 1989: 32) was found at a substantial distance from 1.2
cat 1.4 383
small fragment that contains the end of column IV and the beginning
of column V (which Bordreuil and Pardee label RS 3.341) as RS
3.323, citing the measurements of the latter (77 × 50) as a very close
match to this fragment, which he measured as 78 × 52, and which we
measure at 76 × 50. He then identifies the fragment that preserves the
end of column V as RS 3.341 (Bordreuil and Pardee do not identify
this fragment of 1.4). Here too he notes the closeness of the inventory’s
measurements (70 × 63) to the size of this fragment (he measures 68 ×
61, we measure 68 × 60). He does not propose identifications for the
large fragment that Bordreuil and Pardee had identified as 3.347 or for
the fragment preserving the beginnings of columns VI and VII.
Our analysis of the fragments differs from both of these studies (see
Images 32 and 33). With regard to the 1930 fragments, we believe
that Bordreuil and Pardee are correct in their identifications. The pri-
mary evidence comes from Virolleaud’s brief description of the 1930
fragments of 1.4 quoted above. It should be noted that Virolleaud’s
measurement of the tablet’s width, 23 cm, is too large. The widest
point across the two fragments Cunchillos proposes for 1930 is only
21.4 cm. This suggests either that Virolleaud badly mismeasured the
tablet, or that he was estimating the width from two fragments that
did not actually span the entire length of the tablet. The left fragment
proposed by Bordreuil and Pardee as the one found in 1930 provides
evidence of columns I, II and III on the obverse, and VI, VII and VIII
on the reverse, but columns I and VIII are incomplete on the left. These
two columns are considerably thinner than the other columns on the
tablet, so, if this were the fragment Virolleaud had available for the
left side of the tablet, it would not be surprising that he estimated their
widths to be ca. one to one and a half cm larger than they proved to
be. This would also explain why his estimate of the number of lines
on the complete tablet was also too high (600 instead of the probable
540–550)—he has reconstructed the supposed height of the tablet as
a ratio to its width, but he has calculated it on a presumed width that
is too large. His note that the two fragments preserve about a third of
III (point topographique 209 instead of p.t. 338, 343, 341 for 1.2 III). If Cunchillos
is correct, then 1.2 I, II, IV was actually found in the same context as 1.2 III. RS
3.367 is given little information in the inventory list. Its description reads, “fragment de
tablette très empatée de calcaire.” No measurements were given. Bordreuil and Pardee
indicate that the identification of 3.367 with 1.2 comes from a card in Schaeffer’s files
that equates the two.
384 cat 1.4
the tablet also fits the situation of Bordreuil and Pardee’s reconstruc-
tion better than that of Cunchillos. The latter’s two fragments hold at
least parts of over 280 lines, close to half of the tablet in Virolleaud’s
calculations. The two fragments suggested by Bordreuil and Pardee
preserve parts of ca. 230 lines, much closer to the number Virolleaud
assumes (of course, there is no way of determining exactly what Virol-
leaud counted as a preserved line).
With regard to the 1931 fragments, it seems that Cunchillos’ argu-
ments for identifying RS 3.323 and 3.341 are strong and most con-
vincing. The inventory measurements of 3.341 (70 × 63) seem quite
problematic for accepting Bordreuil and Pardee’s identification (their
fragment measures 76 × 50), but fit the fragment Cunchillos proposes
almost exactly. In addition, Bordreuil and Pardee do not provide a
likely alternative identification for 3.323, which Cunchillos identifies
from the dimensions of the fragment as the end of col. IV/beginning
of col. V.
The issue of the fragment identified by Bordreuil and Pardee as
RS 3.347 remains uncertain. There is no doubt that the inventory
measurements for 3.347 do not match the measurements of the frag-
ment of 1.4, while they do match those of 1.2 I, II, IV. At the same
time, Bordreuil and Pardee have noted (1989:32) that a card in Claude
Schaeffer’s files identified 1.2 I, II, IV with RS 3.367. However, even if
3.347 is not 1.2 I, II, IV,2 the dimensions of 3.347 still do not match
the dimensions of the fragment of 1.4. We would point to RS 3.321,
a substantial fragment which neither Bordreuil and Pardee (1989:30)
nor Cunchillos (1989:85) identified with any tablet, as a more likely
candidate for this fragment. The inventory list gives its measurements
as 129 × 124 mm; these are virtually identical to our measurements
of the reverse of this fragment, 132 × 125 mm.
We thus propose the following tentative reconstruction of the frag-
ments belonging to 1.4. The two fragments found in 1930 were: (1)
the fragment that preserves the upper surviving parts of columns I
and II on the obverse and the lower parts of columns VI, VII and
VIII on the reverse, and (2) the fragment that contains the majority of
2
We are inclined to agree with Cunchillos’ identification here, since the dimensions
of the inventory list match those of 1.2 so closely. We would note the near identity of
the numbers of the two fragments involved here, 3.347 and 3.367, and might suggest
that the Schaeffer note is a scribal error.
cat 1.4 385
columns III and IV on the obverse and the central parts of columns
V and VI on the reverse. Three of the four fragments found in 1931
can be identified tentatively as follows: (1) RS 3.321, the large fragment
that preserves the lower part of columns I and II on the obverse and
the upper parts of columns VI, VII and VIII on the reverse; (2) RS
3.323, the small fragment that preserves the end of column IV and a
few letters of column III on the obverse, the beginning of column V
and parts of column VI on the reverse; (3) RS 3.341 that contains the
end of column V. The fragment that preserves part of the upper lines
of columns VI and VII has not been identified with an RS number.
The exact find spots for the second-season fragments cannot be ascer-
tained. Because the inventory lists for that season are lost, Bordreuil
and Pardee were only able to narrow the find locations for the tablets
to the topographical points numbered 210–264 on the excavators’ plans.
Since these topographical points are spread all across the house, no
determination for specific tablets can be reached. A map published in
Schaeffer 1935 (pl. XXXVI) places the tablet discoveries of the 1930
season primarily in the room to the northwest of the southern entry
room, where most of the third-season tablets were found. The three
third-season fragments that we have identified above (RS 3.321, 3.323,
and 3.341), were found near the southern doorway of the house (the
first two at point topographique 343, the third more generally in the vicinity
of points topographiques 338, 343, and 341). If the RS 2.[008] fragments
were found in the room northwest of the southern entry room, the sets
of fragments were separated from each other by a distance of between
4.5 and 7 meters.
Other tablets found in the area where the third season fragments
were discovered (the southern entry room, the southern doorway and
the street outside the door) included 1.1; 1.2 III (and as discussed above,
probably 1.2 I, II, IV); the main fragment of 1.3; important fragments
of 1.14; 1.15; parts of 1.16; 1.18; 1.19; and 1.20 (see Bordreuil and
Pardee 1989:30–32; Cunchillos 1989:59–86).
As mentioned above (p. 88), the tablets appear to have been located
on the second floor when the house was destroyed. They were found,
not on the surface of the floor, but in the rubble of the collapse from
above. The apparent dispersion of the fragments of 1.4 (and also 1.3,
1.6 and probably 1.16) across the house suggests that the tablets had
already been thrown off their shelves during pillaging that occurred
before the house was destroyed.
386 cat 1.4
BACK (reverse)
Column VIIII VII VI V
TOP – – – –
BOTTOM 20–21 7–8 2–5 0–3
CAT 1.4 provides some interesting insight into the scribe’s technique
for preparing the tablet (a more detailed analysis of this issue is found
in Pitard i.p.). The obverse of the tablet shows a number of unique
elements that suggest a significant uncertainty on the part of Ilimalku
as to how he would format his text. Unlike all the other tablets attribut-
able to Ilimalku, which use double vertical lines to mark the margins
between the columns of text, 1.4 obverse divides the four columns with
varying numbers of vertical margin lines. Between columns I and II
we find the regular double lines, but between columns II and III there
are three verticals, two of which are deeply incised, while the third
one, to the right, is more lightly cut, but actually functions as the left
margin for column III. The margin lines between columns III and IV
are more surprising. Here we find four incised verticals. The reverse
of 1.4 is completely normal, with standard double-line margins. What
can be deduced from the peculiar situation on the obverse?
A series of scribal irregularities in column I may give us some
hints. From the point where column I begins on the tablet down to
line 22, there are traces of a vertical line ca. 4 mm to the left of the
official margin lines. The line appears to have been partially smudged
out, but one may notice that it appears to have acted as the margin
line for the text up to our current line 15. Suddenly the right margin
cat 1.4 387
expands with line 16, and the writing goes consistently farther to the
right than on any of the lines above. This may suggest that the left
vertical was tentatively drawn as the right margin line when Ilimalku
began to compose the column. By the time he reached line 15, however,
it appears that he decided the column was too thin. At this point, it
seems likely that he drew the double lined margin, which became the
basis for the right margin of the rest of the column. The letters which
run through the double margin lines (e.g., the /m/ that breaks into
the right vertical in line 21, where in making the horizontal wedge, the
stylus has pushed some of the clay downward, filling in the incision of
the vertical just below the wedge) indicate that the margin lines were
made before the text from line 16 on was written. However, the scribe
now tried to put in as much text as possible, and often placed letters
into the margin lines and beyond (especially lines 16–18, 20–21 and
23). When he began working on column II, he used the right hand
vertical of the margin lines as the left margin of the column until he
reached the spot parallel to column I line 16, where the final letter of
that line slips over into the space of column II. At this point, Ilimalku
made a short vertical to the right of the margin lines to act as an
ad hoc margin line for col II 21 and 22. Below line 22, we find the last
two letters of I 18 sitting entirely in column II, followed by an ad hoc
vertical. Ilimalku simply decided not to begin a line to the right of
these letters and skipped down below the intrusive letters to begin line
23. But even here he starts that line well to the right of the margin
and places an ad hoc vertical at the beginning. The next four lines are
separated from the overextended lines of column I by another ad hoc
vertical margin line. In fact, lines 24–31 all begin well to the right of
the official margin line. This produces a very messy look to the first
two columns of the tablet.
It is clear that Ilimalku had already inscribed the double margin
line between columns II and III before he began writing column II.
By the time he arrived down at the section where he had to abandon
the margin on the left side of column II, he had already written a
number of lines that intruded into the margin lines to the right. But he
clearly recognized that his ad hoc solution in II 21–31 was unsuccessful.
So before beginning column III, he drew an additional vertical to the
right of his original margin lines and used it for the left margin of the
column. This obviated the need to adjust a few lines to the right and
gives column III a more professional look.
Ilimalku’s work on column III indicates that he was still having trouble
predicting how much he could fit on a line. In line 17 he runs short
388 cat 1.4
of space and solves the problem by curving the last letters vertically
up the edge of the margin line. This is obviously not a good solution.
So in the lines below where he once again miscalculates the space that
he has, he simply returns to writing the letters over the margin lines.
Careful examination of the four verticals between columns III and IV
indicates that we actually have two overlapping sets of double margin
lines here. The leftmost vertical and the third from the left are clearly
the original double lines. But once he saw that he had the same problem
he had dealt with in the previous columns, Ilimalku chose this time to
simply redo a complete double line a bit to the right, so that the new
left vertical is about 1mm to the right of the old left vertical, and the
new right vertical is far enough from the letters that broke into the old
margin that it can act as the left margin for column IV. Thus the four
verticals here.
Ilimalku found himself with a very messy obverse that clearly did
not please him or perhaps someone in charge. By the time he began
working on the other side of the tablet, he had clearly figured out how
to calculate what could be placed on a line. On the reverse, we find
lovely and professional two-line margins. In column VI, only one line
(line 33) has a letter that touches the right margin line between V and
VI. The same is true of column VII (only line 19) and VIII (line 35).
The contrast between the two sides is dramatic.
No other tablets attributable to Ilimalku show anything close to this
extent of scribal clumsiness. How are we to interpret this? These are
not the errors of an established scribe. It seems perhaps best to suggest
that this indicates Ilimalku was quite inexperienced with writing a large,
multi-columned tablet when he produced 1.4. In fact, since none of the
other tablets we have from Ilimalku shows these problems, the evidence
suggests that this might have been the earliest multi-columned tablet
that he inscribed among those that are preserved for us, and perhaps
even his first such tablet ever. Here we can actually watch him struggle
to develop his technique for dealing with margins and calculating how
much text may be placed in a line. His lack of success on the obverse
led either to his being given additional instruction by his teacher, or
to a serious reevaluation on his own that allowed him to work more
professionally on the reverse. If we are correct in the interpretation of
the evidence, this has implications for the issue of whether the Baal
tablets were written from dictation or from older copies. If this were
Ilimalku’s first major tablet, then he must have copied it from a writ-
ten text (see UBC 1.35–36), since it begins in the middle of a story, a
cat 1.4 389
very unlikely place for someone to begin reciting a poem for copying.
If he had written sources, then it would not necessarily matter where
he began his new set of tablets. Other implications of the characteris-
tics of 1.4 obverse are discussed in the Commentary on the colophon
below (pp. 725–29).
CAT 1.4 I
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:114–21, pls. XXV, XXX (in the editio princeps, the cap-
tions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus pl.
XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse); CTA 22–23, fig. 14, pls.
VII, VIII; KTU 15; CAT 15–16.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 37; Albright 1934:116–17, 1943, 1944; Caquot
and Sznycer, TO 1.193–7; Cassuto, BOS 2.120–24; Coogan 1978:96–97; Dietrich
and Loretz 1978; 1997:1151–53; 2000a; Driver, CML1 92–93; Galling 1936; Gas-
ter 1944, Thespis 172–74; Gibson, CML2 55–56; Ginsberg, ANET 131–32 and KU
18–21; Goetze 1938:269 n. 8; Gordon, UL 28, 1977:89–90; Heyer 1978; Jirku
38–39; Maier 1986:5–6; Margalit, MLD 12–24; de Moor 1987:45–47; del Olmo
Lete, MLC 193–94; MLR 77–78; Pardee 1997a:255–57; Pope 1977:444; van Selms
1975a; Smith 1985:279–81, 284–306, 308–9, UNP 119–21; Wyatt 1998:90–92;
Xella 1982:107–8.
1 [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]Á. r
5 [ ]lmlk
[ ]Á.’a
[ ]’)2lt
[ ]h
[ ]
10 [ ]
[ ]μr[ ]
∫m[ ]b’il.m l2l
bnh.m b.rbt
’a rt.ym.m b
15 klt.knyt
m b.pdry.b’ar
m ll. ly.btrb
m b.’ar y.bt.y‘bdr
’ap.m n.rgmm
20 ’argmk.šsknm‘
mgn.rbt.’a rtym
392 cat 1.4 i
m¿ .qnyt.’ilm
hyn.‘ly.lmp m
bd. ss.μ b m
25 y q.k‚p.yšl
. r .y q.ksp
l’alpm. r .y q
m.lrbbt.
y{p/ }q. ym.wtb
30 kt.’il.dt.rbtm
kt.’il.nbt.bksp
šmr∂ t.bdm. r
k .’il.n t
b r.hdm.’id
35 dprš’a.bbr
n‘l.’il.d.qblbl
‘ln.yblhm. r
l n.’il.dml’a
mnm.dbbm.d
40 msdt.’„r
‘.’il.dqt.k’„mr
sknt.k wt.ym’an
dbh.r’umm.lrbbt
—————
—————
Textual Notes
There is a vertical line, ca. 4 mm to the left of the main margin lines
between columns I and II, that appears to function as the right margin
for the lines 1–15. Perhaps this was a provisional margin set up by Ili-
malku, then abandoned before writing line 16 for the double margin
line (see comments above).
Lines 1–3. The text of this column actually begins only with line 4.
Virolleaud suggested in the editio princeps (1932:114) that there were
vague traces of letters in three preceding lines, but we found no such
traces. CTA and CAT both read a damaged /y/ at the end of line
2, and the original Louvre photo shows what appears to be the lower
part of a vertical wedge. But this is a trick of the camera. There is no
wedge at that point on the tablet, only damage to the surface of the
tablet (this is clear in the new photo). Although we see no traces on
these lines, we have maintained the numbering established by Virol-
leaud and continued in CTA and CAT.
cat 1.4 i 393
Lines 5–6. There is a significant space between line 5 and the next
inscribed line, large enough to suggest an intervening line that ended
to the left of the preserved area of the column. But this seems unlikely,
since the passage partially preserved here (lines 4–18) has parallels at
1.3 V 35–43 and 1.4 IV 47–57 that indicate that the following inscribed
line follows directly upon line 5. This suggests that Ilimalku simply
dropped a little too low when inscribing the next line, leaving an sub-
stantial gap between them. It is another example of the clumsiness of
the scribe on this side of the tablet (see above). Although CTA gave the
uninscribed space a line number, we follow CAT here in numbering
the next inscribed line as line 6.
Line 7. ]’)2lt Only the right tips of the two upper horizontals of the / i/
are preserved. Epigraphically this could also be a /h/, but the context
of the passage argues for /’i/. /l/ CAT reads the first vertical wedge
here as a word divider, followed by a regular /l/. This seems unlikely,
however, because of the large size of the left wedge. This is best read
as a four-wedge /l/, as pointed out by Herdner (CTA p. 22, note 3).
Note the similar four-wedge /l/ on line 17 (the first /l/ in m ll).
Line 11. [ ]μr[ ] Only two short horizontals survive on this line, with
possible traces of the vertical left edge of another horizontal connected
on the right. This is most likely an /r/, although it could be an /a/
or possibly an /n/. CAT finds traces of /’at/ preceding the proposed
/r/, but we see no traces of letters elsewhere on this line.
Line 12. ∫m[ ]b’il Only a part of the vertical wedge of the first letter
is preserved, but the context argues for an /m/. CAT reads /]b.’il/,
but there is no word divider between the /b/ and the /’i/.
394 cat 1.4 i
m ll The three wedges of the final /l/ are visible, although the
tops are missing.
Line 16. b’ar Notice that the scribe has placed an ad hoc vertical
margin line at the end of the /r/, to the right of the double margin
line, since the letter has crossed it. The corresponding line in column II
then begins to the right of this temporary margin. This begins a series
of lines (through line 23) which overflow into column II and cause a
disruption in the left margin of that column (see the more complete
discussion above). A scribal error is evident here, since Pidray’s epithet
is bt ar.
Line 18. m b.’ar y.bt.y bdr This line intrudes into column II with two
full letters that run under the beginning of II 22. Rather than pushing
the margin line between columns I and II even farther to the right,
Ilimalku starts II 23 under the final letter of line 18.
Line 25. k‚p The upper line of the /s/ is preserved, but the rest has
been obliterated by the ancient smudge.
Line 28. lrbbt. There is a very clear word divider on the end of the
/t/, even though nothing is written afterward.
below) a multi-wedge vertical letter here, either /z/ (which some early
commentators entertained as a possibility), or / /. The small size of
the head at the top of the letter shows that /g/, as read by CTA, is
incorrect.
Line 34. ’id The /’i/ is made with four horizontals. The /d/ is cer-
tainly a scribal error for /l/.
Line 35. dprš a /d/ is made with three vertical, but four horizontal
wedges.
Line 36. d.qblbl The word divider following /d/ is unusually large.
Line 40. ’„r The /’a/is damaged on the left and on the right, but
certain.
Line 41. The first letter is certainly / /, rather than /s/, as in CTA.
There is no lower wedge that would make the letter an /s/. The left
vertical is, however, considerably smaller than the right vertical (not
an uncommon form).
k’„mr The /’a/ in the last word is badly damaged, having lost all
of its bottom line, but is still clearly identifiable.
1 [ ]
2 [ ]
3 [ ]
4–6 [’any.ly ] . r/[’il.’abh.]
[’i]lmlk/[dyknnh.]
6–8 [ y ] .’a /[rt.wbnh.]
’ilt/[w brt.’ary]h
9–11 [wn.’in.bt.lb‘l/km.’ilm.]
[w r/kbn.’a ]r[t]
12–14 m[ ]b ’il.m ll/bnh.
m b.rbt/’a rt.ym.
14–16 m b/klt.knyt/
m b.pdry.b<t>’ar
17–18 m ll. ly.bt rb/
m b.’ar y.bt.y‘bdr
396 cat 1.4 i
1 “ ‘. . .
2 ...
3 ...
4–6 [In lament] [’āniyu]
[He cr]ies to Bull [El, his Father], [la-ya û] u ôra/[’ila ’abā-hu]
[To E]l, the King [who created [’i]la malka/[dā-yakāninu-hu]
him].
6–8 [He cri]es to Athi[rat and her [ya û] u ’a i/[rata
children], wa-banī-ha]
The goddess [and the band of ] ’ilata/[wa- ibbirata ’aryi-]ha
her [brood]:
9–11 [‘For Baal has no house like the [wa-na ’ênu bêtu lê-ba‘li/
gods’], kama ’ilīma]
cat 1.4 i 397
Kothar’s Response
23–24 The Skilled One ascended to the hayyānu ‘alaya lê-mappa êmi/
bellows,
Tongs in the hands of Hasis. bâdê asīsi ma ba āmi
25–28 He cast silver, he poured gold, ya uqu kaspa yašalli/ u urā a
He cast silver by the thousands, ya uqu kaspa/lê-’alapīma
Gold he cast by the myriads. urā a ya uqu/-ma lê-ribabāti5
29 He cast a canopied resting-place: ya uqu ayama wa-tab u a
1
Based on the Akkadian evidence for rabītu for this title (see discussion below on
pp. 404–6), it might be that the vocalization should follow suit.
2
The meaning of the title remains highly uncertain. For the interpretation sug-
gested here, see Pope (in Smith 1998b:655), based on Arabic wa‘ib and dr, comparing
Akkadian ir itu rapištu, “broad land,” an expression for the underworld.
3
Literally, “of,” here and in the syntactically parallel following line.
4
For this particle, see DUL 519.
5
Sivan 1997:63.
398 cat 1.4 i
6
The vocalization of the final vowel here and on the nouns that head the rest of
the cola stands in the accusative case, governed by the verb in line 29. It is possible,
however, that these nouns were considered to be in the nominative case.
7
On this word, with possible attestation in syllabic form, see Huehnergard
1987b:115.
8
The /d/ at the end of the line is grammatically problematic. A scribal error is
likely involved here, as one might have expected dt, given the plural antecedent. Citing
Gibson (CML2 56), del Olmo Lete (MLC 194) suggested that d may be an error for b
here (the translation in Wyatt 1998:92 assumes this view. The error may have involved
a vertical mistake as well, as the combination of d and m appear also directly above
in line 38 (dml’a). For this reason, one might incline slightly to d<t>, although this is
hardly assured. Another alternative would be to take dbbm as a sg. noun plus mima-
tion, but this seems unlikely in view of the context evidently involving many animals
depicted on the table; an excavated table of this sort discussed below in the Com-
mentary involves multiple animals. Accordingly, some emendation appears warranted,
but it is difficult to adjudicate between the two proposals. It may be noted that d<t>
would preserve a marked degree of inner-line alliteration with dbbm and msdt, while
b would echo the two b’s in dbbm. On the assumption that the vocalization is correct,
an emendation to d<t> would also issue in the same number of syllables in the two
lines of the bicolon in lines 38–40. Poetic considerations do not, however, constitute
a basis for emendations.
9
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:170.
10
For the syllabic evidence for the form, daqqu, “small,” see Huehnergard
1987b:119.
11
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:123.
12
UG 295. Secondary vowel harmony appears to be involved.
cat 1.4 i 399
Commentary
For lines 6–18, see the discussion of 1.3 IV 47–53 above on pp.
287–89.
See the same line in 1.3 IV 31–32 discussed above on pp. 284–85.
šaskin ma‘/
magana rabbati ’a irati yammi/ a b c (x of y) 3/12
ma¿ î qāniyati ’ilīma a’ c’ (x’ of y’) 3/9
In either case, the bilabials are especially resonant in this unit. The
consonant m marks the ends of the lines in either arrangement, and
if the latter payout were deemed preferable, then ma- would end the
anacrusis and begin each of the two following lines.
The word-pair, ksp and r , appear also within a line in 1.3 III 46–47.
This inner-line parallelism is played out in the second and third lines:
the second line develops the first half of the first line, while the third
line develops the second half. (This poetic relationship suggests further
that the two verbs in the first line are considered in this context to
indicate the same word-field of metal casting.) In general terms, this
tricolon characterizes the nature of the metalwork for the list of items
described in lines 29–43; that this is so is suggested by the carrying over
of both the word-pair, ksp and r , in lines 30–32 (see also r in line
37) and the verb y q in line 29. The final word lrbbt also gets picked
up in line 43.
This unit describes a single item, kt, by carrying over the word-pair
for metals, ksp and r , from lines 25–28, and by describing in further
detail the nature of their use with the object. By the same token, the
nature of the gold is slightly elaborated with the characterization of it
as dm r (see the Commentary below).
Despite the wide variation in both semantics and syntax, the two lines
show stunning effects of sonant parallelism with na‘la and ‘alê-na and
with qabalbili and yubalū-. The final noun carries over from lines 26, 28
and 32. Note also the sequence within the first line: -ili . . . -ili.
Despite the great difference in syntax, the two fronted nouns, the two
relative particles, and the two plural nouns provide a notable degree
of semantic parallelism.
All three lines contain a word with the consonants ’ and m. Further-
more, the endings -ata and -ati resonate through the tricolon, and the
comparative particle ka- appears in the first two lines. The case ending
is the same for all three of the final nouns in the three lines. Looking at
the larger context of this tricolon, animal imagery continues from the
preceding bicolon’s description of the table. Two instances of distant
sonant resonance may be discerned in this tricolon. The final word in
the tricolon echoes also the end of the tricolon in lines 25–28 above.
Similarly, sknt here may echo šskn in line 20. Accordingly, this tricolon
picks up various words in the larger context and ties together various
elements.
Introduction
This column has two distinct parts. The first, lines 4–22, records a
message to Kothar relating the familiar complaint that Baal has no
palace like the other gods and a request that the craftsman god make
gifts for Athirat. The second part, lines 23–43, describes Kothar at
work on elaborate furnishings for the goddess made of gold and silver.
At the end of the column is a pair of horizontal lines, whose meaning
is discussed below (p. 426). The words to Kothar and his subsequent
labor initiate the second part of the larger building saga. After Anat’s
failure to gain permission from El for Baal’s house (1.3 III–V), the lat-
ter seeks Kothar’s help in crafting gifts (CAT 1.3 VI–1.4 I) which will
gain Athirat’s sympathy (1.4 II–III) and convince her to travel to El and
petition him for the palace (1.4 IV–V). Only with this permission can
the construction of the palace begin. (For more details see pp. 35–9.)
13
For Hebrew ’ap to mark a section or subsection within a unit, cf. 4QMMT B 13,
21, 24 [partially reconstructed], 42, 52, 56, 62, 64, 66, C 12, 18, 26; and also to mark
an addition within a sentence-unit, cf. 4QMMT C 25).
404 cat 1.4 i
Pope renders the verb in Job 22:21 “submit” and uses “prepare” in the
Ugaritic context. Caquot and Sznycer (TO 1.194) also render “preparer”
on the basis of BH hiskantāh in Ps 139:3 and Amarna Akkadian sakānu
ana “to take care of, to see to.” Von Soden (AHw 1011) and CAD S:69–70
regard the Amarna idiom as a Canaanitism. The primary examples
are found in letters from Abdi-Hepa, king of Jerusalem (EA 285:29;
286:34, 38; 287:17, 40; 288:48; and 290:29), and they all appear in
the context of the king of Jerusalem urging the pharaoh to “take care
of ” his land (Moran 1992:325–34 renders the verb, “provide for”).
Abdi-Hepa is not pinpointing a specific action that he wants the king
to do, but wants the pharaoh to take charge of determining what is
necessary to protect the land. The verb appears to emphasize the high
status and authority of the person to whom it is addressed. That seems
to be the intent also in 1.4 I 20–22. Baal wants Kothar to do whatever
is necessary to produce gifts that are appropriate for the Creatress of
the gods. Note that in the Amarna passages, the verb is in the G-stem,
rather than the C-stem of šskn in line 20. The causative form might
suggest that Kothar should appoint someone, i.e., “cause (someone)”
to see to the gifts. In this case, in keeping with his own capacity for
craftsmanship, Kothar himself takes on the responsibility, which is
surely Baal’s intent. But he very politely leaves that decision to Kothar.
A related noun, sú-ki-ni/na also occurs in the Amarna corpus as a West
Semitic gloss on the Akkadian term rābi u (EA 256:9, 362:69 respec-
tively), referring specifically to Egyptian officials in Canaan. The noun’s
meaning there is clearly “commissioner,” literally “one who takes care
of (things)” (cf. the discussion in Moran 1992:xxvi n. 70; and Rainey
1987:402). This noun also occurs in Ugaritic (see DUL 757–59), and
in Akkadian documents from Ugarit (for a listing, see Sivan 1984:267;
see the survey of van Soldt 2001).
Some scholars have proposed an alternative etymology for the verb,
as a C-stem imperative of *nsk, “to pour” with an enclitic -n (see cita-
tions in Sanmartín 1995:181–82, DUL 644, UG 595 and cf. Pentiuc
2001:132–33; cf. šsk, the C-stem imperative of *nsk, in 1.13.6, used for
blood). While this is possible, especially due to the relationship between
pouring and the metalworking described in the following lines, the
interpretation of the n as enclitic, followed by m , seems forced.
The goddess Athirat is referred to here by the full form of her title, rbt
’a rt ym (also in 1.3 V 40–41; 1.4 I 13–14, II 28–29, 31, III 27, 28–29,
34, IV 31, 40, 53, V 2–3; 1.6 I 44, 45, 47, 53; 1.8.1–2). The first ele-
ment, rbt, literally means “great one” and is often translated “Lady”
cat 1.4 i 405
14
The term is used of the widow of King Bentešina of Amurru in a number of texts
belonging to the dossier concerning King Ammithtamru’s divorce from his Amorite
wife (see Kühne 1973; van Soldt 1991:15; CAD R:26a; Márquez Rowe 2000). EA
29:8, 63, 67 likewise uses ra-bi-tum to designate Teye as the principal wife and widow
of Nimmureya (Amenophis III), who appears involved in the successful succession of
her son, Amenophis IV, to the throne. Evidence for this royal female rank from Ebla
and Mari is associated with the term AMA.GAL, according to Owen (1995:574 n. 4).
Malamat (1998:177–78) has raised the further possibility that the bēlet mātim mentioned
in three Mari letters (ARM II: 20, 28 and 117) was the mother of Zimri-Lim. This
“Lady of the Land” is able to address the king without applying to herself the epithet,
amatkama, “your maidservant” that always appears in letters attributed to Zimri-Lim’s
chief wife, Šiptu.
406 cat 1.4 i
evident, and Athirat shows significantly more connections with the sea
than with the day and the sun (cf. Binger 1997:45–48 for an unsuccessful
attempt to give solar characteristics to Athirat). The ambiguity of the
evidence, however, forces us to agree with Pardee (1997a:253 n. 98):
“the mythological background of the title remains obscure.”
Athirat’s parallel title is qnyt ’ilm, in line 22. The scholarly consen-
sus understands this phrase as “creatress of the gods,” a reflection of
Athirat’s capacity as mother of the divine family. The root *qny is used
also of El. Many commentators have understood the root’s meaning
in Ugaritic and the Bible (e.g., Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6) to refer to
the divine role as progenitor (see van Selms 1954:64 n. 7; EUT 50–54;
McCarthy 1967:92; CMHE 15; DUL 706). However, some scholars
have suggested that the meaning does not involve creation but mastery,
establishment or acquisition (see Montgomery 1933:116). As Pope (EUT
51) noted, this may be so from a purely etymological analysis, but it
is evident that qnyt ’ilm does not refer to the elderly divine parents’ act
of acquiring the other deities, but to their parental role in producing
the next divine generation (UBC 1.83). From another direction, Watson
(1993:433) has challenged this view by arguing that the phrase does not
mean “progenitress of the gods,” but rather “creatress of [= among]
the gods,” i.e., “the goddess who creates (mankind).” He proposes the
meaning in light of the epithet baniat šimati, “creatress of destinies,”
used of the birth-goddess in the Atrahasis Epic, whom he identifies
with Ashratum. None of this seems likely, and even if the two god-
desses were the same, the second words in the two epithets, “gods” and
“destinies,” are not proximate.
Kothar is asked to prepare mgn and m¿ , meaning “present” and
“gift of honor.” The first word derives from *mgn, “to give.”15 Before
discussing m¿ , it is necessary to understand the meaning of the gifts
being requested by Baal. It is important to understand that in plan-
ning to take these gifts to Athirat, Baal is not appealing to her greed,
as is often assumed (e.g., Wyatt 1998:92 nn. 91, 95; Pardee 1997a:256
n. 121; cf. Gordon 1977:89 n. 65). Rather, this action is better under-
stood within a political context, and particularly within the context of
the gift culture of Late Bronze Age international diplomacy. Liverani
15
Note in particular BH *mgn in Prov 6:11, 24:34; Phoenician KAI 29; in Ugaritic
and Phoenician-Punic PNs, see Benz 339; possibly in Hebrew and Ammonite PNs,
see WSS 492, 510; and post-biblical maggan, “grace, undeserved gift” ( Jastrow 729).
See also the references in the following note.
408 cat 1.4 i
16
UT 19.1958 takes the words as D-stem participles, but the form for *mgn would
then be *mmgn.
17
See the discussion of these passages in Bryce 1975:27, esp. n. 28; for the two
roots, see DUL 531, 534; Held 1969:36, 37; CMHE 4 n. 4; C. Cohen 1978:138 n. 58;
Dietrich and Loretz 1974:31–32; O’Connor 1989:27.
18
The t- preformative noun, t¿ yt, is etymologically related to m¿ . In 1.6 VI 44
it appears in the phrase yn t¿ yt, “the wine of entreaty,” parallel to [l] m trmmt, “the
bread of exaltation.” In that context, the word has a cultic ring to it (see UT 19.2311;
SPUMB 240–41).
cat 1.4 i 409
ing takes into account the general semantic field of the word, but fails
to note that its usage in columns II and III seem to suggest that it is
a transitive verb, with qnyt ’ilm as its direct object. Within the context
of gift giving it seems more likely that the meaning of “to lower one’s
eyes” is “to give honor to, to honor (sometimes with a gift).” Such a
meaning parallels the root mgn very well, both in its nominal form in
this passage, where its meaning is probably “a gift of honor,” and in its
verbal forms in column III, where the two verbs may be rendered, “to
give gifts”//“to honor (with gifts).” In this context there is no specific
sense of “entreaty” in *¿ y (cf. Smith, UNP 125), although this is what
the gift-giving ultimately achieves. Lowering the eyes is body language
for a person honoring another. So we would read the parallel in lines
20–22 as “gift”//“gift of honor.” This translation comports with our
view that the gift is not designed to appeal to Athirat’s greed, but rather
to be a political peace offering, in which Baal indicates his respect for
Athirat, in the manner of the rulers of the ancient Near East in send-
ing gifts back and forth. In short, this usage of the verbs is expressive
of the political culture of LB Syria-Palestine.
19
Cf. also Akkadian abātu, used for holding an object, manipulating a tool; see CAD
cat 1.4 i 411
:19, #3j. For the variation of emphatics in this root, see Greenfield 1962:292–95;
Claasen 1971:296).
20
See Sivan 1997:81; see Held 1959:175; CML2 162 n. 10; cf. Steiglitz 1981:52–53.
Ugaritic mq m derives from *lq , “to take”; cf. lq in many contexts, e.g., 2.70.18–19, and
nlq t in 4.659.1 (Sivan 1997:30). It is theoretically possible given the many occurrences
of yq in Ugaritic, that *lq /*yq may be suppletive (as they appear to be in BH).
412 cat 1.4 i
yšl , the other verb in the colon (*šl , “to send forth,” and thus here,
“pour, cast;” cf. Pardee 1997a 256 n. 123). Some have proposed see-
ing here a separate verb, šl II (cf. TO 1.194 n. e; Dietrich and Loretz
1978:59), but this does not seem necessary. Later languages also use *šl
in a metallurgical sense. Driver (CML1 148) compared Arabic su ulâtu,
“fillings of gold and silver” (Lane 1320). Ginsberg (KU 20) appealed to
Syriac šal, “to fashion, adorn” (LS 263) used in the Peshitta in Exod
25:12 and 37:3 to translate BH *y q.
The context of 1.4 I does not involve smelting (so CML2 56), a
process of melting and fusing metal, but melting and casting, as
the verbs indicate (Pardee 1997a:256 n. 123; MHP; for microscopic
analysis of metal casting, see Scott 1991:5). In this usage, the poetic
*y q corresponds to *nsk, “to pour,” used in prose texts for metal cast-
ing, e.g., nsk ksp, “silversmith” (e.g., 4.47.6, 4.68.74, 4.99.14; Pardee
1974; Heltzer 1982:92) or nskt ksp, “item(s) cast in silver” (1.105.22;
Pardee 2002:42–43, 112 n. 119). For the semantic range of *nsk, one
may compare Akkadian patāqu used for pouring both wine and metals
(AHw 847). In Egyptian metallurgy open casting was used for smaller
items (Scheel 1989:40–43). Melted metal was also used for plate or
sheets (Scheel 1989:27–33; for gold sheet in Mesopotamia, see Moorey
1994:226–28).21 For gold plating at Ugarit, see CAT 2.79.10, 2.83.9 and
4.167.1–6. It is not entirely clear whether Kothar is making the items
completely out of solid gold and silver, or whether some of them are
understood to be wooden furniture overlaid with gold and silver sheet
(cf. the wooden throne of Tutankhamun with sheet gold set on a dais;
ANEP #415–417). One might imagine the former, since these gifts are
for a goddess. On the other hand, it seems that the furniture described
here is based on items found in a royal palace, and thus could have
been assumed to be similar to the latter.
The last two lines of the tricolon in lines 26–29a describe the vast
amount of gold and silver used by the craftsman god: ’alpm, “thousands”
and rbbt, “ten thousands” or “myriads.” Of course, these numbers are
not intended to be precise in any way. They are used to indicate the lim-
itless bounty of the divine realm, the measureless wealth that is poured
into making appropriate gifts for the goddess. This pair of numbers
21
On Mesopotamian gold working, see also Zettler 1992:231; van de Mieroop
1992:186; Bjorkman 1968, 1993; Hittite inventories of gold and silver objects are
discussed by Kempinski and Košak 1977:90.
cat 1.4 i 413
is the largest that appear in the Ugaritic literary texts (or elsewhere).
The text does not provide the unit of measure being described here.
It could be the kkr, “talent,” the mn, “mina,” or the ql, “sheqel.” But
most likely the sheqel is meant here. Of the three weights, only the
sheqel is regularly the object of ellipsis as in these lines (cf. DUL 929).
In the real world of the Ugaritic royal house, amounts of silver and
gold discussed in the tablets usually equal tens to hundreds of sheqels
(cf. DUL 928–929). In a few cases, primarily in the international cor-
respondence, weights of up to 5000 sheqels of silver are mentioned
(RS 17.129.8, 10, 24 in PRU IV, 166–67). RS 18.20 + 17.371: rev. 4’
(PRU IV 202–203) refers to a threatened judgment of ten talents (biltu)
of silver in a court case. If there were 3000 sheqels in a Ugaritic talent
(see DUL 435 sub kkr; Powell 1992:VI 905–6) then 30,000 sheqels are
indicated here. Much smaller numbers are involved with gold. A sum
of 12 minas and 20 sheqels of gold is mentioned as part of a tribute
payment to the king of Hatti in RS 17.227.21 (PRU IV 41). Assum-
ing 50 sheqels per mina, this would equal 620 sheqels. Of course, all
these sums pale in significance in comparison to the amounts assumed
in our passage.
The scene in lines 25–43 should not be viewed as reflecting regu-
lar offerings to deities at Ugarit. Pardee, in his study of the Ugaritic
ritual texts (2002:110), notes that offerings of precious metals are not
commonly found on the tablets. These items are special and probably
reflect furnishings of a temple (see below).
In this passage, the poet uses rbbt twice (lines 28 and 43) and the
dual form rbtm in line 30. This may be an intentional word play on
Athirat’s title, rbt, but the formulaic nature of the usage of alpm//rbbt
makes it impossible to be certain about this.
Line 29 appears to begin the description of the furnishings that
Kothar makes, but its precise meaning has been the subject of a great
deal of debate. The two items that the god casts here, ym wtb , are
most commonly rendered as “canopy/baldachin/tent” and “resting-
place/couch/bed” respectively (e.g., Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.195
n. f, Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1152; Wyatt 1998: 91; Xella 1982:108;
cf. also Heyer (1978:94–96). Van Selms (1975a:471) and DUL (416)
related ym to mt in 1.14 III 55 where the latter apparently means
“tent.” Caquot and Sznycer (TO 1.195 n. f ), however, saw it as a plural
cognate to Akkadian, a’um, understood to be a canopy over a royal
throne (AHw 338). They proposed rendering it “baldachin,” which is a
canopy that covers a sacred object or a person of high status. Gordon,
414 cat 1.4 i
22
Gordon later abandoned this proposal, translating the line (1977: 90): “He pours
a bedstead and a resting place.”
23
Comparison also may be drawn to the canopied structure found in the Iron II city
gate of Tel Dan (Biran 1994:238–41). The material remains of this structure consists of
a low podium of dressed ashlar masonry (a dais) probably used for a wooden throne,
with four surrounding recessed stone column bases that served as supports for wooden
beams to hold an overhead canopy (see also Dever 2001:200, 202).
cat 1.4 i 415
24
Actually, some of these items might be in any type of house. Cassuto (1942:53 =
BOS 2.122) noted the similarity between this passage and the description of furniture
in a room arranged for Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:10: “a couch and a table and a throne and
a lamp.”
416 cat 1.4 i
25
Malamat (1998:185 n. 23) proposes to understand kasap ili either as “finest silver”
or as silver reserved for the gods (CAD I/J:98, #1e).
26
See also TO 1.195 n. h; DUL 467 under kt II; MHP; CML2 56, 149: “pedestal.”
Note also BH kēn, “base, pedestal,” but kann- in suffixed forms. The root of the cognate
nominal forms is apparently *knn (so BDB 487) despite the claim that the root is *kwn.
The two could be related, either the former as the D-stem of the latter, or more likely
as biform roots, a phenomenon not unparalleled for middle weak/geminate roots (see
p. 203 n. 17). Cf. Cassuto’s comparison with Akkadian kutû, “vessel,” in BOS 2.123.
cat 1.4 i 417
inventory (KBo 18:153 verso 16) includes gold mixed with copper to
make “red gold” (Kempinski and Košak 1977:90), more technically
known as tumbaga (Scott 1991:84).
The next bicolon, lines 33–35a, describes the making of a magnifi-
cent throne and footstool. The two items likewise appear together in
1.5 VI 11–14 (using a different word for “throne”): “Then Beneficent
Kindly El, descends from his throne (ks’i), and sits on the footstool (hdm),
and from the footstool he sits on the ground.” The two terms are also
paired in BH (see e.g., Isa 66:1). The word for “throne” in line 33,
k , is generally considered a loanword from Hurrian kiš i (discussed
above on p. 291). The throne as a sign of royalty is assumed here and
generally elsewhere. A letter sent by Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna to Zimri-
lim of Mari mentions that “a large throne” (offered by the former to
the latter) is a “symbol of royalty” (A.1289+M.13103+M.18136, col.
III, lines 28–29; Charpin 1991:155, 156). Dramatic examples of royal
chairs emerged from the tomb of Tutankhamun, including one almost
completely covered with thick gold sheet (see the descriptions in Killen
1980:58–63).
The last two words of the first colon, n t b r, are ambiguous and
have been interpreted in a number of ways. The first word, n t, lit-
erally means “rest” (< *nw ; cf. Watson 1995:226–27), and scholars
have differed as to what part of the throne the term might designate.
Some have proposed that it refers to a high back of the throne (e.g.,
Driver, CML1 93; Gibson, CML2 56; Gordon 1977:90; TO 1.195; Wyatt
1998:92). Others argue that the term more likely refers to the seat of
the throne (e.g., Aistleitner 37; de Moor 1987:46). Still others render it
as a synonym for k , and thus another synonym for “throne,” usually
rendered, “seat, divan, chair” (e.g., Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1152; del
Olmo Lete, MLR 78; Pardee 1997a:256; Xella 1982:108). The latter
seems most likely. The word appears even more clearly as a synonym
for k //ks’u in 1.3 IV 3; 1.16 VI 24; and probably 1.22 II 18.
The final word of the colon, b r is also uncertain. It has been inter-
preted as the preposition b + r, “back, top” (e.g., Albright 1943:41;
Aistleitner 37; TO 1.195; Driver CML1 93; Gibson CML2 56; Wyatt
1998:92; cf. Arabic ahr; Akkadian ēru, as in the prepositional phrase
ina ēri). Others, particularly those who view n t as “seat, divan, chair,”
identify b r as a metal name, parallel with br, “electrum,” in the follow-
ing colon. In this case, a cognate appears in BH as be er, a word for a
precious metal, probably gold (HALOT 149; cf. Løkkegaard 1955:20
n. 11; MHP).
cat 1.4 i 419
The final two words of the second colon (lines 34b–35) are also
ambiguous. The form prš’a is problematic. It appears to be cognate with
BH pāraś and Arabic faraša, “to spread” (DUL 683; UG 51, 681; KB
917; Jastrow 1232; Lane 2369–72). In biblical and rabbinic literature,
it is used for the spreading of a cloak. Here it applies analogously to
metal overlay (TO 1.196 n. n; MLC 612; cf. * py for overlay with gold
in the prose texts, 2.79.10, 2.83.9 and 4.167.1–6). If the form is a verb
(for some difficult suggestions for nominal cognates, see RSP 1.390–91),
then it is *qatala, and the context suggests a passive (or stative?) sense,
“covered”; therefore the verb may be analyzed as a G-stem passive
*qatala 3rd masc. sg. Such passive forms are relatively rare, but not
unknown (Sivan 1997:44, 122). The final ’aleph is mysterious. TO (1.196)
and Dietrich and Loretz (1978:61) argue that the consonant may serve
to vocalize the final vowel. But this type of usage for is quite rare (UG
50–51). DUL 683 suggests that the scribe may have added the vocaliza-
tion here under the influence of the similar construction of line 38,
where one finds, l n il dml a, although here the a is part of the root.
In addition to these proposals, one cannot rule out the possibility of a
scribal error (cf. Cassuto, BOS 2.123). The problem remains.
The final word, bbr is usually interpreted as b + br, the latter under-
stood as a metal name (also in CAT 4.608.3). Compared with Akkadian
barru (AHw 107), the exact meaning of barru is actually somewhat uncer-
tain (see CAD B: 113). The word is often translated “electrum,” which is
a mixture of gold and silver (de Moor 1987:46; MLR 78; for a chemical
analysis of the process, see Scott 1991:11, 84; for discussion, see Moorey
1994:217). Or, the word may mean simply br, “pure (metal),” assuming
a cognate with BH bar (so Pardee 1997a:256: “brightest metal”; Wyatt
1998:92: “polished metal”; cf. Pope in Smith 1998b:655).
The next gift Kothar makes is called a n‘l (lines 36–37). Van Selms
(1975a:473) suggested “platform,” on the assumption that this word is
n- preformative from *‘ly, “to ascend.” The proposal has little, if any,
supporting evidence. N-preformative nouns tend to be Akkadian loan-
words into Ugaritic, but if a loan were involved here, it would not have
come into Ugaritic with ‘ayin, a letter not found in Akkadian. Accord-
ingly, van Selms’ proposal may be rejected. Albright (1943:41 n. 21),
Gaster (1946:26 n. 36), Dietrich and Loretz (1978:61) and Pope (MHP)
suggest “couch” or “litter,” while Pardee (1997a:256) translates “bed,”
assuming a cognate with Akkadian majālu, “sleeping place, bed” (CAD
M/1:117b), derived from *ni’alu/nâlu, “to lie down, rest” (see also Emar
maš-na-lu, “sleeping couch,” in HC7, line 16, Westenholz 2000:52, 54).
420 cat 1.4 i
Because the other items in the list in 1.4 I involve furniture, these
scholars understandably do not favor the etymologically unproblem-
atic n‘l, “sandals” (cognate with BH na‘al, Syriac na‘lā, Arabic na‘lu; so
translated in TO 1.196; CML2 56). (The noun stands in construct to
’il and therefore it would lack a plural or dual consonantal ending.) It
is to be noted, however, that the mention of footware might not be
entirely out of place following the footstool (MHP). The suffix on yblhm
in line 38 (< *ybl, “to bear, carry,” not “to place,” so Pardee 1997a:256;
cf. *bll, “to pour,” so Gaster 1946:29) would seem to refer to plural or
dual items, which would rule out a single piece of furniture, unless
-hm is the singular suffix plus enclitic m- (see Smith 1985:299–300).
A dual or plural suffixal form would comport with n‘l as “sandals.”
Assuming n‘l as “sandals,” the reduplicated form and hapax qblbl in line
36 may be related to the Arabic *qbl “to provide a sandal with string
or strap” (Freytag 487; so KU 20; Gaster 1944:22, 23; TO 1.196 n. o;
for the root see Huehnergard 1991:695). Thus “sandals,” as a less
problematic choice morphologically, remains a viable interpretation
(Smith 1985:280; UNP 121). However, the appearance of this item in
the midst of substantial pieces of furniture (Pardee 1997a:256 n. 128)
provides a context favoring the proposal that n l is a couch or bed.
The meaning of the final word of the colon, qblbl, is less clear in this
interpretation. Dietrich and Loretz (1978:62; 2000: 62) noted the BH
cognate, qābal, “to accept, receive,” and suggested “acceptable” as the
meaning of qblbl (see Pardee 1997a:256 n. 128). This seems plausible.
The reduplicated form could give the meaning an emphatic dimension,
“most acceptable,” i.e., “most appealing.” However, this meaning for
the word remains uncertain.
The next line (line 37) is equally difficult. Comparing ivory on bed
panels from Ugarit, Pardee (1997a:256, and n. 128) suggests that the
line be rendered: “above, he places an engraving.” One might object
that there is no reason not to see here the common word r , “gold,”
in this context, in view of its occurrences earlier. However, this is not
a serious objection, since homonyms may occur in related contexts.
Indeed, it might be viewed as poetically creative. More problematic for
Pardee’s proposal, the verb *ybl does not really conform to the mean-
ing, “to place.” Rather, the root in Ugaritic seems to mean, “to carry,
bring, take” (DUL 948–49), as in BH. Dietrich and Loretz (1978: 62)
related it to BH yôbēl, “ram,” suggesting that this referred to animal
decorations on the couch. They have since (2000:20–21) joined several
scholars (e.g., Albright 1943:41; Driver, CML1 93; Wyatt 1998:92) in
cat 1.4 i 421
27
A cognate term, Akkadian nûbalu, is found in two letters from Mari: A.2679.41,
in which it is translated by Durand 1988:111 as “porteurs de chaise”; and in A.3892,
where it is rendered “chaise à porteurs” (Durand 1988:123; cf. 112 n. 13; cf. AHw
799; CAD N/2:306).
422 cat 1.4 i
28
See Levine 1963:108; de Tarragon 1978:33. For a recent review of the evidence,
cat 1.4 i 423
has been to derive it from the root dqq, “to pound thin, mold” (Aram
cognate, Jastrow 319; DUL 279; Pardee 1997a: 256–57 n. 131). Before
discussing the reasons for our interpretation, we need to look also at the
parallel word in line 42, sknt, which suffers from a similar ambiguity, as
well as at the phrases that follow each. Recognizing that sknt is parallel
to dqt and interpreting the latter as “small animals,” Albright (1943:42
n. 30) and van Selms (1975a:474–75) both looked to the root *skn, “to
care for,” for its meaning. They each suggested that the word refers to
an animal in some way cared for by humans. Albright proposed “tame
(animal),” while van Selms put forward “tended, [i.e., domesticated]
(goat).” This idea is plausible; it comports with the usual sense of
Ugaritic *skn, and it suffers no etymological difficulties. However, others
(Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1153; CML2 56; de Moor, 1987:46; Pardee
1997a: 256; DUL 760) who do not see dqt above as an animal term,
have translated it as “form, appearance” or the like. Proposed cognates
have included Akkadian šukuttu or šiknu, “figure, image,” or BH maśkît,
“(carved) figure” (BDB 967). But neither of these etymologies is without
problems.29 All of this seems unnecessary for the word to be parallel
to the second proposed meaning of dqt. It is possible that the standard
meaning of skn in Ugaritic could have a manufacturing connotation
related to the one proposed for dqt, i.e., “taken care of,” i.e., “made.”30
Thus the parallel pair, dqt and sknt can be interpreted either as nouns
for animals or passive participles concerning manufacture.
Each word is followed by a comparative phrase, k amr, and k wt ym an.
Both words are best viewed as place names. The first of the place names,
amr, is the well-known region of Amurru, probably referring to the
kingdom south of Ugarit. The location of ym an is unknown,31 although
see Tropper 2001b, whose theory of dqt as “Brot als Opfermaterie” does not apply
to dqt in 1.4 I 41.
29
While Akkadian šukuttu or šiknu, “figure, image,” may be semantically suitable
(WUS 1908; SPUMB 50–51; Dietrich and Loretz 1972:30–31; see CAD S/2:436–39),
the sibilant š does not correspond correctly to Ugaritic s (Healey 1979:354 n. 1). Gaster
(1946:28 n. 51) tried to salvage the etymology by noting one other example of irregular
correspondence of sibilants (“Canaanite spr = Acc. šipru”), but the exception to the rule
is to be avoided in favor of the norm. For maśkît, the problem centers on the greater
likelihood that that noun comes from the root śky, rather than śkn.
30
The use of sknt here may be an intentional return to the root that appears in
line 20, when Baal requests that Kothar šskn the gifts. Here at the conclusion of the
description of Kothar’s work, it may have been appropriate to reiterate the word.
31
Proposals for identification include Ionia (DUL 966); the Aegean area in gen-
eral (Dietrich and Loretz 1978:63); and Yemen (CML1 93). None of these carries
conviction.
424 cat 1.4 i
the context of its appearance in the ritual text CAT 1.40.27 suggests
that it was located near Ugarit (cf. Pardee 2000:137; 2002:77–83). The
word preceding ym’an is wt, a common Ugaritic word meaning “coun-
try.” In contrast, Albright (1943:42 n. 22) and Gaster (1946:27) both
read wt as an animal word. Citing Aramaic iwyâ, Albright translated
it as “python,” while Gaster related the word to BH ayyāh, “animal.”
However, it is quite clear that the phrase wt ym’an is parallel to amr,
since each follows the preposition k. Thus wt almost certainly means
“country.”
We now return to the interpretation of dqt and sknt. Each noun is
modified by a following comparative clause, “like (that or those) of
Amurru,” and “like (that or those) of the country of Yam an.” Taking
dqt and sknt as “small cattle” and “domesticated animals” respectively,
one wonders just how distinctive such animals might have been in these
two regions that such a comparison might be made in a literary work. It
seems much more likely that the comparisons made here would refer to
the mode of manufacture, rather than the livestock of the areas. Thus
we have rendered the two difficult lines, “A grand bowl (pounded) thin
like those of Amurru, crafted like those of the country of Yam an.”
The third line of the tricolon then describes the decoration on the
bowl—thousands of undomesticated water buffalo or wild bulls, r umm.
The excavations at Ras Shamra have yielded two fine examples of
a similar motif dating to the 14th century. One is a gold bowl with
repoussé decoration on its exterior, depicting hunting scenes with wild
bulls. The other, a plate with decoration on the interior, depicts a fig-
ure in a chariot hunting deer and bulls (Schaeffer 1934:124–31, and
pls. XV, XVI; a color photo of the plate may be found in Caubet and
Pouyssegur 1998:118).
Cognates for r umm include Akkadian rīmu (AHw 986), BH rĕ’ēm, Ara-
maic rêmā; Amorite ri-i -mu (denoting a zoomorphic figurine; see Zadok
1993:328). The words show a variation of u/i, known from a number
of Ugaritic words.32 Diakonoff (1970:456) noted this particular variation
in the environment of labial consonants; most of these examples have
monosyllabic bases (see also Sivan 1997:43). Bisyllabic-based instances,
also in the environment of labials, may also involve vowel harmony
32
Ugaritic ’um and Akkadian ummu (cf. BH ’ēm); Ugaritic polyglot, bunušu (cf. Akka-
dian binu and BH bēn). See Marcus 1968:54 n. 45, reference courtesy of W. R. Garr.
For Ugaritic polyglot, bunušu, see Huehnergard 1987b:47. For further examples, see
Marcus 1968:51 n. 8. Reference to Diakonoff is also courtesy of R. Garr.
cat 1.4 i 425
(Ugaritic ’ulp versus BH ’allûp; Ugaritic ’urbt versus ’arūbbâ; see UT 5.19;
Sivan 1997:44, 67). The word r’umm is well attested in Ugaritic (for
Mesopotamian iconography of water buffalo, see van Buren 1946:6–7).
According to 1.10 II 8–11, Baal goes hunting in ’a šmk, “the reed-marsh
of ŠMK (cf. BH ’ w, “reeds, reed-marsh”; Ginsberg 1973:131 n. 4), a
place “full of water buffalo” (ml’a[t r]’umm). The undomesticated water
buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), perhaps more specifically the river buffalo, was
suited to marshy or flooded areas (Shkolnik 1994:17). The region of ’a
šmk has been often identified as classical Semachionitis ( Josephus, BJ
III 515, IV 3), modern Lake Huleh, now a nature preserve in northern
Israel located between Dan and Hazor (see Ginsberg 1973:131 n. 4
who leaves open the identification). Toward the end of the British
Mandate period, only about 5,000 water buffalo were left in the Huleh
and Batiha Valleys (Shkolnik 1994:17). From a herd surviving the Six
Day War of 1967, 87 were transferred to the Huleh preserve; and as
of 1994, there were about 150 there. The species’ pattern of life has
been so described: “the water buffalo established fixed spots for drink-
ing, eating, bathing, urinating and defecating, and sleeping. Between
these places, it proceeds along fixed routes” (Shkolnik 1994:17). Given
these patterns, these animals would presumably have made easy targets
for Baal on his hunt.
The gifts described in lines 29–43 may be taken as eminently appro-
priate for a deity. Indeed, as the survey of objects and iconography
nicely amassed by Heyer (1978) would suggest, this passage lists items
commonly associated with both divine and human royalty. A number
of parallels with the Israelite tent of meeting may also be noted. 1.4
I 29–43 describes a canopied area with silver and gold furnishings
made by a craftsman. Exodus 31 likewise describes a craftsman creat-
ing a tented area with items made of the same metals (Exod 31:1–5;
35:10–19, etc.). Functionally the throne mentioned explicitly in 1.4 I
corresponds to the ark, upon which Yahweh is enthroned (1 Sam 4:4;
2 Sam 6:2; Exod 37:1–9). Closely connected to the ark is the idea of
Yahweh’s footstool (cf. 2 Chr 28:2, which mentions the ark, “and the
footstool of our God.”). A table is also made in both cases (cf. Exod
25:23–30). Van Selms compares further the juxtaposition of the table
and bowl in Athirat’s gifts with the golden flagons and bowls made for
the table for the bread of the presence (Exod 25:29; Num 4:7; see also
Cassuto 1967:340). Although Bezalel, the craftsman chosen to make
the objects for the tabernacle, is not divine, he is described in this
following manner in Exod 35:31: “He (God) has filled him with the
426 cat 1.4 i
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:121–26, pls. XXV, XXX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus pl.
XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse); CTA 23–24, fig. 14, pls. VII,
VIII; KTU 15–16; CAT 16–17.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 38; Albright 1934:117–18; Binger 1997: 63–72;
Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.197–200; Cassuto, BOS 2.124–7; Coogan 1978:96–97;
Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1153–55; Driver, CML1 92–95; Gaster, Thespis 175–78;
Gibson, CML2 56–57; Ginsberg, ANET 132 and KU 21–24; Gordon, UL 29, 1977:90–
91; Jirku 40–41; Maier 1986:6–10; Margalit, MLD 25–35; de Moor, SPUMB 143–
45, 1987:47–49; del Olmo Lete, MLC 195–97; MLR 79–80; Pardee 1997a:257;
Pope 1971; Smith, UNP 122–23; Wiggins 1993: 44–52; Wyatt 1998:92–95; Xella
1982:109–10; van Zijl, Baal 81–85.
1 [ ]x[ ]
[ ]x„bn[ ]
’„ dt.plkh[ ]
∂plk.t‘lt.bμ 3h
5 npynh.mks.bšrh
tmt‘.mdh.bym. n
npynh.bnhrm
štt. ptr.l’išt
br .l r.1p mm
10 t‘pp. r.’il.dp’id
t¿ y.bny.bnwt
bnš’i.‘nh.wtphn
hlk.b‘l.’a trt
kt‘n.hlk.btlt
15 ‘ 2t.tdrq.ybmt
[ ]11 .bh.p‘nm
[ ]dn.ksl
[ ]nh.t∑d‘
t¿ [ ]μx[ ]xl[ ]
20 ’anš.dt. r[ ]
tš’u.gh.wt .’1ik
428 cat 1.4 ii
m¿1y.’al’iyn3b‘l
’ik.m¿yt.b[]2lt
‘nt.m y.3h∫m[]
25 bny.3h∫m[ ]brt
’aryy[ ]2l.1ksp[]∑ rt
kt‘n[ ]1 l.ksp.wÂ[]x
1 fi1 .šm .rbt.’„∑ []
m.gm.l¿lmh.1k [ ]
30 ‘n.mk r.’ap1q[ ]
d1g y.fibt.’a fi[ ]
q .r t.bdkx[ ]
rbt.‘l.ydμ[ ]
bmdd.’il.x[ ]
35 bym’il.d[ ]
hr.’il.y[ ]
’al’iyn.[ ]
btlt.[ ]
mh.kμx[ ]
40 w’a∑t[ ]
’a r[ ]
b’im[ ]
bll[ ]
mlx[ ]
45 dt[ ]
b[ ]
gm[ ]
yx[ ]
Textual Notes
Line 2. x’„bn[ /x/ has only the trace of a single vertical wedge. The
/’a/ seems fairly certain. The lower line of the two-wedges of the letter
are fairly clear, and there is no evidence of anything above the hori-
zontals, which might turn it into a /b/.
cat 1.4 ii 429
Line 3. ’„ dt The first letter is fairly clear. The surface edges have
completely disappeared, but the interiors of the two horizontals are
visible.
Line 9. p
1 mm One will note what appears to be a small vertical wedge
at the lower left corner of the /p/, which makes it look somewhat like
an /’i/ with only two horizontals. But the vertical there is not a wedge;
rather, it is a straight-line incision, presumably an accident.
Line 15. ‘«2t. Only the upper parts of these letters are visible. The
word divider after / ‘nt/ is largely preserved.
Line 16. [ 3].bh The upper part of the word divider before /bh/
is preserved.
Line 18. [ ]nh.t∂d‘ CTA records only two wedges of the /h/, but three
are clearly visible. The upper two are very close together, but distinct.
Only the two left verticals of the /d/ are preserved, but the context
assures the reading. The lower right tip of the /‘/ is also visible.
Line 19. t¿ [ ]μx[ ]xl[ ] Following the / /, after a gap that prob-
ably contained a word divider, there are possible traces of the lower left
corner of a long horizontal, consistent with the reconstructed /p/ here.
We see no traces of letters after that until the end of the line. There
we find the top of a vertical wedge, which is consistent with the upper
right wedge of an /s/ that parallels lead us to reconstruct here, while
the next letter contains the three heads of an /l/. This has been read
as the upper wedge of an /h/, based on the assumption that it is the
last letter of the line, which can be reconstructed on the basis of 1.4 I
34–35. But one can clearly see the three distinct wedges. Thus we may
assume that the final /h/ is lost in the break to the right.
430 cat 1.4 ii
Line 21. Line 17 from column I has broken through the double margin
line. Ilimalku has created an ad hoc margin line for lines 21 and 22 to
the right of the standard one. He has thus begun these lines somewhat
to the right of the normal margin.
’1ik The right side of a low horizontal wedge is preserved just to the
left of the /k/. It is fully consistent with the proposal to read it /’i/.
Line 23. b[ ]2 lt The right side of the middle wedge of the /l/ is vis-
ible, as is the complete right wedge.
Line 24. The final letter of col. I, line 20, crosses the margin line. This
time Ilimalku moves the first letter of the line a little to the right, but
does not make a new margin break.
3h∫m Only the deepest part of the lower wedge of the /h/ is vis-
ible, but the letter is certain. The left horizontal of the /m/ is all that
is left of that letter.
Lines 21 and 23 of column I once again intrude into column II. Ili-
malku again draws a vertical margin line to the right of the original
one until line I 23. However, Ilimalku continues to indent column II,
lines 28–30 so that they match the beginning points of line 24–27.
Only at line 31 does he move the left margin of column II back to
the original margin line.
Line 24. 3h∫m[ The bottom part of /h/ is damaged, so that it could
theoretically be /’i/. But context supports reading /h/. The /m/ is
epigraphically uncertain, since only the horizontal survives. But again
the context supports the reading.
cat 1.4 ii 431
Line 25 3h∫m[ The /h/ is damaged, but elements of all three wedges
survive. Only the upper left corner of a horizontal is preserved after
the /h/. The reading /m/ is quite compatible with the traces.
Line 26. ]2 l. 1ksp.[ ]2 rt Although neither CTA nor CAT see traces
of the /l/, the lower tips of all three wedges are preserved. /k/ in
/ksp/ is damaged and is missing its upper left wedge. But the reading
is certain. /t/ is quite damaged, but partially visible.
Line 28. 1 fi1 Although badly damaged, the three letters are certain.
Each is partially filled with an encrustation.
’„∑ . The left horizontal of the /’a/ and upper left tip of the right
horizontal are visible. The / / is much less well preserved, but the deep
interior of the sign appears to have survived.
Line 29. m The /y/ is badly damaged and partially filled with an
encrustation. But it is still fairly clear.
1k[ Only the two left wedges and part of the left line of the larger
right wedge are preserved, but this makes the letter certain.
Line 30. ’ap1q [ The horizontal left wedge of the /q/ is well preserved,
but also the upper left edge of the right wedge is visible, making /q/
the correct reading over /t/.
432 cat 1.4 ii
Line 31. d1gy. Several of the letters on this line, /dg/ and /r/are
partially obscured by an encrustation that fills some of the wedges. But
all the signs are still visible.
’a fi[ The /r/ is very damaged, but certain, since traces of the four
left horizontals are still visible.
Line 32. bdkx[ A single horizontal is preserved to the left of the break.
It could be a /t/, but epigraphically it could also be the left wedge of
a /q/, or an /m/.
Line 33 ydμ [ The final letter is again at the edge of a break, but
the upper part of the right vertical wedge is visible.
Line 35. bym’il We see no word divider between /ym/ and /’il/.
Line 39. mh.kμx[ There appear to be traces of the upper left corner
of a vertical wedge at the break.
Line 40. w’a∑t[ The reading /t/ is not certain. It could also be part
of a /q/ or /m/.
Line 43 bll[ Although there is a gap between the two /l/’s, there is
no word divider between them. Nor are there any traces of a letter at
the end of the line.
Line 44. mlx[ While /k/ seems plausible for the uncertain letter here,
only the upper left corner of a wedge is preserved.
Line 45 dt[ We see no trace of a word divider after the /t/, as pro-
posed by CAT.
Line 47 gm[ One last time Ilimalku has allowed column I to break
past the margin line. Here col. I line 42 is the culprit, forcing the scribe
to make one last short ad hoc margin line, followed by the /g/.
Line 48. yx[ The second letter has a large vertical on the left, which
suggests that it is a /g/, / / or /l/.
cat 1.4 ii 433
1 [ ]x[ ]
2 [ ]x’abn[ ]
3–4 ’a dt.plkh[.bydh]/
plk.t‘lt.bymnh/
5–7 npynh.mks.bšrh/
tmt‘.mdh.bym.
n/npynh.bnhrm/
8–9 štt. ptr.l’išt/
br .l r.p mm/
10–11 t‘pp. r.’il.dp’id/
t¿ y.bny.bnwt
12–14 bnš’i.‘nh.wtphn/
hlk.b‘l.’a {t}rt/kt‘n
14–16 hlk.btlt/‘nt.
tdrq.ybmt/[l’imm].
16–18 bh.p‘nm/[t .]
[b‘]dn.ksl/[t br.]
[‘ln.p]nh.td‘/
19–20 t¿ [.pnt.ks]l[h]/
’anš.dt. r[h]/
21 tš’u.gh.wt .
21–24 ’ik/m¿y.’al’iyn b‘l/
’ik.m¿yt.b[t]lt/‘nt
24–26 m y.hm[.m] /bny.
hm[.mkly. ]brt/’aryy[.]
26–28 [ ]l.ksp.[’a] rt/kt‘n[.]
l.ksp.wn[r]t/ r .
28–29 šm .rbt.’a [rt]/ym.
gm.l¿lmh.k[t ]/
30–31 ‘n.mk r.’apq[ ]/
dgy.rbt.’a r[t.ym]/
32–33 q .r t.bdkx[ ]/
rbt.‘l.ydm[ ]/
34–36 bmdd.’il.x[ ]/
bym’il.d[ ]/
[n]/hr.’il.y[ ]
37–38 ’al’iyn.[b‘l ]
btlt.[‘nt ]
39 mh.kx[ ]
40 w’at[ ]
41 ’a r[t ]
42 b’im[ ]
434 cat 1.4 ii
43 bll[ ]
44 mlx[ ]
45 dt[ ]
46 b[ ]
47 gm[ ]
48 yx[ ]
1 [ ]
2 . . . the stone [ ]
3–4 She took her spindle [in her hand], ’a adat pilakka-ha
[bi-yadi-ha]/
An exalted spindle in her right hand. pilakka ta‘lîti yamīni-ha
5–7 As for her robe, the covering of her napayāna-ha maksî
skin, bašari-ha/
She conveyed her garment into the timta‘u madda-ha
sea, bi-yammi
Her double-robe into the rivers. inê1/napayāna-ha
bi-naharīma
8–9 She set a jar on the fire, šātat upatara lê-’išiti/
A pot on top of the coals, ubru a lê- āri pa amīma
10–11 She would exalt Bull El the ta‘āpipu ôra ’ila dā-pā’ida/
Beneficent,
Honor the Creator of Creatures. ta¿a iyu bāniya baniwāti
12–14 When she lifted her eyes, she looked, bi-našā’i ‘ênê-ha
wa-taphîna/
Athirat indeed saw Baal’s advance, halāka ba‘li ’a iratu/
kī-ta‘înu
1
See UG 345. It is possible that the object should be understood as a plural.
cat 1.4 ii 435
Commentary
The reference to the garment in line 5 does not fit with the two preced-
ing lines (2–4) involving the spindle. Rather, it belongs with the refer-
ence to the garment in lines 6–7, and perhaps it is to be reconstructed
after lines 6–7 (so Smith, UNP 122). However, the placement of line 5
before lines 6–7 might be explained as an unusually long casus pendens
(“as for her robe, the covering of her skin, . . .”). By the same token,
the customary poetic pattern would suggest that line 5 was the third
line in the tricolon with lines 6–7. See further discussion in the Com-
mentary below.
If this were the correct order, it would highlight the sonant echo
from t‘lt in the preceding bicolon. However one reads this tricolon,
cat 1.4 ii 437
The initial verbs, parallel in both syntax and form, govern parallel sets
of titles for El. One subtle sonant effect involves a string of vowels, a-i-a,
a pattern running two times through both ôra ’ila dā-pā’ida and bāniya
baniwāti. This effect is generated partially through syntax (the nouns’
final endings) and partially by morphology (the internal structure of
these nouns).
The visual vocabulary binds the two lines, with the same root used
for the object in the first line and the verb in the second. Apart from
this feature, the effects between the two lines appear less strong (i.e.,
b- . . .-i in bi-našā’i and ba‘li; the string of n’s in the first line picked up
at the end of the second line). In comparison, the parallel in 1.3 III
32 involves a single line.
The unit picks up from the preceding with the repetition of hlk, and
extends it with tdrq, parallel in meaning and syntax (with this parallelism
438 cat 1.4 ii
For these lines, see the discussion of the parallel in 1.3 III 32–34
(pp. 210–11 above).
For these lines, see the discussion of the parallel in 1.3 III 34–35 (p.
211 above).
For this line, see the parallel in 1.3 III 35–36 (p. 211 above).
The parallel in 1.3 III 36 is a single line (see p. 211), but here it is
expanded into a bicolon since there are two subjects involved, Baal and
Anat. The bicolon reuses the same initial particle and the same verb,
and the subjects here are presented with their standard epithets, per-
haps chosen here for thematic reasons. Baal’s title suggests his martial
demeanor, and Anat’s status as btlt expresses her independent status,
perhaps implying her capacity for conflict; see p. 188. By the same token,
the initial ba-, the interior l, and the final -u in ba[‘lu] and ba[tu]latu (as
well as ‘ in both their names) add sonantly to the effect.
Reactions by the goddess, perhaps both verbal, appear in the two lines,
which are otherwise disparate in their parallelism. The repetition of m
in the two lines perhaps contributes to the binding of the two lines.
The three lines all use “god” (’ili) as an element for parallelism, supple-
mented in the first two lines by the preposition bi- plus a title or name
of the god. Because of the broken character of the ends of all three
lines, it is impossible to offer a fuller appreciation of the parallelism
involved in this tricolon.
For the parallelism of these titles, see above for lines 21–24.
Introduction
At some point in the lacuna of about sixteen lines at the beginning of
the column, the scene shifts to Athirat, El’s wife and mother of the gods.
The column consists of three parts: (1) Athirat is introduced perform-
ing domestic chores (lines 2–11); (2) she then notices the approach of
Baal and Anat and reacts in fear (lines 12–26); and (3) then she sees the
gifts in tow and realizes they are coming in peace (lines 26–33?). Lines
34ff. are too broken for certain interpretation. Athirat is not mentioned
by name until lines 28–29, but it is clear from context that she is the
subject of the narrative in this column.
Emar palakku; see Pentiuc 2001:138). The latter West Semitic forms
are sometimes said to be loans from Akkadian, but perhaps the forms
generally derived ultimately from an early “Kulturwort.”2
The word that follows the second appearance of plk (line 4) has
been read as either qlt or t‘lt (see the Textual Notes above). The latter
appears correct, and so the word likely derives from ly, and may refer
to the spindle as “exalted” (?), or it could refer to Athirat (“befitting her
high station,” according to Pardee 1997a:257). We have chosen to see
it as modifying plk, and tentatively render it ”mighty.” Spindle whorls
found at LBA Ugarit (Elliott 1991:41–45) are mostly domed or coni-
cal and circular in shape. The spindle was primarily used to produce
thread for sewing, an activity identified as the domain of women in
the ancient Levant: ’št tk (perhaps, t<l>k? 3) l dy dl plkm, “a woman walks
along (?) with (her) spindles” (KAI 26 A II 5–6); (see also pilaqqi as a
symbol for women in the Treaty of Esarhaddon, para. 91, in Parpola
and Watanabe 1988:56). Despite some doubts expressed by van Selms
(1954:55), weaving was evidently regarded as women’s work (for a
Sumerian witness, see Frayne 1997:304, iv 23–31). This seems to be the
situation regularly in Egypt too, to judge from iconographic evidence.
A wooden tomb-model of an Egyptian weaver’s house depicts the
processes of turning flax into cloth (ANEP #142). One of the figures,
an unclothed spinner, rotates the spindle with its whorl on her thigh,
giving the thread its twist (see the description of #142, p. 266). A tomb
painting at Beni Hasan (ANEP #143) and a stone relief from Susa
(ANEP #144) likewise show women working spindles. Administrative
texts from Mari (ARM IX 24:4:18, 25:38, and 27:5:43; ARM XIII rev.
21:9’–16’) mention female weavers serving in the palace, and another
text (ARM X 126) refers to women designated ugbabtum, priestesses of
lower rank, sent to the weaving house, bīt išparāti (Malamat 1998:184).
Biblical literature situates weaving and its tool, the spindle, within the
domain of women’s labor (Prov 31:13, 19). Women are attributed the
role of spinning in Exod 35:25–26. Tobit 2:11 calls weaving cloth,
“the kind of work women do” (NAB). It is considered a curse (2 Sam
3:29) that a man be one who “handles the spindle” (ma ăzîq bappelek; see
Malul 1992). The spindle evidently serves as a symbol for females. Upon
2
See Kaufmann 1974:82–3 and Huehnergard 1987b:83, 1991:693; see also UT
19.2050; Layton 1989; Malul 1992. Rendsburg 1997:272 also notes Eblaite pilak(k)u.
3
So proposed by Greenfield 1978:75–76 and 1982:180.
442 cat 1.4 ii
that she becomes aware of the two gods’ arrival. Pardee takes the word
to mean “rubbish,” and here assumes that Athirat is cleaning both her
garments and herself of the dust of weaving. This is not convincing,
since it makes the subject of the tricolon shift awkwardly from her
skin to her clothing and apparently back to her skin. In addition, it
creates a peculiar interpretation of n npynh as “two rubbishes.” The
context, we believe, argues more strongly for understanding npynh as a
noun referring to an article of clothing. The phrase, n npynh, probably
refers to a garment with two layers of cloth. The phrase, lābūš šānîm,
in Prov 31:21 may be related to n npynh, as proposed by Driver (1947),
if the LXX reading of the latter word (dissás = šĕnāyim) is correct, i.e.,
“her household is clothed in double garments,” rather than “clothed
in scarlet.”
Assuming that this passage deals with clothing, there remains the
problem of determining what Athirat is doing with the clothes. The
verb governing these nouns, tmt‘, has been related to Arabic mata‘a, “to
carry off, carry away, remove.” Two renderings of the verb provide very
different interpretations of the scene. The first is “to remove,” which
would suggest that Athirat removes her clothes and rinses or washes
them in the sea (cf. Albright 1934: 117; Cassuto BOS 2.124; Coogan
1978:97; Driver CML1 93; Wyatt 1998:93). The other is “to carry,” in
which the removal of clothing is dropped, while the assumption remains
that the clothes are rinsed or washed in the sea (cf. Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1153; Gibson CML2 56; de Moor 1987:47; Smith, UNP 122). The
sense of “remove” seems particularly awkward in the context, with the
difficulty of understanding what line 6 would mean: “She removed her
robe in the sea.” The meaning “to carry, convey,” works better here
contextually, fitting well with the idea that she is performing some kind
of domestic chore, although the value of washing clothes in sea water
is not obvious.
Line 5, made up of two phrases without a verb, presents an interest-
ing syntactical difficulty. As it stands, it appears to be either a pair of
phrases dependent on the preceding line, or it may be seen as a casus
pendens related to the following line, as rendered in our translation above.4
Both alternatives are awkward. The first suggestion may be dismissed
fairly easily. The subject matter of line 5 is not related to that of the
preceding lines and is clearly part of the succeeding. A casus pendens
4
For discussion and examples of casus pendens in Ugaritic, see UG 882–84.
444 cat 1.4 ii
5
Miller (1999:370–72) uses the patterns of verbal ellipsis in Ugaritic texts to evalu-
ate various proposals for reading this passage. She points out that, while some inter-
pretations can be dismissed, several must be considered plausible, so that certainty in
interpretation here cannot be reached.
cat 1.4 ii 445
6
Pope (1971: 299, n. 12) also suggested a correspondence between uppataru and
Mycenaean o-pi-te-te-re, thought to be a lid or cover. If this were correct, then the
evidence may suggest that the word may have been an Indo-European loanword
into Hurrian. If these terms were used by the poet to evoke a wider Mediterranean
milieu, then perhaps they suggested as well Athirat’s maritime associations (see Brody
1998:26–30).
446 cat 1.4 ii
to the second line of the bicolon. The latter reads, t¿ y bny bnwt, “She
honors the Creator of Creatures” (on the meaning of t¿ y, see the
Commentary on 1.4 I 22 above, pp. 408–9). The meaning of the first
line of the bicolon, since it has an identical syntactic structure, almost
certainly means something similar.
A variety of proposals for the etymology and meaning of t pp have
been made. Some relate it to the root * p, “to fly,” and suggest a wide
range of derived meanings, from “to flutter (the eyelids)” (Gibson CML2
56), to “to conjure, bewitch” (del Olmo Lete, MLC 195; MLR 79; DUL
173). Others relate the word to Arabic afa, afw, “to efface, pardon,
forgive.” From this come translations such as, “she propitiates” (ANET
132); “she implores” (TO 1.198; Coogan 1978:97; Wyatt 1998:94); “she
would tame” (Margalit, MLD 25); “she entreated” (Pope 1971:396); “she
is servile” (Smith, UNP 122). Most of these translations are problem-
atic in the context of the scene, since they assume actions by Athirat
that would require El to be present. It is clear, however, that El is not
at Athirat’s abode. Pardee (1997a:257) notes an Arabic cognate root
ff, which is rendered, “to feed someone uffatun (a kind of milk).” He
translates the verb, “so as to prepare a (warm) drink for the Bull.” As
none of the translations (with the exception of Pardee’s) makes use of
meanings actually attested for the cognates, it becomes clear that most
of the renderings are related to the understanding of the verb in the
second colon, t¿ y (most often, “to entreat, implore”). Pardee’s proposal,
on the other hand, follows the meaning of his cognate, but does not
match the meaning of the second line very closely at all. This seems
problematic for his interpretation.
It seems at this point necessary to attempt a translation for the word
that is in some way related to the relationship to the parallel word in
line 11. We argued in the Commentary to the preceding column that
the root of t¿ y is best understood as meaning “to give honor, to honor
(with gifts),” and so it seems likely that t pp also has a similar meaning.
However, a suitable cognate is not forthcoming. One might venture the
speculation that the root is an L-stem form from p, “to fly,” and that
it means “to cause to fly, give wing to, exalt, lift high, honor” El. In
this case, the word evidences a semantic relationship to the flight of
a bird (cf. BH * wp, in the L-stem [polel], “to make to fly”). However,
the semantic development cannot be confirmed and therefore remains
tentative. As this etymology appears somewhat unpersuasive, it is pos-
sible that the sense, “to honor,” here might be derivative of the better
cat 1.4 ii 447
attested meaning, “to make with the eye (lids).” This literal sense is often
taken to be the actual meaning in 1.4 II 10 (e. g., CML2 154: “fluttered
eyelids at,” taken as an L-stem of *‘wp and related to the noun ‘p‘p in
1.14 II 43, VI 30), but this meaning cannot work since the verb takes
a direct object, because El is not present for this act, and because it
misses the larger context of Late Bronze Age political gift-giving.
Apart from the verbs, lines 10–11 are relatively clear. The epithets of
El in these lines are standard ones, most appearing already in 1.1 III 26,
IV 12, V 22, 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, 1.2 III 16, 17, 19, 21 (see EUT 35–42;
CMHE 4–5 n. 6; UBC 1.128), and elsewhere in the Ugaritic religious
texts for El. The word r is also used an epithet of high rank for humans
(1.15 IV 6, 8, 17 and 19), and was an “emblem of kingship” according
to Philo of Byblos (PE 1.10.31; Attridge and Oden 1981:54–55). The
word “bull” has been identified only rarely in biblical texts (BH šôr),
as a divine title in passages such as Hos 8:6 (though in this case with
a doubted revocalization; see EUT 35) and perhaps as a human title
in parallelism with ’îš in Gen 49:6. The second element of El’s title is
dp’id, consisting of the two elements proclitic relative d- and the adjective
p’id, usually rendered “Benign” or the like (see already in 1.1 III 22,
discussed in UBC 1.184). The title is a common one for El (1.4 III 31,
IV 58, 1.5 VI 12, 1.6 III 10, 14, VI 39, 1.15 II 14, 1.16 V 23, 1.24.45).
Moran (1961:61), with many others following him (e. g., CMHE 20 n.
44), compared the syntax with Mari names such as Zu-hatni(m), Zu-
hadim, Zu-sumum and possible Zu-sa-abi as well as the biblical divine
title, zeh sînay, “the One of Sinai” ( Judg 5:5). The element *zu + DN is
also found in West Semitic personal names. Emar, for example, attests
to a number of instances (see the listing in Beckman 1996:138). The
title may not be entirely conventional or without purpose here. In the
context of the Baal Cycle, the word may suggest El’s amenability to
the desires of the divine children of the pantheon, even that of Baal
with his status as an outsider. Lines 10–11 contain the first occurrence
of the parallel second title, bny bnwt, literally “Builder of Built (Ones),”
usually taken to mean “Creator of Creatures” (EUT 47, 50).7 This title
has been compared with the Akkadian epithet bān binûti (DUL 233).
The word bnwt is used in 1.100.62 to denote Horon’s offspring (in this
case, snakes). El is likewise the maker of his offspring.
7
See also DUL 233, with its discussion of the comparable Akkadian.
448 cat 1.4 ii
three phrases or verbs for visual perception in the first bicolon (bnš i nh,
wtphn, and kt n), in contrast to the single verb in 1.3 (tph). The phrase
bnš i nh, is an idiom attested not only in Ugaritic but also in BH (Gen
18:2, 24:63, 64, 43:29; see Díez Merino 1984:24–25; Reif 1985:239).
The first bicolon describes with these verbs Athirat’s spotting of Baal,
while the second bicolon focuses on Anat. In his study of *yš’u gh wy
in its various forms and its parallels in Akkadian, Hittite and Biblical
Hebrew literatures, Polak (2006:285–89) regards the initial clause of
this formula as naming (if at all explicitly) the subject of the action and
the second verb as focusing on the object of perception. Compared
to some briefer examples (e.g., CAT 1.10 II 26–27), our case here is
complicated by the elaboration in the second line, line 13, and in the
bicolon that follows in lines 14–16, the very sort found also in 1.17 V
9–11. As line 13 involves a subordinate clause and not an independent
clause, the agent is not named until the second line of the bicolon.
Furthermore, the object is mentioned only incipiently in the object
suffix on the second verb in the first line of the bicolon of lines 12–13
and spelled out more fully in the second line of our bicolon and then
further in the bicolon that follows in lines 14–16. Polak (2006:287) also
cites the earliest example of the formula in OB Gilgamesh (University
of Pennsylvania tablet, labeled as OB II, col. iv, line 137 in George
2003:176, 177), followed in time by the Hittite and Ugaritic cases. He
thus proposes that the various attestations of the formula may “repre-
sent a common literary tradition that goes back to the Old Babylonian
period” (2006:288).
Athirat’s fearful reaction to seeing the approach of the two deities in
lines 15–20 is identical to the description of Anat in 1.3 III 32–35a. For
detailed discussion, see the Commentary there, pp. 238–41. The first
question that the goddess asks (“Why has Mightiest Baal come?//Why
has Adolescent Anat come?”) is similar to the one Anat asks in 1.3 III
36. The primary difference is that Athirat’s question is a bicolon, the
first line referring to Baal, the second to Anat, while Anat’s question
in 1.3 is a single colon referring to Gapn and Ugar together.
The final part of this section, lines 24–26, in which Athirat expresses
her fear that the two gods are coming to attack her and her family, is
story specific and thus is different in many ways from the parallel pas-
sage in 1.3 III 37–38. However, there are connections: Anat’s question
(“What enemy rises against Baal,//What foe against the Cloudrider?”)
expresses a similar concern about an enemy. In addition, Athirat’s ques-
tion appears to use verbs parallel to those employed in Anat’s continued
450 cat 1.4 ii
speech in 1.3 III 38–47 about her having smitten several of Baal’s
enemies (*m //*kly- the latter restored in 1.4 II 25 on the basis of the
former passage and on Pughat’s vow of revenge in 1.19 IV 34–35).
One final difference is that while Anat’s speech in 1.3 continues for an
additional sixteen lines, Athirat’s speech ends after this short bicolon.
Athirat’s fear seems well justified. Later on in the cycle, exactly what
Athirat dreads appears to take place, when in 1.6 V 1–4 Baal is said to
attack and kill Athirat’s children. However, some caution is worthwhile
in interpreting this passage, since its context is quite ambiguous. In a
scene preserved on 1.4 VI 48–59, we find Baal inviting the children of
Athirat to a feast. This suggests a more cordial relationship between Baal
and Athirat’s children. The West Semitic myth of Elkunirša, preserved
in Hittite, however, strengthens the view that Baal killed the children
of Athirat. In this myth, after Baal and Athirat engage in sexual rela-
tions, he says to her: “I have slain your seventy-seven [sons]. I have
slain eighty-eight” (Beckman 1997:149). So the strained relationship
illustrated in our passage seems well attested. But great caution must
be maintained in using the Elkunirša myth to illuminate the Baal Cycle,
since it portrays such a dramatically different mythic context.
A comment should be made concerning the interpretation of
hm . . .hm in these lines. Scholars are divided as to whether hm is better
understood here as the 3rd plural pronoun, “they” (e.g., Aistleitner 38;
Gaster, Thespis 178; del Olmo Lete, MLC 196, MLR 80; Xella 1982:109),
or as a conjunction with interrogative force (e.g., TO 1.199; Gordon
1977:91; Pardee 1997a:257; Pope 1971:397; Wyatt 1998:94). The latter
interpretation is more likely. One may note that in the two similar pas-
sages, 1.3 III 36–38 and 1.4 IV 31–34, the initial question (“Why has
PN come?”) is followed by an additional question. The case of 1.4 IV
31–34 is the more instructive, since it makes use of the hm conjunction
at the beginning of the second clause of the question. The Ugaritic
practice of asking a double question without an interrogative marker
on the first question, and hm in front of the second was discussed by
Ginsberg 1946:35 (see also Held 1969:77).8
8
We may also note the thematically similar double-interrogative question in Isa
27:7 (here rendered literally): “Did he smite him like the smiting of his smiter, or was
he killed like the killing of his killed?”
cat 1.4 ii 451
context (lines 28–38 and probably farther). This servant has already
been introduced in 1.3 VI 9–11, where he is called “Fisher of Athirat//
Qudš-Amrar.” As discussed in the Commentary for that passage, the
title “Fisher” apparently reflects the nature of his mistress, Athirat, as
suggested by the longer form of her name attested here, “Lady Athirat
of the Sea.” Watson (1996a:319) compares a title of the Sumerian
goddess, Nanshe, “queen of the fisherman.” Watson considers the
parallel with Athirat remarkable, especially as she is said to be “born
on the shore of the sea,” a characterization that for him recalls her
title, “Lady Athirat of the Sea.”
The first line of her speech (30) is somewhat difficult: n.mk r. apq[ ].
The first word is easily identifiable as an imperative, “Look at, See,”
but the second word, mk r, is ambiguous. Many have interpreted it as
an epithet (“Skilled One, Deft One”) of Athirat’s servant (Aistleitner
38; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1154; Driver, CML1 93; Gaster, Thespis
178; Ginsberg, ANET 132; Maier 1986:10). However, this does not seem
very likely, since the deity appears to function only as a messenger and
a stable hand in the scenes where he plays a role (1.3 VI; 1.4 IV). An
epithet referring to artistic skill, especially one closely related to the
name of Kothar, seems unlikely for this character. The noun mk r is
better understood as a reference to the gifts just described. Athirat refers
to them here as “skilled work” (Smith, UNP 123; cf. Coogan 1978:98:
“marvelous gifts”). The poet presumably uses the word to refer back
subtly to their maker and to emphasize that Athirat recognizes the
divine quality of the gifts.
The word that follows is ambiguous. The reading on the tablet
seems clear, apq[, “source, channel.” This word appears elsewhere in
the Ugaritic texts only with reference to El’s abode, which is described
as being located mbk nhrm//qrb apq thmtm, “At the springs of the riv-
ers,//amidst the sources of the two deeps” (e.g., 1.4 IV 21–22; 1.3 V
6–7; 1.17 VI 47–48). Might our passage be a reference to this location?
The tablet is broken to the right of the q, but there is sufficient room in
the break for thmtm to have been written there. One might then read,
“See the skilled work of the sources of the two deeps,” and propose
that Athirat means that the gifts are of a quality that befits the lodging
of El. However, we cannot confidently restore the end of the line, and
thus the reference may have nothing to do with El’s abode. We must
leave its interpretation open.
Beginning with the bicolon in lines 32–33, Athirat instructs her
servant to take a net (r t, cognate with BH rešet) and apparently to use
it in the sea. The damage to this section keeps us from understanding
cat 1.4 ii 453
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:126–31, pls. XXVI, XXX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus pl.
XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse); CTA 24–25, fig. 15, pls. VII,
VIII; KTU 16; CAT 17.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 38–39; Albright 1934:118–19; Binger 1997:72–
73; Caquot and Sznycer, TO 1.200–2; Cassuto, BOS 2.127–30; Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1155–57; Dijkstra 1975:563–65; Driver, CML1 94–95; Gaster 1946:23–24,
Thespis 178–80; Gibson, CML2 57–58; Ginsberg, KU 24–26; ANET 132; Gordon, UL
30, 1977:91–93; Jirku 42–43; Maier 1986:11–12; Margalit, MLD 36–44; de Moor
1987:49–51; del Olmo Lete, MLC 197–99; MLR 80–92; Pardee 1997a:258; Smith,
UNP 124–26; Wiggins 1993:52–55; Wyatt 1998:95–97; van Zijl, Baal 86–95.
1 [ ]
[ ]xdn
[ ]dd
[ ]n.kb
5 [ ]x.’al.yns
[ ]ysdk.
[ ]x.dr.dr
[ ]yk.wr d
[ ]∑y.’ilm.dmlk
10 y[ ]Â.’al’iyn.b‘l
yx‘dd.rkb.‘rpt
μq∫m.ydd.wyql n
qm.wywp n.btk
x[ ]r.bn.’ilm.štt
15 1p[ ]xb l ny.qlt
3bks.’ištynh.
∑dm. n.db m.šn’a.b‘l. l
rkb.‘rpt.db
b t.wdb .wdb
20 dnt.wdb .tdmm
’ampt.kbh.b t.ltb
wbh.tdmmt.’amht
456 cat 1.4 iii
’a r.m¿y.’al’iyn.b‘l
m¿yt.btlt.‘nt
25 tmgnn.rbt[ ]’„ rtym
t¿ yn.qnyt’ilm
wt‘n.rbt.’a rtym
’ik.tmgnn.rbt
’a rt.ym.t¿ yn
30 qnyt.’ilm.mgntm
r.’il.dp’id.hm.¿ tm
bny.bnwtwt‘n
btlt.‘nt.nmgn
xm.rbt.’a rt.ym
35 [ ]∑ .qnyt.’ilm
[ ]x.nmgn.hwt
[ ].’al’iyn.b‘l
[ ]rbt.’a rt.ym
[ ]∫btlt.‘nt
40 [ ] m.tšty
[ ]1q.mr¿ m
[ ]2l t.q
[ ]μkrpnmyn
[ ]∫m.‘ m
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
50 [ ]
[ ]š
[ ]‘l
[ ]d
Textual Notes
Line 3. [ ]dd The first /d/ is certain, since the lower line of the
three horizontal wedges is visible.
Line 6 [ ]ysdk. The trace of a letter to the left of the /y/, suggested
by CAT, is probably just a break in the tablet. It is noted in red on the
drawing. There is indeed a word divider at the end of this line.
Line 8. [ ]yk CAT reads an / / preceding the /y/, but the indenta-
tions there are once again merely damage marks at the edge of the
break.
Line 10. y[ ]Â. The /y/ is damaged on the top, but seems certain.
The letter read here as /n/ has been read by CTA and CAT as /b/,
However, if it were /b/ or /d/, we would expect to see traces of the
right vertical in the well-preserved area above the only visible element
of the letter, the low horizontal wedge. Reading the traces as an /n/
would work here, with a lost letter in the break to its left. One could
also read a /k/ or /r/ here, but /r/ is less likely, assuming that another
letter would need to fit into the break. Context suggests that this word
is a verb of speech. While the most common proposal has been y[ ]b,
literally “he returned, responded,” this seems unlikely, since, as remarked
above, the preserved third letter is almost certainly not b. Thus the
other common restoration, y[‘]n, seems most likely.
Line 11. yx‘dd The reading of the second letter in CTA and CAT as
/t/ is problematic. There is a substantial break between the /y/ and
the horizontal identified as the /t/. This would be an extraordinarily
large gap between the two letters if there were only blank space between
the two. In fact, there appear to be the right tips of two horizontals
adjoining the left face of the supposed /t/ wedge. It thus seems more
458 cat 1.4 iii
likely that the letter should be read as a /k/ or /r/. See the commen-
tary on this line below.
Line 12. ∫q∫m These two letters are uncertain. There is a fairly small
horizontal on the left side of the possible /q/, with part of the upper
left line of the Winkelhaken probably (but not certainly) preserved. /m/
A large vertical wedge is completely preserved to the right of the break
in the tablet, with a possible point where a horizontal for a /m/ would
meet it at the upper left corner. Unfortunately that meeting point is
cracked, and it is not clear whether any traces can be seen of the actual
right tip of a horizontal there. The letter could conceivably be simply
a /g/, or a / /, though this seems less likely than /m/. At the same
time, one would expect the left side of the horizontal to appear to the
left of the break in the tablet, and it doesn’t, even though the face in
that area is in good shape. Thus the reading must remain tentative.
Line 13. qm The first letter is broken, but certain. The left half is
well preserved, but only the left line and a few interior traces remain
of the right half.
wywp n The /n/ has four, rather than the usual three, wedges.
Line 14. x[ ]r While the first letter has been read as /p/ by both CTA
and CAT, there is uncertainty here. The points of the horizontals of
the letter have been cut off by the break, and it is quite possible to see
these wedges as part of a /k/, /r/, /w/, or / /. There are no traces
left of a letter between /x/ and /r/, as proposed by CAT.
Line 15. 1p[ ]xb l ny The /p/in this line is much more certain than
the proposed /p/ at the beginning of line 14. To the right of the fol-
lowing break, there is a depression that may be the trace of a letter
with one or more horizontals. CAT reads /t/ here, but the damage
makes the traces too vague to be certain. Either /t/, /p/ or (less likely
because of the height of the wedge)/h/are possible. Both CTA and
CAT read a word divider before /b l ny/. We see nothing here but
cracks on the surface. The /n/ has four wedges.
right margin, while the next line is too long for the column and curves
upward, taking up part of the unused space of this line and the right
end of the space of line 15.
Line 17. ∂dm. n.db m.šn’a.b l. l Only the right side of /d/, the low
horizontal and the right tip of the right vertical, is preserved. The
space for the letter is cramped and perhaps it was written as a /b/,
as several older commentators proposed. This is a strange, run-on line
that curves up the column, rather than across the margin line (unlike
the long lines in column I). The spacing of the line changes suddenly
from quite normal to very squeezed at /šn’a/. The next two words
curve dramatically up the tablet, so that / l / is written vertically. Were
these three words accidentally skipped, then inserted, perhaps even
after column IV was written? See the discussion of the scribal practice
above, pp. 386–89.
Line 19. wdb .wdb The context indicates that the second /wdb /
is a dittography.
Line 21. ’ampt The /p/ here is an error for /h/, the scribe having
written only two wedges, instead of three.
Line 25. ’„ rtym Part of the upper line of the right horizontal of / a/
is preserved, the rest lost in a break. The context assures the reading.
Line 34. xm Only a well preserved large horizontal of the first let-
ter on the line clearly survives. It is possible that the upper line of the
right tip of another horizontal can be discerned where it meets the
horizontal on the left. This would suggest that the letter is a /k/, /’a/
or /n/. Context suggests that /k/ is the most likely choice.
Line 36. [ ]x /x/ The first surviving letter on this line is represented
only by the remains of a single large horizontal. Without evidence from
460 cat 1.4 iii
Line 39. [ ]∫btlt. nt The /b/ is certain from context. Part of the right
vertical is preserved, but nothing else.
Line 40. ]Ám Only the upper and right wedges of the / / are pre-
served, and thus epigraphically the letter could also be / /. But context
argues for / /.
Line 42. ]≈ l t The right two wedges of the /l/ survive, but context
assures the reading.
Line 43. ]μkrpnm The /k/ is only definable by context. Only the right
tip of a horizontal wedge is preserved, meeting the left end of the lower
left wedge of the following /r/.
Line 51. [ ]š This letter is very damaged, but traces are visible of
all three wedges.
Line 52. [ ] l The traces CTA and CAT identified as an /n/ after
/‘l/ appear to be merely breakage.
Line 53. [ ]d CTA and CAT both read /ln/ here. We see no traces
of the /l/, but the supposed /n/ is actually a /d/. The three verticals
are short and stumpy because the line is at the bottom of the column,
and they have been misread as the /n/. The three horizontals are
preserved on the very edge of the tablet.
cat 1.4 iii 461
1 [ ]
[ ]xdn
[ ]dd
[ ]n.kb
5 [ ]x.’al.yns
[ ]ysdk.
[ ]x.dr.dr
[ ]yk.wr d
[ ]∑y.’ilm.dmlk
10–11 y[ ]n.’al’iyn.b‘l/
yx‘dd.rkb.‘rpt
12–14 qm.ydd.wyql n/
yqm.wywp n
btk/p[ ]r.bn.’ilm.
14–16 štt/p[ ]xb l ny.
qlt/bks.’ištynh
17–18 dm. n.db m.šn’a.b‘l.
l /rkb.‘rpt.
18–21 db /b t.wdb {.wdb }/dnt.
wdb .tdmm<t?>/’amh(!)t.
21–22 kbh.b t.ltb /
w bh.tdmmt.’amht
23–24 ’a r.m¿y.’al’iyn.b‘l/
m¿yt.btlt.‘nt
25–26 tmgnn.rbt[.]’a rt ym/
t¿ yn.qnyt ’ilm
27 wt‘n.rbt.’a rt ym
28–30 ’ik.tmgnn.rbt/’a rt.ym.
t¿ yn/qnyt.’ilm.
30–32 mgntm/ r.’il.dp’id.
hm.¿ tm/bny.bnwt
32–33 wt‘n/btlt.‘nt.
┌ ┐
33–36 nmgn/ k(?) m.rbt.’a rt.ym/
[n¿] .qnyt.’ilm
[ ]x.nmgn.hwt
37 [ ].’al’iyn.b‘l
38 [ ]rbt.’a rt.ym
39 [ ]btlt.‘nt
40–43 [‘dtl] m.tšty/[’ilm.]
[wtp]q.mr¿ m/[ d.]
[b rb.m]l t.q /[mr’i.]
┌ ┐
43–44 [tšty.] k rpnm yn/
[wbks. r .d]m.‘ m
462 cat 1.4 iii
45 [ ]
46 [ ]
47 [ ]
48 [ ]
49 [ ]
50 [ ]
51 [ ]š
52 [ ]‘l
53 [ ]d
1
Cf. UG 555.
2
If this verb were a G-stem form, its prefix would form a diphthong with the initial
root letter that in Ugaritic would have collapsed (either *yiw- > *yî- or *yaw- > *yô-).
Accordingly, the form is to be regarded as D-stem. See UG 564, 639.
3
For the root in Ugaritic as well as the base (in syllabic form) qallu, “small, inferior,”
see Huehnergard 1987b:174. Cf. BH qallôn.
cat 1.4 iii 463
17–18 For two feasts Baal hates, dam inê daba êma šani’a
ba‘lu
Three, the Cloud-Rider: alā a/rākibu ‘urpati
18–21 A feast of shame, a feast of strife, dab a4/bu ati wa-dab a/
dinnati
And a feast of the whispering wa-dab a tadvmvmi(<ati?>)5/
of servant-girls. ’amahāti6
21–22 For in it shame indeed was seen, kī-bi-hu bu atu la-tubba u/
For in it the whispering of kī-bi-hu tadvmvmatu
servant-girls.” ’amahāti
4
For the syllabic forms, see Huehnergard 1987b:117; UG 118.
5
See the discussion below; and UG 582.
6
Sg. ’amt, pl. ’amht. For the pluralizing medial -h- in so-called “primitive” biconso-
nantal or middle weak nouns, see UBC 1.235 n. 29; Sivan 1997:34–35. For Afro-Asiatic
cognates, see M. Cohen 1947:84, # 41.
7
See Sivan 1997:136.
8
Compare UG 460, 669.
9
See UG 669.
464 cat 1.4 iii
Commentary
It is the syllable count rather than the word-unit count that better
shows the balance in line-length in this tricolon. The verbs *ndd and
10
The root is *pwq, “to provide” in the G-stem (see Greenfield 1984a:243; DNSWI
2.903). The issue is whether the form here is 3 masc. pl. G-stem active (so UG 645) or
3 masc. sg. G-stem passive. The semantics favor the latter.
cat 1.4 iii 465
*qwm occur together elsewhere; it is the other set of verbs that stands
out here. Together the verbs morphologically and syntactically bind the
first two lines, and they govern the third line. This final line bears no
further syntactical or morphological linkage to the first two, and unlike
the preceding two lines, the third is particularly marked by bilabials.
However, the syllable -nî appears at or toward the end of all three
lines, and the last line perhaps further punctuates this usage with the
vowels of the following word ’ili. Considerably more muted in effect,
the final mimation of the last line perhaps echoes the final -m of the
first word of the second line.
The parallel of numbers and of the god’s name and title mark the
primary components of semantic parallelism. These words also occupy
comparable syntactical slots and thus generate both syntactical and
morphological parallelism (in some of the case endings). The words
ba‘lu and ‘urpati show limited sonant parallelism insofar as they share
two vowels as well as ‘ and a bilabial.
The “terms of disgust” in the prior unit cascade into this one, generating
some of the same semantic parallelism (note also -atu/-āti and gener-
ally dental t in four of the words in this unit as well). The striking new
feature of this unit is the parallelism of the fronted phrases, kī-bi-hu.
This phrase sets up consonance of b which echoes through the first
line, while by comparison the fronted phrase is picked up sonantly only
with the medial -h- in the final word of the second line. The alliteration
within each line is also notable.
line of a tricolon with the preceding two lines, only that this line is not
as disembedded poetically from its context as many speech-opening
formulas are in Ugaritic poetry (e.g., lines 32–33 below).
This line echoes lines 25–26, and apart from the observations made
above, the striking addition here is the initial parallelism of the same
interrogative.
The first two lines repeat the sort of parallelism found above with
*mgn//*¿ y plus divine titles. The third line, if correctly understood,
seems to punctuate the point by repeating the first root that governs
the relative pronoun referring back to El.
468 cat 1.4 iii
These lines are too broken to discern any more than the possible paral-
lelism of divine names and titles.
These lines and the following bicolon present the standard formulae
for divine feasting (e. g., 1.4 VI 55–59; cf. 1.1 IV 30–32, discussed in
UBC 1.133, 154–55). The lines progress from a general statement that
the gods eat and drink (first line), to their being provided with meat
(second line), to a description of the provisions and their manner of
presentation (third line). Verbs appear in decreasing frequency from
line to line, while objects of the verbs appear increasingly over the
unit. Binding between the first and second lines is evident in their
three *yqtl verbs, while the second and third lines have three substan-
tives with initial ma-. As a corollary, the first two lines show as a result
of the verbs (mostly) final -u, where the second and third lines contain
several substantives in final -i.
Where the prior unit spells out in its second and third lines the nature
of the eating mentioned in the first line, this unit details the drinking
mentioned in the prior unit’s first line. Especially through the repeti-
tion of the verb tištayū (and not generally the theme of drinking), the
effect is to bind this unit with the preceding. With a couple of two-
word units, the second line doubles the nominal components of the
first line and follows its syntax as well. The phrase [wa-bi-kāsi urā i]
echoes karpanīma (especially with initial ka- in the nouns), while [da]mi
‘i īma offers an evocative image for yêna. At a more subtle level, final
-ma also binds the two lines.
cat 1.4 iii 469
Introduction
Between the last understandable lines in column II (lines 34–36) and
the beginning of intelligible narrative in column III (line 10), there is
a lacuna of over thirty lines: twelve badly broken lines at the end of
column II, twelve additional missing lines at the beginning of column
III, followed by nine that are too broken to give a continuous trans-
lation. When the text becomes complete, the narrative introduces a
speech by Baal that recounts a meeting of the divine council in which
he was shamefully treated by another god (lines 10–22). The function
of this speech within the overarching story of Baal and Anat’s visit with
Athirat is not clear. Following the speech, the narrative continues with
Baal and Anat arriving before Athirat, their presentation of the gifts
they have brought, a conversation with Athirat that concludes with the
gods having a meal together (lines 23–44).
One may note that a substantial amount of action occurs between
the time when Athirat first sees the two gods approaching her home
(1.4 II 12–16) and the time when they actually arrive into her presence
(1.4 III 23–24). Such a delay between these two events is not unusual in
the Baal Cycle. For example, in 1.2 I 21–22 the gods see the approach
of Yamm’s messengers. The narrative then describes their fearful reac-
tion, and Baal’s angry speech to rally the gods (lines 23–29) before they
meet the messengers with their heads raised. The messengers finally
arrive in line 30. In 1.3 IV 39–46, Baal sees the approach of Anat, and
before she comes into his presence (somewhere in the lacuna following
line 46), he prepares for a dinner, while Anat herself freshens up (at
least lines 42–46) before she comes to meet Baal. Similarly, Dan’il sees
Kothar wa-Hasis approaching in 1.17 V 9–11 and instructs his wife
to prepare a meal for him (line 21), and she prepares the meal (lines
21–25) before Kothar arrives (line 25). Our passage (1.4 II 12–III 22)
clearly contains a more elaborate interlude than in any of the passages
just described. The scene here includes Athirat’s fearful reaction and
subsequent recognition that Baal and Anat are coming in peace (1.4 II
16–28). She then instructs her servant perhaps to prepare for a meal
(1.4 II 29–36). The broken lines and lacuna that follow (1.4 II 37–III
9) give no clear sense as to the succeeding action, except that when
the broken lines begin in 1.4 III 1–9, there appears to be a conversa-
tion going on between Baal and someone else. As it seems likely that
lines 23–24 describe the actual arrival of the two gods before Athirat,
it is probably not Athirat who is conversing here with Baal. It seems
470 cat 1.4 iii
11
BH has an example of a Hithpolel of wd in Ps 20:9b, but it does not have a
meaning related to speaking: wa’ăna nû qamnû wannit‘ôdād, “but we stand and keep
upright” (cf. BOS 2.128). The Hithpolel of the verb also appears in 1QH (Hodayot)
XII:36: hit‘wddty w’qwmh. HALOT 795 divides the occurrences of wd into two distinct
roots. See Margalit MLD 37, who uses this meaning in his translation and interprets
the bicolon as describing Baal as he arises in the assembly. Cf. also van Zijl, Baal 87.
472 cat 1.4 iii
have D-stem transitivizing force, i.e., “to make tremble,” which in our
context would perhaps carry the connotation, “to speak in a loud and
imposing voice.” This line of approach, of course, is speculative.
The tricolon of lines 12–14a opens Baal’s speech with his description
of someone’s outrageous actions against him in the assembly of the
gods. Who is this opponent who abased and spit at Baal? The most
obvious candidate would be Yamm, whose conflict with Baal plays
such a central part in the cycle (1.1–1.2). Such personal confrontations
between the two appear to be mentioned in two passages. 1.1 IV 13–27
describes El’s proclamation of Yamm as ruler of the council and refers
in a broken context (lines 22–23) both to Baal and to insults (kd yn’a n:
“Thus he reviles me (?)”), although it is not clear who is the subject
of the insults. The second passage is found in 1.4 VI 13, where the
verbs ql and wp , central in our passage, appear in a somewhat broken
context, but clearly related to a reference to Yamm in line 12.
In our interpretation of these lines, the first two cola consist of verbs.
If our reading of the first two letters of line 12 is correct, then we find
each colon beginning with a form of *qwm, “to rise, stand up” (3rd
masc. sg. perfect in line 12, imperfect in line 13). This is paralleled in
the following bicolon (lines 14b–16), with similar forms of *šty. The
final verb in each of the two cola has the 1st sg. object pronoun -n. The
only ambiguous element in the two cola is the word ydd, which is either
a verb or a noun. Some scholars see it as the epithet, “the Beloved,”
and consider it the subject of the verbs in the two lines (Albright 1934:
119; Aistleitner 38; Wiggins 1993:52–53; Wyatt 1998: 95). This seems
unlikely, however. The epithet ydd elsewhere is only used of Mot, and is
always the B-word of a parallel pair, in which the proper name Mot is
the A-word. Thus an appearance of the epithet without a prior refer-
ence to the name of the deity seems problematic. In addition, there is
little reason to identify the opponent here as Mot, since he has not yet
made an appearance in the story. It seems much more likely that ydd
is a verb from the root *ndd, “to move forward, stand” (cf. DUL 620;
Pardee 1997a:258; TO 1.200, n. c; CML2 58). The same verb appears
in another context with *qwm in 1.10 II 17: lpnnh.ydd.wyqm, “Before her
he got up and stood.”
The verb *qwm is a standard term for assuming the posture appro-
priate for addressing an assembly (1.2 I 15–16//31; Dan 7:10; cf. Job
19:25; see Mullen 1980:231; UBC 1.288, 295). In BH the synonym *‘md
also is used in this manner in 1 Kgs 22:19; Jer 23:18, 22; Zech 3:4),
cat 1.4 iii 473
12
Pope (1947:340–41, esp. nn. 28, 31) suggested that wyql n might be understood as
referring to “hawking,” that is, gathering up of saliva in the throat before spitting (and
relating it to the same Arabic root as Pardee). However, if we identify the n at the end
of the word as the 1st sg. object suffix, this rendering becomes virtually impossible.
474 cat 1.4 iii
the appropriate root of štt, about the identity of the broken word at
the beginning of line 15, and about the meaning of the noun qlt. The
verb, štt, could be from *šyt, “to place, set” (so, for example, TO 1.200;
Coogan 1978:98; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1156; CML1 95; de Moor
1987:50; Pardee 1997a:258) or from *šty, “to drink” (e.g., Albright 1934:
119; Aistleitner 38; Cassuto, BOS 2.128; Gordon 1977:92). While recent
scholars have tended to interpret it as coming from the former, there
is a strong argument for relating it to the latter. In the previous lines
12–13 we have seen the apparent occurrence of the suffix and prefix
forms of a single verb used in parallel to one another (qm//yqm). It
seems reasonable to argue that the same is operative here (štt//’ištynh).
In addition, there is no other example of *šyt and *šty being used as
a parallel pair.
Before discussing the damaged word in line 15, we first turn to qlt,
since it represents the parallel B-word in the second line of the bicolon.
Three major interpretations of this word have been proposed. Several
scholars understand it as “filth, cheap drink,” i.e., a contaminated drink
of some sort, inappropriate for consumption (cf. Coogan 1978:98; Diet-
rich and Loretz 1997:1156; CML1 95; Thespis 179; ANET 132; de Moor
1987:50; MLR 81). Others have rendered it as “dishonor, humiliation,
disgrace, scorn, mockery” (so Albright 1934:119; CML2 58; Gordon
1977:92; Pardee 1997a:258). This interpretation has stronger backing
from cognates (cf. BH qālôn, “dishonor, shame,” qĕlālāh, “curse”; Akka-
dian qalālu, “to humiliate, dishonor,” in the D-stem; Aramaic *qll, “to
be dishonored, lightly esteemed”). It also has a fairly clear parallel use
in 1.6 V 12: lk b lm pht qlt, “due to you, O Baal, I faced humiliation.”
A third translation, “whorl” (so Margalit, MLD 37; Wiggins 1993:52,
41–42; Wyatt 1998:96) has very little substantiation and relies largely
on a mistaken reading of 1.4 II 4 (qlt instead of the certain t lt, cf.
MLD 28–29, see the Textual Notes above on the line, p. 429). From this
passage Margalit attempts to build an etymology of “whorl,” based on
qll, “to be light,” and then proposes an unlikely reconstruction of the
broken word in line 15 as p[lk], “spindle.” The most plausible render-
ing, therefore, is “dishonor, humiliation.”
Turning from qlt to the broken word that is its parallel term in
the first colon, all that we can say with reasonable certainty is that
the word probably begins with a p and may end with a t. The most
popular proposal for restoring the word has been p[gl]t, “foul meat,”
first suggested by Gaster (1946:24 n. 18) and followed by CML1 95;
de Moor 1987:80 and CAT (cf. also Dietrich and Loretz 1998:1156).
cat 1.4 iii 475
13
It may be noted that Avishur’s list of word-pairs contains no pairs consisting of
one word beginning with p- in the A-line and qlt in the B-line in any of the Semitic
languages used in his study (Avishur 1984:765, 770, 774, 778, 780). Thus whatever
word is reconstructed here, the pairing is thus far unique.
476 cat 1.4 iii
that the feast Baal mentioned in lines 12–16 was just such a detestable
one (lines 21b–22).14
The word rendered “feasts” is db m, which can also be interpreted
as “sacrifices” (so Albright 1934:119; CML1 95; CML2 58; de Moor
1987:50; MLR 81; Wiggins 1993:52; Wyatt 1998:96). Pardee (1997a:258
n.142) has pointed out, however, that the Sumerian/Akkadian/Hur-
rian/Ugaritic polyglot text, Ug V 137 iii 6, equates Ugaritic dab u with
Akkadian isinnu, Sumerian EZEN, “festival, feast.” Since the context of
the passage is a discussion about an assembly of the gods that clearly
took place in connection with a feast (thus the reference in lines 14–16
to the “table” and “cup”), it seems best to render the noun here as
“feast(s)” (so also TO 1.201; BOS 2.128; Dijkstra 1975:563; Gaster,
Thespis 179; ANET 132).
The verb šn a occurs only here in the literary texts. A participial form
appears in 1.4 VII 36, “haters of Baal,” and the verb may appear in
a very badly damaged economic text, 4.217.8. It commonly appears
in the Hebrew Bible (as śānē’ ), in contexts associated with Yahweh
(cf. Deut 12:31; 15:22; Amos 5:21). In Prov 6:16 the verb appears in
a numerical saying similar to our passage: “Six things Yahweh hates
(śānē’), and seven are abominations (tô‘ēbôt) for him.”
In characterizing the despised feasts, the tricolon of lines 18b–21a
uses three terms, b t, dnt and tdmm ’amht. Two major trends of interpre-
tation are evident in the scholarly literature. The first sees these terms
as referring to inappropriate sexual activity during a feast (cf. e.g.,
Thespis 179; Wiggins 1993:52; Wyatt 1998:96). Thus the first term, b t,
“shame,” cognate with BH bōšet (BOS 2.128; see ANET 132), is inter-
preted in such a sense. One may note that it sometimes occurs in the
Bible in a context of sexual shame (cf. 1 Sam 20:30 and Jer 3:23–25).
The second term dnt has been related to BH *znh, “to fornicate” and
is translated as such by some. But this proposed relationship between
14
Roth (1965:80–81) argued that lines 17–21a are a proverbial saying from the
context of the cult of Baal at Ugarit. The saying was originally entirely separate from
the Baal Cycle and was set in its form when it was incorporated into the speech found
in our passage. For Roth, this explains the shift from first person in lines 14–16 to third
person in 17–21a. This proposal does not seem likely, however, since he can provide no
corroboratory evidence for his reconstruction (cf. de Tarragon 1980:58). In addition,
the gods speak of themselves in the third person fairly often in Ugaritic narrative: El
does so in 1.4 IV 38–39, 1.6 III 4–5, and 1.14 I 41–43; Athirat does it just below in
lines 28–30a. Thus there is no need to see this as an indication of the presence of a
foreign literary fragment here. Roth’s approach also fails to address how such a ritual
saying would fit into the present context.
cat 1.4 iii 477
semantic field appears quite plausible in the passage. One could render
the line, “For in it (i.e., the feast discussed in lines 12–16) shame indeed
shone forth” (cf. Thespis 179); or “For in it, shame indeed was seen” (so
more commonly, e. g., Albright 1934:119; TO 1.201; Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1156; CML2 58; Pardee 1997a:258). Another interpretation (e.g.,
BOS 2.128 n. 60; CML1 95 n. 5) focuses on the Arabic and Mishnaic
meaning of naba a, “to sprout, flow out,” also a plausible rendering for
the verb in our passage. Dijkstra (1975) proposed relating the verb to
the root *hb , found in Ugaritic with the apparent meaning, “to knock
down.” His understanding of the line is quite different from the other
renderings: “When they are shamefully abased (i.e., knocked down)
there.” His derivation incurs the problem that in neither of the two
clear occurrences of the prefix form of the verb hb in Ugaritic does
the h assimilate ( yhb in CAT 2.4.20; thb in 2.47.16).
An ambiguity arises concerning the fact that lines 20–21 read tdmm
amht, while line 22 has tdmmt amht. Some scholars read the first tdmm
as a verb, and the second, with the added t, as a noun (e.g., CML2 58;
TO 1.201; Pardee 1997a:258). While plausible, it seems less likely that
there would be such a striking semantic shift in this kind of repetition
of phrases in succeeding poetic units. It seems more likely that both
tdmm and tdmmt are nouns (so Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1156; CML1
95; Gordon 1977:92; Wiggins 1993:52; Wyatt 1998:96). It may be that
the poet simply uses a masculine and a feminine form in the parallel
passages for aesthetic purposes. It may also be the case that we have
a scribal error in line 20 and that a t is to be reconstructed at the end
of the word.
We may summarize our interpretation of the first twenty-two lines
of this column thusly. The first nine broken lines appear, at least from
line 5, to be a speech by someone discussing the kingship of a god,
presumably Baal, perhaps referring to an enemy of Baal in line 5. The
speaker is unclear, although Anat seems a likely candidate. Lines 10–11
introduce Baal’s response (lines 12–22). In these lines he describes an
event in the past when a male deity, perhaps Yamm, dishonored him
during a feast and assembly of the gods. This god scorned Baal and
spit in the assembly, clearly considered a highly insulting act toward
Baal. In a metaphoric description, Baal states that he “drank” disgrace
and dishonor from the outrageous behavior of the unnamed god. He
then indicates that the feast during which this happened was filled
with every element of inappropriateness that he hates. Baal’s anger at
this public humiliation is obvious in the speech. Thus the speech itself
480 cat 1.4 iii
epithets of the three deities in lines 23–26, see UBC 1.153, and the
Commentary, pp. 188 and 404–7. This presentation of gifts, of course,
may be expected as the first order of business upon meeting with the
goddess, and presumably it reflects the protocol of meeting among
human royalty too. As discussed above, the bringing of gifts was an
important political activity in the Late Bronze Age Levant (see above,
pp. 407–8). Here it indicates that Baal desires friendly relations and
an alliance with Athirat.
Athirat’s response to the gifts (lines 28–32) is clearly not quite what
Baal and Anat hoped for. There are two aspects of Athirat’s questions
here that are important to recognize. First, they indicate that she is not
at this point ready to accept the gifts. Accepting them will indicate that
she recognizes Baal’s legitimacy and will also place her under obliga-
tion to reciprocate. Thus her pointed questions here, “Why are you
giving gifts to me? Have you given gifts to El?” suggest a distrust of the
motives of the givers, as well as a hint that they may not be following
the appropriate protocol, if they have not taken similar or superior gifts
to El himself. The emphasis on El in this response is marked by his
standard epithets (appearing already in 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22, 1.2 I
16, 33, 36, 1.2 III 16, 17, 19, 21 as well as 1.14 II 10–11). Since we
know that she does accept the gifts eventually and agrees to help Baal,
it may be that these questions are intended by Athirat to remind the
young gods of her superior status and their vulnerability. They thus
may not actually represent serious doubts in Athirat’s mind. In any
case, this exchange creates suspense in the story.
Anat responds to Athirat’s questions. In the same way that she
brought Baal’s request for a palace before El, she plays the role of
intermediary before Athirat as well. As in the former situation, it was
presumably inappropriate for Baal to speak directly in a situation where
he is at a clear disadvantage. Anat’s response is both defensive and
conciliating, emphasizing as it does that they indeed want to honor
Athirat with the gifts, but do not intend to ignore El either.
The broken word at the beginning of line 34, [ ]m, has caused some
confusion among interpreters. A number simply ignore it in their trans-
lations (e.g., TO 1.202; CML1 95; Pardee 1997a:258). Several restored it
as [ u]m, “mother” (e.g., Aistleitner 39; CML1 94–95; Thespis 180; CML2
58). This reading must now be dropped on epigraphic grounds, since
the trace of the letter indicates that it is most likely/k/, ’a/ or /n/. Of
these, the only one that appears probable grammatically is /k/, which
482 cat 1.4 iii
┌ ┐
forms k m. This can be understood as the third fem. sg. direct object
marker with enclitic -m, i.e., (“we give gifts to) you” (this reading already
proposed in Coogan 1978:99 and de Moor 1987:50).
The next three lines (lines 37–39) unfortunately are broken. Each line
contains the name of one of the three deities, but the verbs describing
the action (or further direct discourse?) fall in lacunas at the beginning
of these lines. They may describe the beginning of the banquet that
is the subject of the following lines, since the two passages parallel to
the description of the banquet in lines 40–44 (1.4 VI 55–59 and 1.5
IV 11–16) in neither case initiate the discussion of the feast, but occur
after the banquet has been introduced. Less likely, they might describe
Athirat’s acceptance of the gifts. But none of this is certain.
The last five preserved lines are broken, but can be restored con-
fidently on the basis of 1.4 VI 55–59 and 1.5 IV 11–16 (and other
shorter passages, such as 1.4 IV 36–38 and 1.17 VI 3–6). They describe
the banquet held in honor of Baal and Anat’s arrival. The gods eat
and drink at the feast, a conventional aspect of divine interaction (see
UBC 1.154–55). This may be the divine equivalent of ritual as the
setting in which divine-human communication takes place (cf. Wright
2001:47). The introductory line, 40b–41a, refers to the gods eating
and drinking, the usual sequence for describing feasting (Lichtenstein
1968). If the line is to be restored closely to that in 1.4 VI 55, then it
begins with ‘d, often translated “while.” The particle is perhaps meant
to suggest the divine feast as the general backdrop to the interaction
of the three deities already described. At the same time, it is possible
that the previous broken lines (lines 37–39) actually introduce the scene
of the banquet.
The phrase in lines 41b–42a, mr¿ m [ d], “sucklings of the breast,”
has occasioned two very different interpretations. Some scholars (e.g.,
Thespis 180, 192; TO 1.202; Gordon 1977:92; Pope 1977:657; PU 2.72)
have viewed it as the parallel B-word with ilm in the previous colon,
and thus see it as an epithet for the gods, i.e., those who suckle the
breast of the goddess, presumably Athirat. The majority of interpret-
ers, however, see the phrase as the A-word in parallel with mr i in the
following colon, and thus as a description of the meat eaten in the
feast (BOS 2.159; CML2 58; cf. ANET 134; de Moor 1987:51; Pardee
1997a:258; Wyatt 1998:97).
Several arguments for reading the phrase as an epithet of the gods
have been put forward. The gods sired by El in 1.23, for example, are
variously called “suckers of the nipples/the breast of Athirat/the Lady”
cat 1.4 iii 483
( ynqm b’ap zd/ d ’a rt), in lines 24, 59 and 61. Kirta’s son, Ya ib, is
said to be one who “sucks the milk of A[thi]rat, draws the breast of
Adolescent [Anat], the wet nurses [of the gods]” (1.15 II 26–27). An
ivory panel from a royal bed excavated from Ugarit depicts a female
giving suck to two other figures (Pope 1977:pl. XI), perhaps a portrayal
of the divine nursing of the king. Another significant argument is that
in general, the initial parallel term in Ugaritic poetry is usually the
more common one and the following parallel term the less common
one and the one that is expanded in form. This is not the case if mr¿ m
[ d] is the A-word to the following mr’i. The latter is much more com-
mon than the former, and the former is certainly expanded in form,
as is expected of a B-word. Thus it seems plausible to relate it to ilm
as an epithet of the gods.
But there appear to be better arguments in support of the interpreta-
tion of the phrase as food. The first colon of this passage, lines 40b–41a,
occurs also as a single line in another context (1.4 V 48) and therefore
it may best be seen here as a line prefixed here to the following bicolon
(lines 41b–43a). The verb [wtp]q in line 41 governs both lines of the
bicolon, thus tying the two nominal phrases together as parallels, even
though the second phrase (q mr i) is the more common of the two. In
addition, the final line, [b rb m]l t q [mr’i], actually appears elsewhere
(1.3 I 7–8; 1.17 VI 4) as the second line of other bicola, in which it is the
parallel of the preceding line. It is always dependent on the preceding
line and it expands the nominal elements of the preceding parallel. In
this context, then, mr¿ m [ d] must be the first part of the parallel pair.
On the basis of this reasoning, mr¿ m [ d] is best interpreted as part of
the rich fare of the divine feast.
The feast closes with a stereotypical bicolon for drinking, found in
complete form in El’s invitation to Athirat to eat and drink in 1.4 IV
36–38 and in the description of the divine feast held at the inauguration
of Baal’s palace in 1.4 VI 58–59. The vessels for drinking, krpn//ks,
appear twice in the description of Baal’s feast in 1.3 I 10–11, 13–14.
An evocative, traditional sort of image, wine ( yn) here is called “blood
of trees” (dm ‘ m), or less literally “blood of the grapevines” (Ginsberg
1982:101 n. 131). This image is attested in comparable form as the
“blood of grape(s),” for example in Gen 49:11 (bayyayin//ûbĕdam-‘ănābîm)
and Deut 32:14 (wĕdam ‘ēnāb tišteh- āmer).15 The expression dm ‘nb occurs
15
So CML2 58, which also cites 1 Macc 6:34. For further discussion, see SPUMB
146–7; M. L. Fisher 1969:66–67; cf. Akkadian damu in CAD D:79.
484 cat 1.4 iii
also in Ben Sira 39:26 [manuscript B]. In the Tyrian legend of the
invention of wine cited by Achilles Tatius II:2 (Gaselee 1917:60–61; cf.
Thespis 180), Dionysius the god of the vine said that wine “is harvest
water, the blood of the grape (haima botrous).” Further parallels are
provided in citations given in Lipiński 1970:86–87 and de Moor and
van Lugt 1974:14 (see also Zamora 2000:599–601).
The feast often marks the close of such an episode, but here it may
be assumed that the following lacuna moves to the next order of busi-
ness between the deities, i.e., gaining Athirat’s agreement to ask El
about the palace for Baal. Nine lines are either completely or almost
completely destroyed at the end of column III, and the following
column IV begins with a lacuna of about twelve lines. The missing
twenty-one lines presumably describe Athirat’s acceptance of the gifts,
Baal’s request that she go to El to plead for him (probably including the
oft-repeated lament [1.3 IV to Anat, and 1.4 I to Kothar]) about his
lack of a palace, followed by her agreement to go. When column IV
becomes legible, the goddess is preparing for her trip to El’s abode.
CAT 1.4 IV
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:131–40, pls. XXVI, XXX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus pl.
XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse); CTA 25–26, fig. 15, pls. VII,
VIII; KTU 17–18; CAT 18.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 39–41; Albright 1934:120–23; Caquot and
Sznycer, TO 1.203–6; Cassuto, BOS 2.130–32, 178–87; Coogan 1978:99–101; Cross,
CMHE 183–85; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1157–61; Driver, CML1 94–97; Gaster,
Thespis 181–85; Gibson, CML2 59–60; Ginsberg, ANET 132–33, KU 27–30; Gordon,
UL 30–32, 1977:93–95; Jirku 44–46; Maier 1986:12–20; Margalit, MLD 206–12;
de Moor 1987:51–54; Mullen 1980:70–72; del Olmo Lete, MLC 199–202; MLR
82–84; Pardee 1997a:258–59; Pope, EUT 36–37, 1971; Smith, UNP 126–29; Watson
1978:398–99; Wiggins 1993:55–61; Wyatt 1998:98–101; Xella 1982:111–13; van
Zijl, Baal 95–106 (cf. 74–81).
1 r[ ]
a μr[ ]
w’aμμrμr[ ]
’a rt.yμ[ ]
5 md.p l[ ]
ksp.dt.yrμq[ ]
‘db.gpn.’atn∑t[ ]
yšm‘.qd.w’amr[ ]
mdl.‘r. md.p l
10 št.gpnm.dt.ksp
dt.yrq.nqbnm
‘db.gpn.’atnth
y bq.qdš.w’amrr
yštn.’a rt.lbmt.‘r
15 lysmsmt.bmt.p l
qdš.y’u dm.šb‘r
’amrr.kkbkb.lpnm
’a r.btlt.‘nt
wb‘l.tb‘.mrym. pn
486 cat 1.4 iv
20 ’idk.lttn.pnm
‘m.’il.mbk.nhrm
qrb.’apq.thmtm
tgly. d.’il.wtb’u
qrš.mlk.’ab.šnm
25 lp‘n.’il.thbr.wtql
tšt wy.wtkbdh
hlm.’il.kyphnh
yprq.l b.wy q
p‘nh.lhdm.y pd.wμykrkr
30 ’u b‘th.yš’u.gh.wyμ [ ]
’ik.m¿yt.rbt.’a r[ ]m
’ik.’atwt.qnyt.’i[ ]
r¿b.r¿bt.w∑t¿t[ ]
hm.¿m’u.¿m’it.w‘s[ ]
35 l m.hm.štym.l [ ]
b l nt.l mšt
bkrpnm.yn.bk. rμ
dm.‘ m.hm.yd.’ilm≈ l1k
y ssk.’ahbt. r.t‘rrk
40 wt‘n.rbt.’a rtym
t mk.’il. km. kmt
‘m‘lm. yt. t
t mk.mlkn.’al’iy[ ]b‘l
p n.w’in.d‘lnh
45 klnyn.1q[ ]3h[.]Â[ ]
klnyÂ[ ]∂b2l.ksh
[ ]μy[ ]≈l1 . r’il.’abh
[ ]μl.mlk.dyknnh.y
’å rt.wbnh.’ilt.w brt
50 ’åryh.wn.’in.bt.lb‘l
km.’ilm.w r.kbn.’a rt
m b’il.m ll.bnh
μ 3brbt.’a rt.ym
μ 3b.klt.knyt
55 m b.pdry.bt.’ar
m ll. ly[ ]bt.rb
m b.’ar .bty‘bdr
wy‘nl pn’il.dp’id
p‘bd.’an.‘nn.’a rt
60 p1 ‘bd.’a k.’a1 d.’ul
hm.’amt.’a rt.tlbn
2lbnt.ybn.b2t.lb‘l
V1 k1 m’ilm.;1 1 r.kbn.’a rt
cat 1.4 iv 487
Textual Notes
Line 3. w’aμμrrμ [ ] The /m/ is damaged, but the upper line and right
tip of the horizontal are preserved, as is the deep interior of the vertical.
Of the first /r/, traces of the left side of the two left horizontals are
visible, along with the probable bottom line of the right wedge. The
second /r/ is represented only by a possible lower line of the lower
left wedge. But this may be breakage.
Line 6. yr∫q[ The lower corner of the horizontal of the /q/ is pre-
served. While other letters are possible epigraphically, the context
confirms /q/.
Line 28. {y}wy q It appears that Ilimalku began to write a /y/ here,
but recognized, after making two wedges, that he needed to place a
/w/ before the /y/. He simply placed the two left wedges of the /w/
over the aborted letter.
Line 29. wμykrkr /y/ is not certain epigraphically, though the con-
text assures the reading. Only the general shape, which is compatible
with /y/, seems present. We do not see any certain edges. The word
wraps all the way around the right edge almost to the face of column
V at line 31. For the final /r/, see the photo of column V edge,
Image 66, bottom right.
488 cat 1.4 iv
Line 30. wyμ [ All that is left of the letter at the break is the upper left
corner of a single vertical. But context assures the reading of / /.
Line 33. wt∑ ¿t[ Of the first /t/, only the left indentation here is actually
a wedge. The larger indentation is a break, not another large wedge;
/t/ seems the best possibility. Following the second /t/, there need be
no additional letters on this line.
Line 37. bk. rμ Most scholars emend /bk/ to /bk<s>/, on the basis
of the parallel in 1.4 VI 59. One may note, however, that bk could also
could be a variant (< *bbk, “from a cup”), so that emendation may not
be necessary. Only the right wedge of the / / is preserved.
Line 38. mƒ l1k The /l/ is largely chipped away. The left line of the left
wedge is preserved, however, along with perhaps the deep interior of
the middle wedge. The /k/is shallow, but all three wedges are visible
on the edge of the tablet.
Line 41. kmt The final /t/, on the edge, is damaged by a crease
(not a crack) on the tablet. There appears to be an accidental vertical
line along the edge from line 39 to line 42.
Line 45. klnyn.1q[ ]3h[ ]Â[ The left side of the /q/’s left wedge is pre-
served, as is the upper half of the right wedge. The right part of the
upper wedge of the /h/ is clear, and the deep interior of the middle
wedge is preserved. The letter is certain. There is no trace of a word
divider after /h/. CAT sees a tiny break in the tablet that has been mis-
read. The following /n/ is very worn, and only the upper half survives
about the large crack. Little clear distinction between the individual
wedges can be seen. Thus the letter is epigraphically uncertain, though
the context argues strongly for /n/.
Line 46. klnyÂ[ ]∫b2 l. ksh After the first five letters, the text moves
onto the small fragment that constitutes the lower right corner of the
tablet’s obverse. It is particularly poorly preserved. The face of the
fragment is mottled with tiny cracks, which make reading it more dif-
ficult. The upper left part of the second /n/ is preserved along the
break of the upper fragment, with a hint of the middle wedge’s upper
line (this is not easily seen in the photo). We don’t see any traces of an
cat 1.4 iv 489
additional /n/ preceding the /b/, as proposed by CAT. The /b/ is not
well preserved. The horizontals are visible, but the vertical that seems
to show up on the left may only be some breakage. It is also possible
that the crack above the right horizontal is the remains of the right
vertical. The outline of the following /l/ is clear in the discoloring of
the interior. Part of the upper left wedge is preserved. To the right one
can discern the verticality of the letter.
Line 47. [ ]μy[ ]ƒ l1 The first /y/ is uncertain. Two verticals are
discernable, with only the right side of the left vertical surviving. No
clear remains of multiple wedges are visible, but /y/ is most likely. Only
the right wedge of the /l/ is visible, but context supports the reading.
The edges of the /y/ and / / are largely broken away, but the deep
interiors are largely there.
Line 50. ’åryh /’a/ The right tip of the right horizontal is preserved
at the break.
Line 53. μ 3brbt The central section of the /m/’s horizontal is pre-
served, as is the right line of the vertical and perhaps part of its upper
line. The first /b/ is in bad shape. The interior depths of the hori-
zontals and perhaps part of one of the verticals survive. There seems
little room for a word divider after /m b/, but the damage may mask
one, as suggested by CAT.
LOWER EDGE
Line 60. p 1 ‘bd The /p/ is in bad shape, but certain. The upper wedge
is fairly well preserved, but only fragments of the lower wedge survive.
’a k The edges of the /n/ are badly worn. There are only vague
indications here of multiple wedges.
’a1 d. The / / is only partially preserved. The left side is visible,
but the right is badly damaged.
Line 62. 2 lbnt The wedges of the /l/ were placed on the tablet very
unevenly. The left two wedges begin at a much lower level than the
right wedge. The /n/ has four wedges.
b2t Only the left side of the /t/ is preserved.
lb‘l The last /l/ of this word appears to have four wedges.
Col. V 1 1km The /k/ is damaged, with the right wedge clear, along
with the right tip of the lower left wedge, and a hint of part of the
upper left wedge. That this is a /k/ is assured by context.
;1 1 r Very little of the /w/ is preserved, most of it having been
chipped away. But parts of the left wedges and of the two right wedges
are discernable. Pieces of all four of the wedges of the / /survive. The
lower horizontal of the / / is visible, as is the upper left corner of the
upper horizontal and much of the Winkelhaken.
1 r[.’il.’ab . . .]
1–2 [wt‘n.rbt]/’a r[t.ym]
2–4 [šm‘.lqdš]/w’amrr[.]
[ldgy.rbt]/’a rt.ym[.]
4–7 [mdl.‘r]/ md.p l[.]
[št.gpnm.dt]/ksp.
dt.yrq[.nqbnm]
‘db.gpn.’atnt[y]
8 yšm‘.qd<š>.w’amr[r]
9–12 mdl.‘r. md.p l
cat 1.4 iv 491
št.gpnm.dt.ksp
dt.yrq.nqbnm
‘db.gpn.’atnth
13–15 y bq.qdš.w’amrr
yštn.’a rt.lbmt.‘r
lysmsmt.bmt.p l
16–17 qdš.y’u dm.šb‘r
’amrr.kkbkb.lpnm
18–19 ’a r.btlt.‘nt
wb‘l.tb‘.mrym. pn
20–22 ’idk.lttn.pnm
‘m.’il.mbk.nhrm
qrb.’apq.thmtm
23–24 tgly. d.’il.
wtb’u/qrš.mlk.’ab.šnm
25–26 lp‘n.’il.thbr.wtql
tšt wy.wtkbdh
27–28 hlm.’il.kyphnh
yprq.l b.wy q
29–30 p‘nh.lhdm.y pd.
wykrkr/’u b‘th.
30 yš’u.gh.wy [ ]
31–32 ’ik.m¿yt.rbt.’a r[t.y]m
’ik.’atwt.qnyt.’i[lm]
33–34 r¿b.r¿bt.wt¿t[ ]
hm.¿m’u.¿m’it.w‘s[t]
35–38 l m.hm.štym
l [m]/b l nt.l m
št/bkrpnm.yn.
bk. r /dm.‘ m.
38–39 hm.yd.’il mlk/y ssk.
’ahbt. r.t‘rrk
40 wt‘n.rbt.’a rt ym
41–43 t mk.’il. km.
kmt/‘m‘lm.
yt. t/t mk.
43–44 mlkn.’al’iy[n.]b‘l
p n.w’in.d‘lnh
45–46 klnyn.q[š]h[.]n[bl]
klnyn[.n]bl.ksh
47–48 [’an]y[.]ly . r ’il.’abh
[’i]l.mlk.dyknnh.
48–50 y /’a rt.wbnh.
’ilt.w brt/’aryh.
50–51 wn.’in.bt.lb‘l/km.’ilm.
w r.kbn.’a rt
52–53 m b’il.m ll.bnh
m b rbt.’a rt.ym
492 cat 1.4 iv
54–55 m b.klt.knyt
m b.pdry.bt.’ar
56–57 m ll. ly[.]bt.rb
m b.’ar <y>.bt y‘bdr
58 wy‘n l pn ’il.dp’id
59–62 p‘bd.’an.‘nn.’a rt
p‘bd.’ank.’a d.’ul
hm.’amt.’a rt.
tlbn/lbnt
62–V 1 ybn.bt.lb‘l/km’ilm.
w r.kbn.’a rt
1
See the discussion in Huehnergard 1987b:134.
cat 1.4 iv 493
2
The final word in this line, lpnm, may belong to the following bicolon instead. If
so the lines would read:
Qudsh flared up as a flame,
Amrar, like a star.
Ahead went Adolescent Anat,
But Baal departed for the summit of Sapan.
See the Commentary on these lines below.
3
Cognates include BH mārôm (BDB 928). The only interpretive issue is whether
the form is singular (e.g., 2 Sam 22:17, Isa 33:5, 57:15, Jer 25:30) or plural (used col-
lectively for singular; see Isa 33:16). The singular is overwhelmingly predominant in
the Hebrew, and nothing in the context here requires the plural.
4
Cognates include Akkadian tebû, “to depart, set out” Syriac tb‘ and Arabic tabi‘a,
“to follow” (cf., UT 19.2517); see also UBC 1.218 n. 5; DUL 857; and Huehnergard
1987b:184.
494 cat 1.4 iv
33–34 Are you very hungry, having travelled, ra¿ābu ra¿ibti wa-ta¿îti/
Or are you very thirsty, having himma ¿amā’u5 ¿ami’ti wa-
jour[neyed]? ‘assa[ti]
35–38 Eat, indeed drink! la ami himma šitiyi-ma
E[at] food from the tables, la a[mi]/bi- ul anati la ma
Drink wine from goblets, šitî/bi-karpanīma yêna
From a golden cup, the blood of biki urā i/dama ‘i īma
trees!
38–39 Or does the ‘hand’ of El the King himma yadu ’ili malki/
excite you, ya āsisu-ki
The love of the Bull arouse you?” ’ahbatu ôri ta‘āriru-ki
40 And Lady Athirat of the Sea wa-ta‘nî rabbatu ’a iratu
answered: yammi
41–43 “Your decree, O El, is wise, ta mu-ka ’ili akama
You are wise for eternity, akamta/‘imma ‘ôlami
A fortunate life is your decree. iyyatu a ati/ta mu-ka
43–44 Our king is Mightie[st] Baal, malku-na ’al’iy[ānu] ba‘lu/
Our ruler, with none above him. āpi u-na wa-’ênu du-‘alênu-hu
45–46 All of us will br[ing] him a cha[lice], kullu-nayyanna qa[ša]-hu
na[bilu]/
All of us [will b]ring him a cup. kullu-nayyanna [na]bilu
kāsa-hu
47–48 [In lame]nt [’āni]yu
Indeed he cries to Bull El, his Father, la-ya û u ôra ’ila ’abā-hu/
To [E]l, the King who created/ [’i]la malka dā-yakāninu-hu
established him.
48–50 He cries to Athirat and her children, ya û u ’a irata wa-banī-ha
The goddess and the band of her ’ilata wa- ibbirata/’aryi-ha
brood:
50–51 ‘For Baal has no house like the gods’, wa-na ’ênu bêtu lê-ba‘li/kama
’ilīma
No court like Athirat’s children’s, wa- a iru ka-banī ’a irati
52–53 The dwelling of El is the shelter of mô abu ’ili ma lalu
his son, bini-hu/
The dwelling of Lady Athirat of the mô abu rabbati ’a irati
Sea, yammi
5
For cognates, see DUL 322. For loans into Egyptian, see Hoch 1994:386.
cat 1.4 iv 495
Commentary
The syntax binds the two lines, but as a further outstanding feature, the
title of ’amrari ties sonantly to that of his master, ’a irati yammi.
6
For syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:158.
7
Fem. pl. For syllabic evidence, cf. the gloss in EA 296:17, la-bi-tu.
8
This jussive form derives from *yubnay; see UG 511.
496 cat 1.4 iv
These lines are parsed as a four-line unit and not simply as two bicola,
since the initial line is preparatory for the middle two lines, while the
fourth line recapitulates the preceding three lines. The three animal
terms belong to the first and fourth lines, while the animal’s bridles,
etc., dominate the middle two lines. As recapitulation, the fourth line
combines one term for bridle with one term for the animal.
This unit virtually duplicates lines 4–7, except that the imperatives of the
latter are replaced with suffix verbs (following the command-fulfillment
pattern of imperatives followed by narration with *qatal forms, in con-
trast with the pattern of jussives, followed by prefix indicative forms,
cf. Fenton 1969).
The second and third lines are particularly strong in their parallelism,
highlighted by the repetition of bmt. The first line uses a verb that
prepares for and leads into the verbal action of the next two lines. It
also introduces the full name of the agent, who is the subject of the
other lines. Despite these relations, the first line on the face of it seems
quite at variance with the other two lines. Yet there are a few features
tying the first line to the others. The occurrence of divine names, *yqtl
indicative verbs and perhaps a subtle resonance of ’amraru//bamati ‘êri
cat 1.4 iv 497
connect the first and second lines. Note also -am- three times in the
third line. Perhaps also a subtle resonance is ya- at or toward the head
of all three lines. Noegel (2004:10) emphasizes the poetic clustering of
reduplicated forms in this unit ( ysmsmt and ’amrr, as well as ’amrr and
kbkb in the following unit).
The two deities—as well as the two lines describing each one’s travel—
move in very different directions. By the same token, travel and DNs are
common to the two lines. Sonant parallelism between panīma// apāni
as well as batulatu//ba‘lu is notable. The cumulative effect of these
features is to dramatize the semantic chiasm of the bicolon, perhaps
echoing in a formal way the movement of the two divine figures in
two directions.
See the Commentary to 1.3 V 7–8 above, as well as that on 1.2 III 5
in UBC 1.220–21.
The scan for semantic parallelism counts the pronominal suffix on the
final verb in the second line, since it is parallel with ’ili in the first line
(which echoes in taqîlu). The considerably longer verbs in the second
line balance the prepositional phrase and shorter verbs in the first line.
For more comments on the poetry, see the discussion of the parallel,
1.2 III 6, in UBC 1.221.
This is a fine example of parallel structure. Both lines begin with ’êka,
followed by a *qtl verb and a title of the goddess. The titles used here
seem particularly appropriate. They may be seen as denoting El’s respect
for his consort in referring to her first as rbt, “Great One, Lady” and
then as qnyt ’ilm, “Creatress of the gods.” These titles evoke what the
goddess shares in status and role with El. Watson (2000c) has probed the
fairly common characteristic of dialogue (seen here in lines 31–39) in
which the speaker switches from third person address to second person
address (or vice versa) in the middle of a speech. He suggests that it is
a stylistic component of the poetry, comparable to parallelism, etc.
For the poetry of lines 40–57, see the discussion of the parallel passage
in 1.3 IV 47–55 and V 29–44 (above pp. 287–89 and 333).
In view of the shared terms and the linking element himma in double
questions (see Ginsberg 1946:35; Held 1969), this bicolon should per-
haps be read with the preceding bicolon as a four-line unit. The internal
vowels perhaps signal the semantic correlation of ’a irat- and labināt-.
The letter t in nearly every word perhaps binds them together.
The basics of this bicolon appear in the first bicolon of Baal’s lament
(1.3 IV 48, V 38–39; 1.4 I 9–11, IV 50–51). The only departure involves
the verb, perhaps signaling the reversal of the lament. The verb here
also adds alliteration of b to the bicolon, and despite the altogether
different grammatical nature of the terms, yubnâ and binī, these form
sonant parallelism.
Introduction
This column begins the longest continuous passage preserved in the
Baal Cycle, flowing through columns IV, V and VI (with perhaps a line
or two missing at the end of column V). In this large section Athirat
visits El and secures his permission for Baal to build his palace. Anat
takes the news to Baal, who then sends for Kothar to begin construc-
tion. The palace is built, with the exception of a window that Baal
at first does not want in the building. When the palace is completed,
Baal hosts a banquet for the seventy children of Athirat. Column IV
describes Athirat’s journey to El’s abode (lines 1–26), her welcome by
El (lines 27–39), her plea on Baal’s behalf (lines 40–57), and El’s posi-
tive response (1.4 IV 58–V I).
502 cat 1.4 iv
the first line of Dan’il’s instructions, but leaving out the other two lines.
The lifting of Athirat onto the animal (1.4 IV 13–15) is paralleled by
Pughat’s similar assistance to her father (1.19 II 9–11), but the verb of
the first line is the more common tš u, instead of the rarer y bq in 1.4.
In both passages it is clear that the extended description is intended to
indicate the importance of the character who is making the journey,
as well as the significance of the journey upon which each is going.
In the case of our passage, the description of Athirat riding upon an
animal with gold and silver accoutrements contrasts with the apparently
normal way in which the younger gods travel. They proceed on their
own power, either by walking (cf. the formulaic call for the god to run
to his or her destination in 1.1 III 10–12; 1.1 II 1–3; 1.3 III 19–20; IV
11–12), or, in the case of Anat, perhaps by flying (cf. the Commentary
on 1.3 V 4–5). This difference in mode of travel presumably marks
Athirat’s high status as mother of the gods.
This passage begins with a standard, non-poetic speech-opening
rubric, here largely lost in the breaks of lines 1 and 2. It is followed
by Athirat’s direct address to Qudsh-wa-Amrar, her servant, who has
already played a role in 1.3 VI and 1.4 II (see the Commentary on
each). He is told to prepare an animal for her journey. Three words
are used to denote this animal: ‘r, p l, and ’atnt.9 It has been thought
generally that these terms designate members of the asinine rather than
equine family (cf. Pardee 1997a:258, esp. n. 148). The use of donkeys
(onagers) for transportation is, of course, very old and well documented.
Written evidence for their use in Syria is found in Old Assyrian trade
texts, correspondence from Mari (e.g., A.3401; see Durand 2002:50–51),
Ugarit (e.g., RS 20.211+ in Ugaritica V: 195–98) and elsewhere (cf. CAD
I:113, sub imēru, d). Onagers were often captured and trained for work
purposes (cf. the well-known hunt scene from Nineveh, ANEP #186).
In view of the word-field, onagers might apply in all three instances, in
contrast to horses elsewhere associated with chariots (1.20 II 2–4//1.22
II 22–24; 1 Kgs 10:26–29; 2 Kgs 2:11, 6:17; Song of Songs 1:9; on
the latter, see Pope 1994:251–56).
However, the terms do not necessarily refer to donkeys. For example,
in 1.20 II 2–4 and the closely related passage in 1.22 II 22–24, the term
r appears to be paralleled to the term sswm, “horses,” and described
9
See Zamora 2000:638–40 for a more symbolic interpretation of the three animals.
504 cat 1.4 iv
10
The other common interpretation of the fourth colon reads “they go from/come
to their city” (cf. DUL 178, r (I)). While this is possible, this seems very unlikely in the
context. The external parallelism evident between the two bicola suggests that sswm
and rhm refer to the same thing, i.e., the animals that pull the chariots.
11
A Mari letter from Warad-ili-su to the king (M.7161.11, 13) seems at first glance
to offer an interesting parallel in its reference to pa- a-al-li dIM (M.7161: 10, in Durand
2002:44 and A.1121+: 16 in 2002: 137), which might be the animal of the storm-god.
However, it has been taken, more plausibly in the context, as animal genitals devoted
to the storm-god Addu (“bas-ventre de Addu,” so Durand 2002:136–7) in keeping
with other cognates (Durand 2002:136 cites Syriac pa ĕlata, “testicles,” and Mehri fe el
and Soqotri fá al, “penis”; see further Leslau 157). According to Pardee (1997a:258,
n. 148), “the origin of the term [Ugaritic p l] seems to relate to the reproductive
qualities of the male.”
cat 1.4 iv 505
12
Pope (in Smith 1998b:655) noted the occurrence of a noun, tlmdm, in 4.384.8,
where it appears in conjunction with mdm in a context related to horses. The obverse
of this text lists teams (so CAT) of horses ([ś]św) by town (marked by the preposition
b-), while the reverse (lines 8–14), which are marked off from the previous section by
a pair of scribal lines, lists groups of horses designated by three terms, tlmdm, mdm,
“yokes, pairs,” and a dm, “single ones,” along with the names of their owners. One
might interpret both of these terms as denoting the first two groups of horses by the
use of the names of horse equipment, mdm, “yokes” and tlmdm, “ropes.” However, in
the context of the text, the term tlmdm (line 8) may better be understood as relating to
the meaning “to learn, train.” It appears to be a general designation for all the horses
listed in the following lines: [śś]w tlmdm, “trained horses.”
cat 1.4 iv 507
which means “a couple, a pair,” i.e., two things bound together. But it
can also be used in contexts where something is bound onto something
else. Thus in BH we find āmîd, “bracelet,” and Akkadian amādu, “to
bind, harness” (CAD S:89). The latter is certainly the meaning here.
The use of the noun, mdm in CAT 4.384 could be understood with
either of these connotations, i.e., as “yokes,” or as “harnesses.”
The word gpnm used here for “ropes” elsewhere means “vine”
(1.23.9–10), but in this context the usage is metaphorical (de Moor and
van der Lugt 1974:25). Like rope, the care of vines involved binding or
tying, as in 1.23.9–10: md gpn (//zbr gpn), “to bind a vine” (Greenfield
1964:528 n. 7). Epstein (see Greenfield 1964:527 n. 2) compared gpn here
with Aramaic kapnitā, a noun for a type of saddle. The relationship is
possible, but the probable meaning in our context is “rope, reins” rather
than “saddle,” since the noun is in the plural or dual (so De Moor and
van der Lugt 1974:25). Pope (in Smith 1998b:656) proposed deriving
gpn from a different root, cognate with Arabic jaffa, “to put war-armor
on a horse.” But this suggestion has little warrant.
The term nqbnm occurs only in this passage and its parallel in 1.19 II
5. It is translated variously as “bridles” (Greenfield 1964:527), “reins”
(Thespis 181), “trappings” (Gordon 1977:93),“housings” (MHP), “deco-
rations” (Pardee 1997b:258), or the like. These meanings are largely
inferred on the basis of the parallelism of the term with gpn. The BH
cognate, nāqab, means, “to pierce, make a hole” (see also Babylonian
Aramaic nqwb’, “perforation,” Sokoloff 2002:772), and this suggests that
the term here might refer to straps on the harness that had holes in
them for adjusting its size (so de Moor and van der Lugt 1974:25). De
Moor and van der Lugt (1974:25) also cite a number of illustrations
showing harnesses of royal horses decorated with gold and silver.
The word yrq is a color term. In Hebrew it is “green, “ but in Akkadian
(as arqu) it is used also for “yellow” and is attested as the color of gold (see
CAD A/II:300, # 1d). In a reduplicated form, yĕraqraq, it also appears in
Ps 68:14 as the color of gold. In fact, the root has the specific meaning,
“gold” in Sabean and Ethiopic (see Leslau 618). Thus in our passage, it
is normally assumed to be the metal gold, parallel with ksp, “silver.”
The orders that Athirat gives in lines 2–7 are matched line by line
in the narrative in lines 8–12. Fenton (1969) showed that fulfillment
of commands given in imperative form are often narrated in the suf-
fix form, in short, a correspondence of suffixal forms (in contrast to
commands given in volitive prefix forms, which are usually followed in
narrative with indicative prefix forms).
cat 1.4 iv 509
13
Watson (1978:398–99) suggested the possibility that ysmsmt might be related to
Akkadian asmātu, a “blanket-saddle” for a horse, according to a lexical text (only SB;
CAD A/II:337). However, the context for the root in 1.96.3 shows that it applies to
looks in Ugaritic and not to a “blanket-saddle.”
510 cat 1.4 iv
14
On the issue of I-’ verbs with ’u-’aleph in their prefix forms, see the views men-
tioned in UBC 1.268 n. 93; Sivan 1997:18, 45, 47, 116; UG 611–13. A major issue
involves the coincidence of this feature in a limited number of I-’ verbs in Ugaritic and
Hebrew. Sivan 1996 plausibly proposes that the second u-vowel may have developed
as a result of vowel harmony with the initial u-vowel in the prefix (cf. nominal forms
apparently with various forms of u-vowel harmony (e.g., r’umm, ’u b‘t, ’ulp). However,
this explanation would pertain to the Ugaritic forms only and would not explain the
comparable forms in Hebrew.
15
See CAD A/1:182 #9e, and 183 #10b and #11b; CAD I/J:230, #2’ a’.
cat 1.4 iv 511
“like (the deity) Star.”16 Under the first translation, the word is seen
as a Š-stem infinitive meaning “to illuminate, set fire to, to shine” (cf.
DUL 212, Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín 1975:554; and BH Hiphil
of *b r), or as a verbal noun meaning “torch” (see the preceding
paragraph). The interpretation of the word as an infinitive varies. For
some, Qudsh himself begins to glow (e.g., Pardee 1997a:259; CML1
95; Watson 1978:398; Baal 95), but for others he merely lights the
way, presumably with an instrument of fire (i.e., a torch; see Gordon
1977:93: “to light the way”).
Other scholars have interpreted šb r as meaning, “to lead” (e.g.,
Coogan 1978:99; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1158; ANET 133; de Moor
1987:52). Where this meaning comes from is not entirely clear. We are
aware of no cognates with this meaning. Gordon proposed it in UT
19.495 for 1.14 II 48 and IV 27; and 2.31.55 (= UT 1002:52), as well
as our passage. However, the verb in the Kirta passages of 1.14 is much
more likely to have a meaning, “to leave, to hand over,” rather than “to
lead” (see DUL 212, b r II; Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín 1975). In
addition, the context of 2.31 is too broken to render with confidence.
Thus such an understanding of this passage seems very tenuous.
If we place this colon into context with the second line of the bico-
lon, we can suggest a plausible interpretation. The second line (line
17) lacks a verb, which indicates that y u dm governs this clause as
well. Since the phrase kkbkb describes Qudsh-wa-Amrar, then it seems
likely that its parallel šb r is also a noun describing the deity and must
be part of the imagery of light. We would tentatively conclude that
the two words, y u dm šb r most likely are both related to the idea of
fire or flame, and we have translated the bicolon: “Qudsh flared up
as a flame/Amrar like a star.” This seems more likely than the other
primary suggested rendering of the first colon, “Qudsh seizes a torch.”
The latter interpretation does not fit well as a parallel with “Amrar like
a star,” since it leaves the second colon without a governing verb, nor
does the comparison in the line make much sense in relation to the
first colon in this case.
The colon concludes with the phrase lpnm. This form is unique in
the Ugaritic texts by not having an expressed object connected to it
(see DUL 676). It thus has an adverbial function here, presumably
16
Stieglitz (1990:86–87, esp. n. 37) compares an Eblaite deity Kabkab—perhaps a
title of the god Athtar—with BH kôkāb, apparently a divine name, in Amos 5:26.
512 cat 1.4 iv
17
For further discussion of fiery divinities, including the disembodied laha ha ereb
hammithappeket, the whirling fiery sword of Gen 3:24, see Hendel 1985; UBC 1.307.
Berrin (2001:426 n. 19) notes the use of BH lhwb for flame and blade, as well as a
related usage in 1QM 6:3, šlhbt rb. The lexical connection may have inspired an
implicit homology between flame and blade, which perhaps lies behind the image in
Gen 3:24. One may suspect a comparable connection behind Song of Songs 8:6 in its
line, rĕšāpêha rišpê ’ēš šalhebetyâ. Here the image of the fiery weapon appears in a variant
mode (echoed [?] in 1QM 6:3).
514 cat 1.4 iv
18
Perhaps clarifying the larger cultural understanding of lpnm, Mari texts mention
caravans with the gods (their images) proceeding in front (Durand 2002:170, 172).
A.4363.10 (Durand 2002:170) uses i-na pa-ni-ka for this idea, which compares to the
Ugaritic expression here lpnm.
19
If Pope’s interpretation (1971) of the iconography on the drinking mug is cor-
rect, the presence of the bird in the scene would likely be symbolic of Anat’s presence
there.
20
This last suggestion may be reading more authorial intent here than the text
warrants. But there is clear evidence throughout the poem that the poet is concerned
with issues of appropriate behavior in the divine/royal court and may assume that his
audience understands when characters are present, but silent.
cat 1.4 iv 515
One may easily note that El’s reaction to her arrival and his suc-
ceeding speech (lines 27–39) indicate great affection for Athirat, and
there is nothing in what she does in this scene that indicates any less
affection on her side. Why, then, do they live apart? We suggest that
this might be related to the way people in the Near East understood
the relationship between the gods and their temples. It seems that the
reason the poet and others assume that Athirat is not normally at home
with El is because they believed that she (like the other major deities)
has a temple/palace of her own, and that she would spend most of
her time there, receiving the offerings of her people and granting them
various blessings. Certainly within the Baal Cycle it appears quite clear
that each god lives at a distance from the others. While the Ugaritic
texts refer several times to a temple of El (bt il, 1.119.14; 4.341.5; qdš
il, 1.119.6; cf. Pardee 2000:1077–78; Pardee 2002:50–53) in the city
of Ugarit, there is no attestation to a temple of Athirat there.21 The
only temple of Athirat found in the Ugaritic texts is mentioned in the
Kirta Epic, 1.14 IV 34–36, “he (Kirta) arrived at the sanctuary of
Athirat of the Tyrians (lqdš a rt rm),//at the goddess of the Sidonians
(l ilt sdnym).” Her temple there, if it were the primary one in the minds
of the ancient authors of Kirta and the Baal Cycle, is located far from
Ugarit (where El’s temple presumably represents his abode symbolically
at the springs of the Deep); this distance between the abodes of Athi-
rat and El might be the underlying explanation for the idea that she
lived a long distance away from her husband. In any case, it appears
unlikely that the poet was particularly interested in delineating the
marriage relations between the two deities. Furthermore, lacking any
confirmatory evidence, one cannot use this passage to suggest that the
circumstances here reflect a type of marital custom among the human
population at Ugarit, as van Selms suggested.
We now reach the climax of the story that has held the poet’s atten-
tion since 1.3 III. Will El grant Baal permission to build a palace? Athi-
rat appears to be the god’s last hope for persuading El. Anat’s attempt
21
A temple of ilt, “the goddess” is mentioned in 1.41.24//1.87.26, in which a
sacrifice to Athirat may have been made. But the unnamed goddess of the temple
may not be Athirat, since offerings to numerous other deities are listed (1.41.24–35//
1.87.27–39) before the point where the sacrifice to Athirat may appear. Furthermore,
both tablets are broken at this point, so that only the letters ]rt are preserved, making
the restoration [ a ]rt uncertain. See Pardee 2002:56–65 for these texts. The only other
offerings to Athirat that are specifically located by the texts in a temple are found also
in 1.41.38–40//1.87.42–43, where they are made in the temple of El.
cat 1.4 iv 517
(1.3 V) was a complete failure. Will the great Lady be able to change
El’s mind? Lines 27–30a describe El’s reaction to Athirat’s unexpected
arrival. As we have seen elsewhere, the poet first discusses the physical
reaction of the god (lines 27–30a), before detailing his verbal response
(lines 31–39). Unlike the previous two examples of a deity’s reaction
to a surprise visit (1.3 III 32–IV 4; 1.4 II 12–26), this one is a joyous
affair. El’s body language of laughter and movement of feet and fingers
conveys his great pleasure at the sight of Athirat. Any doubt that this
description refers to a joyful reaction is eliminated by examining the
use of the same formulae elsewhere. In 1.6 III 14–16 two of the lines
appear as El rejoices (šm ) in having perceived that Baal has returned
to life. Danil likewise reacts to the news that El will grant him a son
with laughter and stamping his feet (1.17 II 10–11). Danil’s physical
reaction is supplemented in 1.17 II 8–9 by the following bicolon: “As
for Dan’il, his face lit up,//and above, (his) brow shone” (cf. UNP 55).
Clearly Dan’il’s response is one of joy (Gruber 1980:565, 570–76). El’s
follows suit. Gruber (1980:556, 613–14) views the god’s putting his feet
on the footstool as the joyful antithesis to the mourning practice of
getting off the chair and removing one’s feet from the stool and sitting
on the footstool or the ground.
El’s physical reactions to Athirat’s arrival are three-fold (lines 28–30).
The first reaction is yprq l b wy q (line 28). The third word, wy q, “and
he laughed,” is the best understood word in this line. Its placement in
the line suggests that the preceding two words serve as preparation for
laughter. The verb *prq means “to loosen, separate” (see Aramaic prq,
“to separate, remove, take off; untie”), as noted by Ullendorff (1951:272),
followed by van Zijl (1972:60), Pope (in Smith 1998b:656) and DUL
681. The particularly difficult word is l b. Arabic *l b means, “to be
narrow,” according to Ullendorff 1951:272 (cf. UT 19.1393). Ugaritic
uses l b in CAT 1.114.29, where the word delineates the location on a
person where a medicine, š r klb, “hair of a dog,” is placed. The word
also appears in an omen text (CAT 1.103+1.145.49) related to the Akka-
dian šumma izbu series, which explains the meanings of the appearances
of malformed animal fetuses. In line 49, the malformation discussed
is the appearance of an animal with its eye(s) bl bh, “in its l b.” There
have been two primary lines of thought concerning the word. Several
scholars have identified it with the region of the mouth, specifically
“the opening between the rows of teeth” (UT 19.1393), “the narrow
passage between rows of teeth and the jaws” (Maier 1986:15; see also
Loewenstamm, CS 380, 413). If this is correct, it is difficult to find a
518 cat 1.4 iv
On the other hand, since El’s final hospitable offer in the speech (sex in
lines 38–39) is obviously not part a standard welcoming formula, these
opening lines may not be either. They may be more closely related to
the way an intimate couple would address one another than to court
etiquette.
In lines 33–38, El offers Athirat food and drink. There is a noticeable
tenderness about this part of the speech, as it emphasizes El’s concern
that Athirat has suffered hunger and thirst on the long trip. In these lines,
as in the previous three bicola (lines 27–32), the poet dwells upon El’s
enormous fondness for his wife. These lines perhaps represent some of
the most accomplished and natural dialogue (from a literary perspective)
in the Ugaritic corpus. The questions in lines 33–34 are formed in the
common style we have seen before: no clear interrogative element in
the first clause and hm preceding the second (Held 1969:74–75; on the
common construction of finite verb preceded by the infinitive absolute
of the same root, see Sivan 1997:123–25). There is some uncertainty
about the etymology and meaning of the verbs, t¿t//‘s[t], that end the
two lines. Several scholars interpret the verbs as referring to traveling
(Driver, CML1 96–97; Gibson, CML2 59; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1159
n. 54; Pardee 1997a:259). As support for this understanding, Driver
cited Hebrew ta‘â//Aramaic tĕ‘ê, “to wander, stray” (CML1 152 n. 24)
and Arabic ‘ašā, “to go by night” (CML1 140 n. 17). Given the light that
Qudshu-wa-Amrar provides in lines 16–17 above, this interpretation
could fit the overall context (but see the reservations raised above about
whether darkness on the trip is to be assumed). However, on semantic
grounds, Held (1969:74–75 n. 35) rejected Driver’s etymology of t¿t
with BH t‘h, “to journey afar,” and he further objected that a putative
Ugaritic root *‘sw “could not be philologically related to Arabic ‘ašā.”
The phonological reason for Held’s objection to the latter is clear:
Ugaritic s and Arabic š do not correspond in etymologies (UT 5.13).
As a result, Held (1969:74–75) rendered these verbs quite differently:
“Are you hungry and fa[int], or are you thirsty and pa[rched]?” Held
did not provide cognates to support his interpretation of these words,
nor did his source for the renderings, Ginsberg, ANET 133. Instead,
he appealed to some BH phrases that relate faintness to hunger and
thirst. Cross (cited in Maier 1986:16) offered some support to Held’s
view by understanding ‘s[t] as “parched” and comparing Arabic ‘asā,
“grow hard, dry.” Held’s objections hardly ended the issue of the
verbs’ etymologies. Pope (1981b:321; also in Smith 1998b:656) com-
pared Arabic ‘assa, connected with night patrol (Lane 2039–40) and
cat 1.4 iv 521
Arabic *‘(w)s, “to roam (at night time)” (the former is noted also by
Maier 1986:16). Pope also proffers Arabic *t¿y, “to perish” for the first
verb, as well as the semantically suitable BH t‘h. In short, it is possible
to salvage Driver’s original suggestion with Pope’s better philological
basis, and at this point this seems to represent the best option. At the
same time, the reconstructed character of the second form ‘s[t] makes
it difficult to reach firm conclusions about this word.
Following the double-question of lines 33–34, El invites Athirat to
eat and drink (lines 35–38a). It is a very elegant invitation; the four
lines build nicely. The first (line 35a) opens with a double offer: “eat,
indeed drink” (l m hm štym). A similar opening offer is made in 1.23.6–7:
l m bl m ’ay //wšty b mr yn ’ay, “Eat of food whatsoever, and drink of
fermented wine whatsover.” 1.23.6–7 and lines 35–38a differ, however,
as the direct objects are not spelled in the initial line of our passage, but
in the lines that follow it. The second (lines 35b–36a) expands the offer
of the first imperative, while the third and fourth lines (lines 36b–38a)
expand the offer of the second imperative. The food and drink are the
typical fare of a divine feast (see 1.4 III 40–43, VI 56–59).
In the bicolon of lines 38b–39, El makes one final offer to Athirat,
that of sex. It is an intimate proposal, but one quite appropriate from
a husband to a wife. Using another double-question, El asks if he
arouses her sexually (* ss//*‘rr). The Akkadian verb * ss, has a range
of meanings, “to think, be mindful of, remember; be intelligent, wise”
(CAD H:122–25; Pentiuc 2001:58–59). Ugaritic shows a comparable
range: the root in the craftsman-god’s binomial k r w ss means “wise
one”; and in 1.15 III 25, the verb t ss means “she is mindful of ” or
“she remembers.” The semantic development from these meanings to
“to excite” or the like, as indicated by the context of El’s question, is
not entirely clear, but it has semantic analogies. As van Selms (1954:67
n. 23) notes, the development of * ss, “to be wise, intelligent,” here
arguably parallels the root *yd‘, “to know,” but also “to be intimate
(sexually).” In this connection, van Selms would also compare the BH
verb *zkr, “to remember,” and the BH noun zākār, “male.” In the case
of *‘rr, the meaning is clearer. In 1.24.30, *‘rr may mean to “stir up”
(Marcus, UNP 217; cf. Akkadian êru, “to be awake,” CAD E:326a–27a
and erūtu, “wakefulness,” CAD E:327b).22 The D-stem of *‘(w)r occurs
22
Not to be confused with Akkadian erû, “to be pregnant, to conceive” (CAD
E:325).
522 cat 1.4 iv
also in Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4. The root there is generally taken to
bear a different nuance, “to stir up,” hence “to disturb” or the like, as
opposed to the sexual sense, “to arouse,” but it is possible that it puns
on the sexual sense (Pope 1977b:386) or actually has a sexual sense (so
BDB 735). Elsewhere the BH root bears a nuance of excitement (though
not of a sexual nature), for example in Job 31:29 (so BDB 735). The
parallel verb is *šm , “to rejoice,” perhaps suggesting that excitement
and joy belong to a larger shared field of emotional experience.
In this double question in lines 38–39, the nouns for love, namely
yd and ’ahbt, are hardly abstract in meaning, but are quite concrete,
referring to passion (MHP) or making love. The word yd bears a further
nuance of El’s particular lovemaking organ (CAT 1.23.33–35). Both
senses seem involved here, not one or the other (for full discussion, see
the Commentary on 1.3 III 5–8, above on pp. 219–20; cf. de Moor and
van der Lugt 1974:14). El refers to himself in the third person as “Bull
El” ( r ’il). This title is conventional, but in this context it may evoke
his sexual prowess, since the bull was famous for its sexual power (cf.
Enki’s sexual exploits in “Enki and the World Order” compared to the
lust of “an attacking bull” (Leick 1994:23–25; for further mythological
examples, see Leick 1994:48, 74, 91).
Athirat, however, wishes to discharge her errand before accepting
any of these offers (lines 40–57). Several scholars have understood her
intentional ignoring of El’s invitations (especially the offer of sex) as a
brusque rejection of the offers (cf. de Moor 1987:53 n. 235; EUT 37;
the discussion in Binger 1997:75). Such a conclusion is entirely unwar-
ranted. It is not unusual for a divine visitor to deal with the business of
his or her trip before sitting down to a meal. Such a situation has just
occurred in 1.4 III 23–39, where considerable business is done before
the gods enter the banquet. Athirat first wants to fulfill her obligation
to Baal before accepting El’s offer of food, and presumably the sex.
There is nothing in this passage that suggests any kind of rebuff on
the part of Athirat. While it is true that the text never describes either
the succeeding meal or amorous behavior, this is because the focus
of the story after El grants his permission for the palace switches to
Anat and her trip to Mt. Sapan to tell Baal the news.
So Athirat makes her plea. She opens her speech by praising El’s
wisdom (the tricolon in lines 41–43). She then acclaims Baal’s kingship
(the two bicola in lines 43b–46), and finally, presents Baal’s lament that
he lacks a palace (lines 47–57). Athirat’s words here precisely parallel
cat 1.4 iv 523
23
An alternative reading of the first line (line 59a) might be proposed: “So am
I a servant, Athirat a slave?” If correct, the first part of this initial line (line 59a) is
expanded by p‘bd ’an ’a d ’ul in the second line (line 60), while ‘nn ’a rt in the second
half of the first line (line 59b) is expanded by hm ’amt ’a rt tlbn in the third line (line 61).
However, two considerations militate against this interpretation: if Athirat is the ‘nn,
then a feminine form of the noun might be expected; and if a contrastive rhetorical
question is involved in the initial line, it might be expected to be marked by hm. Either
consideration, though not water tight, casts some doubt on this otherwise aesthetically
plausible reading of the unit.
24
Some scholars (Dahood 1970:410; van Zijl, Baal, 101–2) also suggest a cognate p
in BH, e.g. in Ps 50:10 where in view of the phrase bĕharĕrê-’ēl in Ps 36:7, many com-
mentators reread *bĕharĕrê-’ēl and place pa- with the following verb in the next colon
instead of MT bĕharĕrê-’ālep). Others do not find the proposed occurrences compelling
(cf. HALOT 907).
cat 1.4 iv 525
25
For further passages, see citations in CAD A/1:357. See also Gudea Cylinder A,
V:6, VI:6–8 (Falkenstein and von Soden 1953:143–44; Edzard 1997:72).
526 cat 1.4 iv
26
There is a similar passage in 1.8.3–5, in which the imperative tn is used instead
of ybn. From this comparison, it is evident that El has the authority “to give.” Behind
the use of *ytn may lie an echo of the technical usage of WS *ytn/ntn for royal land
grants, a usage found in Ugaritic royal documents. Greenfield (1977a:88) describes
these: “in the two royal grants in Ugaritic (PRU 2 8 and 9) . . . the king has ytn ‘taken’
(lit. ‘given’) the field of PN1 and given it ytn.nn to PN2.” Akkadian documents from
Ugarit likewise use *nadānu, “to give,” for land grants. A similar usage has been argued
cat 1.4 iv 527
for some biblical texts as well (Greenfield 1977a:89–90). Whether such usage lies
behind El’s declaration about Baal’s palace cannot be confirmed, but the royal role
and authority assumed by royal land grants would fit this instance of divine permis-
sion for the building project.
CAT 1.4 V
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:139–48, pls. XXVII, XXIX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus
pl. XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse and pl. XXX is the
obverse); CTA 26–27, fig. 16, pls. IX, X; KTU 18; CAT 18–19.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 41–43; Albright 1934:123–26; Caquot and Sznycer,
TO 1.206–11; Cassuto, BOS 2.130–34; Coogan 1978:101–3; Cross, CMHE 148–49,
184–85; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1161–64; Driver, CML1 96–99; Gaster, Thespis
185–89; Gibson, CML2 60–62; Ginsberg, ANET 133–34, KU 30–34; Gordon, UL
32–34, 1977:95–97; Gray, LC 2 49–50, 292–93; Greenfield 1984b; Jirku 46–48; Maier
1986:19–22; Margalit, MLD 45–50, 213–18; de Moor, SPUMB 148–54, 1987:54–57;
Mullen 1980:71–73; del Olmo Lete, MLC 202–4; MLR 84–86; Pardee 1997a:259–61;
Pope, EUT 100; Smith 1985:312–13, 317–28; UNP 129–32; Wiggins 1993:61–62;
Wyatt 1998:101–4; Xella 1982:113–16; van Zijl, Baal 106–32.
[This column continues directly from the previous one. Line 1 is dis-
cussed with column IV.]
2 wt‘n.rbt.’a rtym
rbt.’ilm.l kmt
{ }šbt.dqnk.ltsrk
5 r n t.dx.l’irtk
wn’ap.‘dn.m rh
∫b‘l.y‘dn.‘dn. kt.bgl
wtn.qlh.b‘rpt
šrh.l’ar .brqm
10 3bt.’„rzm.ykllnh
hm.bt.lbn1 t.∑y msnh
lyrgm.l’al’iynb‘l
. rn.bbhmk
‘ bt.bqrb.hklk
15 tblk.¿rm.m’id.ksp
gb‘m.m md. r
yblk.’udr.’ilq m
wbn.bht.ksp.w r
bht. hrm.’iqn’im
530 cat 1.4 v
20 šm .btlt.‘nt.td‘
p‘nm.wtr.’ar
’idk.lttn.pnm
‘m.b‘l.mrym. pn
b’alp.šd.rbt.kmn
25 q.btlt.‘nt.tš’u
gh.wt .tbšrb‘l
bšrtk.yblt.y∑tn
bt.lk.km.’a k.w r
km.’aryk. . rn
30 bbhtk.‘ bt.bqrb
hklk.tblk.¿rm
m’id.ksp.gb‘m.m md.
r .wbn.bht.ksp
w r .bht. hrm
35 ’iqn’im.šm .’al’iyn
b‘l. . rn.bbhth
‘ bt.bqrbhklh
yblnn¿rm.m’id.ksp
gb‘m.l md. r
40 yblnn.’udr’ilq m
y’ak.lk r.w ss
—————
—————
w blmspr..ktl’akn
¿lmm
—————
’a r.m¿y.k r.w ss
45 št.’alp.qdmh.mr’a
wtk.pnh.t‘db.ks’u
wy b.lymn.’al’iyn
b‘l.‘d.l m.š1 t[ ]
[ ]y n.’„≈ l[ ]
50 [ ]b[ ]x[ ]
1 š.bhtm.[ ]
š.rmm.hk[ ]
š.bhtm.tbn[ ]
š.trmmn.px[ ]
55 btk. rrt. pn
’alp.šd.’a dbt
rbt.kmn.hkl
∫wy‘n.k r.w s‚
1šm‘.l’al’iyn.b‘l
60 bn.lrkb.‘rpt
bl.’ašt.’urbt.bb∫h[ ]
ln.bqrb.hklμ
cat 1.4 v 531
wy‘n.’al’iynb‘l2
’al.tšt.’urbt.b[ ]
65 [ ] .3b r3b.1h∫k[ ]
Textual Notes
Line 4/66. { } šbt. Ilimalku wrote a / / as the first letter of the line,
but recognized his mistake and placed the left wedge of the /š/ over
it. Most of the / / is preserved, however.
Line 5/67. r n t. The fourth letter of the line is /n/, rather than the
/t/ of CTA. The edges are peculiarly vague among otherwise fairly
well preserved letters to the right and left. The evidence for the multiple
wedges is visible along the upper line of the letter, and in the interior.
Perhaps, as CAT suggests, this is a dittography by Ilimalku, who slightly
smudged it, then wrote the correct /t/ after it. Note, however, /r nn/
in CAT 7.57.2, a broken context, but one that may suggest the text as
it stands is correct.
/dx/ The letter denoted by the /x/ is badly deteriorated. We are
reluctant to agree with CAT that it is a /t/. There is a long horizontal
area, but it appears to have hints of at least two wedges. In addition,
there is a wedge above the horizontal that may be the damaged upper
edge of a horizontal.
Line 7/69. ∫b l The first letter, /b/, was damaged, apparently before
the tablet dried (see below). The clay has been pushed up from the
bottom and has smudged the letter badly. Clear wedge elements are
preserved only on the right side, with the right tip of the right vertical
532 cat 1.4 v
and the right tip of the horizontal still visible. The left line of the left
vertical may be preserved. Context assures the reading.
kt The middle letter of this word has often been emended to /r/,
making it r(!)t. The text as it stands can mean “ship” or “barque,” but
this image seems out of place in the context (see UBC 1.53 and the
Commentary below).
There is a noticeable horizontal dip in the surface of the tablet
from line 8 through 11 on the left margin and 9 through 14 at the
right margin. It is about the thickness of a finger. The depression
only affects column V. It seems as if a person held the tablet after it
had been inscribed, but before it dried, slightly depressing the surface
with a finger. This explains the flattened appearance of several letters,
particularly on the right. The fingertip on the left side of the column
apparently pushed the clay upward, damaging the first letter of line
7, as noted above.
Line 9/71. l’ar .brqm The letters / .brq/ are very shallow because
of the above-mentioned depression.
Line 11/73. lbn1 t The /t/ is certain, though only its lower line is
preserved.
y≈ msnh The upper right line of the / /is preserved, but nothing
else.
There is finger damage on /msnh/.
Line 12/74. l’al’iynb l The letters /ynb l/ have almost been obliter-
ated by the finger damage.
cat 1.4 v 533
Line 27/89. yt∑ n The /t/ is largely chipped away. Only the left edge
of the horizontal is clearly preserved. There is no hint of a left vertical,
which should be visible if the letter were a b (as reconstructed by CTA).
The context supports /t/ over /’a/ or /n/, which are epigraphically
possible. The /n/, on the edge of the tablet, is either a four-wedged
example, or the leftmost wedge is the right tip of the preceding /t/.
Line 41/103. y’ak Scribal error for /yl’ak/ (so also CTA, KTU,
CAT; CML2 61; TO 1.210; MLC 203; Pardee 1980:280; 1997a:260
n. 165).
lk r The /l/ has four wedges.
Following line 41 is a double horizontal line across the column,
marking off the note “Return to the recitation about when the lads
are sent.” A single horizontal line follows line 43 to indicate the end
of the note.
Line 42/104. mspr. There are actually two word dividers after
/lmspr/, perhaps intentionally to indicate the following is a quotation.
But see the commentary below, pp. 574–76.
ktl’akn Both the /l/ and the /n/ have four-wedges.
Line 48/110. š1 t[ Only the upper line of /t/ survives along the edge of
the break. We see no trace of the following /y/ proposed by CAT.
∑
Line 49/111. [ ]y n.’„l[ The upper line of the two wedges of the / a/
survives. The letter is certain. With light shining directly from above,
534 cat 1.4 v
one can see to the right the top line of a single vertical wedge (not
visible on the photograph). Context assures the reading of /l/.
Line 50/112. [ ]b[ ] x[ The /b/ shows up fairly well, with only
the top of the letter and the right end having been broken. There are no
traces of the / / or the word divider proposed by CAT. ]x[ There is what
appears to be the base of a partially preserved horizontal, but CAT’s
proposed /k/ relies on the accidental direction of the breakage.
Line 51/113. 1 š With a light shining directly from the right, one can
see the corners of the right and lower wedges of the / /, assuring the
reading.
bhtm.[ Only the lower tip of the word divider survives. We see
no traces beyond the word divider. This is likely because the adhesive
securing the modern reconstruction of the broken column has come
over the broken edge here.
Line 54/116. px[ The first letter is composed of only two horizontal
wedges, making it a /p/. This, of course, might be a scribal error for
the three-wedged /h/, as proposed by CTA and CAT, and followed
here.
/x/ All that remains of this letter is the lower left corner of a
horizontal wedge.
Line 58/120. w∫ y n. The /w/ is badly broken but the upper line of the
upper left wedge and upper line and tip of the right wedge survive.
/w s‚/ The final /s/ is damaged, but a few lines of the upper
wedges are discernable, as well as some of the interior of the sign. Some
of the reddish reconstruction clay may be covering other evidence.
Line 59/121. 2šm Only the upper line of the right wedge of the /š/
survives, but the context assures the reading.
Line 65/127. [ ] .3b fi3b.1h∫k[ The upper line of the /n/ is preserved
and certain, as in CAT. The lower parts of all the other letters of
this line are also missing. Only the upper left wedge of the /k/ is
preserved.
[This column continues directly from the previous one. Line 1 is dis-
cussed with column IV.]
2 wt‘n.rbt.’a rt ym
3–5 rbt.’ilm.l kmt/
šbt.dqnk.ltsrk/
r nnt.dx.l’irtk
6–7 wn’ap.‘dn.m rh/b‘l.
y‘dn.‘dn. r(!)t.bgl
8–9 wtn.qlh.b‘rpt/
šrh.l’ar .brqm
10–11 bt.’arzm.ykllnh/
hm.bt.lbnt.y‘msnh
12 lyrgm.l’al’iyn b‘l
13–14 . rn.bbht(!)k/
‘ bt.bqrb.hklk
15–17 tblk.¿rm.m’id.ksp/
gb‘m.m md. r /
yblk.’udr.’ilq m
18–19 wbn.bht.ksp.w r /
bht. hrm.’iqn’im
20–21 šm .btlt.‘nt
td‘ /p‘nm.
wtr.’ar
22–24 ’idk.lttn.pnm/
‘m.b‘l.mrym. pn/
b’alp.šd.rbt.kmn
25–26 q.btlt.‘nt.
tš’u/gh.wt .
26–27 tbšrb‘l/
bšrtk.yblt.
27–29 ytn/bt.lk.km.’a k.
w r/km.’aryk.
29–31 . rn/bbhtk.
‘ bt.bqrb/hklk.
31–33 tblk.¿rm/m’id.ksp.
gb‘m.m md./ r .
536 cat 1.4 v
33–34 wbn.bht.ksp/w r .
bht. hrm/’iqn’im.
35–37 šm .’al’iyn/b‘l.
. rn.bbhth/
‘ bt.bqrb hklh
38–40 yblnn¿rm.m’id.ksp/
gb‘m.m(!) md. r /
yblnn.’udr ’ilq m
41 y<l>’ak.lk r.w ss
—————
—————
42–43 w b lmspr..
ktl’akn/¿lmm
—————
44–46 ’a r.m¿y k r.w ss/
št.’alp.qdmh.
mr’a/wtk.pnh.
46–48 t‘db.ks’u/wy b.
lymn.’al’iyn/b‘l.
‘d.l m.št[y.’ilm]
49 [w]y‘n.’al[’iyn.b‘l]
50–52 [ ]b[ ]x[ ]
š.bhtm.[bn(?)]/
š.rmm.hk[lm]/
53–55 š.bhtm.tbn[n]/
š.trmmn.h(!)k[lm]
btk. rrt. pn
56–57 ’alp.šd.’a d.bt/
rbt.kmn.hkl
58 wy‘n.k r.w ss
59–60 šm‘.l’al’iyn b‘l/
bn.lrkb.‘rpt
61–62 bl.’ašt.’urbt.bbh[tm]/
ln.bqrb.hklm
63 wy‘n.’al’iynb‘l
64–65 ’al.tšt.’urbt.b[bhtm]/
[ l]n.bqrb.hk[lm]
1
Zeeb (1993:513–14) reads rbt ’ilm as a continuation of the narrative introduc-
tion: “Die ‘Lady’ dem El.” In addition to the highly irregular variation in line-length
within this putative bicolon, it might be a difficulty to see ’il-m as an indirect object
ungoverned by a preposition. Then Zeeb reads the rest of the unit as a bicolon: l kmt
šbt dqnk, “Weise ist die Grauheit deines Bartes”//ltsrk r nt dt l’irtk, “Es belehrt dich die
‘Leidenschaft,’ die in deiner Brust ist.” The reading of the bicolon is grammatically
plausible, despite the longer length of the second line compared with the first. But the
assumed syntax involves some difficulty.
2
For a discussion of this form as an example of the precative perfect, see UBC
1.51–53.
3
The translation of Ginsberg (ANET 133), “and <he will> peal,” implies the emen-
dation to w<y>tn (so CTA), in which case *yqtl would be involved, either an indicative
(as in Ginsberg’s rendering), a jussive form or a precative perfect *yatana.
4
For the syllabic evidence for this form (with evident pretonic vowel syncope), see
Huehnergard 1987b:109.
538 cat 1.4 v
5
So vocalized at least since Albright (1934:124 n. 119) to DUL 405, citing Akkadian
arrānu. See Watson 2000a:569 for other cognates and the possibility that a loanword
might lie behind this word.
6
Following Dobrusin 1981, who argues against a 3rd masc. pl. prefix form begin-
ning with y-, a singular collective for the subject and verb is reconstructed here. This
rendering issues in a more proximate understanding between m md and ’udr, although
the parallelism need not be so precise. The form below in line 38 argues in favor of
a plural form.
7
A vocalization instead as a qutl form is also possible. A number of qutl nouns
express abstraction, which would work in this context.
8
Or one could render, “with,” both here and in the next line.
9
For the sake of consistency, one might expect a vocalization, wa-binî. However,
the initial vowel is considered particularly short (so UG 429), and with a proclitic it
might be lost.
10
For the syllabic forms, see Huehnergard 1987b:131; Sivan 1997:45; UG 176.
11
In view of Akkadian uqnû (discussed below), the word might be vocalized ’iqnu’īma,
but the initial ’aleph suggests regressive vowel assimilation (cf. *’u bu‘ātu underlying
’u b‘t).
12
Sivan 1997:63.
cat 1.4 v 539
13
The suffix is dative. This clause could be passive (so Smith, UNP 130): “good
news is brought to you (bašaratu-ka yubalat).” However, active verbal forms are the case
in the biblical passages, which also use the singular form of the noun (see BH bĕśôrâ in
2 Sam 4:10, 18:20, 22, 25, 27; 2 Kgs 7:9). All but the last of these passages use nominal
and verbal forms of the root in the same context as in this bicolon.
14
For the plural base, see UG 176. For a discussion of this plural base in connection
with Akkadian a u, see Huehnergard 1987a:186.
15
This could also be rendered, “with,” both here and in the next line. Cf. lines
18–19 above.
16
In view of the preceding narrative infinitives in line 20 and 25, an infinitive would
be possible here, but usually a narrative infinitive follows a prior narrative finite verb
with the same subject (Gai 1982). This condition is not met in the immediate context.
The difficulties with understanding the syntax of the narrative infinitive have been
noted (e.g., Moran 2003:56 n. 143).
540 cat 1.4 v
17
The prefix indicative 3rd masc. pl. verbal form usually has prefix t- (Dobrusin
1981); so one might suspect here the sg. form with nunation. However, the context
does not favor this interpretation.
18
Or, to be vocalized as dual forms: tul’akāni ¿alamāmi.
19
Or, arguably (so Smith, UNP 131 and 171 n. 127), “He (i.e., Baal) set an ox before
him.” See the Commentary below.
20
Another possible reconstruction might be [kô ari] (so Smith 1985:347 and in UNP
131; Pardee 1997a:260), following the type of climactic parallelism found also in 1.2
IV 8–9 (cf. 11–13). Here the addressee is named in the first line, while verbs appear in
the second and third lines. The remains of line 50 are consistent with a reconstruction
like the following: [ š. ]b[h]t[m k r], “Quickly, the house, O Kothar.”
cat 1.4 v 541
56–57 A thousand fields let the house ’alpa šidda ’a ada21 bêtu
cover,
A myriad hectares, the palace.” ribbata kumāna hêkalūma
58 And Kothar wa-Hasis replied: wa-ya‘nî kô aru wa- asīsu
59–60 “Hear, O Mightiest Baal, šama‘ la-’al’iyāni ba‘li
Understand, O Cloud-Rider: bîn la-rākibi ‘urpati
61–62 Shall I not install a window in bal ’ašîtu ’urubata bi-baha[tīma]
the hou[se],
An aperture inside the palace?” illāna bi-qirbi hêkalīma
63 And Mightiest Baal answered: wa-ya‘nî ’al’iyānu ba‘lu
64–65 “Do not install a window in ’al tašît ’urubata22 bi-[bahatīma]
[the house],
[An aper]ture inside the pala[ce].” [ illā]na bi-qirbi hêka[līma]
Commentary
For this form as an example of the precative perfect, see UBC 1.52.
21
The Ugaritic form apparently shows vowel harmony of the first consonant
22
(Albright 1934:126 n. 132). Cf. Latin transcription of Hebrew orobbo versus MT ’arubbâ,
discussed in Sivan 1997:67. Cf. Arabic ’araba, “to combine, link”; Greek loan arabbe;
so Loewenstamm 1984:193–94.
542 cat 1.4 v
The last two lines are tied together in their syntax (as well as some sonant
elements, including d- at the head of a word, -ka suffix, endings in -tu,
-atu and -ātu, and sonant parallelism between tisaru and ’irti). In contrast,
the first line shows a different sort of syntax. By the same token, the
parallelism between the three lines is tighter than the notation perhaps
conveys, since the last two lines expand the theme of wisdom signaled
with the last word of the first line. (Within the first line, the notation
of a b a’ is designed to show how wisdom is an expression of the god’s
greatness in this context; see the Commentary below for discussion.) The
first line is further tied to the second by virtue of a notable sequence
of shared components: noun in the nominative case, plus noun in
the genitive (assuming that the vocative indeed takes the genitive; see
p. 279 n. 6) plus particle ending in an -a vowel, plus la- with verb.
Ginsberg (ANET 133), Gibson (CML2 60), TO (1.207), MLC (202) and
Wyatt (1998:101) divide the bicolon with y‘dn governing the first half
and the second occurrence of ‘dn the second half. De Moor (1987:54)
and Wiggins (1993:61) take Baal as the subject of the second line.
The resulting imbalance in line-length does not favor either of these
proposed divisions of the lines (see the Commentary below for further
discussion). The subject of the first line carries over to the second, and
the lines use the same verbal root in *qtl//*yqtl parallelism (see Held
1962). If the emendation of the text is correct ( kt to rt), the lines also
have direct objects, ma ara// arrata, belonging to the same semantic
field of storm precipitation and sharing r and t (and vowels, if the
vocalization is correct).
This line might be viewed as the first line of a tricolon with the fol-
lowing two lines.
In lines 31–33, the third line of this tricolon is not repeated, which
perhaps suggests that the basic unit here is a bicolon to which a third
line has been added. It is perhaps for this reason that the verb of the
first line is resumed in the third line, a relatively uncommon construc-
tion for the third line of a tricolon in Ugaritic poetry. The third line
is parallel in a further way. Its verb has been rendered in the passive,
since the prefix of the *yqtl verbal form is more likely singular and
not plural (see Dobrusin 1981; but see yblnn in line 38), in agreement
with ’udr and not ¿rm//gb‘m. If correct, the third line also shows classic
parallelism of a passive verbal form with an active form of the same
root (see Held 1965a). All three lines show fine semantic parallelism,
with the third line culminating with the rarest vocabulary found in
the noun phrases of the tricolon. The density of endings in -a is also
maintained through all three lines.
544 cat 1.4 v
At first glance, the two lines have little in common semantically. Each
contains rather conventional expressions. The second line in particular
is a common speech-opening formula. Upon further examination, it is
evident that both lines are very much concerned with communication;
all three verbs or verb-phrases depict the goddess’ verbal expression (for
a similar point, see the discussion of lines 35–37 below). So it would
appear that the first line leads semantically into the second and conveys
the mood of the following speech introduced by the formula of the
second line. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, the two lines
may be viewed as enjoying a dynamic sort of semantic relationship,
even if it is not parallelism of the standard sort. With this view of the
bicolon, lesser elements binding the two lines are apparent. The name
cat 1.4 v 545
of the goddess in the first line is resumed in the second line by the
pronominal suffix. On the sonant level, the number of both nominal
and verbal forms ending in -u is particularly pronounced. Furthermore,
the first and third verbs show slight sonant parallelism.
The scanning offered does not adequately convey the semantic paral-
lelism operative in this bicolon. Semantically the lines begin with the
same root, but vary expression by using different forms of the root.
The name of the god in the first line is picked up on the sonant level
in the second line, especially in the verbal form. The use of the same
root in the initial word of the two lines also generates strong sonant
parallelism. This is furthered by the morphological components with
ta- (in the first line)//-ata (in the second line). Sonant parallelism extends
to the second word in the two lines, as each one uses b and l. It is to be
noted further that the shorter line-length demarcates this unit from the
preceding or following units. Perhaps here form follows function: this
departure in line-length may be designed to highlight the announce-
ment of news.
This bicolon (like 1.4 IV 62–V1) echoes the opening bicolon of Baal’s
lament. Here, however, the poet uses a third person jussive of the G-stem
of *ytn, “to give,” in the initial syntactical slot (see the Commentary
below for discussion), compared to the form ’in in the lament and ybn
in El’s declaration of permission. A new parallel pair in the compara-
tive phrase ( a k// aryk) makes an appearance here.
See the first two lines of the tricolon in lines 15–17. The third line of
that tricolon is not repeated here.
These lines may be considered a monocolon (cf. the similar line 20a)
plus a bicolon (attested in lines 13–14//29–31). Some binding between
the three lines is achieved by virtue of the fact that the two verbs both
involve expression on the part of the storm-god (for a similar obser-
vation, see the discussion of lines 25–26 above). Some minor sonant
echoing may be detected, especially with the initial ha- in the second
word of the second line corresponding in position to the final -ha of
the verb in the first line. To be noted as well are ba-/bi- and final -u
in the three lines.
See lines 15–17 for discussion. The only major difference involves the
switch to third person indicative verbal forms for narrative.
On the face of it, the first line is a monocolon, to which are appended
the next two lines, a nicely balanced bicolon that may be scanned: a b
c//b’ c’ (x of y). Essentially the same bicolon appears in 1.3 IV 40–42
(prefixed to these two lines is a different monocolon with rather differ-
ent semantic content). Despite the semantic difference between the first
line on the one hand, and the second and third lines on the other, the
figure of Kothar named in the first line and referenced by pronominal
suffixes in the second and third provides some semantic continuity. It
is perhaps too much to suggest seeing sonant parallelism in ma- . . . wa-
and ko aru and tôka in the first and third lines.
50–52 [ ] ? ?
ūšu bahatīma [binî (?)] abc 3/8 (?)
ūšu rāmim hêka[līma] a c’ b’ 3/8
A tricolon evidently underlies these lines. One might suggest that the first
line read something like, š bhtm k r, “Quickly, the house, O Kothar.” The
two extent lines balance nicely. Semantically, the corresponding terms
in the two lines are either identical ( š) or word-pairs (bhtm//hklm, and
548 cat 1.4 v
The first two lines reiterate the preceding two lines, but with a switch
of verbal forms. The third line is not semantically parallel, but serves
instead to specify the setting for the activity commanded. The syntax
and morphology likewise set off the third line. Final i-vowels are, how-
ever, notable in the third line, and perhaps they pick up sonantly the
i-vowels in the first two lines. Noegel (2004:10) emphasizes the poetic
clustering of reduplicated forms in this unit, specifically in tarāmimu-na
and irarātī.
This unit shows classic parallelism, with the objects fronted for emphasis.
The parallelism includes singular and plural forms in the word-pair,
bt//hklm, a word-pair that carries over from the preceding two units.
Introduction
This column directly continues the action of column IV. El grants his
permission for Baal to construct a palace (line 1). Athirat, through whom
this permission has been obtained, then praises El for his wisdom. This
expression of praise additionally declares that this palace will allow for
Baal to perform his cosmic duties. Athirat then announces (to Anat
specifically?) that Baal is to be informed of the decision (lines 2–19).
Anat journeys to Mount Sapan, and gives the good news to Baal (lines
20–35a). He in turn begins the preparations for construction, most
importantly summoning Kothar-wa-Hasis to supervise the project (lines
35–57). This section includes a note (lines 42–43) indicating a significant
abridgment of the written form of the story. The note contains very
brief instructions on what needs to be added by the storyteller at this
point in the narrative, i.e., Baal’s instructions to the messengers whom
he sends to Kothar, their journey to the god’s abode, their delivery of
the message, Kothar’s response and journey to Mt. Sapan. The scribe
then moves directly (line 44) to Kothar’s arrival at Baal’s home and
commissioning by Baal. The column ends with a discussion between
Kothar and Baal about whether a window should be put in the pal-
ace. Kothar wishes to insert such an opening, but Baal is opposed to
it (lines 58–65).
The story of the palace, its construction and dedication in 1.4 V–VII
is a central moment in the Baal Cycle. The palace/temple of Baal is
550 cat 1.4 v
23
Some scholars (e.g., Kapelrud 1963:59–61) have suggested that the dream report
in 1 Kings 3 was originally an account of Yahweh commissioning Solomon to build
the temple. Later, they suggest, the commission was replaced with the current account
of Yahweh giving Solomon wisdom. This is quite speculative, and assumes that the
pattern discerned in narratives like that of Gudea must have been adhered to in the
case of the Solomon story. It also assumes that a more complex commissioning nar-
rative than we have in 2 Samuel 7, and 1 Kings 5 cannot be original since there is
not an exact parallel in other texts. See Hurowitz 1992:165–66. In fact, however, an
indirect commissioning such as we find in 1 Kings 5 is not extremely dissimilar from
our passage in column V, where El’s permission is passed to Athirat, then to Anat,
who informs Baal. Clearly a direct encounter between the commissioner and the one
commissioned is unnecessary.
552 cat 1.4 v
contribute the materials for the sanctuary, and how Moses appoints
Bezalel and Oholiab to oversee the project. Solomon’s preparations for
the Jerusalem temple are described in 1 Kgs 5:20–32. Here the materials
are sent by Hiram from the Lebanon mountains, and Solomon places
the laborers under the supervision of Adoniram.
4. The dedication ceremonies and official entry of the god(s) into the
temple. In 1.4 VI–VII, Baal provides a divine feast for the gods (VI
38–59) and later issues his voice (thunder) from his throne in the temple
(VII 27–42), indicating that he has taken possession of his palace. In
Samsuiluna B (lines 88–92), the gods make their entry into the Ebab-
bar “amidst joy and rejoicing,” i.e., during a dedication ceremony.
The inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I does not mention the dedication
ceremony, but does refer to the king bringing the gods Anu and Adad
(that is, their statues) into the temple and setting them on their thrones.
The dedication of the Israelite tabernacle takes place in Exod 40:9–15,
followed by the description in Exod 40:34–35 relating the arrival of
the Cloud that represents Yahweh’s presence in the tabernacle (cf.
the account in Leviticus 8–10; Numbers 7). Solomon dedicates his
temple with a massive feast in 1 Kgs 8:62–66, and in the description
in 8:10–13, the divine cloud enters the temple, marking the arrival of
Yahweh’s special presence.
The construction materials described in 1.4 V–VII also have a
reflex in Mesopotamian literature. Bricks, mentioned in our text in
1.4 IV 61–62 and V 11, are commonly the primary constituent of
such a building, and many Mesopotamian accounts refer to them
(e.g., Gudea Cylinder A:xix, lines 13–21; Samsuiluna B, lines 77–78;
cat 1.4 v 553
24
For bricks and brick-making, see Excursus II: Brick-Making in Pre-Industrial
Cultures, on pp. 623–5 below.
554 cat 1.4 v
25
Cf. ywsrnn in 1.16 VI 26 (note DUL 943, which compares BH *ysr and Akkadian
esēru) and the possibly related form, ystrn, in 1.4 VII 48. For the first w- root consonant,
compare the BH N-stem forms in Ps 2:10; Prov 29:19, etc., and the Nt-stem form in
Ezek 23:48. For discussion of the root in the G and D stems, see Ginsberg 1946:48.
556 cat 1.4 v
badly broken context in CAT 7.57.2 suggests the possibility that the
form r nnt is in fact correct. Nonetheless the word is quite obscure,
with no clearly identifiable cognate elsewhere in the Semitic languages.
Several scholars have suggested that it might be related to Arabic
ra ama, “to be gentle of voice” (TO 1.207) or Hebrew rā am, “to be
compassionate” (e.g., Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1161; de Moor 1987:54;
Wiggins 1993:61; Wyatt 1998:101). However, the proposed phonologi-
cal change of m > n before t assumed by the citation of Arabic ra ama
and Hebrew rā am appears unwarranted. A number of scholars have
simply decided not to offer a translation at all (e.g., Ginsberg, ANET
133; Gaster (Thespis 185) and Gordon (1977:95). Other scholars have
also tried to connect the final t of r nnt to the next word. For example,
TO (1.207 n. r) reads r nt td[y] l’irtk and renders, “Tu [fais sortir] de la
poitrine une voix douce,” relating the second word to the Akkadian
verb nadû, “to throw, hurl.” This is extremely unlikely, as there is word
divider clearly after and not before the t. Pope related r nt to Arabic
*r w, “to be soft,” and he rendered the line: “Gently (?) the w[hiskers
(?)] on your chest” (Pope in Smith 1998b:656–57). While the render-
ing of the second word must be rejected due to space considerations
on the tablet (he reconstructed d[qn], when there is room for only one
letter), the connection of r nnt with *r w cannot be ruled out. Pardee
(1997a:259–60) assumes the same cognate, but understands it in more
abstract terms (and arguably less befitting the parallelism with the previ-
ous line): “the respite that is yours alone (surely instructs you).” Largely
following Pope’s lead, we very tentatively propose a related reading that
takes into account the parallel above, šbt dqnk, and propose “the soft
ones whi[ch] (belong) to your chest” (r nnt d┌t ┐ l’irtk). In other words,
the gray hair of El’s chin is parallel to the hair of his chest. However,
even this remains problematic, since the etymology of r nnt remains
uncertain, and the proposed reading of the second word as d┌t ┐ is also
problematic (see Textual Notes above).
In the next section of her speech (lines 6–9), Athirat shifts her atten-
tion from El to the reason why his decision is such a wise one. In these
two bicola, the goddess asserts that the building of the palace will allow
Baal to fulfill his function in the cosmos, the sending of the life-giving
rains upon the earth. This emphasis on the close connection between
Baal’s temple and his functioning as storm god is a central aspect of the
story, first brought up here, but then made the climax of the building
narrative in 1.4 VII 27–37.
cat 1.4 v 557
The first bicolon (lines 6–7) is demarcated from the previous section
as a separate topic, by the double particles, wn ap (Watson 1994a).
Apart from these particles, every word in the first bicolon except m rh
has occasioned substantial debate. Fortunately, m r indicates that rain
is the subject of the bicolon, which is compatible with the “voice”
(i.e., “thunder”; cf. Ps 29:3–9), clouds and lightning mentioned in the
following bicolon (lines 8–9). Two basic approaches have been taken
to the rest of the first bicolon, largely from the interpretation of the
attestations of *‘dn. Many scholars take ‘dn as “time, season,” based
on Akkadian adanu/adannu (CAD A/1:97–101), Aramaic ‘iddānā, “time”
and Arabic ‘addana, “to fix the time of public distribution” (Leslau 56;
see UT 19.1823; CML2 60; SPUMB 148; de Moor 1987:54; CMHE
149; Loretz 1995c:117–18; Pardee 1997a:260; Wyatt 1998:101). This
is a plausible interpretation. The issue of the timing of Baal’s rains is,
of course, a major theme, and the sending forth of his voice from his
completed palace at the climax of the building narrative in column
1.4 VII 27–37 is certainly the fulfillment of the thoughts expressed in
this passage.
The second approach was proposed originally in the editio princeps of
Virolleaud (1932:133, 140; cf. also Gaster 1933:119, n. 1; cf. Albright
1934:124 n. 116). While it was largely ignored for decades, more
recently it has reemerged as a genuinely possible interpretation. Here
‘dn is related to BH and Aramaic dn, “to be abundant, luxuriant,” in
the D-stem “to make abundant,” and Arabic adānat, “numerous party”
(Ginsberg 1946:37; cf. Zadok 1993:320; also ESA *‘dn, “well-being,”
cited in Biella 354). The revival of this interpretation occurred with the
publication of the Tell Fekheriyeh inscription. As Greenfield (1984b)
immediately grasped, this Akkadian-Aramaic bilingual inscription
provides strong support for it. The opening list of titles and common
attributes of Hadad (a cognomen of Baal in the Ugaritic texts) includes
the epithet muta idu kibrati, the one “who makes the whole world luxuri-
ant,” in the Akkadian text (line 7), which is paralleled in the Aramaic
(also line 7) by m‘dn mt kln, “the one who makes all lands luxuriant”
(Greenfield and Schaeffer 1983:112–13). The word appears here very
clearly in the context of Hadad’s watering of the world, which makes
the world “abundant, luxuriant.” With the close contextual relationship
between this passage and ours in 1.4 V, it seems quite plausible to argue
in favor of understanding the latter in a similar way. In addition, this
interpretation of the verb also works quite plausibly in 1.14 II 32–33,
558 cat 1.4 v
26
Cf. Akkadian šer’u, “furrow, cultivated field” (CAD Š/2:327).
560 cat 1.4 v
phor of Baal’s voice for the thunder is a common one, and the expres-
sion *ytn ql in this context is well attested also. It appears again in 1.4
VII 29 in the description of Baal’s triumphant theophany that climaxes
in the completion of the palace. The voice of a god as thunder also
appears in several biblical passages (e.g., Pss 18:14; 29:3–9). It is to be
expected that Baal expresses his “voice” in the clouds, since his standard
epithets include rkb ‘rpt, “Cloud-rider.” Line 9 poses no grave difficul-
ties. The word brqm is common for “lightning” (UT 19.524; Akkadian
birqu, Arabic barq, “flash of lightning;” ESA brq, “lightning storm,” in
Biella 58), with other cognates meaning “flashing” (Akkadian barāqu; BH
bārāq) and “sparkling” (Aramaic brq, Eth baraqa; cf. the loan-word into
Egyptian for “sparkling” eyes or water, discussed in Hoch 1994:101–2).
In contrast, the word šrh, is relatively rare. Ginsberg (1943:109–10 n. 1),
followed by Pope (MHP) and Greenfield (1984b:221–22), detected it,
however, in Job 37:3, within a passage (verses 2–6) that focuses on
Yahweh’s thunder (qôl ):
Hearken to the thunder of his voice (rōgez qôlô),
And the rumbling that comes from his mouth.
Under the whole heaven he lets it go ( yišrēhû)
And his lightning (’ôrô) to the corners of the earth.
After it his voice (qôlô) roars,
He thunders with His majestic voice,
And he does not restrain them when His voice is heard.
God thunders wondrously with His voice;
He does great things that we cannot comprehend.
For to the snow he says, “Fall on the earth”;
And to the shower (gešem mā ār) and the rain (gešem mi rôt),
“Be strong.”
This passage is another example of ql, “voice,” used for thunder, and
it illustrates the sense of Ugaritic *šrh, “to release (lightning).” In turn,
Ugaritic šrh would suggest, as Ginsberg noted, that what the MT treats
as an -h suffix on yišrēhû is actually the third radical of the BH root.
Baal’s capacity as a provider of water is the hope of humanity. Baal’s
rain is proverbial for its fructifying effects on the earth (1.16 III 7–8;
see above pp. 14–16):
Sweet (n‘m) to the earth is the rain of Baal,
And to the field, the rain of ‘Aliy.
To lose Baal’s help is to lose his rains, as the curse from 1.19 I 42–46
illustrates (see ANET 153; Held 1974:108 n. 8; Schwemer 2001:542):
562 cat 1.4 v
and especially its window, serves as the place from which the storm-
god is conceived as manifesting his power in lightning and thunder
as well as his blessing in the rains (for a comparable association, see
2 Kgs 7:2, 19). The connection between the heavenly palace and the
divine blessing of rain also underlies the Israelite understanding of the
heavenly palace and earthly temple. In 1 Kgs 8:35–36 Solomon prays
for a divine blessing of rain when anyone properly prays for forgive-
ness in the direction of the temple. Mal 3:10 correlates the exchange
of divinely given rains from the heavenly window and the humanly
provided tithe to the temple (cf. also the blessing in Deut 28:12). The
rains are also experienced in the context of the temple, as the easterly
procession of Yahweh’s storm in Psalm 29 dramatizes. The storm issues
in the community’s recognition of Yahweh’s theophany, indicated by
kābôd (usually rendered “glory” but better understood as the divine
“effulgence”). This survey of sources indicates the widespread belief in
the underlying fundamental association between the divine provision
of the rain and the presence of the storm-god in his palace.
Interestingly, while it is obvious that the rain is the means of bringing
fertility to the earth, the account of Baal’s actions at the completion of
the palace with its window emphasizes not so much the rain, but rather
his power as manifest in his thunder. This is where the two themes of
the narrative (Baal’s status as king and his function as bringer of fertility)
come together. The thunder and lightning are indicative of the coming
rain, but they themselves particularly emphasize the god’s power and
glory. Thus when Baal sends forth his voice in the thunder, he affirms
his kingly status while announcing the coming of fertility to the world.
The relationship between thunder and lightning and the royal status
of the deity can be seen very explicitly also in Psalm 29.
In lines 10–19 Athirat directly addresses the matter of the palace, in
announcing, presumably to Anat (since the latter reacts to the announce-
ment directly afterward in lines 20–21), that Baal should be informed
of El’s positive decision. She prefaces her proclamation with a bicolon
(lines 10–11) that is usually rendered as a pair of statements that Baal
may build “a house of cedars”//“a house of brick” (e.g., Aisleitner 41;
TO 1.208; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1161; Maier 1986:21; de Moor
1987:55; Pardee 1997a:260; Wyatt 1998:102). But the syntax of the
lines, in particular the presence of hm at the beginning of the second
line, strongly suggests that the bicolon is a pair of questions rather
than statements. This type of double question, recognized by Held
564 cat 1.4 v
from the region of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges would sup-
port the traditional translation.27
In lines 12–19, Athirat conveys the announcement in three parts.
First, line 12 provides the command to have the following message
relayed to Baal: “Let it be told (lyrgm) to Mightiest Baal.” This is a
standard formula for announcing a message by using the G-passive
stem (Sivan 1997:126). The root *rgm for an announcement is used
similarly in the divine birth-announcement in 1.23.52: “Word (rgm) to
El is brought, [two] wo[men] of El have borne” (cf. 1.10 III 32–36
for a different introduction to a birth announcement). The same text
(in line 12) uses *rgm in the passive voice to give directions for ritual
recitation. Athirat’s use of *rgm may be compared also to the active
verbal use of this root at the beginning of messages from one party to
another. In these contexts, the verb is used in the imperative to instruct
the messenger to give the message to the appropriate person: “To PN
say (rgm)” (e.g., CAT 2.4.1–2; 2.10.2–3; 2.11.1–2; 2.12.1–3).
This is followed by Athirat’s instructions to Baal for building the
palace He is first to gather the materials for the construction (lines
13–17), and then to actually build it (line 18–19). The first step in the
process is to call a caravan ( rn) “into your house” (bbht(!)k). The house
referred to here may either be Baal’s dwelling on Mt. Sapan, in which
he has lived (cf. 1.3 I and IV 37–46; cf. Ginsberg ANET 133 n. 23), but
which is inadequate for his current position, or it could be a reference
to the building site for the new palace. The term used for “supplies,”
‘ bt, is also found several times (as *‘izbônîm) in Ezek 27:12–33, where it
designates ship cargo.28 In the Baal Cycle, at least some of the cargo for
Baal’s house is to move from Lebanon and Sirion (see 1.4 VI 18–21).
Lines 15–17 focus not on the cedar and bricks of lines 10–11, but
rather on precious metals from the mountains. They are listed in
27
Cf. the issue in interpreting the name of the site in Lebanon in OB Gilgamesh
II–V often called the “Cedar Mountain.” The issue is whether Akkadian erēnu means
“cedar,” or “pine” or whether it represents a broader category of tree; see Dalley
1991:126–27 n. 20.
28
TO 1.208 n. y; Baal 122–24; MLC 559; Pope in Smith 1998b:657; cf. DUL 152–53.
For a full discussion, see Dietrich and Loretz 2002a:95–101. The word is regarded as
cognate with Ugaritic *‘db and BH ‘zb, “to prepare,” by UT 19.1818; Dietrich, Loretz
and Sanmartín 1973:94–95; see also ESA *‘db, “to repair” in Biella 354. The forms
of *‘db appear to belong to the same root; for examples, see the verb and cognate
accusative used for Baal’s preparations for his feast in 1.4 VI 39 (with discussion below
on p. 626); and the verbal form ‘dbt in 1.100.71 (Pardee 1988a:219).
566 cat 1.4 v
29
So Arnaud (with our italics). See also Sigrist 1993:407.
568 cat 1.4 v
Besides the reference to silver and gold in this bicolon, we find men-
tion in line 19 of hrm ’iqn’im, “purest lapis lazuli.” The three items
appear as elements of the dowry that the god Yarikh pays for Nikkal
in 1.24.19–22. In that passage iqn im is qualified by hrm, an allomorph
of hrm in our bicolon. The word ’iqn’im is well known as the term for
lapis lazuli (Blau 1972:74–77), cognate with Akkadian uqnu, itself attested
in Ras Shamra texts and elsewhere (AHw 1426; RS 17.383 and 422 in
PRU IV 221–25; DUL 93; for the phonology of the initial vowel see
Sivan 1997:44, 73), and with Phoenician ’qn’ (see Cross 1979:44 for
the question of the precise sense involved). The word does not con-
form to a generative Semitic root-pattern and is likely a loanword or
Kulturwort into second millennium Semitic languages (see the proposed
cognates in Hittite, Linear B and Greek listed in DUL 93). Lapis lazuli
was not indigenous to the ancient Near East (another reason to assume
a loanword here); it was imported from Badakhshan in Afghanistan
(Herrmann 1968; Majidzadeh 1982; Ohshiro 2000; Akkermans and
Schwartz 2003:239–40, 270–71). An administrative quarter of Palace G
of Early Bronze Ebla yielded both worked pieces and unworked chunks
of lapis (Pinnock 1988). The word hrm has been generally understood
as “pure” (see Virolleaud 1932:142; Huehnergard 1987b:58; for the
vocalization * uhūrūma, see Sivan 1997:45, 69); Akkadian uqnû ebbu for
“pure lapis” appears to be related to hrm ’iqn’im (Blau 1972:74–77;
Ginsberg 1946:39; for the syntax of the adjective preceding the noun,
see Sivan 1997:207–8). Pardee (1977:13) has suggested that hrm may
also have the further nuance of “genuine” lapis lazuli. In Ugaritic
records, fake lapis was known to be a problem. King Ammishtamru
once sent fake lapis to his Hittite overlord, Tudhalias IV who was
understandably angry (CAT 3.1.23, 28, 32; RS 17.383 and RS 17.422,
in PRU IV, 221–25; see Rainey 1965:111; Lackenbacher 2002:90–92).
EA 11 (rev.):24–34 likewise qualifies the lapis sent by Burna-Buriyash
to Naphururea (Amenophis IV) as “genuine” (Moran 1992:22 and 23
n. 21; cf. “schönem” in Knudtzon 1915:1.99). An ivory figurine from
Ugarit used lapis for the inlays: “curls of lapis lazuli, silver locks of hair
and eyes of copper and lapis” (Gachet 1992:71). Lapis was a major
luxury item in the international trade relations among the great kings
of the Amarna Age, and thus, here in the Baal Cycle, it also represents
a mark of wealth.
Some hint as to how the lapis might have been envisioned as a build-
ing material for Baal’s house may be found in Exod 24:10. In this scene,
570 cat 1.4 v
at the climax of the story of Israel’s making its covenant with Yahweh,
the elders of Israel are invited to ascend the holy mountain to share a
meal with God: “And they saw the god of Israel, and beneath His feet
was like brickwork (libnat) of sappîr (lapis lazuli or sapphire) and it was
like the very heavens in its purity (lĕ ōhar).” This description of the floor
of Yahweh’s heavenly palace (or possibly his footstool, as suggested by
K. L. Roberts 2000:638–39) as being paved with sappîr, which may be
another term for lapis (see BDB 705; HALOT 764), is quite possibly a
parallel to how Baal’s palace was envisioned. In Mesopotamia bricks
were glazed with the color of lapis for use in pavements (see CAD
A/1:162b #1e). One would expect the god’s palace to have the real
thing. The color of lapis would also conjure up the picture of a blue
sky (see BOS 2.132; Brenner 1982:168), which is, of course, the primary
locale of Baal’s realm. The Hebrew word for pure, āhôr, when used in
the context of precious stones, sometimes refers not only to the purity
of their quality, but also to their brightness and luminosity (van der
Toorn 1985:28–29; cf. Smith 1985:321–23; note the comparable range
for Akkadian ebbu discussed in Wilson 1994:80–82).
I, where there may have been other deities present besides the servant
and Baal’s women, the only ones mentioned here). So it is possible
that Anat was nearby in the scene. Indeed, if Pope (1971) is correct in
identifying the scene painted on a mug from Ugarit as a depiction of
the scene in 1.4 IV, then it would suggest that Anat listened into the
conversation disguised as a bird. If correct, this feature remains in the
background of the scene here, as the text does not indicate this feature.
In sum, the context of this scene provides no information as whether
any other deities were in the room with Athirat and El.
Anat is described in line 20 as rejoicing (šm ), an appropriate emotion
in view of the long and complex maneuvers that have finally reached
fruition. The identical emotion will be ascribed to Baal as well in lines
35–36. One might remember that Anat uses this verb in the context
of the construction of a palace in her conversation with El in 1.3 V
19–21, where she says threateningly: “In the building of your house
do not rejoice ( al tšm )//Do not rejoice ( al tšm ) in the construction of
your palace!” Immediately the goddess sets out for Mount Sapan (lines
20b-24). Lines 22–24 contain standard formulas for travel (see 1.1 III
21–22; UBC 1.167–68, 184). Only the language of lines 20b–21a is
particular to Anat. This planting of her feet issuing (perhaps implicitly)
in her shooting upward from the earth, is the same language used in
1.3 V 4–5 (see the Commentary on pp. 335–7). The poet omits any
description of her arrival before Baal and immediately has Anat address
the god with the good news (lines 25–35a). The two-line introduction
(lines 25–26a) conveys the joyful character of her speech.
Anat’s speech in lines 26b–35a differs from Athirat’s message of lines
12–19 in three ways. The first is Anat’s announcement of glad tidings
in lines 26b–27a, which expands Athirat’s less affective speech-opening
words back in line 12: lyrgm l’al’iyn b‘l. The preface of glad tidings is
stressed by its double use of *bšr in lines 26b–27a (for tbšr as tD-stem
imperative, either *tabaššar or *tabaššir, see Sivan 1997:138). The same
root appears in another announcement that Anat makes to Baal in
1.10 III 33–38:
Aloud to Baal she cries:
“Of the great (’il) news (bšrt) be informed (bš[r]), [O Ba]al,
Indeed, receive the news (bšr), O Progeny of Dagan:
‘For a bull to Baal [is bo]rn,
A buffalo to the Cloudrider’.”
Mighty Baal rejoices (šm ).
572 cat 1.4 v
In both passages Anat brings the news to Baal prefaced with the procla-
mation of glad tidings and then communicates the content of the news.
These passages illustrate both the particular use of *bšr for good news
(in the passive voice) in the context of the delivery of a message, as well
as the reasonable reaction of joy by Baal (1.4 V 35b–36a and 1.10 III
37). The root appears a number of times in BH as *bśr for good news
(McCarthy 1964). In Isa 40:9–10 God instructs Zion “who brings glad
tidings” (mĕbaśśeret iyyôn) to ascend a high mountain to proclaim the
message of joy (cf. Isa 41:27; 52:7; 61:1). The proclamation of good
news is a conventional role of messengers (cf. Luke 2:10–11). It is mod-
eled on the role of human messengers, as illustrated by many Lachish
letters (šlm, “peace,” in KAI 192:1–2, 193:2–3, 197:2; b, “good,” in
KAI 194:1–2; both šlm w b in 195:2 if correctly read): “May Yahweh
cause my lord to hear tidings of peace/good” (ANET 322). Yet this role
not uncommonly falls to women, as it does to both the goddess Anat
and Jerusalem, who in Isa 40:9–10 is personified as a woman. Indeed,
Ps 68:12 refers to a great company of women who bring glad tidings
(mĕbaśśĕrôt) of victory in battle. It is this role as messenger and not only
as sister that may explain the place of Anat in 1.10 III and 1.11.
The second difference between Athirat’s message and Anat’s recount-
ing of it to Baal is the bicolon in lines 27b–29a. This bicolon is a new
variation on the bicolon in Baal’s lament, “For Baal has no house like
the gods’, no court like Athirat’s children’s.’ ” Like El’s version of this
bicolon in 1.4 IV 62–V 1, Anat uses a passive, jussive verb to announce
the permission that has been granted. Here the verb is ytn rather than
El’s ybn. Also new are the comparatives at the end of each line, “like
your brothers,” and “like your kin,” instead of “like the gods” and
“like Athirat’s children.” This illustrates the types of variations that
are possible within even a highly formulaic passage.
The third variation in Anat’s speech vis-à-vis the version given by
Athirat is that lines 31–33 repeat the two cola of lines 15–16, but
Anat’s speech does not contain the third line (line 17) of the tricolon
( yblk ’udr ’ilq m), which had further described the precious metals to
be used in the construction of the palace. There is no obvious reason
why the line should have been left out here.
followed by the account of him summoning the caravan into his house,
i.e., performing the instructions given by Athirat through Anat (lines
36–40). Having finally reached the conclusion of an effort that has
taken up the story of nearly two tablets, one might expect a speech of
triumph or satisfaction from Baal at this point. In fact, such a speech
appears in virtually all the thematically similar scenes in Ugaritic poetry.
One might look, for example, at the story of Dan’il and his desire for
a son in the Aqhat Epic, CAT 1.17 I 1–II 23. It too contains a lament
about the lack of a critical element in the character’s life that others
possess (Dan’il, “who has no son like his brothers, no offspring like his
fellows,” in comparison to Baal, who “has no house like the gods, no
court like Athirat’s children”). The lament is brought by Baal to El,
who in turn grants the request for a son. A messenger, perhaps Baal
himself, is sent to Dan’il to give him the good news. Upon hearing it,
Dan’il’s face rejoices (pnm tšm ), he laughs (1.17 II 8–12) and gives a
full-scale speech that is actually composed of the lament now turned
into rejoicing (1.17 II 12–23). Another similar example occurs at the
conclusion of the construction of Baal’s palace in 1.4 VI 35–38, where
the poet again notes, “Mightiest Baal rejoiced.” This is followed by a
brief speech from the god. Similarly, when El has a dream that indi-
cates that Baal has returned to life in 1.6 III 10–21, he rejoices (šm )
in line 14 and then gives a speech (lines 18–21). Why do we not get a
speech of satisfaction from Baal at his moment of rejoicing, when such
a speech appears to be part of the regular formula? It is evident that
the text here represents a slightly abridged version of the narrative.
There is no way to answer this question with certainty. Having repeated
Baal’s lament several times in the previous columns, and having given
the speeches by El, Athirat and Anat, perhaps Ilimalku (or the scribe
whose text Ilimalku is copying) is ready to pass over one more discus-
sion of the palace. It is perhaps significant that six lines later the scribe
(or the tablet he is working from) will simply omit a significantly larger
formulaic passage, leaving a note to any storyteller who might be using
this text as a guide to fill in what he has not repeated in writing.
Lines 36–40 describe the preparations for building the palace, par-
allel to the instructions of Athirat in lines 13–17. Then Baal sets in
motion the next step, which is not outlined in the previous speeches: he
summons the craftsman-god Kothar wa-Hasis to oversee the construc-
tion of the palace (line 41). This seems to be a well-established func-
tion for this god. Kothar was similarly called upon in CAT 1.1 III to
build a palace for Yamm, and an Egyptian text of the New Kingdom
574 cat 1.4 v
30
We thank James Ford for pointing out this text to us.
cat 1.4 v 575
one should point out that there is no indication in Ugaritic script that
anyone ever thought of marking off quotations. This would, then, be a
unique occurrence. One should also note that a line beginning, “When
the young men were sent,” as the proposed quotation reads, would not
make sense contextually at this location in the story. The second inter-
pretation therefore seems more likely. We have seen a previous instance
(in 1.3 III between lines 31 and 32) where a double line across a column
appears to mark a place where an abridgment has taken place in the
narrative that needs to be filled in by the storyteller. In that location
the text appears to be missing the account of the messengers’ journey
to Anat’s abode. In addition, we have just noted the possibility of an
unmarked omission of a speech by Baal after lines 35b-36a. These gaps
in the narrative strongly suggest that the written forms of the literary
works were not intended to be understood as complete, final or canonical
texts. The specific instructions written here in lines 42–43 indicate that
the person reading the tablet is expected to be one who understands
(and tells?) the full story, not just reads along. Thus the tablets appear
to be a general guide, presumably for performance, rather than an
attempt to put down for posterity the complete text of a literary work.
If this is so, then Ilimalku would simply be relying on the probability
that storytellers using this work could provide this section of the story
from their knowledge of how such messenger narratives should be told
and how they are regularly incorporated into the overall narrative. We
could also assume that the storytellers had some latitude as to how this
part of the narrative might be told. If this is so, it also means then
there is no absolutely set text for the Baal Cycle.
The marked omission in 1.4 V 42–43 appears to have been quite
substantial. It presumably includes Baal’s summoning and commission-
ing of the messengers, their journey to Kothar’s abode, their arrival
in his presence and delivery of the message, Kothar’s response and
announcement of his departure, and his journey to Baal’s abode. We can
only speculate about the details of the passage that the scribe assumed
the storyteller would insert here. Of course, in an oral performance, a
storyteller would be free to extend or condense the details of his story,
depending on his audience or on his own inclinations. But there are
parallels elsewhere in the text that may provide hints as to the basic
story line. It seems quite plausible, since Baal actually asks Kothar to
build the palace once the latter has arrived at Mt. Sapan (1.4 V 50–57),
that Baal’s message to Kothar would be parallel to the message found
in the account of El’s summons to Kothar that leads to El personally
576 cat 1.4 v
commissioning the latter to build a house for Yamm (cf. 1.1 III 5–16).
The same message is sent by Baal to Anat in 1.3 III 8–31. This message
only asks the god to come, but does not say why. That would appear
to fit the context here too. The messengers’ journey would probably
parallel the similar passage in 1.3 VI 12–20. Kothar’s response and his
journey to Mt. Sapan might generally approximate the passage in 1.1
III 17–25 or 1.3 IV 32–38.
The initial part of the scribal instruction, w b lmspr, literally “and
return to the recitation,” finds a partial parallel in a line on 1.19,
written along the side of the tablet that is part of the Aqhat story (1.19
IV 63, beginning opposite 1.19 IV 23): whndt y b lmspr, “and here one
returns to the story” (Parker, UNP 78). But its context is not the same,
since it does not appear to mark an omission in the text. The words
are found also in a ritual text, 1.40.35, as a direction that a recitation
is to be repeated (de Tarragon 1980:93; Pardee 2002:80, 83). Albright
(1934:125 n. 127) and Cassuto (BOS 2.132) compared Judg 7:15 (cf.
v 13), which uses mispar to refer to the recounting of a dream.
The narrative then picks up with the arrival of Kothar (line 44).
The text says nothing about Kothar doing obeisance before Baal. This
may be a signal that by virtue of his anticipated service to Baal, the
craftsman-god is an honored guest, for the present moment hardly
regarded as lesser in rank (see Smith 1984b). The craftsman god is
feted immediately (on ’a r, see Pope 1986; and the Commentary to
1.4 III 23–24 on p. 480). The description of the food in lines 45–46
is identical to that provided to Anat when she arrives at Baal’s abode
in 1.3 IV 40–42. Baal sets an ox “before” the god (qdmh),//“a fatling
right in his face (wtk pnh)” (so Pope in Smith 1998b:657), or less lit-
erally, “a fatling right before him.” The *’i- in mr’i’a is a not a root
letter but a “mater lectionis,” an extra ’aleph indicating the internal
vowel (cf. BH mārî’, Sivan 1997:13). As seen by Pope (1953; see also
in Smith 1998b:657), the placement of the w- preceding the phrase tk
pnh is attested as a way to denote emphasis (hyperbaton). It may also
be found in BH and Arabic. Another case of an emphatic position
for w- to highlight a noun mid-line appears in 1.4 VI 18 noted above:
y[t]lk llbbn w‘ h. While it might be translated literally as, “he [se]nds
to Lebanon and its wood,” this rendering makes little sense. It seems
clear that w- here is not used to coordinate the terms “Lebanon” and
“its wood”; instead, it is emphasizing the exact aspect of Lebanon that
is important in the sentence, i.e., “to Lebanon, in particular its wood.”
There are a number of other cases, in nominal clauses, for example,
cat 1.4 v 577
1.5 II 12: ‘bdk ’an wd‘lmk, “your servant I am, indeed, forever yours”
(see also 1.23.42, 46, 49).
The verb št may be understood as an active 3rd masc. sg. form, “He
set an ox before him.” In this case, Baal would be the subject (so UNP
131 and 171 n. 127; similar language is found in 1.3 IV 40–42, where
this understanding seems almost certain). One could understand this
action literally, where Baal himself places the food on the table. If so,
this indicates the esteem in which Kothar is held by the storm-god.
The close relationship between the two gods evident in the account
of Kothar’s support for Baal against Yamm in 1.2 IV supports this
interpretation. At the same time, these lines could simply be the way
one refers to the ruler signaling to his servants to serve the dinner. The
ruler is credited with giving the meal, although servants actually do the
work. A different understanding of the verb is possible when one notes
that the subject of the first line of the tricolon is Kothar, and it would
be unusual (though not impossible) to have an unmarked shift in subject
on the second line. So it might be more plausible to understand the
verb št as a passive form, i.e., “An ox was set before him.” This would
also match the pair of verbs in the following line (lines 46b–47a), which
are clearly passive. It is worth noting that the language of this feast
is similar to the language of sacrifice to the gods. Cassuto (BOS 2.133
n. 78) noted the comparable context of Mic 6:6: “Shall I come before
him (ha’ăqaddĕmennû) with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?” It is
in any case the sort of divine banquet customary for the pantheon,
as the cliché of line 48 would suggest (for this line, see 1.4 III 40b–41
and the Commentary there).
A distinctive feature of this account is the description in lines 46b-
48a of Kothar being set on a throne beside Baal. This is another
indication of the close friendship between the two gods. The motif
appears also in a ritual text (CAT 1.106.27–28): wlll t‘rk ks’u, “and for
ll (DN) a throne is arranged” (see de Tarragon 1980:117; cf. Emar
369.40; Fleming 1992:67). That t db is in the passive is made clear by
the nominative case ending of ks’u (Sivan 1997:126). There are similar
constructions in BH related to thrones in such passages as Dan 7:9. It
would be theoretically possible to render the second verb y b31 in the
active voice, if one understands this form as being in the third person
31
For the shift of the š, the marker of the C-stem in y b, > due to assimilation to
following , see Sivan 1997:28–29.
578 cat 1.4 v
plural impersonal, “and they seated (him)” (for the two possibilities,
see Sivan 1997:154).
Seating arrangements at banquets, of course, have a significant rela-
tionship to status. Two Sumerian temple hymns refer to seating arrange-
ments at divine banquets (cited in Ferrara and Parker 1972:38–39). The
first, Gudea Cylinder B (xix:17–21) describes the banquet of Ningirsu
which Gudea of Lagash prepared for the god:
For Ningirsu he (Gudea) prepared a fine banquet, Anu sat at the ‘big
side’. Next to Anu was Enlil, next to Enil was Ninmah.
The second, a hymn to Enki’s temple, describes the feast that Enki
holds after the construction of the temple É-engurra:
In the shrine Nippur, Enki prepared a banquet for his father Enlil. Anu
sat at the “place of honor.” Enlil was next to Anu. Nintu sat at the “big
side” (of the table). The Anunna seated themselves at their places.
To be seated at the right hand of the host is to be accorded the place
of honor at a feast. Following his own obeisance before Bathsheba,
Solomon seats his mother at his right hand in 1 Kgs 2:19. In Ps 110:1
Yahweh tells the king of Judah, “Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies your footstool” (see also Mark 12:36; 1 Esdras 4:29). The risen
Jesus is accorded the place of honor at the right hand of his heavenly
Father (Rom 8:34; Heb 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22), an expression echoed in
the Christian credal formula: “and he is seated at the right hand of
the Father.” For other Jewish and Christian texts attesting the motif
of heavenly thrones, see Davila 2000:155–56. The description of the
meal for Kothar ends with the common line 48: ‘d l m št[ y ’ilm]. Here
this stereotypical line is used to close a (sub)section, somewhat unusual,
since the line usually serves as a subsection-opening line (e.g., 1.4 III
40, VI 55) in the description of divine feasting.
After the meal, Baal asks Kothar to construct his palace (lines 49–57).
In a parallel context in 1.2 III 8–10 El commands Kothar to build a
palace for Yamm with very similar instructions (see UBC 1.234–38). The
instructions in lines 51–57 are particularly notable for their four-fold
repetition of š, “quickly.” Four-fold repetitions are relatively rare but
not unknown,32 and here the repetition conveys an urgency on Baal’s
part. According to the bicolon of lines 56–57, the palace is to “cover
32
Examples include: hlh in CAT 1.23.32–33 observed by Watson 1982:267; m in
1.22 I 4–9 noted by Tuttle cited in Pope 1977a:168; and k- in CAT 1.169.3–4.
cat 1.4 v 579
“my word” (see above p. 226), yet in context it may bear the further
connotation of “my suggestion, recommendation” or the like (cf. “my
view” in Pardee 1975:374, 1997a:261).
Baal refuses Kothar’s offer (lines 63–65), using the same language
found in the craftsman-god’s original question (lines 61–62). The tablet
breaks off at line 65, and there could be two or three lost lines. But
it is also possible that the column ended at this point. The story flows
directly into the opening line of column VI, without an obvious break.
However, it is possible that Baal gave an explanation for his refusal
here, similar to the one found in VI 10–13 after Kothar asks a second
time. The issue of the window and whether it should be installed in the
palace, which continues into column VI and resurfaces finally in column
VII, is given a great prominence in the narrative. There is no parallel
to this focus in any other building narrative from the ancient Near East
(cf. Hurowitz 1985, 1992). Further discussion of the meaning of the
episode will appear below in the Commentary on 1.4 VI 1–15.
CAT 1.4 VI
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:144–52, pls. XXVII, XXIX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus
pl. XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse and pl. XXX is the
obverse); CTA 27–28, fig. 16, pls. IX, X; KTU 18–19; CAT 19–20.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 43–45; Albright 1934:126–28; Caquot and Sznycer,
TO 1.211–15; Cassuto, BOS 2.134–38; Coogan 1978:103–04; Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1164–67; Driver, CML1 98–101; Gaster, Thespis 189–92; Gibson, CML2 62–64;
Ginsberg, ANET 134, KU 34–38; Gordon, UL 34–35, 1977:97–99; Gray, LC2 51;
Jirku 49–50; Maier 1986:22; Margalit, MLD 45–50; de Moor, SPUMB 155, 1987:
57–61; del Olmo Lete, MLC 205–7; MLR 86–88; Pardee 1997a:261–62; Pope,
EUT 101; Smith 1985:314–15, 328–35, UNP 132–35; Wyatt 1998:105–08; Xella
1982:116–18; van Zijl, Baal 128–35.
1 wy‘n.k[ ]s
t 3b.b‘l.l[ ]
n.rgm.1k[ ]∫w ss
šm‘.m‘.l’a[ ]∑ynb‘l
5 bl.’ašt.’u∑r[ ]∑t.bbhtm
ln.bqr[ ]∑lm
w‘n.’al’i[ ]b‘l
’al.tšt.’μu[ ]t.bbhtm
ln.b1q[ ]∂klm
10 ’al.tx[ ]∑y.bt’ar
[ ]xx[ ]∑y.bt.rb
[ ]dd.’ilym
[ ]∂ql n.wp m
[ ]wy‘n.k r
15 [ ]∑t b.b‘l.lhwty
[ ]bhth.tbnn
x[ ]trmm.hklh
2y[ ]∂k.llbnn.w‘ h
l[ ]∑r yn.m md.’arzh
20 hx[ ]bnn.w‘ h
š∑r yn.m md.’arzh
tš∑t[ ]’išt.bbhtm
nb[ ]’at.bhklm
hn[ ]∑ym.w n.t’ikl
584 cat 1.4 vi
25 ’išt[ ]bbhtm.nbl’at
bhk[ ]3m. l .kb‘.ym
t’ik∑l[ ]št.bbhtm
nbl’a[ ]bhklm
1 mš.1 [ ] .ym.t’ikl
30 ’iš[ ]bhtm.nbl’at
3b[ ]lm.mk
bšb[ ]1y[ ].td.’išt
bbhtm.1n[ ]’at.bhklm
sb.ksp.lrqm. r
35 nsb.llbnt.šm
’al’iyn.b‘l.htybnt
dt.ksp.hkly[ ]1d1tm
r .‘dbt.bht[ ]l
y‘db.hd.‘db[ ]bt
40 hklh. b .’alp3m[ ]
’in.šql. rm[ ]μm
r’i’a.’il.‘glm.d[ ]
šnt.’imr.qm .∑l[ ]’im
.’a h.bbhth.’a[ ]∑yh
45 bqrbhklh.
šb‘m.bn.’a rt
špq’ilm.krm.yx[
špq.’ilht. prt[
špq.’ilm.’alpm.2y[
50 špq.’ilht.’ar t[
špq.’ilm.k m.y[
špq.’ilht.ks’at
špq.’ilm.r btyn
špq.’ilht.dkr
55 ‘d.l m.šty.’ilμm
wpq.mrg´ m. μ d
b rb.ml t.qμ [ ]∑r
’i.tšty.krp[ ]∑n
[ ]∑s.∂ ∑r∑ ∑d[ ]
60 [ ]n
[ ]t
[ ]
[ ]xt
Textual Notes
Line 1. ]s CAT reads another /s/ to the left of the final letter of the
line. But there are no traces of that letter preserved on the tablet. The
indentations are all breakage.
Line 2. t b
1 The lower part of the /b/ is destroyed, but context assures
the reading.
Line 3. 1k[ ]∫w ss The left two wedges and the upper left line of the
right wedge of the /k/ survive. Context assures the reading. The
right tip of what is surely a /w/ is visible about midway up the line of
the / /.
Line 4. l’a[ ]μyn There are no longer any traces of the /l/ following
the /’a/. It was apparently visible to Virolleaud. On the other hand,
the right edge of the right half of the /y/ does still survive, though
CTA did not record it. Two of the wedges are certain. Context assures
the reading /l’a[ l’i]yn.
Line 5. ’u∂r[ ]t∂ . Only the left parts of the two left wedges of the /r/ and
the deep interior of the upper middle wedge are preserved. The letter is
epigraphically uncertain, but the context assures the reading. Only the
right tip of the /t/ is preserved. Context again assures the reading.
Line 8. ’al.tšt.’μu[ Of the /’u/, only the left vertical and upper left edge
of the middle vertical are preserved. The horizontal has been completely
chipped away, although superficially its looks as if it were there.
Line 9. ln.b1q[ A long horizontal chip that runs from the bottom of
the /l/ through the /n/ makes the /l/ look superficially like a /d/.
The left horizontal of the /q/ is preserved, along with a tiny bit of the
upper left side of the Winkelhaken.
]∫klm Only the right tip of the /k/ is preserved, but the context
assures the reading.
586 cat 1.4 vi
Line 10. ’al.tx[ Three verticals of the letter marked as /x/ are attested
here, but the tablet is broken away where potential horizontals might
appear. Thus the letter may be /l/, /d/ or /u/.
]μy Only the lower right wedge and a small piece of the right middle
wedge are preserved. The context assures the reading.
Line 11. [ ]xx[ The first letter is either /h/ or / i/. Its lower left side,
where the small vertical of the / i/ would be, is broken. The second
letter is either / / or / /. Again, the lower part of the letter, where
the differentiating wedge would be located is lost.
]μy The /y/ is preserved only in the lower right part of the right
half of the letter. But context assures the reading.
Line 13 [ ]μql n The lines of the right wedge of the /q/ are preserved.
The letter could theoretically be / /, but context argues for /q/.
Line 15. ]∂t b The right side of the /t/ is preserved. Context assures
its reading.
Line 18. 1y[ The left half of the /y/is well preserved, and the left side
of the right wedges are visible at the break.
]∫k This letter could be a /k/ or an /r/. The right wedge and
the right tip of an overlapping upper left wedge are preserved. Most
restorations favor /k/.
Line 19. l[ ]μryn Only the right tip of the right horizontal of /r/ is
preserved, but the context assures the reading.
Line 20. hx[ Only the tiniest lower left line of a horizontal wedge is
preserved after the /h/. It is compatible with CAT’s reading, /n/, but
could also be read as several other letters.
cat 1.4 vi 587
Line 21. šμryn Only the lower left horizontal of the /r/is preserved,
but the context assures the reading.
Line 22. tšt∂ [ The /t/ before the break is only preserved as the left
edge of a horizontal. Context argues for /t/.
]’išt The right tip of the vertical wedge of the / i/ is preserved,
though poorly. It does not show up clearly in the photograph, but
when the light is shone from the right, it is visible.
Line 24. hn[ ]μym Only a single short vertical of the /y/ survives, but
context assures the reading.
Line 26. bhk[ ]3m The upper line of the horizontal of the /m/ and
the head of its vertical are preserved.
kb‘ The /k/ is a scribal error for /r/ (haplography of two hori-
zontal wedges).
Line 27. t ik∑l[ Only two wedges of the /l/ are left: the lower tip of
the left wedge, and the left side of the middle wedge.
]2št The right wedge of the /š/ is well preserved, as are the top
and right lines of the middle wedge. Only the deep interior of the left
wedge still remains.
Line 28. nbl’a[ ]bhklm There are no traces of the /t/ after /nbl’a[,
contrary to CAT.
Line 29. 1 mš.2 [ ] The first two letters, / m/, are both certain,
although the lower part of the / / is broken, as is most of the hori-
zontal of the /m/. We see no traces of a /d/ between the two / /’s,
contrary to CAT.
Line 30. ’iš[ Both CTA and CAT read a /t/ after the /š/. There
is an indentation to the right of the /š/, but it appears to be part of
the breakage, not the remains of a wedge. Nor is there a word divider
preserved, as CTA reads after the /t/. Virolleaud’s drawing (CTA fig.
16) shows a clear /t/, but no word divider. This may be an example
of a letter that was still visible when the tablet was first discovered, but
has later been destroyed.
588 cat 1.4 vi
Line 31. b
1 [ ]lm The two vertical wedges of the /b/ are preserved, but
the horizontals are lost. CAT reads a /k/ at the break before /lm/. But
again, we find no evidence of any part of a wedge along the break.
Line 32. bšb[ Here too,we see no traces of / / read by CAT after
/bšb/.
]1y[/ The bottom parts of both sets of the /y/’s wedges are pre-
served.
Line 33. 1n[ Only two wedges of the letter are preserved, but context
assures the reading.
Line 35. nsb CTA has a typo here, giving the letter as / /instead of
/s/. But there is no question about the reading of the letter.
Line 37. ]1d2tm After the break, the /d/ and /t/ are damaged. But
in both cases, the upper lines of the horizontals are preserved along
the break.
Line 40. ’alp3m[ The left line of the /m/’s vertical is visible on the
edge of the break.
Line 41. rm[ ]∫m The /m/ to the left of the break still retains the
left side of the vertical and the complete lower tip. The /m/ to the
right of the break only has the right side of the vertical. But context
assures the reading.
Line 43. ∑l[ ] im Only the left vertical and the left line of the middle
wedge of the /l/ are preserved, but the reading is certain.
Line 44. ’a[ ]μyh CTA is probably correct that no traces remain of the
letter that follows the /’a/ at the break. It is possible that the corner
of the lower left wedge of an /r/ is preserved, but close inspection
could not identify any certain traces. The indentation there appears
to be damage. Context, however, assures the restoration of an /r/ in
the break. The right half of the /y/ that follows the break is fairly well
preserved. The reading is confirmed by context.
cat 1.4 vi 589
Line 48. prt[ There is very little space after the/t/ for the commonly
proposed restoration /yn/.
Line 49. 1y[ Only the left half of the letter survives.
Line 50. ’ilht. The /’i/ was smudged while the tablet was still wet.
’ar t[ There is very little room between the /t/ of / ar t/ and the
margin to place the commonly proposed restoration, /yn/.
Line 54. dkr There is no writing on the line after this word. The pro-
posed /t/ at the end of the line in CTA is clearly tablet damage in the
form of an indentation and not a letter. The nature of the damage is
such that one would expect still to be able to see traces of the upper line
of a /t/ if it were there. It is also clear that no other letters were written
at the end of the line. The surface of the tablet is fairly well preserved
on the far side of the break, and there simply is no writing there.
Line 55. ’il∫m The final /m/ is assured only through the context.
Only the upper left tip of the horizontal is preserved to the left of the
590 cat 1.4 vi
break. What appears to be the top of the vertical to the right of the
break is in fact chipping. In any case, it would be too low on the line
to be part of the vertical of an /m/.
Line 58. krp[ ]μn The right tip of a horizontal is preserved at the
end of the line. /n/ fits the context well.
Line 59. [ ]∂s.∂ ∂r∂s∂d[ This is all based on context (see IV 38). But the
traces are all compatible with the reading. We see no traces of the /k/
that precedes the /s/.
Line 63. ]xt CTA/CAT recorded final letters of five lines at the end
of this column. We, however, only see remains of four. The proposed
/n/ that is presented as the end of a line 63 in CTA/CAT does not
appear to exist. There is some damage just below the / / of line 62,
but it appears to be breakage, and is too close to line 62 to be part
of a letter on a different line. Thus we see the signs of their line 64 as
being line 63.
/x/ This is not likely to be a wedge belonging to the same letter
as the final horizontal. It is too pointed and separate to be a wedge of
an /’a/ or /n/. It must be the end of another letter that has a single
horizontal on the right (/k, w, r, t, a, n/).
cat 1.4 vi 591
‘glm.d[t]/šnt.
’imr.qm .l[l]’im
44–46 .’a h.bbhth.
’a[r]yh/bqrb hklh.
/šb‘m.bn.’a rt
47–48 špq’ilm.krm.yn[qm(?)]
špq.’ilht. prt
49–50 špq.’ilm.’alpm.
y/špq.’ilht.’ar t
51–52 špq.’ilm.k m.
y/špq.’ilht.ks’at
53–54 špq.’ilm.r bt yn
špq.’ilht.dkr<t>
55–58 ‘d.l m.šty.’ilm
wpq.mrg´ m. d
b rb.ml t.q [.m]r/’i.
58–59 tšty.krp[nm.y]n
[bk]s. r d[m.‘ m]
60 [ ]n
61 [ ]t
62 [ ]
63 [ ]xt
1
See the Commentary below.
2
For this particle, see UG 737–38; Sadka 2001.
3
So based on the syllabic form, Huehnergard 1987b:133; Rainey 1987:401; UG 188.
4
Without the second a-vowel as proposed in the reconstruction here, there would be
three consonants without any vowel between, which would be abnormal for Ugaritic.
For the vocalization nab(a)lat-, see UG 50.
5
A *qātil- base for ordinals is plausible, according to UG 364–66. However, the
evidence cited there derives from languages outside the West Semitic group, which
(esp. BH) would seem to favor *qatīl-.
594 cat 1.4 vi
6
For the semantics of this verb, see UBC 1.154 n. 69. For 1.1 IV 28–32 and 1.22
I 12–14, the parallels to this passage, see UBC 1.154–55.
7
Elsewhere within this stereotypical language, this word’s form is plural (1.22 I 13;
cf. 1.1 IV 31 where the word falls in a lacuna). The context would conform better
to the plural.
8
For the animals, see UBC 1.154–55, DUL 72–73, 498; for discussion of ’imr and
ll’u, cf. Akkadian imeru and lalû (Landsberger 1960:Excursus I:57–59; see also Morrison
1981:272). The linguistic structure of two identical initial radicals for Ugaritic ll’im is
irregular for Semitic words. Cf. the discussion of M. Cohen 1947:183, #433.
cat 1.4 vi 595
53–54 He provided the gods with jars šapîqa ’ilīma ra bāti yêni/
of wine,
Provided the goddesses with vessels. šapîqa ’ilahāti dakarā<ti>
55–58 As the gods ate, drank, ‘adê la āmu šatāyu ’ilūma/
A suckling of breast was provided, wa-pûqa marag´g´i u-ma adi/
With a salted knife, a cut of bi- arbi malū ati qa u
[fa]tling. [ma]rī/’i
58–59 They drank [wi]ne from gob[ lets], tištayū karpa[nīma yê]na/
[From] gold [c]ups, the blo[od of [bi-kā]sī urā i da[ma
trees]. ‘i īma]
Commentary
This is the third monocolon in a row (see the Commentary for further
discussion).
596 cat 1.4 vi
With this tricolon, the column enters into a more conventional style
of parallelism. The initial line sets up the strongly parallel second and
third lines (see also below lines 8–9). The second line shows a high
density of the consonants, b and t.
The divine names and titles are evidently parallel (especially bittu//bittu),
and presumably they reflect parallel syntax and basic morphology.
The narrative here echoes the commands in 1.4 V 51–55 (see the
discussion of the poetry there), although this bicolon uses passive voice
verbs. According to Noegel (2004:10), tbnn (*bny with energic -n) cre-
ates a geminate “ballast” with trmm (and also with lbnn in the following
unit).
The unit shows classic syntactical and semantic parallelism. The unusual
feature is the syntax of w-, which carries over to the second line (an
instance of gapping of a particle); for a discussion of the usage here, see
the Commentary below. From a poetic perspective, it may be noted
that this w- stands out not only syntactically, but also in terms of the
sounds of this bicolon, since it is the only instance of this consonant
in the unit.
This unit matches the preceding almost word-for-word, except for the
opening word.
The second and third lines build on the preceding bicolon, but there
is a switch of verbal root. The initial line is distinctive from the rest of
the unit. The ending of the second word in the first line, -ma, is echoed
at the ends of the other two lines. That word, yôma, becomes the final
word of the first colon of the next three tricola.
This tricolon contains many of the features found in the preceding three
tricola, but departs in some important ways. Apart from the different
numeral, the temporal marking in the initial line is distinctive, and the
switch in verb in the second line is notable. The different numeral,
šabī[ ‘i], arguably generates a minor resonance with bi- located in roughly
the same position in the second and third lines. It might be suggested
that the particle makka adds to the effect of -ma elsewhere in the unit.
The change of syntax in the first line in this unit, compared to the
preceding units, with the prepositional phrase, slightly alters the end
of the initial line on the sonant level. Instead of yôma as in the initial
lines of the two preceding units, the initial line here has yô[mi-ma]; if
correctly reconstructed, then the end-rhyme is extended from -ma as
found in the preceding two units to -īma.
cat 1.4 vi 599
This unit is the same as in 1.1 IV 30–32 (UBC 1.154–55). Generally, the
terms for the animals dominate this unit, which is very well balanced.
The first two lines are headed by verbs plus double-objects. There is an
interesting variation of particle between the sets of objects. The second
set of two lines elaborate the objects, the first in a standard construct
relationship, and the second with a stacking up of object nouns. The
consonant -m runs through all four lines.
The first two lines show classic parallelism. The third line picks up the
verb of the first line and generates a parallel direct object, longer in
length and without any following prepositional phrase. As a result, the
emphasis in this unit falls on the identity of the guests. This tricolon
may perhaps be viewed as providing a transition between the preceding
four-line unit and the series of bicola that follows.
The larger unit of lines 47–54 is particularly notable for its sustained
description of the items provided for the guests at the banquet, which
is unparalleled in Ugaritic literature. The C-stem forms of *pwq in
particular (interpreted as cases of *qtl//*qtl in lines 49–50 and 53–54
framing two cases of *qtl//*yqtl in lines 49–50 and 51–52), combined
with the similar syntax throughout the rest of the units, strongly bind
together the four bicola. Each bicolon balances masculine and feminine
plural indirect objects (in each case ’ilīma//’ilahāti ), as well as masculine
and feminine direct objects. Each of the direct objects is further tied
together on the sonant level in sharing at least one consonant.
The shift in the verb-forms in lines 53–54 back to the *qtl//*qtl forms
of lines 47–48 may be designed to mark the climax of this section of
narrative. The longer words in the second line balance the shorter but
greater number of words in the first.
For this unit, see the discussion of 1.4 III 40–43. The second and third lines
of this colon expand on the initial mention of eating in the first line.
For this unit, see the discussion of 1.4 III 43–44. This bicolon expands
the initial mention of drinking in line 55. It is to be noted that the
syntax of the second line in this colon parallels the syntax of the third
line of the preceding colon. In this way, the eating and the drinking
are further linked poetically.
Introduction
The story of the construction of Baal’s palace continues from column
V and stretches through the entire column VI. For a detailed discus-
sion of the general characteristics of ancient Near Eastern construction
narratives, see above pp. 550–53. The column begins with a continu-
ation of the conversation between Baal and Kothar about whether a
window should be installed in the palace (lines 1–15). This is followed
by the account of the palace’s construction (lines 16–38). Baal then
prepares a banquet in honor of the completion of the palace, inviting
the children of Athirat, i.e., the entire pantheon of deities, to the feast
(lines 38–59). The construction narrative concludes in column VII with
Baal’s triumphal tour of the earth (lines 7–14) the installation of the
window and Baal’s grand theophany (lines 14–42).
602 cat 1.4 vi
letters in line 11, the second and third of the probable verb for the line.
The first letter could be either h or i, and the second could be or .
The word ’al is a negative particle that customarily precedes *yqtl forms
of verbs. As a result, lines 10–11 may well constitute negative purpose
clauses following an imperative: “Do not install a window . . . lest Pidray
do X,” or passive, “lest she be X-ed.” Several suggestions for restoring
the verb in line 10 have been made. The damaged letter following t
could be read as l, d or u, since three vertical wedges are preserved,
but the lower part of the letter is destroyed. Several scholars propose
reading it as d. In this case, some relate the word to *ndd, “to flee” (TO
1.212; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1165; CML1 99; CML2 62; Gordon
1977:98). Others connect it to *ndy, or *ydy, “to depart” (e.g., Thespis
189; cf. 1.4 VI 32, where this root is fairly clearly attested). Others have
proposed reading al t u[mr, “lest she be seen” (ANET 134) or “lest she
see,” or “look out” (Tsevat 1978b:156–57). Tsevat suggested that Baal
is concerned that if Pidray and Tallay were to look out of the window,
they would desire to return to their former domiciles. This view has
gained little support. The proposed form t umr is otherwise unattested for
the root *’mr, “to see, look” (see the discussion in Smith 1985:331–33).
In addition, there is not enough room to reconstruct the five letters,
mr pdr, in the broken patch of the line. While the reading of the letter
d may be somewhat more likely, one must admit that the proposed
interpretations of the verb do not inspire much confidence. There is
nothing in the Ugaritic literature that suggests a strained relationship
between Baal and Pidray, Tallay (and Arsay) that would compel Baal to
fear that they might try to escape from his presence through a window
if it were installed. It has seemed wisest to us (and to others, including
Albright 1934:126; Aistleitner 43; Coogan 1978:103; Pardee 1997a:261)
simply not to attempt a reconstruction here. It appears likely that Baal’s
fear is that the women might be harmed in some way, rather than that
they might escape from him.
The second bicolon (or tricolon), lines 12–13, focuses on Yamm,
referred to in line 12 with his standard epithet, [m]dd il, “Beloved of
El.” The two verbs preserved in line 13, ]ql n.wp m, are also found
together in Baal’s description of the feast during which he was grossly
insulted by a god (1.4 III 12–14). The verb *ql , “to scorn, abase” has
been discussed in the Commentary on 1.3 V 28, p. 352 (see also the
Commentary on 1.4 III 12). On wp m see the Commentary on 1.4
III 13, p. 473. The first verb may have been a *yqtl form, perhaps
preceded by al like the verb in line 10. It is not clear whether these
two words belong on a single line together, or whether, like 1.4 III
606 cat 1.4 vi
12–14, they belong on two lines of a tricolon. What these verbs suggest
is that these lines describe a concern of Baal that Yamm in some way
might be able once again to humiliate Baal if the window were built
in the palace. It also seems quite likely that the two threats described
here, one concerning Pidray and Tallay, and the other concerning
Yamm, are related to one another, and that Yamm is here presented
as a threat to Baal’s women. But the relationship between lines 10–11
and 12–13 remains obscure.
Gibson (CML2 62 n. 4) offered another interpretation of the threat
that Yamm poses here. For him, the reference to Yamm in line 12
signals a fear that “the chaos waters may break through” the window.
While possible, one must note that none of the surviving text suggests
this motivation. The preserved language in line 13 deals with status
and honor rather than the surging of the deep. While there are cer-
tainly parallels in Mesopotamian and Israelite texts to the relationship
between windows in heaven and water seen as existing above the sky
(Weinfeld 1977–78), in the absence of evidence, it is not possible to
confirm this line as a reference to this concept.
Between the changes that occur from the time Baal refuses to permit
the window to be installed (1.4 V 64–VI 15) to the point in 1.4 VII
14–20 when he allows it, there are a number of important events: the
palace is built (except the window; 1.4 VI 16–38); Baal hosts a dedica-
tory banquet for the family of the gods (1.4 VI 38–59); Baal deals in
some way with Yamm (1.4 VII 1–4); and Baal takes a tour of power
around the earth (1.4 VII 7–14), at which point he changes his mind
about the window (1.4 VII 14–20). It seems likely that each one of these
events is a stepping-stone toward Baal’s achievement of divine domi-
nance (and perhaps feelings of security that finally free him from fear).
The successful completion of the spectacular palace of gold and silver,
without any interference or problems, constitutes a landmark moment
for the god. The grand banquet inaugurating the palace, attended by
the seventy children of Athirat (i.e., the major deities) clearly indicates
their recognition of his kingship and thus suggests stability in the pan-
theon. The broken reference to Yamm in the center of the scenes of
triumph allow us to propose that these lines indicate a neutralizing of
Yamm’s potential danger that Baal fears in 1.4 VI 12–13. The dam-
aged condition of 1.4 VII 2–5a does not allow us to draw conclusions
about the exact nature of Baal’s success against Yamm. The passage
seems rather short to describe any type of actual battle between the
two. But there seems little doubt that Yamm is no longer a problem
from this point onwards. Perhaps, as proposed by Gibson (CML2 64,
cat 1.4 vi 607
9
Gordon (1966b:22 n. 14) suggested a historical background to the story of the
window, arguing that windows were not known in the Late Bronze Age in Syria, but
had long been used in the architecture of Crete, Kothar’s home. For Gordon, Kothar’s
advocacy for a window represents cultural influence coming from the Mediterranean
608 cat 1.4 vi
myth requires that we not try to fit the palace narrative or the window
subplot into a single interpretive framework. Several of the proposed
insights in the previous paragraph are mutually plausible. The views
of the Baal Cycle—seasonal, ritual, cosmogonic, life versus death—are
hardly incompatible with one another or with the understanding of the
cycle as the story of Baal’s kingship. Some of these ideas appear to be
supported by more evidence in the text than others.
The most critical passage for understanding the function of the
window is 1.4 VII 25–35. Here the window is equated with a break in
the clouds through which Baal issues his voice, the thunder, the sign of
approaching rains. There can be little doubt then that the key function
of the window involves Baal’s primary characteristic as fertility deity.
Indeed, this part of the story may be regarded as aetiological, in giving
a mythic understanding of how Baal fulfills his primary divine duty.
With this in mind, we can see (as mentioned above) that the opening
of the window is the climax of the entire story of the construction of
the palace, just as Athirat’s speech in 1.4 V 6–9 indicates. It is only
with the construction of Baal’s palace (presumably related in some
way to his temple at Ugarit) that his sovereignty is made manifest
and that he is able to fulfill his capacity as provider of the rain. The
importance of rain for the life of the people of Ugarit (and elsewhere)
cannot be overestimated, and thus it should not be surprising that the
story of how Baal came to deliver the rains to humanity should be so
comprehensively described as we find it here in 1.3–1.4.10
In addition, as also mentioned above, it is clear that in focusing on
Baal’s sending forth of his voice (thunder) from the window in 1.4 VII
25–42, the poet is equally interested in emphasizing Baal’s power and
authority. This climactic scene superbly links together the two elements
of fertility and kingship, building on the point made by the previous
world, while Baal’s resistance to this suggestion would be natural for a Syrian god. It
is true that the examples of the so-called bīt ilāni are known better for the Iron Age
in Syria (see RLA 4:406–9; Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:368–70), but the same style
has been argued for a large building in the northwestern part of Emar (Akkermans
and Schwartz 2003:345), and a palace at Alalakh has a two-column portico entrance,
characterized as a “prefiguring” of the bīt ilāni type (Akkermans and Schwartz
2003:334).
10
The appearance of this motif at Ugarit has been ascribed to the direct role of rain
in the Levantine agriculture. In contrast, Mesopotamia, which is driven considerably
less by direct rainfall (Neiman 1969:244), tends to employ the imagery of irrigation in
its mythological expressions involving water (Weinfeld 1977–78).
cat 1.4 vi 609
two scenes, 1.4 VI 38–59 where the gods show their acceptance of
Baal as king, and 1.4 VII 7–14 where the earth’s population does the
same. Baal’s kingship is thus the foundation for his role as provider of
rain and sustainer of the earth, and the episode of the building of the
palace ends in triumph. This aetiological aspect of the window story
may be understood as quasi-cosmological in intent. At this point in
the narrative, the window constitutes the culmination of a process of
cosmological significance (stressed in UBC 1.77, 105, but questioned
in Pardee 1997a:261 n. 168).
But why does the story pay so much attention to Baal’s initial reluc-
tance to install the window? It seems likely that Engnell (1967:116),
Kapelrud (1952:95–96) and Gibson (1984:214–15) were correct in
focusing attention on the literary function of this element. We have
seen throughout the story in 1.3–1.4 that the poet places obstacle after
obstacle in the way of the successful completion of the palace, each one
potentially disastrous to the goal, but each eventually overcome. Thus
El initially refuses Baal’s request (1.3 IV–VI); Athirat initially seems
ill disposed to help him secure El’s support (1.4 II–III, especially her
speech in III 27–32), but then agrees to go to El on his behalf. El’s
initial response to Athirat’s request appears to be negative (1.4 IV
58–62), but then he gives his permission. And in the climactic moment
of the story, Baal refuses to put in the window, evidently because he is
not yet sure that he has control of the universe. From the narrative’s
perspective, not to install the window will mean that the whole effort
to build the palace will end in failure. This provides the story with a
final element of suspense, which subsequently is resolved when Baal
announces his change of mind.
This kind of narrative strategy is common in the Ugaritic narratives,
as well as in thematically related biblical stories. Thus the Aqhat Epic
opens with a childless Dan’il, whose desire for a son seems hopeless.
However, through Baal’s intervention, El grants him a son. But all
of this appears in vain when Aqhat is murdered by Anat. The use of
suspense to keep the story interesting is an important element here.
Similarly, the Kirta Epic begins with an apparently hopeless situation
in which Kirta has lost his entire family. El once again intervenes and
helps Kirta regain a family line. But everything is almost scuttled by
Kirta’s failure to fulfill his vow to Athirat, so that she places a curse on
him. El once again intervenes and things return to normal briefly. But
then the appropriate transfer of power from one generation to the next
610 cat 1.4 vi
here are called “choice” (m md ) in lines 19 and 21, similar to the usage of
mib ar ’ărāzêkā, “your choice cedars” in Jer 22:7 (note also 2 Kgs 19:23;
Isa 37:24; noted in BOS 2.135 n. 86). The geographical terms used here,
lbnn and šryn, are also paired together in Israelite literature (Ps 29:6; cf.
Ben Sira 24:13, which uses Hermon for Siryan, see Boadt 1978:492–94).
The prized nature of this wood for construction is widely attested in
Mesopotamian, Egyptian and West Semitic sources. Its importance in
Mesopotamian tradition goes back to the third millennium (Waldman
1981:177–78; see J. P. Brown 1969:176–80; Moorey 1994:350–51).
The earliest literary text on the subject comes in a text attested from
Ebla with a duplicate from Abu Salabikh (Krebernik 1992:82): “The
foreign lands yielded lapis lazuli and silver, the cedar forest yielded
(pure) wood, boxwood and cypress, exquisite emblems (?).” Gudea of
Lagash Cylinder A: xv, lines 27–34; Statue B: v, lines 21–40) reports
how he obtained cedar wood from the Amanus, the Cedar Mountain
(Edzard 1997:78–79 and 1997:33; ANET 268–69; Brown 1969:176–77;
Moorey 1994:350–51). Mesopotamian monarchs, such as Gilgamesh,
Sargon of Akkad, Gudea of Lagash, Yahdunlim of Mari and Sham-
shi-Adad I of Assyria, all make journeys to the Lebanon for its riches
(Malamat 1965; Brown 1969:177–78; see ANET 267–68; for wood from
Lebanon for the kingdoms in the mid-Euphrates region, see Durand
2002:63; for cedars of Lebanon taken by neo-Assyrian and neo-Baby-
lonian monarchs, see Elayi 1988). From the third millennium down
to the New Kingdom, Egyptian kings likewise patronized the import
of cedar wood from Lebanon (see Brown 1969:175–79; for examples,
see ANET 227, 240, 254; for a depiction from the Great Temple in
Karnak showing Syrians cutting down trees, see Nibbi 1996:52, fig.
5a). Phoenician kings also went to the Lebanon for cedar. Josephus
records an account derived from Menander of Ephesus in Antiquities
VIII, 5, 3, paragraphs 144–46 (Thackeray and Marcus 1934:649–51)
and Contra Apion I.119 (for the latter, see Thackeray 1926:209–11). The
passage from Antiquities reads:
These two kings are also mentioned by Menander, who translated the
Tyrian records from the Phoenician language into Greek speech, in these
words: “And on the death of Abibalos, his son Eiromos [Hiram] succeeded
to his kingdom, who lived to the age of fifty-three and reigned thirty-four
years. He it was who made the Eurychoros (Broad Place) embankment
and set up the golden column in the temple of Zeus. Moreover, he went
off and cut timber from the mountain called Libanos for the roofs of the
temples, and pulled down the ancient temples and erected new ones to
Heracles and Astarte.”
612 cat 1.4 vi
Solomon’s temple is famous from the Bible for its cedar wood (1 Kings
6:9, 15–20; cf. 2 Sam 7:2, 7; 1 Kgs 5:20, 23–25, 28). A temple at Bethel
likewise is praised for its cedar from Lebanon as well as its lapis lazuli
in an Aramaic text written in Demotic script (Papyrus Amherst 63, col.
VIII, lines 8–10; translated by Steiner in COS 1.315). Administrative
texts from Ugarit also mention the transport of wood from this region
to the city. An Akkadian letter to the king of Ugarit from a certain
Ewri-kili (evidently from Beirut) discusses ships hired by the former
to transport wood to Ugarit (Arnaud 1991:219): “My lord, regarding
the wood when you wrote, ‘Much wood convey to me,’ now my ship
is here ready to depart and all the requests of my lord will be in my
ship.” The verb of transport here, šu-bi-la-an-ni, is the C-stem of *wbl,
the same root used in 1.4 V 15, 17, 31, 38 and 40.
A significant interpretational issue in lines 18–21 concerns the fact
that these lines lack an expressed subject, so that it is not entirely clear
whether Baal or Kothar or simply a group of workers journeys to the
mountains to obtain the wood. In the Mesopotamian construction
narratives, the king is usually the one depicted as the gatherer of the
materials (see Hurowitz 1992:210–12). This may suggest that Baal
should be understood as the subject of the verbs here. If this is the case,
then the passage could either suggest that Baal himself went to find the
appropriate wood, as some of the great monarchs of Mesopotamia are
portrayed as doing, or it could presuppose rather that he simply com-
missioned a group of envoys to do so. For the latter interpretation, a
comparable expedition is attributed more explicitly to Solomon in 1 Kgs
5:28: wayyišlā ēm lĕbānônâ, “and he sent to Lebanon . . .” (perhaps with
an enclitic mem apparently on the verb in view of the direct object that
follows). However, the fact that West Semitic building narratives often
depict a craftsman who is put in charge of the construction certainly
raises the possibility that the overseer is expected to gather the materi-
als. Thus Kothar, who is the subject of the last active verbs before this
passage (lines 14–15), cannot be ruled out as the subject here.
Line 18 (repeated in line 20) provides another case in which the con-
junction w- is used to emphasize a noun: y[t]lk llbbn w‘ h. Our translation
above renders the line rather conventionally: “he [se]nds to Lebanon
for its trees.” However, this translation does not fully reflect the intent
of the w-. As discussed above in the commentary on 1.4 V 45 (p. 576),
the particle in this context is not used to coordinate Lebanon and its
wood, but rather to emphasize the latter: “to Lebanon, in particular
its wood” (see the important article of Steiner 2000). It is not clear
cat 1.4 vi 613
11
Gold bricks are mentioned in the Amarna Letters (libit urā e), although they are
certainly not the type of bricks used for construction as we have in our passage (e.g.,
EA 19:38). However, silver-plated bricking (e.g., agurru, kiln-fired brick, plated with
za alū-silver, in CAD A/1:162a, #1d) is attested.
cat 1.4 vi 615
12
With problematic ’aleph, Ugaritic nbl’at is cognate with Akkadian nablu and Ethiopic
nabal, according to Albright 1934:127 n. 132b; Held 1965a:277 n. 211; Leslau 383;
MHP. For further proposed cognates, see M. Cohen 1947:187, #460.
616 cat 1.4 vi
13
We wish to thank Avigdor Hurowitz for bringing this issue to our attention.
cat 1.4 vi 617
cian. This rendering has also been accepted in UG 348. While leaning
toward the understanding of Liverani, we have chosen to translate,
“on the seventh day,” because that represents standard English usage.
One unusual feature of this passage, when compared to other seven-
day sequences, is the use of a different verb (tšt) in the first line of the
passage (line 22) from that (t’ikl) used in the following lines (cf. 1.17 I
1–16; II 30–40, where the same verb is used throughout the repetitions
over the seven days). The use of tšt in line 22 may be due to the strong
alliterative effect that it produces in conjunction with the noun, ’išt, at
the beginning of the seven-day sequence (Smith 1985:335).
The burning process concludes on the seventh day (lines 31–33). The
verb, td, used to describe the conclusion (line 32) is likely from *ndd, “to
leave, depart, go away” (cf. BH nādad, “ to flee, escape;” see Tropper
and Verreet 1988:345–46). However, it could also be derived from
*ndy, “to throw down, leave, abandon,” (cf. Akkadian nadû and Syriac
ndā [LS 415]; see Paul 1993:255–56). A related usage of this root is
found in 1.17 I 3–5 and 13–15, where Dan’il throws down or leaves
his cloak for the night. It could also be a passive form from the root
*ydy, also attested at Ugarit in 1.16 VI 10–28 and 1.169.1, 9, which
would mean “to be thrown, to be expelled” (see Ginsberg 1973:132–34;
Tropper and Verreet 1988:340–43; Fleming 1991:142). The first pro-
posal seems the most likely. A connection with Akkadian nadû seems
improbable, since Akkadian phrase, išatam inaddi, is actually an idiom
for “to set on fire, to burn,” just the opposite of what the context calls
for here in our passage (see Held 1965a:276 n. 19).
The finished palace is described very briefly in lines 34–35. The
fire has allowed for the palace to be constructed of gold bricks and
silver presumably overlaid upon the cedar wood. The word rqm, “thin
sheets, plates, overlay,” is certainly derived from *rqq, “to be thin” (cf.
Akkadian raqāqu, “to become thin,” “to thin, flatten,” and the adjectival
form raqqaqu, both used of metal, as noted by MHP; see CAD R:167–68)
and Leslau 473; note also Akkadian ruqqu/riqqu, “hammered metal”
in CAD R:418; cf. AHw 995: “(Metall-)Kessel, Schale,” noted first by
Virolleaud 1932:150). Ugaritic lbnt, “bricks,” has long been compared
to Akkadian libittu and BH lĕbēnâ (Albright 1934:127 n. 134; Held
1965a:277 n. 25).
The root *sbb is used here twice, first in G-stem *qtl form, sb, then
in the N-stem *qtl. This is in contrast with the previous verbs in the
passage, which are all prefix forms. The use of active and passive forms
of the same verb in parallel cola is well attested in both Ugaritic and
618 cat 1.4 vi
14
The only other individual deity whose offerings approach these numbers is the mys-
terious il ib, who received 126 offerings in the preserved texts (Pardee 2000:965–66).
620 cat 1.4 vi
15
The Egyptian stela, erected by a royal scribe named Mami, was found broken
inside the temple complex (Schaeffer 1931:10; 1939:39–41). The Baal stela was found
along the western slope of the acropolis, apparently in dump from the temple area
(Yon 1984:45; cf. Schaeffer 1933:122–24; 1949:87–89, 121–30), placed there in the
early twentieth century when a Turkish governor dug up part of the temple in search
of treasure (cf. Schaeffer 1931:9–10). His interests apparently did not include stone
inscriptions and reliefs. There is little doubt that the Baal stela came originally from
the temple compound.
cat 1.4 vi 621
initial appearance compared to the other temple. Yet its basic form is
quite similar. It too is oriented toward the south, with a courtyard, a
squarish vestibule and a larger, rectangular cella that also has traces
of a staircase. It too probably had a high tower (Yon 1984:45). This
temple has traditionally been attributed to Dagan on the basis of the
discovery of two stelae (CAT 6.13, 6.14; see Feliu 2003:272–74) in
the courtyard that were dedicated to that god (Schaeffer 1935:155–56,
pl. XXXI; Yon 1984:45). The presence of these stelae in the temple
compound constitutes strong support for identifying the occupant of the
temple as Dagan, but unlike the situation for the temple of Baal, here
there are arguments against attributing the temple to Dagan. The ritual
texts seem to be problematic with regard to Dagan. Although Dagan
was certainly given cult at Ugarit (there are forty-one offerings to him
listed in the texts; Pardee 2000:975–76; see also Feliu 2003:266–72),
there is no reference to a temple of Dagan, a surprising omission if the
great temple on the acropolis belonged to him.16 In addition, Dagan
plays no role in any of the mythological texts found at Ugarit, except
as the patronym of Baal. In contrast, there are a number of reasons
favoring El as the god of this temple (see Niehr 1994). El was clearly
a major deity in the Ugaritic cult. His temple, as described above, is
mentioned several times, and in 1.119, the rituals alternate between
the temple of Baal and the temple of El, which would be particularly
appropriate if the temples neighbored each other, as do the acropolis
temples. A close proximity of the two temples is also suggested in
1.41.38–43//1.87.42–47, where a set of offerings is given in the house
of El (lines 38–40), then the officiant is to “return to the altar of Baal”
to make additional offerings. Of less value is the parallel reference to the
temples of Baal and El in the Aqhat Epic’s list of a son’s duties (1.17 I
31–32 and parallels): “To eat his portion in the house of Baal, his share
in the house of El.” Niehr (1994:424–25) assumes that Ilimalku is the
author of the poem and that he is thinking of Ugarit in this passage.
This view is far from certain, however, and it would be imprudent to
give these lines much weight in the discussion of the temples on the
acropolis. The overall evidence, however, suggests that the second great
temple belonged to El rather than Dagan. The appearance of the two
16
The damaged passage in 1.104.13, which reads bt.dxn, was read as bt.d g n in the
⎡ ⎤
original KTU, but this is impossible. The fragmentary wedge to the left of the break
is clearly a horizontal. See Pardee 2000:566. CAT has corrected this error.
622 cat 1.4 vi
17
Bricks could also be kiln-fired (see CAD A/1:162), although this seems to be less
common. For the lack of evidence for kilns, see Moorey 1994:306.
18
Information here, courtesy of Richard Ellis. On Mesopotamian bricks and brick-
making, see also Sauvage 1998.
19
For brick-making in ancient Israel, see Kelso 1948:33–34. Many of the references
in this paragraph come courtesy of Richard Ellis.
624 cat 1.4 vi
Sand keeps a tiny space between bricks and has a higher melting point;
therefore bricks can be easily separated. The hardness of bricks depends
not only on the firing temperature, but on how long that temperature
is applied as well. Therefore, when the kiln has reached the desirable
temperature, the chambers are filled with hard wood, sealed, and left to
smolder for weeks until bricks cool down enough to be handled safely.
Although bricks are not all of the same hardness, the differences are
small and actually only the bricks that are on the outside of a kiln may
be discarded. In a building, the bricks that are baked the most are placed
at the foundation while those less well backed are placed in the higher
parts of the walls as the building progresses. The size of the kiln is decided
by the amplitude of the building project and there is virtually no limit as
to how large it can be. Although it cannot exceed a certain height (the
initially sun dried bricks cannot support too much weight), the base of
a kiln can be as large as one wants, and actually the larger the kiln, the
more efficient it is. The ones I saw were a little over two meters tall and
had a base of about four by four meters.
While this description of modern techniques for firing bricks may not
correspond precisely to the ancient practices (see the warning in Moorey
1994:306), the general outlines of the modern practice may correspond
broadly to the poetic, evocative picture of our passage, if the poet’s
intent was to depict the workings of a brick kiln.
fetch her portion of the meal. In one of the Hittite myths of Iluyanka
(Version 1: A i 14–B i 12 in Hoffner 1998:11–12; ANET 125–26), the
goddess Inara prepares a lavish feast and issues a personal invitation
to the great serpent she intends to kill. He and his offspring arrive and
eat and drink.
The preparations are described in three bicola, the first one (lines
38b–40a) providing a general introduction and the other two (lines
40b–43) describing the slaughter of the animals for the meal. The
first bicolon uses the pairing of “Baal”//“Hadd” for the subject of the
clauses. The latter name actually appears quite rarely in the Baal Cycle
(besides here, only 1.1 V 4, 17; 1.2 I 46; 1.4 VII 36, 38; and 1.5 I 23;
II 22; IV 7). The key root in this bicolon is *‘db. Nominal and verbal
forms from this root appear four times here. The root means, “to pre-
pare, arrange,” as a verb and “preparations, arrangements” as a noun.
Thus a literal translation of the lines would run as follows: “Prepara-
tions in his house Baal prepared, Hadd prepared preparations in his
palace.” The root can refer to a wide range of preparations. Thus in
1.4 IV 7, 12 it refers to preparing an animal for riding, and in 1.4 V
46 it is used for the arranging of a throne for Kothar. Often the word
applies to food preparation (1.14 II 27, IV 9; 1.17 V 16, 22; cf. Tsevat
1978a:26* n. 22; Pardee 1997a:261 n. 176). In 1.4 VIII 14b–20a Baal’s
messengers are warned to be careful lest Mot “prepare you” ( y‘dbkm) like
a lamb in his mouth (cf. 1.23.63–64); this is exactly the “preparation”
that in 1.6 II 22–23 Mot says he made of Baal. According to Tsevat
(1978a:26*), the word refers to food offered (*nš’u) in 1.23.54: š’u ‘db
lšpš rbt wlkbkbm, “lift up an arrangement (an offering) for Lady Shapshu
and the stars” (cf. line 65, š’u ‘db tk mdbr qdš, “lift up an arrangement for
the holy outback/steppe of Qadsh”). The verb *‘db used in the context
of El’s feasting in 1.114.6–8 has been understood in this way as well
(Lewis, UNP 194; on this verb, see also Renfroe 1992:21; Dietrich and
Loretz 1993; Dietrich and Loretz 2002a:94). Indeed, the preparation
of animals for the feast immediately follows these lines.
There has been considerable disagreement on the interpretation
of this bicolon in 1.4 VI 38–40. Several scholars understand it as the
conclusion to the preceding account of the building of the palace and
take the arrangements described here as Baal’s furnishing of the palace
(Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1166 n. 102; CML2 63; de Moor 1987:60;
Pardee 1997a:261, esp. n. 176). The context of the food that follows
seems to argue against this understanding. The feast is the immediate
context, not furnishings. Additionally, lines 35–38, which describe Baal
rejoicing, seems to conclude the preceding unit detailing the completion
cat 1.4 vi 627
of the palace. Hence, our bicolon in lines 38–40 does not continue the
discussion of the house in the form of furnishings as these commenta-
tors would have it. That the preceding unit, in lines 35–38, finishes the
section can be shown also from the two other examples of a climactic
moment in which the protagonist is said to rejoice (šm ) and give a
speech. In these instances the speech is the conclusion of that part of
the story, and a new episode begins directly. Thus in 1.17 II, Dan’il
receives word that he will receive a son (lines 1–8). He rejoices (lines
8–12) and gives a speech of gratification at the turn of events (lines
12–23). Directly after the speech the story moves to the next episode,
in which he returns to his house/palace and prepares a seven-day feast
for the Kotharat (24–40) in language reminiscent of the scene in our
passage. In 1.6 III, El has a dream that indicates Baal’s return from
the dead (lines 4–13). Upon awakening he rejoices (lines 14–17), then
gives a speech of satisfaction (lines 18–21). This is followed by a change
of narrative direction, as El calls to Anat and sends her to speak to
Shapshu (1.6 III 22–IV 5). Thus the parallels point to the speech of
satisfaction as the conclusion of the episode. This seems a likely way to
interpret the situation in our passage as well. Thus the bicolon of 1.4
VI 38b–40a is best viewed as the beginning of the following episode.
A few scholars find the root ‘db to have a particular cultic sense, and
they interpret 38b–40a as a reference to a ritual that Baal undertakes
(e.g., Wyatt 1998:106, esp. n. 148; cf. Levine and Tarragon 1993:81–82).
Wyatt in particular proposes a reading such as, “The offerings of his
house Baal presented; Hadd presented the offerings of his palace.” But
this too seems problematic. There is only one context (1.23.54, 65) in
which the root appears in a fairly clear cultic setting, “lift up an arrange-
ment ( db) to the Lady Shapsh /to the holy desert.”20 A supposed usage
of the verbal form, y d[b], in the Ugaritic ritual text 1.41.10 (CAT p. 78;
Levine and de Tarragon 1993:89; Wyatt 1998:106 n. 148) has been
shown by Pardee (2000:145–46) to be virtually impossible epigraphi-
cally. Pitard, following his own examination of the tablet, concurs with
Pardee on this reading.21 What is clear from the numerous examples
of the root described above is that it does not have a specifically cultic
20
The appearance of the root in 1.114.4, 7 is set in a narrative context much like
the one in our passage, a banquet of the gods. It is not used in a cultic context within
the narrative.
21
While CAT reads y d[b.l nt], it is clear on the tablet that the last letter before the
break is not a d. With Pardee we would read the letter as a probable l. However, it is
clear from the tablet that Pardee’s reading, y l is not complete. There is room for, and
⎡ ⎤
there are clear traces of, another letter between y and l, which may be an .
628 cat 1.4 vi
connotation. In the context of our passage, the use of the root fits the
common motif of preparation of food for a banquet. Within the story,
the slaughter of the animals is not a sacrificial offering, but a meal for
guests. Of course, there is an underlying religious connotation related to
the poem as a whole, but in this passage, as elsewhere, that connotation
is submerged in the story. In sum, these lines act as an introduction to
the banquet, stating that Baal makes preparations for it.
The animals slaughtered for the feast (lines 40–43) fall into two cat-
egories: the larger animals (or, in Pardee 1997a:261, “bovids”), here
called ’alpm, rm and ‘glm; and the smaller animals (Pardee’s “caprovids”),
namely ’in, il (= “ram”), ’imr and ll’im (Levine 1963:108 n. 19). As
Levine notes, ’alpm and ’in in the first colon serve as general desig-
nations for the larger and smaller animals, respectively. The parallel
colon, lines 41b–42a, also alternates between large and small animals,
this time with more specific terms, rm and il, “bulls and rams.” In the
next bicolon, lines 41b–43, the first line refers to large animals (‘glm),
while the second names small ones ( imr, ll im). In contemporary Hatti,
the dividing line between a calf and a grown bull was set at two years
of age (The Hittite Laws #57; ANET 192). These two bicola occur in
virtually identical form in 1.22 I 12–14 and in 1.1 IV 30–32 (a broken
passage), indicating that they are formulaic (see the earlier Commentary
on these lines in UBC 1.154–55; for these animals in offerings at Emar,
see Fleming 1992:135). The verbs pose no interpretational problems.
The verb b means, “to butcher,” and occurs quite commonly, but
by no means exclusively, in the context of sacrifice. Here that context
is submerged in the narrative. The parallel verb, šql, has no attested
usages in a cultic sense in the preserved Ugaritic texts (šql < *qyl in
the C-stem; see 1.1 IV 30, 1.22 I 12; cf. 1.16 VI 32, 44; 1.17 VI 44;
1.23.10; see UBC 1.154).
Once the preparations have been made, Baal invites his “brothers”//
“kinfolk” (lines 44–46), the seventy children of Athirat, as they are
also called, to the banquet. There can be no doubt that the three
parallel objects in this tricolon refer to the same group. This is clear
from Anat’s variant on the opening lines of Baal’s lament in 1.4 V
27–29, where she substitutes “brothers”//“kinfolk” in the lines where
the lament had “the gods”//“the children of Athirat.” That the term
bn in the phrase bn a rt should be rendered “children” rather than
“sons” is clear from the fact that they are described as both males and
females in lines 47–54. It would seem that technically in view of the
absolute plural (and not construct) form of šb‘m in line 46, the nouns
cat 1.4 vi 629
kingship for Baal, beginning with his victory over Yamm, and develop-
ing through Anat’s, then Athirat’s proclamation of his kingship, to El’s
eventual acceptance of Baal (with his decree allowing the building of
Baal’s palace), the construction of the palace, and finally the culmina-
tion in the divine feast within the palace for the entire pantheon. Now
all of heaven recognizes Baal’s dominion.
Lines 47–54 describe the feast. These lines pose substantial problems
for interpreters. The subject is evidently Baal, as the verb *p(w)q in the
C-stem, “to provide,” is transitive (for the root, see above 1.4 III 41 on
p. 483); here Baal is the consummate host. The objects in lines 47–54
include “the gods” (’ilm)//“the goddesses” (’ilht). The main difficulty
involves the syntactical understanding of the various nouns for animals,
furniture and jars. Numerous scholars, including Albright (1934:128),
Ginsberg (KU 37; ANET 134), Gaster (Thespis 191–92), Gibson (CML2
63 n. 4), Gordon (1977:99), Jirku (50), del Olmo Lete (MLC 206–7),
Xella (1982:117–18), Dietrich and Loretz (1997:1167), Pope (MHP), and
Wyatt (1998: 107) have viewed these nouns as modifiers of the deities
at the feast and rendered them as “ram-gods, ewe-goddesses, ox-gods,
cow-goddesses, throne-gods, jar-gods” and the like. This creates the
question of what Baal provided to these deities. The answer for most
of these commentators was wine ( yn), read or reconstructed at the end
of each of the lines 47–54. Montgomery (1933:120–21), followed by
Albright (1934:128 n. 139), proposed reading ym throughout instead;
for them, the repetition signaled an eight-day feast comparable to the
Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles). This understanding, however, is ruled out
by the clear reading of yn at the end of line 53. The resulting picture
of such animal-deities feted at Baal’s house hardly inspires confidence.
The seventy children of Athirat constitute the high pantheon, not minor
deities such as this interpretation would suppose. To suggest that the
main narrative of this important feast would focus on Baal’s serving
these deities, while the seventy are simply forgotten strains credulity.
In addition, the notion that there are multiple “ram-deities,” etc. (lines
47–50), or “throne-deities” (lines 51–52), or “jar-deities” (lines 53–54)
at Ugarit is a view without any support elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts
(as noted by Pardee 1997a:262 n. 178).22
22
The closest parallel to such deities would be the gods U atu, “Censer” and
Kinnāru, “Lyre,” who appear in the god lists 1.47:31–32; 1.118:30–31, 1.148:9; and
the Akkadian RS 20.024:30–31 and RS 92.2004:36–37 (Pardee 2002:14–19). However,
these are perceived as individual deities with proper names. There is no evidence of
multiple “lyre-gods” or “censer-gods.” See also Pardee 2000:310–311.
cat 1.4 vi 631
One can also find examples of verbs being divided within their roots,
e.g., 1.17 II 34–35: yšl/ m. This evidence shows that there is nothing
implausible about suggesting, as Cassuto did, that Ilimalku intention-
ally divided the lines of this section so as to begin each with the same
sequence, špq. The fact that the y in lines 49 and 51 is not directly at
the right margin does not exclude the possibility that they are the pre-
fix of the following verb. In taking this modified version of Cassuto’s
interpretation, we now propose the following schema: the bicola in lines
47–48 and 53–54 make use of the *qtl forms of špq in both lines of each
bicolon. They act as frames for the two interior bicola, lines 49–50 and
51–52, which alternate *qtl//*yqtl forms. The grammatical and logical
problems of the supposed repetition of yn disappear, and the standard
formulaic pattern of the passage is visible. While this view is not free
of uncertainties, it seems to represent the best of the options.
The items for the feast mentioned in lines 47–54 are all typical of this
kind of scene. The customary food of the banquet is meat, though the
variety described here is exceptionally, in fact uniquely, large. When
one combines the animals mentioned in lines 40–43 with those of lines
47–50, one finds ten different terms. This is fitting for the importance
of the banquet and its members within the narrative. Although two
of the terms in lines 47–53 are unique to this passage ( prt and dkr),
there is no controversy about their meanings. The serving of food and
drink frames the enthronement of the guests. The somewhat unex-
pected sequence of food, seats and wine is apparently not problematic
in Ugaritic storytelling, as the serving of food precedes the setting up
of a throne for Kothar as well in 1.4 V 45–48. The language of lines
56–59 closely matches 1.4 III 40–44 (see the Commentary above), and
in both passages these lines seem to close the scene of feasting.
The portrayal of this magnificent feast is not entirely the stuff of
fantasy. Near Eastern texts provide indications of feasts in the real
world perhaps as spectacular (though from later periods). In the year
879, the completion of Ashurnasirpal II’s palace in Cala occasioned
a celebration whose menu included 1200 oxen, 14,000 sheep, 1,000
cattle, 1,000 lambs, 500 deer, 500 gazelles, 34,000 fowl, 10,000 fish,
and 10,000 eggs as well as milk, butter, vegetables, nuts, grain and cakes
of various kinds and a guest list of 69,574 (see Wiseman 1952:31–32;
Barnett 1981:11). The biblical account of the celebration in honor
of the completed temple in Jerusalem states that Solomon sacrificed
22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep during the ceremony (1 Kgs 8:63).
cat 1.4 vi 635
be honored. The poet uses the motif of the temple dedication later in
1.4 VII 25–42, as Baal makes his great theophany and is enthroned
in the palace (line 42).
As already mentioned, the status of the guests reflects upon the
status of the host. In turn, the lavishness of the banquet reflects both
the honor in which the guests are held and in turn the honor in which
the host is perceived. The spectacular meal, the grand thrones and the
free-flowing wine may be considered gifts of honor for the guests, com-
parable in many ways to the gifts Baal and Anat brought to Athirat in
1.4 I–III. The acceptance of these gifts by the pantheon of the gods
commits them to recognize Baal in his new status as leader of the divine
council (cf. the modern analogies in Grantham 1995). Although he was
proclaimed king by a few gods in 1.2 IV, he does not actually become
fully treated as king until now. The theme of recognized kingship in
the context of a banquet may allow us to recognize in this passage the
earliest prototype in West Semitic literature of what will eventually
develop into the concept of the Messianic Banquet in later Jewish and
Christian tradition (cf. UBC 1.xxvi–xxvii).
CAT 1.4 VII
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:152–59, pls. XXVIII, XXIX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus
pl. XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse and pl. XXX is the
obverse); CTA 29–30, fig. 17, pls. IX, X; KTU 19–20; CAT 20–21.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 44–46; Albright 1934:128–30; Caquot and Sznycer,
TO 1.215–19; Cassuto, BOS 2.138–39, 141, 188–92; Coogan 1978:104–05; Cross,
CMHE 149; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1167–71; Driver, CML1 100–3; Gaster, Thespis
192–99; Gibson, CML2 64–66; Ginsberg 1936:181–82, ANET 134–35, KU 38–41;
Gordon, UL 35–37, 1977:99–101; Gray, LC 2 52–53, 293; Jirku 51–52; Miller, DW
34–37; Margalit, MLD 51–74; de Moor, SPUMB 156–76; 1987:61–66; Neiman
1969; del Olmo Lete, MLC 207–11; MLR 88–90; Pardee 1997a:262–63; Smith
1985:315–16, 336–38, UNP 135–38; Wyatt 1998:108–12; Xella 1982:118–20; van
Zijl, Baal 135–56.
1 [ ] ∑i1q 2i[ ]
[ ] „l iyn.3b‘l
∂k [ ]xk.mdd’il
y[ ]l r.qdqdh
5 il[ ]μr q.b¿r
km.y[ ]’ilm.b pn
‘3br.l[ ].‘rm
b.lpμ d[ ]drm
.l m.’„ d.‘r
10 šb‘m.šb∑ .pdr
mnym.b‘l.μ[ ]
tš‘m.b‘l.mr[ ]
bt[ ]3b.b‘l.bqr∂b
bt.wy‘n.’al’iyn
15 3b2‘2l[ ]’aštm.k rbn
yμ.1k2 r.bnm.‘dt
y1p2t1 . ln.bbhtμ
μuμr∂b2t.bqrb.1hkl
m.w[ ]2t1 .bdqt.‘rpt
20 l∂h[ ].k r.w ss
q.1k2 fi.; ss
yš’2u.1g∂h[ ];y
lrgμ2t[ ]2lk.l’al’i
yn.b‘2l.t∑ b .b‘2l
638 cat 1.4 vii
25 lh;t[ ]p2t .
ln.bbhtm.’urbt
bqrb.hk∑l[ ]μy∂pt
b‘l.bdq2tμ‘μr∂pt
qlh.qdš[ ]b1‘[ ]ytn
30 y ny.b‘l. [ ]μš1pth
qlh.q[ ]μk∂pfi.’ar
μq∑l[ ]x1g´rμ[ ]∑t šn
rtq[ ]
qdmym.bmt.’„[ ]
35 t n.’ib.b‘l.t’i d
y‘rm.šn’u.hd.gpt
¿r.wy‘n.’al’iyn
b‘l.’ib.hd2t.lm.t š
lm.t š.n q.dmrn
40 n.b‘l.qdm.ydh
kt¿ .’arz.bymnh
bkm.y b.b‘l.lbhth
’umlk.’ublmlk
’ar .drktyštkn
45 dll.’al.’il’ak.lbn
’ilm.mt.‘ddlydd
’il.¿zr.yqr’a.mt
bnpšh.ystrnydd
bgngnh.’a dy.dym
50 lk.‘l.’ilm.lymr’u
’∑ilm.wnšm.dyšb
[ ].hmlt.’ar .gm.l¿
[ ]∫mh.b‘l.ky .‘n
[ ].w’ugr.b¿lmt
55 [ ]μym.bn. lmt.r
[ ]∂hbr[ ]μgnt.
[ ]1‘ rpt
[ ]∑t t
[ ]m
60 [ ]x
Textual Notes
Line 2. ] „l iyn Only the right wedge of the / a/ is preserved, but the
context assures the reading.
3b l The horizontal wedges of /b/ are preserved, as is part of the
right side of the left vertical.
Line 3. kμ [ ]xk Two small horizontal wedges, one above the other,
are all that remains of the letter at the beginning of the line. They
indicate that the letter is either /k/ or /r/. The size of the lower wedge
is more compatible with a /k/than an /r/ (cf. the /k/ on the other side
of the break). The letter cannot be /b/, as proposed by CAT, since
the upper wedge is clearly horizontal and is not in the right location to
meet the lower horizontal. The /x/to the right of the break is a large
horizontal. Since its left side is broken, there are numerous possibilities
for this letter: /t/, /’a/, /n/, /k/, /r/.
Line 5. il[ The /l/ is broken on the right, so that the left wedge, the
upper half of the middle wedge, and the upper left corner of the right
wedge are all that remain.
]μr q The /r/ seems probable by context, although the letter is
almost completely obliterated. The interior of a right horizontal wedge
is discernable, eliminating the other proposed reading, / /.
Line 7. 3br.l[ The /b/ has been read as /d/, primarily because of its
width. See CML2 64 (cf. MLC 96). However, there are only two verticals
in the letter, along with a vague depression that resembles the upper left
corner of a wedge in the middle of the letter, which does not appear to
have been fully impressed into the clay. It may have been a false start
for the right wedge, but considered too close to the left wedge.
640 cat 1.4 vii
Line 9. „ d The / a/is certain, although only the lower line of the
two wedges is preserved.
Line 11. b l.μ[ The /m/, unnoticed in CTA, appears certain. The
lower left corner of the horizontal and the lower tip of the vertical
are visible.
Line 13. bt∂ [ This is by far the most probable reading at the beginning
of the line, rather than CAT’s /bbt/. Driver (CML1 100) suggested
reading /bkm. b/, “Forthwith he did return,” based on VII 42, and
others have followed his lead (cf. Thespis 195; Coogan 1978: 104; de
Moor 1987:62; Pardee 1997a:262). But the second letter cannot be a
/k/ (cf. CTA p. 29 n. 5). CAT apparently takes what we read as /t/ as
the left horizontal of a /b/. But the horizontal is complete and solitary
and much too large to be part of a /b/. There is a pockmark above
the /t/, which CAT may have interpreted as part of a vertical. But it
is only damage. There are no further traces of their purported /t/.
]3b.b l Most of the /b/ after the break is preserved. We see no hint
of an /r/ before that /b/, as read by CAT. There is room in the lacuna
for three letters, Thus reconstructions like [‘r]b (CAT) or [y ]b (see the
Commentary) seem a little short for the space.
bqrμb The final /b/ on the line consists only of the left horizontal
wedge, and the lower left corner of the right horizontal. For efforts at
reconstruction, see the Commentary below.
cat 1.4 vii 641
Line 16. yμ.1k2 r Again the left side of the line is badly preserved. The
vertical of /m/ is only barely discernable, and /k / only preserve their
deep interiors, which, however, are visible.
Line 17. y1p2t1 The left side continues to be poorly preserved. The
signs of /pt / are very badly damaged. The upper wedge of /p/ is
discernable, but badly broken. The /t/ has no edges surviving, but the
deepest part of the head of the letter seems preserved. The outline of
/ / is clearly observable.
ln A stray vertical wedge is visible under the right tip of the /n/.
bbhtμ The horizontal of the /m/ is partially filled with an encrus-
tation. The vertical was placed in the left margin line, which is itself
damaged.
Line 18. ’μuμrμb2t The damage on the left side of the column continues.
The / u/ is pretty certain from context, but the damage to the horizontal
wedge makes it impossible epigraphically to decide whether it is made
up of one, two or three wedges. Traces of three verticals narrow the
possibilities to / u/ or /d/. Only the two left horizontals of the /r/
are clear, though perhaps the deepest interior of the right horizontal
is discernable. The /b/ is also very poorly preserved. The outline of
the horizontal wedges has survived, and possibly the deepest interiors
of the heads of two verticals are preserved as well. Only the lower line
of the /t/ is preserved, but makes the letter certain.
3hkl The /h/ is very shallow, probably due to an ancient smudge
when the tablet was still wet. Only two wedges are visible.
Line 19. m.w[ ]2t1 There are no traces of a /y/ following the /w/,
as in CTA, nor are there any remains of /p/ following the latter, as in
CAT. Presumably the supposed trace of the /y/ is a pockmark to the
right and above the end of the /w/. But it is certainly breakage and not
the remains of a wedge. The /t/ is only visible in its lower line. The
/ / survives almost completely, although the surfaces of the wedges are
all broken away. Any of the popular reconstructions—w[yp]t , w[tp]th,
642 cat 1.4 vii
Line 20. l.∫h[ ].k r.w ss The reading of /∫h/ before the break is
epigraphically uncertain. Only a thin, low long horizontal is preserved.
This could be either /h/ or /p/. The top is chipped away, so there is
no way to determine how high the letter was. The /w/ proposed by
CAT as following the possible /h/ is an illusion created by a break in
the tablet. There are no traces of it or of a following /t/. With many
commentators, we reconstruct h[wt], with the context in mind regarding
the “word” (hwt) of Kothar wa-Hasis (1.4 VI 15, VII 27). The restora-
tion proposal ‘l p[k] appears unlikely because of the lacuna’s large space
that suggests two letters in the break, besides the /h/ or /p/.
Line 21. k1 2 fi.; These four letters are badly damaged, but all of them are
discernable. The left wedges of the /w/ are filled with encrustation.
Line 22. yš u∑.1g∫h The word divider seems preserved in its upper and
left lines., but filled with an encrustation. The /g/’s surface is gone but
the interior of the letter assures the reading. The /h/ is epigraphically
uncertain, since only a single long horizontal, high on the line, survives.
But the context assures the reading.
;y The shape of the /w/ survives generally, with a few hints of
the upper left wedge and part of the large right wedge. The left half
of the /y/ has been filled with the encrustation, but the outline of the
surface is almost completed preserved.
Line 23. lrgμ2t[ ] Several signs in this line are badly damaged, but
all are certain. The /m/ has lost most of its surface, but the deep
indentations of both wedges are visible. The surface of the /t/ is also
gone, but much of the line of the wedge is discernable. No traces of
a word divider after the /t/ are preserved.
cat 1.4 vii 643
]2 lk Traces of the left and right wedges of the /l/ are visible, assur-
ing the reading. The interiors of the two left wedges of the /k/ are
quite visible, although the surface lines are damaged.
Line 24. yn.b 2 l The /l/ is only preserved in the interior of the wedges,
but is certain.
t∑ b The upper line of the /t/ is preserved along the edge of a
deep chip. The / / is the least well preserved and is epigraphically
uncertain, represented only by a deep roundish indentation to the right
of the /t/. The lower lines of the two right wedges of the /n/ are
preserved, as is the left line of the left wedge.
Line 25. lh;t[ Again several letters are badly damaged, but there
is nothing uncertain of reading. The /w/’s interior is damaged, but
the line of the edges indicates the certainty of the reading. Only the
right side of the /y/ has any remnants preserved. We see no traces of
a word divider between this /y/ and the one to its right.
]p2t . While damaged, five of the wedges of the /y/ are discern-
able. The lower line of the /t/, as well as the interior of the wedge
are visible.
Line 27. hk∑l[ ]μyμpt Traces of only two wedges of the /l/ are pre-
served, but the reading is assured by context. We discern no surviving
remnants of the succeeding /m/ read by CAT. There are two possible
indentations that may represent the two lower wedges of the left half
of a /y/. The right tips of the probable /p/ seem partially preserved,
though only the vague lower line of the lower one is visible. The paral-
lel in line 17 above supports the reading.
Line 28. bdq2t[ The /t/ is badly damaged, but pieces of its line are
preserved.
]≈ μrμpt The first three letters of the word are very fragmentary and
epigraphically uncertain. However, the parallel in line 19 strongly sup-
ports these readings. Only the deep interior of the / / is left, but the
traces are certainly compatible with that reading. A small piece of the
edge and the deep interior of the /r/’s right wedge is all that remains
of that letter. What appears to be the upper left corner of the top
wedge of the /p/ is also visible.
644 cat 1.4 vii
Line 29. qdš[ ]1b [ ]ytn The word divider after /qdš/ is lost in
breakage. The lower line and left line of the / / are partially preserved.
The wedge is filled with an encrustation. The /l/ that follows is entirely
lost in a deep gouge, contra CAT. The /y/ is certain. The deepest
interior of the left half of the letter is still visible, as is the right side
of the upper two wedges of the right half.
Line 31. qlh.q[ ]μkpμ fi.’ar The center of this line is very badly damaged.
The reading here remains tentative, but fits the preserved traces. Prob-
ably two letters have been completely destroyed after the second /q/.
Then the remains of a midsized high horizontal are visible, consistent
with a /k/ or /w/ more than an /r/. There are also possible traces of
both the lower horizontal and the left line of the large right horizontal
of a /k/. We see no clear hint of a second horizontal that would identify
the letter as /w/, but this reading cannot be ruled out. To the right is
the upper line of a long horizontal, high on the line, which suggests
/p/ or /h/. Its height on the line and the evident thinness of the wedge
argue against reading it as a /t/. Most likely it is /p/. Enough traces
of the succeeding /r/ are preserved to assure its reading. Ben-David
(1980) had already suggested reading. ?p?r.’ars, and proposed a parallel
with Isa 24:19. With the apparent /k/ in front, that parallel does not
seem likely. But it would hold if the reading here were/wpr/).
Line 32. μq∑l[ The first two letters are uncertain, but likely. The lower
part of a Winkelhaken is clearly visible, at approximately the same loca-
tion as the Winkelhaken in the line above. To its right are vague hints
of two long verticals, which suggest a / / or /l/. A repetition of the
word ql is compatible with the context.
]xg,μ rμ[ The letter preceding the /¿/ is represented by what appears
to be the wide head of a vertical wedge with a hint of another verti-
cal to its left. One might suggest /d/ / u/, or /b/ as most likely here,
although other letters are possible. The /¿/ is certain since the oblique
wedges are preserved in part. The horizontal of the /m/ is fairly well
preserved, and the upper left corner of the vertical survives.
cat 1.4 vii 645
]t∑ šn The reading of the last word here is assured, not by the cur-
rent photograph in this edition, but by the original Louvre photo taken
in the 1930s. This is an example of a tablet section that has significantly
deteriorated between the 1930s and today. The original photo of the
reverse of the tablet, when enlarged, clearly shows a well preserved
/ / and /n/, neither of which survive today. Virolleaud read the first
letter of this word as / a/, while Herdner (CTA p. 29, n. 13) argued
for reading a word divider and a /t/. Unfortunately, the original photo
does not show this letter well, and all that can be said now is that it
is a horizontal letter with either one or two wedges, i.e., either /t/ or
/ a/. The context argues for /t/.
Line 33. rtq[ The reading of /t/ is clear (cf. CTA: /r q/). The fact
that it is a single wedge is clear from the smooth, finely preserved line
of the interior. There is no trace of a word divider after the /q/.
Line 34. ’„[ The bottom line of the / a/ is preserved and assures the
reading. Contra CAT, there are no traces of an /r/ following.
Line 38. hd2t CAT has proposed that there is another letter underneath
the /t/. There are traces of what appears to be the lower left outlying
parts of a / / along the left side of the letter (compare the / / directly
below in line 39). But these may simply be damage.
Line 39. lm.t š.n q.dmrn This line is perfectly clear. CTA has two
typos in the line ( for / / and /m/ for /n/ at the end of the line).
Line 51. ’)lm The /’i/ is broken on the left, so that the distinguish-
ing lower left vertical is not preserved. But the context assures the
reading.
Line 53. [ ]∫mh The /m/ is uncertain. The top of the vertical appears
to be visible, with perhaps a hint of the right tip of the horizontal.
But the vertical seems very low on the line to be an /m/. At the same
time, one may compare the very low placement of the /l/ in Column
VIII, line 32 in relation to /’i/ in /’il/.
Line 55. [ ]μym The /y/ is represented only by the top two wedges
of the right half of the letter.
Line 56. [ ]∫hbr[ The /t/ proposed by both CTA and CAT just
before /∫hbr/ appears to be merely the break in the tablet. The first
preserved letter is most likely /h/ rather than / i/ (as in CTA and
CAT). There is no clear evidence of the low vertical required to make
it an /’i/. A vertical crack runs down the left corner of the letter, giv-
ing a slight appearance that there might be a low vertical. But there
is plenty of room on the preserved surface of the tablet for traces of
the vertical, were it here. There are a few examples of an /’i/ with a
vertical substantially below and to the left of the horizontals, but they
are rare (cf. Ellison 2002:2.189, figs 764, 765). In a parallel passage,
1.8.9, the text clearly reads /’ibr/. However, neither reading produces
an obvious translation of the word. Thus it seems best to keep open
the possibility that both passages might read either hbr or ibr and that
one text contains a scribal error.
]μgnt. CTA and CAT have read an /m/ for the first letter of this
word, rather than /g/. There is damage on the left side of the letter,
but there is no evidence of the horizontal of an /m/. In fact, there is
probably too little space between the end of the /r/ and the preserved
vertical for a horizontal to fit, particularly if one assumes a word divider
belongs after /hbr/. Here, as with the previous word, the readings gnt
and mnt do not produce obvious translations. There is a word divider
at the end of /gnt/, though nothing follows.
1 [ ]’iqn’i[m . . .]
2 [ ]’al’iyn.b‘l
3–4 k[ ]xk.mdd ’il/y[m]
4 [ ]l r.qdqdh/
5 ’il[ ]r q.b¿r/
6 km.y[ ]’ilm.b pn
7–8 ‘br.l[‘r].‘rm/
b.lpd[r.p]drm
9–10 .l m.’a d.‘r/
šb‘m.šb‘.pdr
11–13 mnym.b‘l.m[ ]/
tš‘m.b‘l.mr[ ]/bt
13–14 [ ]b.b‘l.bqrb/bt.
14–15 wy‘n.’al’iyn/b‘l[.]
15–16 ’aštm.k r bn/ym.
k r.bnm.‘dt
17–19 ypt . ln.bbhtm/
’urbt.bqrb.hkl/m.
w[t/ ip]t .bdqt.‘rpt/
‘l h[wt].k r.w ss
21–22 q.k r.w ss/
yš’u[.]gh[.]wy
23–25 lrgmt[.]lk.l’al’i/yn.b‘l.
t bn.b‘l/lhwty[.]
25–28 ypt . /ln.bbhtm.
’urbt/bqrb.hkl[m.]
ypt /b‘l.bdqt ‘rpt/
29–30 qlh.qdš[.]b‘[l.]ytn
y ny.b‘l. [’at (?).š(?)]pth/
31–35 qlh.q[dš] k(?)p(?)r.’ar
ql[h ]x ¿rm[.]t šn
rtq[ ? ¿rm?]/qdmym.
bmt.’a[r ]/t n.
648 cat 1.4 vii
[The import of lines 1–6 is unclear; perhaps Baal deals another defeat to Yamm.]
1
mdd is evidently m- preformative form, on analogy with BH mêdād; or, on analogy
with the Arabic maqtūl passive participle, *môdūd/mêdūdu, so Sivan 1997:123; cf. the
form as a D-stem passive participle in Vaughn 1993:426). For the usage, see further
in the Commentary.
cat 1.4 vii 649
2
Sivan 1997:66.
3
It is theoretically possible that the verb is active and not passive, especially in view
of the following bicolon. See the following note for discussion.
4
As indicated by the vocalization, the third person active is possible, with bdqt as the
direct object. Another plausible reconstruction here is w[’ip]t , the 1st s active. In this
case, the line would read: “And let me open a break in the clouds.” See the discussion
in the Commentary.
650 cat 1.4 vii
5
See UG 745.
6
See UG 188, 792.
7
For bl + noun to form a complex noun, see UG 817.
8
The term ydd is apparently *qatil-base (cf. BH yādîd ). See the Commentary for
further discussion of the term.
cat 1.4 vii 651
[Lines 57–60 are too broken, and about seven additional lines are missing.]
Commentary
9
See UG 146. See also the discussion below.
10
See UG 344, also pp. 217, 228.
652 cat 1.4 vii
Given the difficulties with the beginning part of line 13, not to men-
tion lines 11–12 (see the Commentary below), remarks on this line’s
poetics cannot be made.
This unit largely follows the pattern of 1.4 V 61–62, 64–65 and VI
5–6 and 8–9. (Otherwise one might read this unit as two bicola, e.g.,
cat 1.4 vii 653
Ginsberg, ANET 135; Smith, UNP 136.) The major difference here is the
initial verb, which slightly enhances the sonant patterning with bilabials
and dental t’s in this bicolon. One may also notice the switching here
of the A and B words for “window,” in comparison to the parallels.
The parallel structure of the third line emphasizes the identity of the
window and the break in the clouds. The fourth line echoes Kothar’s
statement in VI 2 and 15 above and anticipates the repetition of it in
lines 24b–25a below.
Essentially the same bicolon, with Anat as the subject, appears in 1.4
V 25–26. In both cases, the first line represents a reaction to the pre-
ceding event, while the second line opens the following speech. At the
same time, the two lines are linked in communicating the sentiment
of the divine subject.
On the face of it, these two lines are not parallel semantically, as the
first makes an assertion about a speech (in American English, “I told
you so!”) and the second line the content of that speech. However, the
prepositional phrases are syntactically and morphologically parallel, the
name of Baal occurs in both lines, and there are various l- particles
and l- consonance.
These four lines are closely related to one another, describing the
tumultuous reaction of the earth to Baal’s voice. The middle two lines
are too broken to determine the syllable count; in each there is room
for an additional word in the break, and in the third line the form of
the verb is uncertain. But assuming that the overall reconstructions
are generally correct, they join the others to follow a common parallel
structure. The primary discontinuity between the lines is the fact that
the geographical term in the first colon is the object of the verb, while
the parallel term in the other three lines is the subject. As will be dis-
cussed below in the commentary, the root *qdm appears in the phrase
harĕrê qedem, “ancient mountains,” in Deut 33:15. If the third line here
is correctly reconstructed, such a phrase (like our proposed ¿rm qdmym)
would offer a reasonable parallel to bmt ’ar and would pick up on the
single-word subject of the first line.
This bicolon echoes and extends the bicolon in lines 35–37. The appear-
ance of lama ta ûšū in each colon significantly marks the parallelism
here, and the other components, though not identical, are strongly
parallel.
This unit is hardly parallel in its syntax, but references to parts of the
body help bind it together. It has been argued that this unit is really a
bicolon: “Baal’s eye precedes (is before) his hand” (‘n b‘l qdm ydh)//As
the cedar shakes in his right hand (kt¿ ’arz bymnh). This approach is
appealing in part because of the parallelism that it generates:
This unit shows no parallelism from the first line to the second. The
semantic parallelism of malku and darkata is attested. It appears to be
one of the rare examples of enjambment in Ugaritic poetry. Since this
bicolon serves as the introduction to the third primary episode of the
Baal Cycle (the Baal/Mot conflict), this unusual setup may be intentional
to make obvious the shift to the new subject.
656 cat 1.4 vii
The rather long lines of this bicolon show a traditional sort of paral-
lelism. Standard semantic, syntactical and morphological parallelism
is evident. The repetition of words for divinity balance a singular
form in the first line, ’ili-ma, with a singular form in the second, ’ili.
Moreover, alliteration with d is particularly strong in the second line,
anticipated with only a single instance of the consonant in the first
line. In contrast, alliteration with l is particularly strong in the first line,
and weakly echoed in the second. Together these features generate a
subtle sort of sonant chiasm. Noegel (2004:10–11) suggests that in this
unit, dll, ‘dd and ydd (as well as ydd and gngn in the following unit) also
reflect geminate roots clustering poetically in this section of 1.4 VII.
The observation further highlights the prominence of the alliteration
with d in these words.
Lines 56–60 are too poorly preserved for the purposes of poetic analysis.
Introduction
In this column the construction narrative that began in column V
reaches its conclusion, with a depiction of divine blessing and power in
the account of the storm-god’s mighty theophany (see the discussion of
Near Eastern building narratives, pp. 550–53). The construction narra-
tive is in turn the final scene of the long story of Baal’s acquisition of
his palace that began in 1.3 III. Within this column the final elements
of the tale are told, providing the climax of both the account of the
construction of the palace and the larger story as a whole. Having
feted the gods in his new palace at the end of column VI, Baal pro-
ceeds (following some actions in the broken lines 1–6) to march across
the cities of the world to obtain their submission (lines 7–13). Having
returned to his palace (lines 14–25), he announces to Kothar that he
has changed his mind and will allow the installation of a window
(on the entire window episode, see the discussion above, pp. 602–10).
The window is installed, and through it (lines 25–42) Baal sends forth
his voice, the thunder (and the rains that surely accompany it). At the
overwhelming intensity of his voice, the earth trembles and Baal’s
enemies are scattered, while Baal sits enthroned in his palace. His rule
has been established in heaven, on earth and in the sea; it has been
recognized generally by deities and humans. This vivid description of
Baal’s power marks the end of one storyline and acts as the bridge to
658 cat 1.4 vii
the third and final act of the Baal Cycle, the account of Baal’s conflict
with Mot. This story begins in lines 43–52 with a speech in which
Baal states (to himself ) the issue that will drive the action of the next
two tablets: will Baal establish his dominion in the netherworld? The
controversy begins when Baal determines to send a message to Mot
that clearly claims control over the latter’s realm. At the end of the
column (lines 52–60), Baal summons his messengers Gapn and Ugar
and begins to instruct them about the message that they will take to
Mot. These instructions continue in column VIII.
From an exegetical point of view, column VII has been one of the
most controversial sections of the Baal Cycle to interpret. In part this
is due to damage on the tablet, particularly at the beginning and at the
end of the column. But there have also been considerable differences of
opinion about the meanings of numerous key words in the text, which
have led to widely variant interpretations of the events depicted here.
Lines 1–6 are badly broken, and their exact meaning, as well as their
relationship to the preceding and following events, is not clear. The
relationship between Baal and his enemies in lines 35–41 has received
startlingly different interpretations, and there has been considerable
difference of opinion about the meaning of Baal’s speech concerning
Mot (lines 43–52), despite the fact that the lines are almost perfectly
preserved.
Lines 1–6
The last legible lines on column VI described the great banquet Baal
gave for the children of Athirat (lines 38–59). This is followed by
between six and nine lines that are virtually or actually destroyed at
the end of the column. The first six lines of column VII are also badly
damaged, so that it is not clear whether the twelve to fifteen lines here
continued the story of the banquet or moved into a new scene. Lines
1–6 make reference to Baal, Yamm, and the gods, but the context is
very obscure. One important conclusion about the narrative can be
drawn, however: we can say with some assurance that Baal’s concern
about Yamm’s threat to his well-being, voiced in his explanation for the
refusal to allow Kothar to install a window in the palace (VI 12–13),
is resolved in this passage, since those concerns no longer apply in
VII 14–20. Some scholars have argued that lines 2–4 describe a final
combat between Baal and Yamm, in which Baal delivers a devastat-
ing blow to Yamm’s head that ends any threat from the latter (e.g.,
cat 1.4 vii 659
BOS 2.138; Thespis 192–93; DW 33–34; CML1 16; SPUMB 154 n. 10).
While this is certainly possible, such a battle in this context seems out
of place, and the description of the battle would have been remarkably
short. Gibson (CML2 64 n. 1) suggests that these lines may be part of
a declaration by the assembled gods that their allegiance belongs to
Baal and not to Yamm, thereby assuring Baal that Yamm is no longer
a threat. This seems quite plausible, but no firm conclusion can be
drawn. Whatever the case, it is clear that from this point Yamm is no
longer an issue for Baal.
A few comments can be made about each of these lines. Line 1 pre-
serves part of only a single word, the reconstructed, [’i]qn’i[m], “[l]apis
lazu[li].” The word appears above in the previous column as one of
the materials for Baal’s new palace. Line 2 provides only the common
title, ’al’iyn b‘l, “Mightiest Baal.” Line 3 contains mdd ’il, the epithet of
Yamm in 1.3 III 38–39 (mdd ’il ym), and probably his epithet here too,
since the beginning of line 4 is likely (but not absolutely certainly) to
be reconstructed y[m]. Mot is called mdd ’il in VIII 23–24, but the y in
line 4 makes an identification with Mot here very unlikely. A similar,
but distinct title, ydd ’il ¿zr “the beloved of El, the Hero,” regularly
applies to Mot (1.4 VII 46–47; VIII 31–32; 1.5 I 8, 13–14, II 9; 1.6 VI
30–31 and 1.133.16–17). The key difference involves the form of the
initial term: Mot’s title ydd is apparently *qatīl-base (*yadīd-; cf. BH yādîd)
while Yamm’s epithet mdd is evidently m- preformative form (*mêdad-,
on analogy with BH mêdad; or, *mêdud, so Sivan 1997:123 on analogy
with the Arabic maqtūl passive participle; cf. the proposal of Vaughn
1993:426 to read it as a D-stem passive participle, muddadu).
The end of line 4 reads l r qdqdh, “on the top of his head,” which
is reminiscent of 1.2 IV 24–25: ylm qdqd zbl ym, “it (the weapon) struck
the head of Prince Yamm” (cf. 1.16 VI 54–57; 1.18 IV 22; 1.19 II 30,
where qdqd appears in contexts of conflict). It thus seems plausible to
see this line as referring to the wounding of Yamm in the head. But
it is also possible that the line could refer to placing a crown on Baal’s
head, although no parallel passages are known.
If the events described in lines 1–4 take place at the banquet, as
seems possible, then lines 5–6 can easily be interpreted as describing
the departure of the gods from Mount Sapan. Line 5 contains the root
r q, which as a verb in Ugaritic means, “to go away” (see also 1.14
VI 14 and parallels; DUL 738). The other suggested reading of the
verb, q, “to laugh, make merry” (originally proposed by Virolleaud
1932:153; cf. CTA p. 29, n. 2 which has a mistaken publication note;
660 cat 1.4 vii
as is found, for example, in 1.3 II, the account of Anat’s defeat of her
human enemies.
In lines 7–10, the poet uses the terms ‘rm and pdrm for the settlements
that submit to Baal. The first term is easily identifiable as cognate with
BH ‘îr, and related terms, ultimately derived from Sumerian uru, and
is usually translated “cities.” The more difficult term is pdr, which does
not seem to have a Semitic background or cognates. De Moor (SPUMB
156–57), followed by DUL (662), related it to Mycenean po-to-ri, taken
to be the antecedent form of Greek *p(t)ólis ( polis) and cognate English
forms such as “metropolitan.” The close parallelism of the word with
‘r strongly supports the interpretation of the word as “town, village” or
the like. They appear together also in the Kirta Epic (1.14 III 6–7, IV
49–50; where they refer to dependencies of the capital city of Udum;
and in 1.16 VI 6–7, and probably V 47–48). It cannot be determined
with certainty at this point if the parallel terms r and pdr designate dif-
ferent sizes of settlements, but it is likely that they are simply synonyms.
The BH term îr, can refer to large, fortified towns and small unfortified
villages (cf. most clearly Deut 3:5). Similarly, the Akkadian equivalent,
ālu, does not indicate size (cf. CAD A/1:381, 1c, 1’: “75 strong walled
cities of Kaldu and 420 small cities which are situated around them”).
It seems likely then that each term in our passage can refer to any size
of settlement, large or small.
The grammatical usage of r and 1p3dr in the first bicolon of this pas-
sage (lines 7–8) is not entirely clear. In each line the word appears twice,
with its first occurrence preceded by the preposition l, and the second
occurrence suffixed with -m. Most scholars have simply rendered the
words from the general context as “from city to city//from town to
town” or the like (TO 1.215; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1168; CML1 101;
Thespis 193; CML2 64; Gordon 1977:99; de Moor 1987:61; MLC 208;
MLR 89; Pardee 1997a:262; Wyatt 1998:108).11 To get this rendering,
one might interpret the construction as follows: l- here means “from,”
and the second usage of the noun would be an adverbial accusative,
giving it the sense of “to.” The -m on the second occurrence of the
word in this case would be enclitic. However, we are aware of no
11
De Moor cited 2 Chron 30:10 as a parallel for this passage, since it uses the verb
‘br, followed by twin use of ‘rm: “runners were passing from town to town (‘ōbĕrîm mē‘îr
lā‘îr) in the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun.” However, one
will note that each occurrence of ‘îr is governed by its own preposition, unlike in our
passage.
662 cat 1.4 vii
imagery here also clearly relates to that of the divine warrior in his
conquests. By examining these thematic parallels, a different proposal
for interpreting lines 11–14a can be made. This proposal emerged out
of a brief comment made in P. D. Miller’s discussion of this passage in
DW 34–35 (cf. Mann 1977:98–100) in which he describes lines 7–12
as Baal’s march
to his palace conquering cities and towns on his way. It is quite probable
that Ba‘al was accompanied by his various hosts, il t‘ r, ¿lmm, nzrm, rpum,
etc. He enters his house as the mighty warrior, hesitant no longer to put
windows in the palace.
The suggestion that his retinue might accompany Baal in this journey
(see 1.5 V 6–9 for their mention and also 1.22 I 8–10) is an intriguing
one and suggests a potential understanding of lines 11–14a in which
part of the retinue is described. To understand the proposal we must
first examine line 13–14a, bt[ ]b.b‘l.bqr[b]/bt. If we assume that the end
of line 12 is a verb related to the capture of cities, then all of line 13
and the first word of 14 must fit together. Almost certainly the break
in line 13 conceals a verb, and the most likely reconstruction here is
[‘r]b. Thus we could turn the passage into a bicolon reading:
bt [‘r]b b‘l Into the house Baal enters,
bqrb bt Inside the house.
The expression would be a bit stilted for Ugaritic poetry, and it is not
particularly persuasive. The problem revolves around the repetition of
bt at the beginning and end of the line. However, there is a way of
taking the first bt as belonging to the preceding colon that would allow
the rest of line 13 and 14a to be seen as a colon itself. In this proposal
one would not see lines 11–12 as a continuation of the numbering of
captured cities, but as a reference to Baal’s military retinue:
mnym.b‘l.m[hrm?] (With) eighty lords of tr[oops?],
tš‘m.b‘l.mr[k]/bt Ninety lords of cha[ri]otry,
[‘r]b.b‘l.bqrb.bt Baal [ente]rs into the house.
In this understanding, lines 7–10 describe the victory procession, while
lines 11–14a depict the entrance of Baal and his retinue into the palace
following the march. The use of such numbers for military personnel
also appears in the description of “my seventy captains” (šb‘m ry)//“my
eighty chiefs” ( mnym byy) summoned into Kirta’s house (1.15 IV 6–7;
translation, Greenstein, UNP 27). Not only the parallelism of num-
bers with leaders, but also the context of coming to Kirta’s house fits
cat 1.4 vii 665
the scene in our passage. Apart from questions about its content, this
proposal has two virtues. It accounts for all of the letters that are read
for these lines. Furthermore, in view of the line length of [ r]b.b l.bqrb.
bt in line 13, it makes sense that bt at the beginning of line 13 is to be
read with the preceding line in some manner. The proposal also has
its drawbacks. There are no parallels to these proposed members of
Baal’s retinue, and the usage of the word b l to refer first to members
of the retinue, and then to Baal in the third line has no parallel either.
Moreover, the first two lines as proposed are lacking grammatically:
they are neither nominal clauses in their own right, nor are they linked
syntactically to the third line.
In the final analysis, lines 11–12 remain uncertain in meaning, with
more than one possible reconstruction. The common understanding,
with reconstructed verbs, creates a problem with the reading of bt at
the beginning of line 13. The proposal for seeing the lines as refer-
ring to Baal’s retinue solves the problem of bt, but is awkward in its
construction. We have simply decided not to reconstruct the passage
and to leave open the question of its meaning.
Many scholars have seen in this passage a reflection of a ritual in
which Baal’s statue from the temple at Ugarit was taken to visit shrines
in the surrounding towns (e.g., Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1168 n. 112;
de Moor 1987:62 n. 277). This seems plausible, although it cannot be
confirmed. Another possibility is that it might reflect a ritual, attested
particularly at Emar and Mari, which uses the weapon of the storm
god in processions. At Emar the divine weapon, apparently an axe
(see Fleming 1992:50 n. 7, 206 n. 12) plays a significant part in a
number of rituals (e.g., Emar 369, 403, 420, 446, 447; see Fleming
1992:119, 164–66). In Emar 369, a long ritual for the installation of
the entu-priestess, the weapon stays with her through the ritual (Flem-
ing 1992:165). The fragmentary ritual Emar 403 refers to the divine
weapon and then to the god Dagan. Also quite broken, Emar 420
mentions the king, the divine weapon and the gods more generally.
Emar 446 is a sustained ritual that mentions how the divine axe takes
up residence in the temple of Dagan and then exits in ritual proces-
sion (100’, 102’–103’; cf. also lines 15, 40, 43, and 88; see Fleming
2000:268–75). Though fragmentary, Emar 447 describes how the divine
axe goes after all the offerings made at various temples, including those
of Baal and Dagan. From the Emar texts, it is evident that the divine
weapon played a part in rituals with processions; by the same token, it
is unclear that the weapon is always to be associated with the storm-god
666 cat 1.4 vii
12
Cf. BH mô‘ēd (UBC 1.232, 286–87) and post-biblical wa‘ad ( Jastrow 374).
13
Not necessarily “son of Yamm,” i.e., the god (see Pardee 1997a:262 n. 182). It is
to be noted that bn ym occurs in one other context, namely 1.23.59 where it is plausibly
rendered either “sons of the sea” or “sons of a day” (i.e., “one day old” infants). Many
commentators prefer the latter since the “beautiful gods” are newborns. Others observe
that they seem to be born near the sea. This title seems to be juxtaposed to ’agzrm ym,
which has been taken to be “cleavers of the sea” or the like (CML2 126). No proposal
has been made that would support this possibly parallel title as a temporal expression.
Even if the temporal interpretation for bn ym were to be preferred in 1.23.59, it may
have no real relation to the bn ym in our passage.
668 cat 1.4 vii
14
Tropper appears to rely much too heavily on Virolleaud’s facsimile, apparently
unaware that Virolleaud never attempted to provide accurate placements of the let-
ters in the drawing. A simple comparison of his facsimile of 1.4 VII 18 and 19 with
our photo shows this clearly. On the tablet, the last letter of line 18, l is largely over
the final letter of line 19, while in Virolleaud’s drawing it is situated over the r of ‘rpt.
Virolleaud, following the tradition of his time, drew relatively standardized versions of
the letters and did not try to depict the individual characteristics of each letter. Another
good illustration is his drawing of 1.21, where line 5 appears to break across the margin
670 cat 1.4 vii
the w and t . He thus proposes either [p]t or [ i]t as the reading. But
there is easily enough room in the lacuna for any of the three propos-
als discussed above. It seems to us that none of the readings (except
Tropper’s) can be rejected out of hand. However, the reconstruction
[yp]t seems the least likely. Those who take Kothar as the object of
aštm are forced to give a very different meaning to that verb (i.e., “I
will appoint Kothar”), which seems unlikely, as discussed above. The
reconstruction [yp]t as a passive or impersonal seems unlikely, since as
a passive it does not agree in gender with the presumed subject, while
an impersonal rendering seems unnecessarily awkward. Thus [tp]t as
a passive, matching the passive of line 17, “Let a break in the clouds
be opened,” or [ ip]t , matching the active voice of its parallel in line
27b–28a, “Let me open a break” seem to be the most likely restorations.
While the latter would match the narrative account in line 27, we can-
not be certain that the speech and the narrative fulfillment correspond
that completely, so both possibilities must be left open.
The word bdqt, “break, rift, fissure,” only occurs in this passage (lines
19 and 27), but its meaning seems certain. One can compare BH bedeq,
“fissure, break, rent,” used for cracks in the temple walls in need of
patching in 2 Kgs 12:6–9, 13, 22:5, and for seams in a ship in need of
caulking in Ezek 27:9, 27, as well as the denominative verb *bdq, “to
repair (cracks)” in 2 Chron 34:10 (cf. Greenfield 1958:219 n. 11, 221
n. 24). Pope (MHP) noted that Akkadian batāqu is used in the context
of piercing dikes and canals to divert water (CAD B:163). The verb
sometimes appears with the cognate noun butuqtu for cutting a sluice
or diverting water to a channel (CAD B:357). Pope (MHP) also noted
Arabic fataqa, “to undo the sewing (of a garment),” “to rip open,” “to
slit open” (citing Wehr 694). Pope also noted the nominal form fatq
includes not only a rip or tear in a fabric, but also a cleft, crack or
fissure (citing Wehr 695). Leslau (87) also compared Geez bedeq, bedaq,
“cracks in a wall.” Similarly, BH bedeq refers to a breach, whether in a
temple (2 Kgs 12:6, 7, etc; 22:5) or in a ship (Ezek 27:9, 27; DCH 2:97).
Post-biblical Hebrew bidqâ applies to a burst of water from a broken
dam or a sudden shower of water. Setting the bdqt in the clouds here
in 1.4 VII 19 evidently applies an architectural sense to an explicitly
line on the right. In reality, the line ends well to the left of the margin line. The same
thing occurs in the drawing of 1.22 (see Pitard 1992a:48, fig. 13; 62, fig. 25).
cat 1.4 vii 671
This portrait of Baal is certainly the one that was central to his
cult at Ugarit. This is the ruler of the earth whose home was on Mt.
Sapan and in the temple on the acropolis within the city. Although the
mythic cycle may also show Baal defeated for a while by Mot, myth is
not conceived in strictly linear terms. Baal is always the mighty king
who sends the rains and who terrifies his foes with his thunder. This
image of Baal is the central point of the Baal Cycle (UBC 1.98–99)
the Yamm episode moves toward it, the palace episode explicitly deals
with it, and the Mot episode will also confirm it in its concluding scene
(1.6 VI 22–35).
The palace/temple of Baal on Mount Sapan was clearly conceived
as the central location for the god mythically, cultically, and legally.
His presence on the mountain is of course quite important in the Baal
Cycle. But Baal of Sapan (or in Akkadian, Mt. azi) is an important
figure in both the ritual and legal texts from Ugarit. In the sacrificial
lists, b l pn, “Baal (or: the Lord) of Sapan,” as the object of offerings
occurs quite often (e.g., 1.46.14; 1.109.9, 29; 1.112.22–23; 1.130.7,
9; 1.148.10, 27). In the legal texts, he is called upon as guarantor of
contracts under the name dIM bêl uršān azzi, “Baal, the lord of Mt.
Hazi” (cf. RS 16.144:12, 16.157:27; 16.238:18; in PRU III:76, 83–84,
107–08). (The equivalence of the Ugaritic and Akkadian mountains
is indicated by the god lists, 1.47.5, 1.118.4 and the parallel Akkadian
version RS 20.024:4; cf. Pardee 2002:14.) He is certainly the same god
who is also called b l ugrt in the liturgical texts (e.g., 1.119.3, 12, 21’–22’;
1.112.23; 1.130.11). This seems most clear in the god lists, where b l pn
is listed after El and Dagan, and b l ugrt does not appear at all
(1.47.5//1.118.4; 1.148.27). The identification of these two manifesta-
tions of Baal suggests that on occasion the locations of Mount Sapan
and Ugarit were ritually merged, and the identity of the temple in
which the king worshipped the god was joined with that of the divine
palace on Sapan. The process of identifying Mount Sapan, the god’s
primordial mountain, with his temple in the royal city finds a striking
analogy in Ps 48:3, which identifies the recesses of Sapon with Jerusa-
lem. A connection between Yahweh’s waters, Sapon, and the clouds is
also found in Job 26:7–8 (Pope 1973:163, 165; Weinfeld 1973:425–26).
With the capital city implicitly associated with the mountain, Baal’s
theophany emanates from his heavenly palace on Mount Sapan, but
also through the sacred sanctuary in the city. The use in the Hebrew
Bible of the same names for the storm-god’s abode, not to mention the
same divine enemies such as Yamm, Leviathan and Tannin, indicates
674 cat 1.4 vii
that Israelite religious literature belongs to the long West Semitic liter-
ary tradition to which the Ugaritic religious narratives are an earlier
witness (see Koch 1993a; Fauth 1990).
The account of the theophany begins with Baal’s sending forth
of his voice, the thunder (lines 29–30). In line 29, it is called qlh qdš,
“his holy voice,” emphasizing the sacral nature of the thunder and
the thunderstorm within the context of the narrative. The idiom “to
give the voice” ( ytn/ntn ql ) is well attested in West Semitic contexts,
including the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps 18:14//2 Sam 22:14; Ps 46:7; Jer
25:30; Amos 1:2; Joel 4:16). In a letter of king Abimilki of Tyre to his
Egyptian suzerain, Akhenaten (EA 147:13–15), the vassal compares his
lord with the Egyptian sun-god, Re, and the Syro-Palestinian storm-god,
Baal. The Egyptian king is one “who gives (*nadānu) his cry (rigmašu) in
the heavens like Addu and all the whole land trembles at his cry” (ša
iddin rigmašu ina šamê kīma Addi u tarkub gabbi māti ištu rigmašu) (see Moran
1992:233; ANET 249; Thespis 196; CMHE 150–51; Weinfeld 1973:423
n. 23; Kloos 1986:49; cf. the Commentary to 1.4 V 6–9 above on pp.
560–61).
The reconstruction of the second line is uncertain, but the com-
monly accepted proposal, y ny b‘l [’at š]pth, literally “Baal reiterates the
ut[terance of ] his [li]ps” is quite plausible and makes a suitable parallel
for qlh qdš. The verb * ny, “to do again, repeat, reiterate,” fits nicely into
the context, as thunder continually rolls across the land. It also forms
wonderful sonant parallelism with ytn in the previous line.
As a result of Baal’s thunder in lines 29–30, all of nature is convulsed.
Lines 31–35a describe this reaction of the earth with powerful, formu-
laic imagery. All four cola in this section are broken, but with the new
readings recorded above, the general flow of each line is discernable.
Most commentators reconstruct the first part of line 31 as qlh q[dš], a
suitable restoration given this phrase in line 29 (e.g., CMHE 149; Diet-
rich and Loretz 1997:1169; Thespis 197; ANET 135; de Moor 1987:
63; MLR 89; Pardee 1997a:262; Smith, UNP 136; Wyatt 1998:109).
The rest of line 31 has been more problematic. Our new, somewhat
tentative reading of the verb, kpr, here meaning, “to cover,” fits into
the context reasonably well (cf. Arabic kafara, “to cover,” BH kāpar, “to
cover” in Gen 6:14, and D-stem kippēr in Gen 32:21, “let me cover
his face,” and as the underlying meaning of “to atone,” i.e., “to cover
one’s sin”). One cannot entirely rule out a reading of wpr, assuming a
verb derived from prr, “to be broken, powerless” (cf. Akkadian parāru;
cf. Cross CMHE 149; Ben-David 1980). Also slightly possible is wtr,
cat 1.4 vii 675
proposed by de Moor (SPUMB 162), from the root *trr. This reading
has the advantage of being attested with ar in the Baal Cycle (1.4
V 21, wtr ar , where we translated, “the earth shakes”; see also 1.17
VI 46). The problem with this reading is that the horizontal wedge
that would be read as t seems too thin and too high on the line to be
that letter. Our proposal to read kpr appears to follow the traces more
closely. If this reading is correct, then ql is the subject of the sentence.
One should note the description of Marduk as Adad in Enuma Elish
VII:119–121, where Adad’s voice, the use of a verb, “to cover,” and
perhaps even the break in the clouds all appear together: “Adad shall
be his name, the whole sky may he cover, may his beneficent roar ever
hover over the earth, may he cut the shape of the clouds” (Weinfeld
1977–78:245 n. 15). If wpr is correct, then ar is the subject, and the
line would read, “At his holy voice, the earth was powerless.”
Our new readings of lines 32–35a help to clarify the picture in this
unit. The recognition of ql at the beginning of the line indicates the
repetition of the word, “voice” in line 32, which ties the line to the
previous one. The following word is broken away, but the reading and
meaning of ¿rm t šn are clear: “the mountains tremble.” The missing
word is most likely an adjective modifying ql[h]. Line 33 is the most
damaged line, with only the first three letters, rtq, preserved. It seems,
however, pretty clear that the word qdmym at the beginning of line 34
belongs to the same colon as rtq[. Since it appears that the following
line (34b–35a) shows a very close parallel relationship with line 32, it
seems reasonable to assume a closely parallel colon in line 33–34a.
Line 32 refers to mountains ( ¿rm), and 34 talks about “the high places
of the earth” bmt ar . Thus it seems probable that line 33 referred to
a geographical feature of a similar type. We have thus reconstructed
¿rm] qdmym, “the ancient mountains” (so de Moor 1987:63; MLR 89;
Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1169; Wyatt 1998:109). The idea of ancient
mountains is a formula found in BH, especially in the phrase harĕrê
qedem, “ancient mountains,” in Deut 33:15. For the use of qdmym,
“ancient” at Ugarit, see the two references to “the ancient rapi uma,”
rp im qdmym, in 1.161.8, 24. Other understandings of qdmym have been
proposed. A number of scholars have read the letters as two words,
qdm ym “east (and) west” (Aistleitner 45; CML1 101; Thespis 197; ANET
135; DW 35). While this is possible, the meaning is not obvious for the
context of the parallel cola, nor are there other attestations of these
two words used in such a fashion in Ugaritic. Others have rendered
the unit as “before Yamm” or “along the sea” (TO 1.217; CMHE 149;
676 cat 1.4 vii
MLC 209). Again, the broken context cannot rule this out, but there is
no other reference in this passage to divine enemies that would place a
reference to Yamm into a reasonable context, nor any other reference
to the sea that could support the other reading. Overall, the greatest
likelihood is that qdmym is an adjective modifying a word relating to
mountains or the like.
The reading at the beginning of the line, rtq[, is certain, but the
meaning is very obscure. There is an attested root *rtq, which in its
cognate forms in Arabic, Akkadian and BH means, “to join together,
bind” (cf. HALOT 1300; CAD R 218; DUL 749). The word seems rare,
appearing only in a lexical text in Akkadian, and probably only once in
the Hebrew Bible (Nah 3:10; cf. the Qere of Qoh 12:6). Such a mean-
ing in our context is not impossible, and we could read the word as a
G-stem passive participle, rtq[m ¿rm] qdmym, “the ancient mountains
are bound.” But the other two verbs around this line have to do with
shaking; thus “to be bound” seems awkward here. We most tentatively
propose reading rtq[ , here, a Gt-stem form from the root *rq mean-
ing “to leap up” (attested in Ugaritic, cf. 1.2 IV 13, 15, 20, 23), or
perhaps rtq[d, a similar form from *rqd, “to skip, dance,” known also
in Ugaritic (mrqdm, either a musical instrument accompanying dance
or dancers, cf. 1.19 IV 27; 1.108.4–5) and from BH and Akkadian (cf.
HALOT 1288; CAD R 166–67). The image of mountains leaping or
dancing during a thunderstorm theophany is found in Ps 29:6: “He
makes Lebanon skip/dance ( yarqîd ) like a calf ” (see also Ps 114:4, 6).
This imagery would be perfectly at home in our passage. The primary
problem is identifying the grammatical form of the word in such a case.
The attested Gt-stem suffix forms in Ugaritic all have a prosthetic aleph
(UG 528–29), so we would expect irtq here in that case. The infinitive
form of the Gt is not certainly attested, and perhaps our form could be
such. However, this remains problematic, so the reconstruction must
remain very tentative indeed.
The reading of the final line of this unit, line 34b–35a, seems secure.
The expression bmt ’a[r ] t n, “the high places of the ea[rth] tottered,”
may be compared with Ps 99:1b, as part of a theophany, “the earth
quakes” (tānû hā’āre ). BH *nw seems to be a biform of Ugaritic and
Modern South Arabian *n (TO 1.166 n. b; Leslau 409; see also Rends-
burg 1987:627). The Ugaritic verb *n describes the trembling of feet
in fear (1.3 III 30; 1.4 II 17; see also 1.82.9; DUL 653).
In lines 34–35, Ugaritic bmt ’a[r ] is a construct phrase. The first
word is a feminine plural noun that has more than one meaning. The
cat 1.4 vii 677
2002:108 n. 82). In this case, the image of divine treading on the heights
was extended in its application. In his discussion of the biblical texts,
Crenshaw (1972:52) regarded the use of this language as metaphorical,
except in the case of Hab 3:15. At the same time, metaphorical lan-
guage is rooted in religious experience, and given the earlier attestation
in Ugaritic and in the later metaphorical uses in the Bible, it may be
asked whether Israelite religious tradition in-between possessed a full-
blown mythic tradition of Yahweh as the storm-god on the heights or
“high-places.” The question of the relationship between these poetic
contexts in the Bible and the so-called cultic “high places” (bāmôt) lies
beyond this discussion (for bibliography and discussion, see Emerton
1997). Based on the earlier Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic references, it
would appear that mountain heights as the site of storm-theophany
served to designate cultic installations, much as the “holy mountain”
(see above p. 58) as a conceptual designation for sanctuaries. One might
speculate that the criticism of the installations designated by this word
in the Deuteronomistic History may reflect competition between local
bāmôt and the national shrine in Jerusalem.
Lines 35b–37a describe the reaction of Baal’s enemies to his thun-
derous manifestation: they take to the woods and the mountainsides.
Yahweh’s enemies likewise hide in the rocks before his theophanous
appearance (Isa 2:10, 19; Rev 6:15–16). The fleeing foes of Baal are
here called ’ib (cognate with BH ’ôyēb, “enemy” but patterned like gēr
and the abstract ’êbâ, “emnity”; cf. Ezek 35:5) and šn’u (probably the
G-stem active ptcp., cognate with BH *śn’; cf. BDB 971, #3; Ringgren,
TDOT 214); the latter term may carry a legal nuance designating
those in league with others against someone, not simply an emotional
expression (see Szubin 1995). These figures are not explicitly specified
as to whether they are human or divine. Ps 104:7–9 names the cosmic
waters as the one who flees at the sound of Yahweh’s thunder. Yet the
topographical features mentioned in lines 35b–37a and the overall
context suggest human rather than divine foes.
Baal responds to the flight of his enemies by lines 37b–39 with an
ironic, taunting question to them: why are you trembling? There can
be little doubt about the tone in which the question is proffered. The
image of the god taunting his enemies is also found in Israel, particu-
larly in Ps 2:1–6, esp. v. 4: “The one who dwells in heaven laughs,
the Lord mocks them.” Cross (1998:54–55, n. 7) has proposed an
alternative interpretation of these lines, suggesting that lm is not the
interrogative, “Why?” but rather the emphatic l with and enclitic -m. He
cat 1.4 vii 679
would thus read, “You, O enemies of Hadd, shall indeed tremble.” This
too is plausible and fits the tone of Baal’s response quite well. One of
the terms for the enemies is different from those in lines 35–36. It is n q,
probably a participle in construct, “those who wield a weapon” (cf. BH
nōšĕqê qešet, “those who wield a bow” in 1 Chr 12:2; 2 Chr 17:17). Baal
is referred to in this bicolon with an unusual parallel pair, hd{t}//dmrn.
The first seems to be a scribal error for hd, a name of Baal that usually
appears as the “B-word” parallel to the “A-word” b l. The title dmrn,
“the Powerful One,” is quite rare, only attested otherwise in a somewhat
unclear context, apparently in parallelism with Baal (1.92.30–31; cf. 7;
see Dijkstra 1994:121). The root appears without coalescence of * >
*d in two PNs, mrb‘l, “Baal is powerful” (4.75 II 5; 4.731.1; cf. 4.261.8)
and mrd, “Hadd is powerful” (4.682.10; 4.775.3) as well as in the PN
mrn (4.423.1), spelled with final -n, comparable to the form of Baal’s
title, dmrn. As first observed by Cassuto (BOS 2.188–92), this Ugaritic
word almost certainly underlies the title, Demarous, given to Zeus (the
Greek name used for Baal-Hadd), in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History
(PE 1.10.18–19; Attridge and Oden 1981:54–55; see the discussion in
SPUMB 166–67. The verb form mr, indicates that the connotation of
the strength in this title focuses on strength for protection, more than
for combat as such. Soldiers in 1.3 II 13–15 are called mr//mhrm,
perhaps suggesting a defensive function for these battalions (see the
Commentary above on pp. 157–58). Other etymologies suggested
for dmrn (surveyed by Wyatt 1992b:411–12) are unconvincing.
Lines 40–41 are difficult and have produced a great deal of contro-
versy. Several scholars have interpreted them as a continuation of Baal’s
speech in lines 38–39 (some add line 42, thus producing a speech of
Baal from line 38 to 52; so Aistleitner 45; CML1 101; Thespis 197–98;
CML2 65; MLC 209; MLR 90; Pardee 1997a:263). But the third-person
references to Baal in these lines suggest that the poet is reverting back
to narrative action here (so TO 1.218; Coogan 1978:105; Dietrich and
Loretz 1997:1170; ANET 135; Gordon 1977:100; de Moor 1987:64;
Wyatt 1998:110–11). The second major interpretational issue centers
on the question of how the words should be divided into cola. Several
authors have construed them as a bicolon: n b l qdm ydh/kt¿ arz bymnh,
with a translation like “The eye of Baal directs/precedes his hand, As
the cedar shakes in his right hand” (e.g., TO 1.218; ANET 135; Gor-
don 1977:100; MLC 209; Pardee 1997a:263; Xella 1982:119). There
is a grammatical problem with this view: ’arz is masculine but the
verb t¿ is feminine (*¿ y, “to shake, move”; see DUL 317; cf. Pardee
680 cat 1.4 vii
excavated at Ras Shamra: the storm-god with a mace raised in his left
hand and in his right hand a spear, described by Cornelius (1994:172,
pl. 45, BM 5; see also Amiet 1992:81, figure 158; cf. Amiet 1992:78,
figure 142): “with the sharp end pointing down, the top of the shaft
spreads out into a plant at the top.” The North Palace at Ras ibn Hani
has yielded a similar seal impression (Bounni and Lagarce 1998: figure
91, 6; see also figures 103–104). Late Bronze Age Emar iconography
of the “Syrian Baal” holding his weapon varies from being upraised
(as in this passage of the Baal Cycle) or simply being held with the
point upwards (see especially F13 in Beyer 2001:303–5). Hehn (1913:86)
discusses a lapis lazuli statue of Adad, with lightning in his right hand
and at his feet two dragon-like winged monsters.15
A Ugaritic text also explicitly refers to this spear of lightning, which
is clearly distinct from Baal’s md(m), “weapons” (1.2 IV 11, 15, 18,
23; 1.6 V 3)16 or ktp, “mace” (1.6 V 2) which appear in other stories
of conflict17 (see UBC 1.98, 180, 347–48). CAT 1.101.4 appears to
call Baal’s weapon ‘ brq, “a tree (or perhaps less literally, a spear) of
lightning” (CMHE 148; see also Pardee 1988a:120–25, 135–39; Irwin
1983:53–58; Weinfeld 1983:139 n. 94; Lambert 1985b:441–42). The
Egyptian magical text, Papyrus Leiden I 343 + I 345, presents a version
of the West Semitic conflict myth pertinent to our passage (cited in
Borghouts 1978:18–19, #23; see also ANET 249; Massart 1954:65):
The raging of Seth is against the ‘ak u-demon; the grudging (h n n) of
Ba‘al is against you! The raging of the thunder-storm—while it thirsts
after the water in heaven—is against you! . . . Then you will taste the
things the Sea tasted through his hand. Then the [lion] will make his
approach [to you (?)]. Ba‘al will hit you with the pine-tree (‘š )18 that is
in his hand. He will treat you again with the pinewood (‘š ) spears that
are in his hand!
15
Reference courtesy of T. N. D. Mettinger.
16
For the possible meteorological background of md(m) in this passage, see UBC
1.330, 338–41.
17
For Egyptian evidence for West Semitic ktp as a weapon (e.g., Papyrus Leiden
I 343, obverse II, lines 2–4), see O’Callaghan 1952, Hoch 1994:337–38 and UBC
1.360 n. 255. This word for weapon is attested in western peripheral Akkadian katapu
at Emar (clearest in 44.14, 17, 18) and at Mari (A.3992.20; Durand 2002:114, 117
with further references). According to CAD K:30–3l, the word elsewhere refers to a
container or the like (see Emar 45.7, 9, 11, said to be of bronze in lines 7 and 9;
46.1–8; 47.1’–5’, 7’, 10’).
18
Although Egyptian š has been traditionally identified as “cedar,” Nibbi 1996:42–44
has argued strenuously that it must mean pine instead.
682 cat 1.4 vii
It thus seems likely that the tricolon in lines 40–41 is a verbal represen-
tation of the common iconographic motif of the storm god wielding
his cedar/pine spear that represents the lightning. This depiction con-
stitutes the conclusion of Baal’s great theophany, and is the climactic
image of Baal in his full power that the poet wishes to leave with the
audience.
A few authors have given a very different interpretation of the final
section of the theophany (lines 35–41). They suggest that this section tells
of an attack on Baal’s land by his enemies, in which they capture the
forests and the mountains, and Baal appears powerless to stop them (see
UL 36; MLD 63; de Moor 1987:63–64; Gordon 1977:100). This seems
extremely unlikely, as it ignores the larger context of the theophany
motif, in which flight of enemies is a significant and common element.
Furthermore, it ignores the close relationship between the description
of Baal holding his cedar spear and the iconographic depiction of this
motif, which is certainly intended to portray the triumphant Baal, not
a Baal who is losing his lands to the enemy.
Line 42 appears to act as a summation of the entire story of the
construction of Baal’s palace: “So Baal sat enthroned in his palace,”
or “So Baal returned to his palace.” Both renderings are possible. The
first assumes that y b here derives from the root *y b, while the second
relates it to * wb. The question might be raised as to whether *y b l-
can mean, “to be enthroned in.” While the preposition b- is often used
for enthronement (e.g., CAT 1.101.1–4; 1.108.3–4; Ps 2:4; see Pardee
1975:352, 353; 1976:246), both Ugaritic and biblical texts show that
l- was also a possible preposition to use for that meaning (1.6 I 58; Ps
9:5). 1.6 I 57–61 represents another example of the ambiguity of the
verb-preposition combination. In this passage Athtar ascends Mount
Sapan to see if he can measure up to Baal as king. Although he could
“turn to” to the throne, it seems much more likely that Athtar “sits
on” (*y b l-; so DUL 995) the throne, since we are told that his feet do
not reach the footstool and his head does not reach the head-rest. In
1.6 V 5–6, as in our passage, the context is amenable to either inter-
pretation. Elsewhere, context might be viewed as favoring * wb l-, for
example, in 1.10 III 13–14 (UNP 185) and 1.16 VI 22 (CMHE 94
n. 14).19 In 1.10 III 13–14, Baal seems to be returning to a throne after
being away from his house. In 1.16 V 22, the context is slightly more
19
Note also lammārôm šûbâ in Ps 7:8.
cat 1.4 vii 683
ambiguous, yet here Kirta arguably returns to his throne after having
been ill. However one translates the line, it is still best to see it as the
concluding statement of the story of the building of Baal’s palace. The
word bkm can best be understood as b + k(n) +m, “In this way, thus.” It
emphasizes the summary nature of the sentence, making it clear that
line 42 is not describing a sequential event that follows Baal’s hefting
of his spear, but rather is drawing the story to its end. It might be
compared to the final sentence of the story of Solomon’s succession
to the throne in 1 Kgs 2:46: “So the kingdom was established in the
hand of Solomon.”20
20
A very different proposal for understanding line 42 has been made by Watson
(1992b:365), who suggests that line 42 serves “to introduce an interior monologue” for
Baal’s speech in the following section.
684 cat 1.4 vii
and sun were benevolent and allowed for the people to grow food
and prosper. Sometimes the rains would fail, and this would result in
lost crops and deprivation. This was part of their everyday existence.
It was also natural for them to see this as a struggle between the god
of fertility and the god of sterility. The theologians of Ugarit insisted,
not surprisingly, that even though death might periodically achieve the
upper hand, in the long run, Baal and life would be stronger than Mot
and death. Thus the story of Baal and Mot proceeds naturally from the
experience of the community and represents the notion that life should
seek to overcome death, even if that turns out to be impossible. The
people of Ugarit would expect Baal to challenge Mot as part of his
character and his divine role in the universe. That he might temporarily
lose does not indicate that he acted inappropriately. It is merely part
of the easily observable battle between the two gods.
The speech begins in line 43 without any introduction. This is
unusual, but not unattested. In cases where the speaker has been the
subject of the narrative, the standard speech opening formulae may be
omitted (cf. 1.2 I 11–14, 40–41; 1.6 I 4–8; 1.17 I 15–18; 1.19 II 12–15,
19–22). The opening bicolon (43–44) has been variously interpreted,
primarily because of the ambiguity of the syntax. The first issue cen-
ters on whether the sentence here is a statement or a question. Most
translators take it as a question (cf. TO 1.218; Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1170; CML1 101; CML2 65; de Moor 1987:64; MLC 210; Pardee
1997a:263; Wyatt 1998:111), but several see it as a declarative sentence
(Coogan 1978:105; Thespis 198; ANET 135; Gordon 1977:100–01;
MLD 63; DW 36). While the syntax is ambiguous, it seems likely that
the bicolon is to be understood as a question. Of those who render it
as a statement, only Gordon and Margalit (MLD) avoid a significant
problem. The others render the bicolon along the following lines:
“Neither king nor non-king shall establish the earth as a dominion.”
The significant problem is that there is no negative particle here to set
up the construction, “neither . . . nor.” The particle u is clearly cognate
with BH ô, “or,” and its double use, as in line 43, means “either . . . or,”
or “both . . . and,” or even, “whether . . . or” (see 1.23.63–64; 1.40.19–22;
see further the apparent multiple attestations of ’u in ’ulp in 1.40). It is
not attested with the meaning “neither . . . nor.” Instead, that rendering
would require a negative particle with the verb. Gordon and Margalit
both avoid this problem, but in doing so, they incur unlikely interpreta-
tions of the surrounding context.
cat 1.4 vii 685
The two nouns of line 43 are easily understood as mlk, “king” and
bl mlk “non-king.” The use of the negative bl on a noun is also attested
in bl mt, “non-death,” which is parallel to ym, “life” in 1.17 VI 28–29.
The exact referents of these two words will be discussed below. They
constitute the compound subject of the verb yštkn in line 44. That verb
is generally understood in the sense “to establish,” although there is
uncertainty about its etymology. One could view the form as a Ct-stem
verb from *kwn “to be” (cf. the C-stem form in 1.16 V 27), meaning,
“to create, or establish for oneself.” Or, it could be a Gt-stem derived
from *škn, which would likely have a very similar meaning, i.e., “to set
up for oneself ” (cf. DUL 815).
The next ambiguity concerns the relationship between the words
ar and drkt in line 44. Are they a construct chain functioning as the
direct object of the verb, “the land of dominion” (so CML2 65; de Moor
1987:64; MLC 210; Pardee 1997a:263)? Or, is drkt the direct object (cf.
BH derek; see 1.2 IV 10 discussed in UBC 1.128 n. 22), while ar is
an indirect object, “shall establish dominion on the earth” or the like?
The second proposal appears the more likely; the proposed construct
“the land of dominion” appears to be quite awkward, with no parallels
attested for the idea of “establishing a land.” On the other hand, to
establish dominion in/on the earth seems to make for a more logical
clause (so CML1 101; LC 2 52; Wyatt 1998:111; Baal 145).
Based on these grammatical considerations, it seems best to render
lines 43–44: “Shall a king or a non-king establish dominion in the
earth?” However, the precise identity of the figures is in question:
exactly who are the king and non-king of the sentence, and what does
this question mean within the context of Baal’s speech? Most transla-
tors see this question as a general, programmatic, rhetorical challenge
to anyone who would try to usurp Baal’s dominion over the earth.
Many render “non-king” as “commoner,” so that the question may
be translated, “Can any (other) king or commoner establish dominion
on the earth?” or the like (see CML2 65; Smith, UNP 137). The obvi-
ous answer it, “Of course not!” This understanding of the question
is plausible. We, however, propose an alternative, which suggests that
the question refers specifically to the primary issue of the story that
is being introduced here. We would first note that the term ar is a
common name for the netherworld, Mot’s realm. It is used twice in 1.4
VIII 8 and 9 very clearly as the designation for Mot’s land. We also
note that Baal is now thoroughly established as king of heaven and
686 cat 1.4 vii
earth, but has not been recognized by Mot, who sits on his throne in
the netherworld as a rival. It may be that this question deals explicitly
with the issue of rule over the netherworld: “Shall a king (i.e., Baal)
or a non-king (i.e., Mot, as Baal views him) establish dominion in (i.e.,
over) the netherworld?” If this is the correct understanding of the
passage, then it specifically introduces the theme of the story, and it
flows directly into the next sentence (lines 45–47) where Baal decides to
send messengers to Mot demanding his obeisance. Certainty about the
meaning of the question cannot be reached, but it seems more likely
that the question has a specific rather than general meaning here at
the beginning of the new episode.
To determine the answer to his question, Baal decides to send a
message to Mot to demand his obeisance. He expresses his intention
to do so in lines 45–49a. The first bicolon, lines 45–47a, involves Baal’s
means of communicating. He will send a dll// dd to Mot. Neither word
appears elsewhere in this type of context. The second word, dd, is
readily identified as a word for “messenger.” It appears to be related
to t‘dt, “legation,” used of Yamm’s messengers in 1.2 I 22, 26, 28, 30
(see also Greenfield 1971:176; UBC 1.282, esp. n. 103), and which
Ginsberg (1958:62*) and Ross (1970:4–6) both relate to ‘ddn, in KAI
202:12. It may also be cognate with the damaged verb form yt(?) dd in
1.4 III 11, which apparently has a meaning related to speaking. Becking
(1986) understands šlmy h‘d on a Persian period seal as a PN plus the
epithet “the messenger,” based on ‘dd in this passage (for other first
millennium WS PNs with *‘dd see WSS 520).
If this understanding of ‘dd is correct, then dll is presumably also a
term for a messenger or delegation. The Akkadian verb dalālu means, “to
proclaim, glorify” (CAD D:46–47) and thus provides a suitable cognate.
Caquot and Sznycer (TO 1.218 n. r) prefer quite plausibly “ambas-
sador,” “courtier” based on Arabic dallāl, which can mean “courtier”
(see DUL 270). Albright (1934:130 n. 154) suggested translating it as
“guide,” based on Arabic dalīl, with that meaning. The problem with
this rendering is that there is no indication in the story that anyone
needs or uses a guide. The situation is complicated by the fact that
Ugaritic has a verb dll that means, “to oppress, subdue” (cf. its use in
1.40:21’, 30’, 38’; 1.103.46; cf. Pardee 2002:77–83, 135–40). On the
basis of this root, Ginsberg (ANET 135) took dll to be “tribute” and dd,
“dispatch” and interpreted the bicolon to be a refusal of Baal to send
tribute to Mot. But the notion that the king of the gods of heaven and
earth needs to send tribute to the god of the netherworld is not clearly
cat 1.4 vii 687
21
Løkkegaard 1953:229; V. Sasson 1982: 204–05; but see the caveats in Held
1965a:278–79 n. 31; P. D. Miller 1970b:160–61; cf. Rainey 1973b:140.
22
See Held 1965a:278–79 n. 31; Miller 1970b:160–61; Rainey 1973b:140; V. Sasson
1982:204–5.
23
For example, Løkkegaard 1953:229; Rainey 1973b:140; Pardee 1997a:263; Xella
1997:436 n. 5.
688 cat 1.4 vii
24
J. J. M. Roberts also notes some data in the Mesopotamian record: Ilum-qurad, “Il
is a warrior” (see CMHE 13–14; Huffmon 1965:15), but this name may be rendered
“The god is a warrior.” Attempts to draw the martial evidence for Ilaba (dA.MAL)
into the discussion (so Roberts 1972:95–96) suffers from the fact that this deity may
not be identified with El, but with ’il’ib (Lambert 1981). As a result, the East Semitic
evidence for El as a warrior is also slim. Roberts (1972:95–96 n. 233) observes: “The
Old Akkadian Il is conspicuously lacking in any of the warlike traits . . .”.
cat 1.4 vii 689
odd that it should make its appearance in this context, where El’s virility
plays no role in the story. We cannot, however, entirely reject Vaughn’s
proposal on this point, since the epithet ¿zr is also used of the elderly
Danil in the Aqhat Epic (e.g., 1.17 I 17–18, 35, 37, II 29 etc.). Fourth,
an appeal to Philo of Byblos’ description of Kronos as a fighter (PE
1.10.29; Attridge and Oden 1981:54–55) is misplaced. In this context
Philo describes conflict in royal succession, not a particular martial
capacity of any of the figures mentioned. (Even more speculative is the
view of Wyatt 1992b:411, who, based on the identification of El with
Kronos and Ouranos [!], with the latter’s battle, suggests that El and
Yamm were combatants at one time). Fifth, the syntactical argument
hardly resolves the issue in favor of Vaughn’s view, since “the beloved
of El, the Hero” ( ydd ’il ¿zr) is exceptional according to all of Vaughn’s
syntactical categories, even if ¿zr is related to El. Vaughn marshals no
other cases of “construct chain epithet” (CE) + “epithet name” (EN)
that could support his view either. Given the anomaly (no matter how
one takes the referent of ¿zr), the syntactical analysis does not solve
the issue. Instead, the parallelism of the bicolon suggests that Mot is
the ¿zr, not El: bn ’ilm//ydd ’il and mt//¿zr. Given these points, there
is no reason to depart from the older view that ¿zr in this context is
Mot’s title.
The bicolon in lines 47b–49a has been taken as a shift in the nar-
rative subject to Mot, here also called ydd, “the beloved.” In this view,
Mot is said to be speaking “in his soul” (npš ), a word that can refer to
a person (4.338.1–2), his throat or appetite, all meanings applicable
to Mot (Pope 1978a; cf. Akkadian napištu, BH nepeš ). Ginsberg (ANET
135), Gaster (Thespis 197–98) and Pope (1978a:25–27) understood the
verb-prepositional phrase yqr’a . . . bnpšh as Mot speaking to himself. This
view seemed suggested by the similar expression, *wysrnn ggnh, in 1.16
VI 26 (cf. *’mr blb in Ps 14:1 = Ps 53:1; Isa 14:13; cf. Ps 36:1; etc.).
This Ugaritic passage describes the speech of Yassib, Kirta’s son, as he
speaks to himself about rebelling against his father. Pardee (1997a:263,
and n. 193) offers what is perhaps the most appealing translation fol-
lowing this line of interpretation: “(For) Môtu is always proclaiming,
The beloved one (of ’Ilu) is always claiming: I am the only one . . .”.
Although this approach to qr’a . . . bnpšh and ystrn gngn, is attractive, it
does not account for the volitive form of yqr’a (cf. Sivan 1997:104). This
form would seem to indicate that this is a purpose clause dependent on
the preceding bicolon (see Introduction, p. 30). Comparable syntax also
with a volitive form occurs in 1.6 V 19–20: tn ’a d b’a k ’isp’a, “Give up
690 cat 1.4 vii
one of your brothers that I may eat.” 1.4 VIII 14b–20a likewise shows
the syntax of imperative (n¿r) plus purpose clause expressed by ’al +
*yqtl volitive ( y‘dbkm). If correct, this observation rules out the inter-
pretation of Mot as the subject of this sentence. Instead, the bicolon
is not a statement about Mot’s own intention to invite Baal into his
throat or an introduction to lines 49–52 as a self-description of Mot,
but a purpose clause concerning the mission of the envoy. The poet is
providing an “interior monologue” of Baal in which he formulates his
plan (cf. Watson 1992b:365).
The terms, npš//gngn, in lines 48–49 evoke Mot’s well-known capacity
as a mass consumer (see 1.6 II 2–3). All who come into contact with the
god of Death risk the threat of descent into his throat (npš ), parallel here
to gngn. On the basis of context, Ginsberg rendered “soul”//“heart”
(ANET 135).25 The parallelism works well with the proposed Arabic cog-
nates, janan/janjan/jinjin, “interior, breast, chest” (see Pope 1978a:26 =
1994:146; DUL 303). Others, including Loewenstamm (1966:86; CS
230) and Renfroe (1992:105), have focused instead on BH gargĕrōtêkā
(Prov 3:22) and gārôn (Isa 58:1) for the derivation. The context of the
latter passage, with the verb *qr’ as in Baal’s speech here, adds appeal
to this proposal. Renfroe (1992:105) also compared Akkadian gangurītu
( gaggurītu; cf. CAD G:9, “part of the body of an animal . . . possibly
referring to the gullet”). For Renfroe, the variation in the Akkadian
forms provides an indication of Ugaritic gngn having assimilated r >
n and the Hebrew form gargar having assimilated n > r. Renfroe sees
these words as unrelated to the proposed Arabic cognates. Yet another
approach favored by a few scholars is to relate gngn to Arabic jinn, janan,
“demon, spirit” (for the proponents, see TO 1.218 n. u; SPUMB 169–70;
MLD 70; cf. this view of ggn- in 1.16 VI 26 used with the same verb,
in Greenstein, UNP 40, 47 n. 163; cf. CS 231). Despite the apparently
similar context in 1.16 VI 26 (see further below), this etymology seems
arguably weak, in lacking the reduplication that the other proposals
show. The reference in these lines to Mot’s throat and insides perhaps
anticipates the later instructions to his messengers that they remain
at a distance from Mot lest he crush them like a lamb in his mouth
( ph)//gullet (qnh) (1.4 VIII 16–20a).
25
In his earlier treatment (KU (41), Ginsberg cited Akkadian gegunu, “grave.” However,
the word is listed as gegu(n)nû in AHw 284 as “Hoch-tempel” and in CAD G:67–670 as
gigunû as “a sacred building erected on terraces, also poetic designation of the temple
tower.” Both dictionaries further regard it as a Sumerian loanword into Akkadian.
cat 1.4 vii 691
There has also been controversy over the verb in the second line
of the bicolon (line 48). Many take ystrn as a Gt form from *wsr, “to
instruct,” and note the possibly similar clause in CAT 1.16 VI 26, ywsrnn
ggnh, which describes Kirta’s son as he ponders to himself whether to
rebel against his father. In this passage there is no doubt that the verb
derives from *wsr, and the clause can be translated, “his gullet instructed
him.” However, as noted by de Moor, ystrn should not derive from *wsr,
since a Gt of *wsr should be *yittasiru and there would no morphologi-
cal explanation for the metathesis of the s and t in our form (SPUMB
169, followed by CS 230). One might argue that reasons of euphony
played a role in this metathesis. Despite the somewhat ad hoc basis for
the explanation of the metathesis, and especially in view of the similarity
of the line with 1.16 VI 26, one might continue to prefer this view (see
Watson 1987:310). However, other interpretations have been offered.
Preferring *str, “to hide,” de Moor (SPUMB 164) translates: “to hide
me in his tunnel.” Gibson (CML2 65–66) renders similarly: “(That) the
Beloved hide him within himself.” Such translations work poorly with
the parallel *qr’ bnpš, and their sense is dubious. Equally problematic
in terms of context is the proposal *srr, “to be rebellious” (TO 1.218
n. t; for other problems with this and other less probable proposals, see
SPUMB 169–70). The same root in Arabic, however, shows meanings
closer to the context here. DUL (770) cites Arabic sarra, tasarra (Lane
1337–38), “to entrust someone with a secret, to inform someone con-
fidentially,” and suggests the meanings, “to instruct oneself, meditate.”
Tropper (UG 523, 677) favors this etymology (“anvertraue” [“entrust”]).
DUL’s rendering, apparently influenced by the scholarly discussion about
*wsr, basically gives the meaning of the latter to *srr. But such a transla-
tion is not very close to the Arabic cognate. The aspect of secrecy or
confidentiality of the Arabic could provide an interesting counterpoint
to the verb of the first line, yqr a, “to proclaim.” It is possible that the
Ugaritic form does not preserve the connotation of secrecy, but if it
does, then the two lines may be contrastive, “that he may proclaim to
Mot into his throat, that he may confidentially inform the Beloved in
his gullet.” We have chosen to simply use “inform” in the translation,
making no further assertion about the nuance.
Like the preceding bicolon, the tricolon in lines 49b–52a belongs to
Baal’s speech and not to Mot. Here in his ponderings Baal states the
rationale for his planned actions, specifically that he alone is the ruler of
heaven and earth, in charge of both gods and humanity, and provider of
fertility for the earth. The objects of the verbs in the three lines of the
692 cat 1.4 vii
tricolon shift in stairstep fashion. Line 1 talks about the gods, line two,
both gods and humans, and line three, humans. The opening phrase
establishes the syntax that governs all three lines: ’a dy d-, “I alone am
he who . . .” or better, “It is I alone who . . .” (Sivan 1997:218–9 explains
the clause as a cleft sentence). The first word is the number “one” plus
-y, the first person pronominal suffix. The sense, “alone,” or “the only
one,” accepted generally by commentators (see Sivan 1997:14), points
to Baal’s singular status with respect to the pantheon. A claim of sin-
gular action is made similarly by Biridiya of Megiddo (Magidda) who
declares: “Only I: ia8- u-du-un-ni (by myself ) furnish corvée workers”
(EA 365:24–25; Moran 1992:363). It is possible that a similar claim
of divine status is involved in the Shema of Deut 6:4, as suggested by
Loretz (2002a:83). There ’e ād is traditionally taken to refer to God as
“one,” but it is possible that it was a statement of Israel’s attachment
to its god alone: “Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone.” Baal’s claim to
rulership over the gods is also echoed in the proclamation of Yahweh’s
kingship over the gods in Ps 95:3. Marduk’s names include Lugaldim-
merankia, meaning “king of the gods of heaven and earth” in Enuma
Elish VI:28, 139 (Foster 2005:470, 474; cf. ANET 68–69, esp. n. 91).
The second line of the tricolon (lines 50b–51a) describes an action
of Baal on behalf of both “gods and humans.” The phrase “gods and
humans” is attested throughout the Near East as the description of all
the sentient beings in the universe. For example, Telepinu’s absence
from the land issues in the hunger of “humans and gods” (Hoffner
1998:15). The same expression (in the order “gods and humans,”)
occurs twice in Jotham’s famous parable of the trees in Judges 9:8–15,
with reference to olive oil, which “honors gods and humans” (v. 9) and
to wine, which “makes gods and humans rejoice” (v. 13). The phrase,
“gods and humans,” indicates that divinities and humanity are gener-
ally considered incommensurate categories (see also Gen 32:29). The
common Semitic term for “god,” represented already in the oldest
Semitic languages, is l, (Akkadian ilu, Ugaritic ’il, BH ’ēl ). The most
likely etymology is *’y/wl, “to be strong” (with reservations, see EUT
16–21; Smith 2001a:6, 135). If this is correct, it reflects the widespread
notion that deities are by definition “strong,” i.e., stronger than human
beings. This difference is stated in the biblical corpus, in Hosea 11:9
when Yahweh reminds Hosea’s audience: “For I am god and not a
man” (kî ’ēl ’ānōkî wĕlō’-’îš; cf. Job 9:32).
The third line (lines 51b–52a) shifts specifically to Baal’s relationship
to humanity, referred to here as hmlt ’ar , “the masses of the earth” (see
cat 1.4 vii 693
Marduk, too, is one “who bestows abundance upon the gods” (CAD
:168; cf. Inanna’s title, “sustainer of multitudes” in the “Exaltation
of Inanna,” Hallo and van Dijk 1968:22–23, line 63). Yahweh, too, is
one “who satisfies” (hammaśbîa‘ ) with “good” (ha ôb) (Ps 103:5; cf. *śb‘
predicated of the deity also in Ps 145:16, Job 38:27 and Isa 58:11). The
latter way of interpreting the verbs seems substantially more likely than
the former. It is possible, however, that ymr’u involves “Janus parallelism,”
conveying a double-entendre of “he commands” (in accordance with
the parallelism with “reigns” in the preceding line) and “he fattens”
(in keeping with the parallelism with “satis[fies]” in the following line).
Accordingly, in UNP 137, the word “order” was used in the translation
as an attempt to cover both possible meanings of the verb, following a
suggestion of S. B. Parker (personal communication). But English does
not have a word that adequately covers both meanings, so we have
reverted to the more likely and primary meaning, “to fatten” here.
The l- preceding ymr’u is understood as either asseverative l-, “truly,”
or an error for d-, “which,” found in both the preceding and following
lines. It seems preferable to avoid emendation when the text makes
sense as it is (see Albright 1934:130 n. 156; Ginsberg 1936:182; Seow
1989:133 n. 168).
If we are correct in reading the verbs in the second and third lines as
relating to “fattening” and “satisfying,” then this understanding virtually
eliminates the idea that Mot is the speaker of these lines. Neither phrase
suits the god of death, and he is certainly not the one who satisfies the
earth’s masses. This job description fits Baal very well.
for a new palace and his summoning of Gapn and Ugar to give them
instructions for taking a message to Kothar about his plan (on the
interpretation of 1.8, see above, pp. 369–77). Lines 5b–11a parallel VII
52b–57, and it is slightly possible that 1.8.11b–17 preserve parts of the
continuation of our passage in lines 58–60 and following, but after 11a
( rpt) there is no more overlap in the preserved texts.
The first two cola of this passage are clear. The first (lines 52b–53a)
introduces Baal’s speech to Gapn and Ugar, using a fairly rare speech-
opening formula (e.g., 1.6 III 22; 1.14 V 13; 1.15 IV 2; 1.17 V 15;
1.19 I 49, along with the close parallel of 1.8.5–7). The use of gm,
“aloud,” here may be intended to contrast the following speech with
Baal’s previous, silent musings (lines 43–52).
The speech itself opens (lines 53b–54a) with an imperative, n, “See!”
addressed to Gapn and Ugar. For the next two cola (lines 54b–56a),
see the discussion above (pp. 372–73) for the explanation of our
proposed translation. While before the placement of 1.8 into 1.3 VI,
scholars have commonly suggested that these lines refer to aspects of
Mot’s threatening appearances in the realm of Baal, it is now clear that
such interpretations must be abandoned. It seems most likely that the
two cola are made up of epithets of Gapn and Ugar, likely referring
to their divine mother. While the text of Line 54 reads b¿lmt, instead
of 1.8.7’s bn. ¿lmt, and could be read as “in darkness,” the new context
of 1.8 suggests much more strongly that the 1.8 reading is correct, and
that both contexts should be translated, “sons of the Lass.”
Even with the added context of 1.3 VI, we are still unable to make
any real sense out of lines 56b–57. These lines, along with perhaps line
58, can be partially reconstructed from 1.8.9–12, but the meaning of
these lines remains very obscure. Several scholars (ANET 135; CML2
135; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1171; de Moor 1987:65) have taken a
number of the words in these lines as references to birds. Thus ’ibr per-
haps means “pinions” (cf. BH ’ēber). As discussed above in the Textual
Notes, however, the reading in line 56 seems to be hbr and not ’ibr (as
opposed to 1.8.9, where ibr is found). It is not clear which of the two
readings is correct. Our reading, hbr, would presumably be related to
the verb that means, “to bow.” Unfortunately, the reading of the next
word, probably gnt, produces no obvious meaning that would illuminate
the sentence. Assuming that line 57 can be reconstructed on the basis
of 1.8.10, we have [ rrm. bl.] rpt, the second word of which is rendered
“flock” by these commentators, as in 1.18 IV 31, bl d iy[m], “the flock
of hawks” (cf. also bl k [r]t, “band of the Kotharat,” in 1.11.6). In
696 cat 1.4 vii
Bibliography
Text Editions: Virolleaud 1932:159–63, pls. XXVIII, XXIX (in the editio princeps, the
captions for the two photos of the obverse and reverse have been exchanged; thus
pl. XXIX, captioned as the obverse, is actually the reverse and pl. XXX is the
obverse); CTA 30–31, fig. 17, pls. IX, X; KTU 20–21; CAT 21–22.
Studies and Translations: Aistleitner 46; Albright 1934:130–32; Caquot and Sznycer,
TO 1.219–21; Clifford, CMCOT 79–81; Coogan 1978: 105–06; Dietrich and Loretz
1997:1171–73; Driver, CML1 102–3; Gaster, Thespis 199–200; Gibson, CML2
66–67; Ginsberg 1936:182–86, 1944, ANET 135, KU 41–44; Gordon, UL 37–38,
1977:101–2; Gray, LC 2 54–56; Held 1973; Jirku 54–55; Loewenstamm, CS 526–38;
Margalit, MLD 74–86; de Moor, SPUMB 177, 1987:66–69; Mullen 1980:76–77,
163–5; del Olmo Lete, MLC 211–12; MLR 90–92; Pardee 1997a:263–65; Pope
1964 = 1994:133–43; Pope 1978a = 1994:145–50; Smith, UNP 138–41; Wyatt
1998:112–14; Xella 1982:120–21.
1 ’idk.’al.ttn.pnm
‘m.¿r.tr¿zz
‘m.¿r. rmg
‘m.tlm.¿ r.’ar
5 š’a.¿r.‘l.ydm
lb.l r.r tm
wrd.bt p t
’ar .tspr.by
fidm.’ar
10 idk.’al.ttn
pnm.tk.qrth
hmry.mk.ks’u
bth. .’ar
n lth.wn¿r
15 ‘nn.’ilm.’al
tqrb.lbn.’ilm
mt.’al.y‘dbkm
k’imr.bph
kll’i.b brn
20 qnh.t t’an
nrt.’ilm.špš
rrt.l’a
698 cat 1.4 viii
šmm.byd.md
d.’i[ ]m.mt.b’a
25 lp.šd.rbt.k
mn.lp‘Â.mt
hbr.wql
tšt wy.wk
bd.hwt.∫wrgm
30 lbn{∂b}’ilm.mt
ny.4 lydd
’il.¿zr.t m
’al’iyn.b‘l
[ √]t.’al’iy.q
35 [ ]3bhtybnt
[ ]
[ «] ly
[ ]’å y
[ ]’a y
40 [ ]xy
[ ]xb
[ 3]. t
[ ]xt
[ ]x.’ilm
45 [ ]x’u.yd
[ ]x
[ ]w’ugr
—————
—————
—————
—————
[ ]
49 [ ]µš
[ ]y.nqmd.mlk.’ugrt
cat 1.4 viii 699
Textual Notes
Note: Damage on the left edge of this column, from lines 9 to 12,
looks ancient and could be another place where a finger damaged the
tablet while it was still wet.
Line 9. fidm.’ar The /r/ is damaged and thin, but still legible. The
lower left wedges and the larger right wedge are easily visible.
Line 24. d.’i[ ]m The /d/ has four pairs of wedges, rather than
three. The word divider following it is horizontal, rather than the usual
vertical. The / i/ has four horizontal wedges. Close inspection of the
damage where an /l/should follow /’i/ shows that none of the letter
has survived.
Line 26. lp  The /n/ is virtually gone, but traces of the left wedge
(its lower left side and lower line) and the lower left tip of the middle
wedge are discernable.
Line 29. w
∫ rgm /w/ The two left wedges are preserved, but the middle
wedge that would assure the reading seems completely destroyed. Both
chipping and an encrustation cause the problem.
Line 31.7 lydd The lines of the left and right verticals of the /l/ are
preserved fairly well, but only the lower tip of the middle wedge is
visible. Most of the letter is filled with an encrustation.
700 cat 1.4 viii
Line 32. ’il.¿zr Note the unusually low placement of the /l/ in relation
to the /’i/. Encrustation has filled in much of the interior of /.¿zr/,
but the outlines of the wedges are generally quite clear.
Line 33. ’al’iyn.b l The /y/ has been filled to the edges with the
encrustation.
Line 34. [ ]t∑ . What we read as /t/ actually looks very much like a
/¿/. Even a close examination of the tablet did not dispel the impres-
sion that the oblique lines here were genuine wedges. However, the
context overwhelmingly argues for /t/.
Line 35. [ ]3bhtybnt Only the verticals of the first /b/ survive. The
horizontals have been completely broken away. There is no trace of
a word divider between /bhty/ and /bnt/. The /t/ at the end of the
line crosses the margin lines into column 7.
Line 37. ] ∑ly The only surviving fragment of the probable /l/ is the
lower part of a single long vertical. Context assures the reading.
Line 40. ]xy The /x/ is simply a large right horizontal. It could be
any of a number of letters.
Line 41. ]xb. /x/ could either be /k/ or /r/. Three wedges are pre-
served, looking like a /k/, but the letter could have had two additional
wedges to the left, which would make it an /r/.
Line 42. 3]. t The word divider, while largely effaced, is certainly
there.
Line 43. ]xt The only survival of /x/ is a right vertical, with no hint
of a horizontal below it. It could thus belong to / /, /l/, or /m/.
Line 44. ]x.’ilm The /x/ is only the deep interior of a horizontal
wedge, which gives no indication as to the letter to which it belongs.
It touches the upper left tip of the word divider.
cat 1.4 viii 701
Line 45. ]x’u.yd Again we have the right tip of a horizontal wedge
high on the line, with no additional information.
Line 46. ]x This /x/ is either /k/ or /r/. The three preserved wedges
look like a /k/, but the break makes it possible to suggest it is an /r/.
There is a vague dip to the left of the upper left wedge that might
suggest a trace of an additional wedge. If so, then /r/ is probably the
better reading. But visual inspection suggests that there is no certain
trace of a wedge in that area.
After line 47 there are remains of four horizontal lines, rather than
the two that have usually been observed. The two everyone sees are
the two middle lines. The upper additional line is less well preserved,
but is visible along the left half of the preserved area of the tablet, at
about the same distance above the second line as the latter is above the
third. Only a fragment of the fourth line is preserved, a little closer to
the third line than the third is to the second.
Line 49. Some two lines down from the horizontals, a single oblique
wedge is preserved, breaking into the margin line. Its stance is not
horizontal, and thus cannot a /t/, as CAT proposes. It seems most
likely to be the right wedge of a /š/.
1–4 ’idk.’al.ttn.pnm/
‘m.¿r.tr¿zz/
‘m.¿r. rmg/
‘m.tlm.¿ r.’ar
5–6 š’a.¿r.‘l.ydm/
lb.l r.r tm
7–9 wrd.bt p t/’ar .
tspr.by/rdm.’ar
10–12 ’idk.’al.ttn/pnm.
tk.qrth/hmry.
702 cat 1.4 viii
About 20–21 lines are missing, but a significant portion can be recon-
structed from 1.5 I 12–27. See the discussion below.
[t m.bn.’ilm.mt.]
[hwt.ydd.’il.¿zr.]
[pnpš.npš.lb’im.thw]
[hm.brlt.’an r.bym.]
[hm.brky.tkšd.r’umm.]
[‘n.k d.’aylt.]
[hm.’imt.’imt.npš.blt. mr.]
cat 1.4 viii 703
[p’imt.bkl’at.ydy.’il m.]
[hm.šb‘.ydty.b ‘.]
[hm.ks.ymsk.nhr.]
[kn. n.b‘l.‘m.’a y.]
[qr’an.hd.‘m.’aryy]
[wl mm.‘m.’a y.l m]
[wštm.‘m.’a y.yn]
[pnšt.b‘l. ‘n.’i ‘nk]
[ m k.]
[spr.’ilmlk.lmd.’atn.prln. ‘]y.nqmd.mlk.’ugrt
1–4 “Then you sha]ll head out ’iddaka ’al tatinā panīma
To Mount Tr¿zz, ‘imma ¿āri tr¿zz (?)
To Mount Thrmg, ‘imma ¿āri rmg (?)
The twin hills at Earth’s edge. ‘imma tillê-ma ¿a ra ’ar i
5–6 Lift the mountain on your hands, ša’ā ¿āra ‘alê yadêmi
The hill on top of your palms. alba lê- āri ra atêmi
7–9 And descend to the House of wa-ridā bêta up îti ’ar a
Servitude, the Netherworld;
Be counted among those who tusapparā bi-yāridī-ma ’ar i1
descend to the Netherworld.
10–12 Then you shall head ’iddaka ’al tatinā panīma
to his town, the Watery Place, tôka qarîti-hu hamriyi
12–14 Low, the throne where he sits, makku kissi’u ibti-hu
Phlegm, the land of his heritage. ā u ’ar u na lati-hu
14–17 But take care, divine servants: wa-n¿urā2 ‘anî-na ’ilêma
Do not get too close to Divine ’al tiqrabā lê-bini ’ili-ma môti
Mot,
1
Possible accusative. However, comparable BH idiom uses the construct phrase.
2
For the root (with discussion of the syllabic evidence), see Huehnergard 1987b:153.
On the issue of the vocalization, see above p. 538 n. 9.
704 cat 1.4 viii
Lines 38–48 are too broken to translate and another twenty or so lines
are missing. It may assumed that in this section, Baal completed his
message, Gapn and Ugar journeyed to Mot’s abode and delivered the
message, and Mot responded with a message of his own that concludes
in the first eight lines of 1.5 I. Since all of this could not fit easily into
the lacuna, it seems relatively certain that the multiple horizontal lines
3
For monoconsonantal p-, “mouth,” BH peh, Akkadian pû, etc., see DUL 657. Some
monoconsonantal nouns (as well as the relative pronoun d-), and some biconsonantal
nouns lacking a corresponding verbal root in Semitic languages (e.g., dm and ’ab), might
be traced back to a very early stratum of the Afro-Asiatic family. For Ugaritic p-, see
the cognates proposed by M. Cohen 1947:171, #380.
4
An energic form (so UG 446, 460) rather than a long form of the *yqtl would suit
the parallelism with the jussive in the first line. For the verb, see DUL 413.
5
UG 190 favors the plausible reconstruction nûratu (<*nuwrat-), but the admittedly
difficult syllabic evidence would suggest niratu compared to the BH base of nēr; see
Huehnergard 1987b:152.
6
For the syllabic evidence, see Huehnergard 1987b:183.
7
For the form, see UG 680.
8
As noted in Sivan 1997:121.
cat 1.4 viii 705
following line 47 are the scribe’s indication that he has left out the
formulaic description of the messengers’ journey, and in this case, prob-
ably the account of their delivery of the message. Most of the lacuna
apparently is taken up with Mot’s response, which is then repeated to
Baal by Gapn and Ugar in 1.5 I 12–35. We thus can reconstruct a
large part of the lacuna.
9
UG 192.
10
UG 559, 669.
11
The end of the speech provided without reconstruction in 1.5 I 26 suggests
imperative plus -a volitive ending plus 1 c. sg. suffix. Cf. UG 622.
706 cat 1.4 viii
Commentary
Among the four lines of this unit, the middle two lines show the great-
est parallelism. Especially with ‘imma in initial position, the fourth line
largely follows the middle two lines; there is also the notable sonant
parallelism of ¿a ra in the fourth line with ¿āri in the middle two lines.
The first line is standard for travel-opening formulas.
This bicolon exhibits one of the classic patterns of Ugaritic poetry. The
parallelism is more highly involved than the scanning indicates, since
it does not indicate the parallel prepositions, the sonant parallelism of
12
The vocalization for this name standard in Ugaritic studies has been ’ilimilku.
However, arguments have been made for ’ilimalku. For this discussion, see van Soldt
1991:21 n. 182, 28–29; UBC 1.3 n. 6. The evidence for *malku is admittedly not defini-
tive for a proper name. See the discussion below in the Commentary.
13
For the syllabic evidence for this name, see UG 182.
cat 1.4 viii 707
The two verbs are not precisely parallel, but their context expresses a
generally parallel sense. This is based on the objects that they govern,
which include the strikingly parallel ridā and yāridī-ma as well as ’ar ,
which ends both lines.
This is one version of a rather standard, but fluid, travel formula. The
bicolonic version here is also found in 1.3 VI 12–14 (cf. also 1.3 IV
37–39). A tricolonic version is found in 1.5 I 9–12, and a quadracolonic
version is attested in 1.5 II 13–15. In the latter case the parallel to our
first line acts as the second line and is closely parallel to the first line
of the quadracolon, while the parallel to our second line acts as the
fourth line there and is closely parallel to the third colon. Thus the
lack of parallelism in our short version may be the result of abridging
an originally longer formula.
These rather long lines show a classic pattern of syntactical and mor-
phological parallelism, especially marked by the elements, ka-, bi- and
-hu. In addition, it is arguable that the ends of ’immiri and abri show
sonant parallelism. Within the first line the suffix on the verb flows
sonantly into the following prepositional phrase: -kumā ka-’immiri.
See the discussion of this bicolon in 1.3 V 17–18 on pp. 345–49. The
surprising length of the second line is due to the addition of the word
mdd into the set of epithets, a word that does not appear in the other
two appearances of this passage (1.3 V 17–18 and 1.6 II 24–25. It thus
may be an error here. It is particularly suspicious since mdd is elsewhere
the epithet of Yamm, not Mot. Perhaps our poet got caught up with
the assonance of bi-yadi mêdadi.
This tricolon is rather standard as a formula (see 1.3 VI 17–20; for the
second and third lines, see also 1.3 IV 25–26). The difference of Mot’s
name does not add or detract much from the parallelism (unless one
were inclined to make a point of the sonant parallelism of this divine
name in the second line with ribbati in the first line, as both words
contain a bilabial followed by -ti ).
See 1.3 VI 21–23 for the same bicolon, except for the divine titles. The
parallelism is magnified in lines 29–32 by ’ili-ma//’ili, a plural form
parallel to a singular form of the same noun.
In both instances, the scanning by letters above does not express the
construct relationship (x of y) in the two lines, because the verb is
interposed between the two parts of the construct.
Introduction
This column continues Baal’s speech to his messengers that began in
VII 53. In lines 1–14 Baal gives them directions to Mot’s abode. He
then instructs them to do obeisance before Mot at a cautious distance
(lines 14–29), and finally provides them with his message to Mot (lines
29ff.). Unfortunately, the column is broken off after line 35, so that
between lines 36 and 49, only a few letters are extant at the ends of
the lines. After line 49, some twenty lines are completely lost. Lines
36–37 can be reconstructed from parallels, but the rest of the partially
preserved lines cannot. A set of four horizontal lines after line 47 sug-
gests another scribal abridgement; presumably the scribe has dropped
the account of the messengers’ journey to the Netherworld and their
delivery of the message. Thus most of the lacuna afterwards can be
710 cat 1.4 viii
parallel to the name šr¿zz in 1.107, a text dealing with Shapsh and
the curing of snake bites. However, the identification of the two seems
unlikely. The phonemes at the beginnings of the names are different,
although it is possible that the spelling of foreign names might vary
like that. More problematic, the character, šr¿zz, in 1.107 is clearly a
person who has been bitten by a snake, not a likely personification of
a mountain at the boundary of the netherworld. None of the proposals
seems compelling, and it is possible that the names are not specifically
related to any other terms.
There are two somewhat ambiguous words in line 4: tlm and ¿ r.
The first word is generally assumed to be related to BH tel, “mound,
hill” and is translated thusly (e.g., Aistleitner 46; TO 1.219; CMCOT 79;
Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1171; de Moor 1987:66; Pardee 1997a:263,
see esp. n. 195; Wyatt 1998:112). But Tsevat has suggested that the
word is cognate with Akkadian talīmu, which can mean “twin.” He
argues that this is an epithet of the two mountains just mentioned in
lines 2–3, “the twins,” and correlates this idea with Mount Mašu, the
twin peaks at the edge of the world in the Gilgamesh Epic (IX:37–41),
which also appear to mark the boundary between the upper lands
and the netherworld. Both of these etymologies appear plausible, and
whichever one is correct, the image developed in these lines is basi-
cally the same—two mountains (perhaps explicitly called “twins”) that
mark the entrance to the land below. The motif of twin-mountains
between which Shamash rises from below the earth is well attested in
Mesopotamian iconography (e.g., Frankfort 1939:pl. XVIIIa, k; XIXa;
cf. de Moor 1965:362 n. 67; cf. Lipiński 1971:49–50). The same image
may survive in Job 17:2 (see Pope 1973:128), where htlm, vocalized by
the Masoretes as hătūlîm, “mockers,” is perhaps better recognized as a
reference to the “mounds” that act as the threshold of the netherworld:
“The Mounds loom before me.”
The term ¿ r is generally understood to mean, “boundary, border,
edge” (e.g., TO 1.219; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1171; CML2 66; de
Moor 1987:66; MLD 75; Pardee 1997a:263, cf. n. 195) and to be
related to Arabic ¿a ara, “to cut, to separate” (cf. TO 1.219, n. b.). Pope
(in Smith 1998b:657), Clifford (CMCOT 79) and Coogan (1978:106)
saw a different nuance to the word, also based on the Arabic root ¿ r,
which can also mean, “to hinder, prevent, cut off.” They render the
word as, “to block the way, to stop up, to plug,” emphasizing a sense
of the mountains as an obstacle to entering the netherworld. Pope thus
describes it: “The mountains serve as the gates to Sheol frequently men-
cat 1.4 viii 713
tioned in the Bible, but since the entrance is downwards, the opening
of the gates is likely the lid or stopper of a container.” He also noted
bT Pes. 94a and Ta‘an. 10a, which compare the whole world to a pot
leading to the netherworld. This interpretation seems as plausible as
the first. Loewenstamm (CS 527, n. 8), followed by Wyatt (1998:112),
took ¿ r as an epithet of Mot, “ruler of the netherworld,” based on the
BH verb r II, “to rule” (cf. 1 Sam 9:17; Tsevat 1974:73). While this
proposal cannot be entirely rejected, the context of the passage seems
to fit better with a geographical term here rather than an epithet of
Mot. The first two proposals seem much more likely (as already noted
by Pardee 1980:281).
The connection between mountains at the edge of the earth and
the entrance into the netherworld is well attested in Mesopotamian
and Hebrew literature. Besides the twin-peaked Mount Mašu in the
Gilgamesh Epic (IX ii 1–4; see ANET 88), which marks the subter-
ranean route by which the sun traveled eastward during the night,
the Sumerians often referred to the netherworld specifically as KUR,
“mountain,” and early on, apparently viewed the mountains to the
north and east (which were foreign regions to the Sumerians) as the
location of the land of the dead (Katz 2003:102–12). In the Sumerian
poem Edina-Usagake the mother of the dying god Damu walks along
with him toward the netherworld, which is referred to as “the dark
mountain” (iv:1–9; Katz 2003:316). The name KUR continued to be
used of the netherworld in Mesopotamian literature, even during the
time when the netherworld was understood to be located below the
earth (Katz 2003:105). In Israelite tradition, Jonah 2:7 suggests that
the entrance to the netherworld is beneath the mountains (cf. MLD
76): “At the edges of the mountains (lĕqi bê hārîm) I descended to the
underworld (hā’āre ).” Those who connect the names of the mountains
in lines 2–3 to Anatolian or Hurrian backgrounds sometimes suggest
that the mountains of the passage must have been located in the north
(e.g., Thespis 197–98). However, the Mesopotamian tradition adduced
above from Gilgamesh, along with the clear indication in CAT 1.161
that Shapsh has a role in bringing the dead to the netherworld in
Ugaritic thought, suggests rather that at Ugarit these mountains were
more likely viewed as being located in the west.
Lines 5–6 describe the method by which the messengers are to
descend to the underworld from the mountains. The verb used in this
bicolon, š a, is most naturally identified as an imperative from *nš’, “to
lift.” The image that appears to be given here is of the messengers
714 cat 1.4 viii
bêt ha opšît in 2 Kgs 15:5, there is no reason to assume that the con-
notation of seclusion as such is the literal meaning of the word, or the
sense of the word in our passage.
Although we find the translation of Dietrich and Loretz uncompel-
ling, it does seem worthwhile to examine the meaning of p t within the
context of the social class upšu at Alalakh and p at Ugarit. Schloen
(2001:302–4) has shown that the class of people called upšu at Alalakh
were persons of low social status who were subject to forced labor and
military service to the government. They are distinguished from people
called in Hurrian e elena, who were apparently exempt from such service
(cf. Liverani 1975:146–53). The Ugaritic term p appears in 1.14 II 37
clearly denoting soldiers in active service to the king (as also 2.72.10).
It thus seems possible that the abstract form of the noun could mean,
“service, servitude.” Using this meaning for our phrase, the house of
servitude would then refer to the netherworld as a place of servitude
to the god of death. But as with the above plausible meanings, this
one too remains uncertain.
The use of the verb *yrd, “to go down, descend,” appears regularly in
contexts describing the descent into the netherworld. In CAT 1.114.22,
El, in an inebriated state, is compared to “one who descends to the
underworld” (kyrdm ’ar ); he is, to use a dynamic English equivalent,
“dead drunk.” In the funerary ritual text, 1.161.20–22, someone or
something is commanded to “go down into the netherworld ( ar rd), go
down into the netherworld and be low in the dust.” In 1.5 VI 24–25,
El, in his lamentation over the death of Baal, states (see Tromp 1969:32,
esp. n. 58; Anderson 1991:63–65): “After Baal I shall descend to the
netherworld” ( ard b ar ). It is also commonly used in BH (see, e.g., Pss
22:30; 30:10; 88:5; Job 7:9) and Akkadian (e.g., Ishtar’s descent described
as a-na KUR.NU.GI ú-ri-du, “she descended to the netherworld,” in
Ishtar’s Descent, line 63; Borger 1963:II 90; cf. Foster 2005:501).
14
For later use of this imagery cf. Wisdom of Solomon 16:13; Ben Sira 51:9; Matt
16:18; see Lewis 1992; Tromp 1969:152–54.
718 cat 1.4 viii
the later usage, it does not mean that the earlier forms did not have a
watery context, which was lost over time. Held almost certainly objected
to a watery image here because he assumed that the West Semitic view
of the netherworld was basically identical to that in Mesopotamia,
where the land of the dead was always portrayed as dry and water-
less. Thus a name “Watery” for the city of the dead would seem to
make no sense. However, there are a number of indications in West
Semitic, especially biblical, literature that these cultures did not have
exactly the same view as in Mesopotamia. Several passages in the HB
closely connect the netherworld with water imagery (cf. Jon 2:3–6; Pss
69:2–3, 14–16; 88:7–8; see Tromp 1969:54–69). There is, in fact, no
reason to doubt that hmry is related to Arabic hamara and that it should
be rendered as “miry, watery, slimey” or the like. The -y suffix on the
word is presumably the -y place ending (Richardson 1978), or less likely
an old feminine ending also attested on the names of the goddesses
Pidray, Tallay and ’Arsay and elsewhere (see Layton 1990:241–45; also
CMHE 56 n. 45; Pope 1978a:30 n. 8).
The next bicolon, lines 12b–14, provides two additional descriptive
names of Mot’s city (mk and ), along with two formulaic phrases that
refer to Mot’s kingdom, ks u bth, “the throne where he sits” (lit. “of his
sitting”), parallel with ar n lth, “the land of his patrimony.” The lat-
ter phrases are used to describe Kothar’s abode in 1.3 VI 14–16. The
apparent place name, mk, is generally related to the root *mkk/mwk, “to
be low,” but its exact connotation is variously rendered: “low, dilapida-
tion, the Ruin, the Pit” (cf. TO 1.220; Dietrich and Loretz 1997:1172;
CML1 103; Thespis 200; CML2 66; ANET 135; LC 2 55; de Moor 1987:67;
Wyatt 1998:113; see the discussion in CS 528, n. 12 for rejecting the
interpretation of mk as the presentative particle, “Behold!”). Note the
root’s usage in 1.2 IV 17 and Eccles 10:18, where it means, “to sink,
collapse” (UBC 1.350). The other name, , is generally interpreted in
one of two ways. The most common has been to relate it to Akkadian
a u, “spittle, slime.” From this etymology, Albright (1934:132, esp.
n. 166) proposed translating the word as “filth,” which has been fol-
lowed by many others (e.g., CML1 103; Thespis 200; CML2 66; ANET
135; de Moor 1987:67). However, there seems little warrant for using
“filth” as the translation, which has connotations of unsavory bodily
excretions quite different from the Akkadian cognate, which focuses
particularly on expectorations from the mouth, “spittle, saliva, etc.,”
as noted by Pope (1994:142). If Pope was correct in relating to
Akkadian a u, then the word should probably be rendered, “phlegm”
cat 1.4 viii 719
(so Coogan 1978:106) or “slime” (so CMCOT 81). Other scholars have
related the word to Arabic aw a, “opening (in a wall)” (TO 1.220 n. g;
Gordon 1977:101; CS 528; Pardee 1997a:264, n. 197) and have read
it as “hole.” Some have proposed that the occurrence of ăwā îm in
1 Sam 13:6, which appears in a series of words denoting hiding places
(caves, rocks, tunnels, etc.), also should be rendered as “holes.” The
evidence for rendering as “hole” is relatively weak for two reasons.
First, the Arabic word does not mean a vertical hole, but a horizontal
opening in a wall. Secondly, the interpretation of ăwā îm in 1 Sam 13:6
as “hole” seems dubious, since the word ôa elsewhere in BH means
“thornbush, thistle” (e.g., 2 Kgs 14:9; Isa 34:13; Hos 9:6; Song 2:2). That
translation can be applied quite naturally to 1 Sam 13:6, i.e., one can
hide among the thornbushes or thistles (cf. McCarter 1980:226). Thus,
while the second interpretation, “hole, pit,” cannot be fully discounted,
the first seems considerably more likely. The meaning, “phlegm, spit,”
would fit into the wet imagery that we saw in the first name of Mot’s
city, hmry. But whatever the exact nuances of the three names in lines
12–14 are, they all are clearly negative and emphasize the grimness of
the location to which the messengers are being sent.
15
See also 2 Sam 12:23; Job 7:9, 10:21, 16:22; 2 Macc 12:43–44; Tromp 1969:
189–90; Anderson 1991:67. There were actually numerous exceptions to this rule. In
Mesopotamia, ghosts of ancestors whose descendents were not providing the appropri-
ate food offerings to the dead could return to earth to punish their negligent relatives
(cf. Scurlock 1988:233–36, line 79; 260–67, line r 9; 301–07, line 39; 307–10, lines
12–21, for examples of family ghosts returning from the netherworld). Also demons
were believed to be able to go in and out of the netherworld (although they appear
to have been thought to live, not in the city of the dead, but in the outskirts of the
underworld).
720 cat 1.4 viii
16
The base PS root is *n! r. For discussion of the West Semitic evidence, see Rainey
1973a:47; Sivan 1997:142–43; cf. Loewenstamm 1969b:52. For comparative Semitic
evidence, see especially Leslau 406.
cat 1.4 viii 721
Turning to the situation in his own town in lines 11–13 Ewri-šarri says
(see Lipiński 1983:124; Marcus 1974:406; Pardee 1987):
722 cat 1.4 viii
17
Cf. Wiggins 1996:331, with a dubious syntactical view for the governing of the
final prepositional phrase.
724 cat 1.4 viii
1.5 I opens with the last several lines of Mot’s response to Baal’s mes-
sage, the nearly complete response being preserved in lines 12 to ca.
35, where Gapn and Ugar relate it to Baal. By inserting the early lines
of Mot’s speech into the lacuna of column VIII, we can reconstruct at
least sixteen of the twenty lines (cf. Pardee 1997a:264 n. 201). The two
versions of the speech, where they both survive (1.5 I 1–4//27–30),
indicate identical wording, and it is likely that little variation occurred
in the two recitations of the speech. Since the passage is attested in
1.5 I, the Commentary on the reconstructed speech will appear in the
third and final volume, UBC 3.
The colophon, which identifies the scribe responsible for the tablet,
appears on the left-hand edge. Other colophons of Ilimalku are attested
on the left edges of 1.16 and 1.17—only the last word of the colophon
survives on 1.17: p]rln, but the one of 1.16 is completely preserved and
reads, spr. ilmlk. y, “The scribe is Ilimalku the y.” A much more substan-
tial colophon is found in 1.6 VI, at the end of the final column of the
Baal Cycle. It also identifies the scribe as Ilimalku, and there is no doubt
that the scribe of 1.6 is the scribe of 1.4. A fifth Ilimalku colophon is
preserved on RS 92.2016.40”–43” (= CAT 9.432), also written at the
end of a column, as is the one in 1.6. Like the colophon in the latter, it
too is fairly long, but besides the first line, [spr . ’ilmlk . š]bny . lmd . ’atn .
prln, “[The scribe is Ilimalku the Sh]ubanite, student of Attenu Prln
(= the Diviner?),” there are no parallels to what is found in the rest of
it. Unfortunately, the fact that the left side of the tablet is lost makes it
difficult to understand the other three lines of the colophon. In contrast
to the colophon at the very end of 1.6 VI, which is made up entirely
of a list of names and titles, the colophon on RS 92.2016 appears to
discuss the function of the text that is written on the tablet:
18
We thank Carole Roche and Dennis Pardee for providing us with this information.
728 cat 1.4 viii
Driver (CML1 103) rendered it, “Niqmad king of Ugarit has presented
(it).” But this seems unlikely in view of the colophon of 1.16, which
reads simply, spr ilmlk ‘y, thus omitting the name of the supposed donor.
Most scholars have seen it as a noun, but interpret it in a variety of
ways. Gordon initially (UT 19.2713; UL 38) and Rainey (1968:127)
viewed the word as a gentilic on the basis of Kirta’s title, ‘, thus “the
Tha ite.” Here one might compare the PN bn ‘y, the name of a priest
(Rainey 1968:128). Yet Ilimalku’s gentilic in 1.6 VI 54 would seem to
be šbny, “the Shubanite.” Several scholars have related ‘y and Kirta’s
title, ‘ to Hebrew šô a , “noble,” which is used as a title for one of the
leading segments of Israelite society in Job 34:18–19 and Isa 32:5 (see
Greenfield 1969a:60–61; cf. V. Sasson 1982:201–2, 207–8). Thus the
word has been rendered “the master” (CML2 67) and “the noble” (Hel-
tzer 1982:69 n. 157). Van Soldt (1988), on the other hand, equated this
word with the title SUKKAL/sukallu (?) in the colophons of Akkadian
texts from Ugarit, a title that often was used for a high-ranking scribal
or bureaucratic office. Similarly, Dietrich and Loretz (1987:34–36; cf.
also 1997:1173, n. 153) argued that the word is a designation for a
high-ranking official in the royal government, “minister, vizier, secre-
tary” (see also Zevit 1991:1714 n. 34). The final major proposal views
the title as one particularly related to the priesthood. The root ‘y is
used at Ugarit to mean “to offer, offering” in several ritual texts (cf.
1.40.24, 32, 40–41; 1.161.27–30; 1.90.23; see de Tarragon 1980:59;
Xella 1981:330; Fleming 1991:146; cf. ESA ‘y, “offering of incense,”
so Biella 548). In 1.169.2, ‘y seems clearly used as the title of a priest
who performs rituals (del Olmo Lete 1995:41; Pardee 2000:23–28;
2002:160; Freilich 1992). Fleming (1991:141) has noted that the appar-
ent religious position of the scribe parallels the same type of joint
activities as the Mesopotamian āšipu, the “incantation priest.” At this
point the evidence remains too ambiguous to decide whether the title
‘y specifically belongs to the priestly or the bureaucratic sphere in this
context. It may, of course, belong to both.
The final part of the colophon mentions the king, “Niqmaddu, King
of Ugarit” (nqmd mlk ’ugrt). The royal name derives from *nqm plus
the theophoric element of Addu (Hadd) (see PTU 17, 168; cf. J. J. M.
Roberts 1972:13; for the variant writing of the name with dIš-kur, see
Arnaud 1999). The recent discovery of four king lists in the house of the
high official Urtenu (see Arnaud 1999) shows that there were four kings
of this name who ruled over Ugarit between the fifteen and thirteenth
centuries. Most commentators have tended to identify our Niqmaddu
730 cat 1.4 viii
with traditional Niqmaddu II, now III (see Arnaud 1999:163) who
reigned in the mid-fourteenth century. However, with the discovery of
RS 92.2016, with its Ilimalku colophon, among the tablets in the late
thirteenth century house of Urtenu, several scholars now suggest that
the scribe flourished during the reign of the final Niqmaddu in the late
thirteenth century (Dalix 1996; Pardee 1997a:241, n. 3; cf. Yon 1995
for a discussion of the house, and Bordreuil and Malbran-Labat 1995
and Lombard 1995 concerning the discovery of the tablets). No firm
conclusion is yet possible. As mentioned in the Introduction above, two
Akkadian texts found in the house of Rašapabu list IDINGIR.LUGAL
as their scribe (RS 17.61 and 17.67: Ugaritica V, texts 9, 10, pp. 13–16).
This person may be the Ilimalku of the Ugaritic tablets. Both tablets
contain additional names that can be securely dated to the fourteenth
century (see van Soldt 1991:27–28). However, this IDINGIR.LUGAL
is not necessarily the Ilimalku of the Baal Cycle. There is no reason
why there could not have been two scribes named Ilimalku, one in the
fourteenth and one in the thirteenth centuries. Thus, until we have
further evidence, the question of the date of Ilimalku and the Baal
tablets themselves remains unresolved.
The city name Ugarit has been related to Akkadian ugaru, “field”
(cf. the name of Baal’s messenger, ugr, which likely means “field,” in
relationship to gpn, “vine”; cf. Zamora 2000:631). The word ugaru at
Nuzi was used for a specific area of land belonging to a town (see
Maidman 1994:42). But this etymology is not secure.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aartun, K.
1967–68 “Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon.” WO 4:278–99.
Abou Assaf, A.
1990 Der Tempel von ‘Ain Dara. Damaszener Forschungen 3. Mainz: Philip von
Zabern.
Aboud, J.
1994 Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit. Forschungen
zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 27. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Abusch, T.
1986 “Ishtar’s Proposal and Gilgamesh’s Proposal: An Interpretation of the Gilga-
mesh Epic, tablet 6, lines 1–79.” History of Religions 26/2:143–87.
1995 “The Socio-Religious Framework of the Babylonian Witchcraft Ceremony
Maqlû: Some Observations on the Introductory Section of the Text, Part II.”
Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies Presented
to Jonas C. Greenfield. Ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff; Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns. 467–94.
Ackerman, S.
1993 “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel.” JBL 112:385–401.
Ahlström, G. W.
1978a “KRKR and TPD.” VT 28:100–1.
1978b “Wine Presses and Cup-Marks of the Jenin-Megiddo Survey.” BASOR
231:9–19.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and G. M. Schwartz
2003 Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca.
16,000 –300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Albright, W. F.
1934 “The North-Canaanite Poems of Al’êyân Ba‘al and the ‘Gracious Gods’.”
JPOS 14:101–40.
1941a “Anath and the Dragon.” BASOR 84:14–17.
1941b “Are the Ephod and Teraphim mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?” BASOR
83:39–40.
1943 “The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology.” BASOR 91:39–44.
1944 “In Reply to Dr. Gaster’s Observations.” BASOR 93:23–25.
1956 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Second ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
1957 From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Second
ed. Doubleday Anchor Books. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths.
Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Al-Rawi, F., and J. Black
2000 “A balbale of Ninurta, God of Fertility.” ZA 90:31–39.
Alster, B.
1995 “Literary Aspects of Sumerian and Akkadian Proverbs.” Mesopotamian Poetic
Language: Sumerian and Akkadian. Ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstip-
hout. Cuneiform Monographs 6. Groningen: Styx Publications. 1–21.
Alster, B., and A. Westenholtz
1994 “The Barton Cylinder.” Acta Sumerologica 16:15–46.
732 bibliography
Amiet, P.
1980 Art of the Ancient Near East. Trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet. New York:
Abrams.
1982 “Jalons pour une interprétation du répertoire des sceaux-cylindres Syriens au
IIe millénaire.” Akkadica 28:19–40.
1992 Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses. Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra-
Ougarit II. RSO IX. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Anderson, G. A.
1987 Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance.
HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars.
1991 A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
André-Salvini, B., and M. Salvini
1999 “A New Trilingual Vocabulary from Ras Shamra and the Relationship between
Hurrian and Urartian.” Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hur-
rians. Volume 10: Nuzi at Seventy-Five. Ed. D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm. Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press. 267–75.
Arav, R., and M. Bernett
2000 “The bīt ilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in Aramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite
Palace Architecture in the Iron Age II.” IEJ 50:47–81.
Arnaud, D.
1991 Textes syriens de l’âge du bronze récent. Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 1. Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA.
1996 “Le vocabulaire du l’héritage dans les textes syriens du moyen-Euphrate à la
fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent.” SEL 12:21–26.
1999 “Prolégomenes à la redaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit II: les bordereux de rois
divinisés.” Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 41:153–73.
2007 Corpus des texts de bibliothèque de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (1936–2000) en Sumérien, baby-
lonien et assyrien. Barcelona: Editorial Ausa.
Astour, M. C.
1980 “The Netherworld and Its Denizens at Ugarit.” Death in Mesopotamia: Papers
Read at the XXVI e Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Ed. B. Alster. Mesopota-
mia Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
227–38.
1987 “Semites and Hurrians in Northern Transtigris.” Studies on the Civilization and
Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Volume 2. Ed. D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm.
Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. 3–68.
Attridge, H. A., Jr., and R. A. Oden
1976 The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria) Attributed to Lucian. Texts and Translations 9,
Graeco-Roman Religion Series 1. Missoula, MT: Scholars.
1981 Philo of Byblos. The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes.
CBQMS 9. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1981.
Aufrecht, W. E. and W. D. Shury
1997 “Three Iron Age Seals: Moabite, Aramaic and Hebrew.” IEJ 47/1–2:57–68.
Auld, A. G.
1977 “A Judean Sanctuary of ‘Anat ( Josh. 15:59).” TA 4:85–86.
Aurenche, O.
1993 “L’origine de la brique dans le Proche Orient ancien.” Between the Rivers and
Over the Mountains: Archeologica Anatolici et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Ed.
M. Frangipane et al. Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche
e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. 71–85.
Avigad, N.
1978 “The King’s Daughter and the Lyre.” IEJ 28:146–51.
bibliography 733
Avishur, Y.
1980–81 “RWM [RMM ]—‘Build’ in Ugaritic and the Bible and pryh ‘Build’ in the
Bible and Tosephta.” Lesh 45:270–79 (Heb.).
1984 Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures. AOAT 210.
Kevelaer: Butson & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag.
Bahrani, Z.
1995 “Assault and Abduction: The Fate of the Royal Image in the Ancient Near
East.” Art History 18:363–82.
Bal, M.
1993 “First Person, Second Person, Same Person: Narrative as Epistemology.”
New Literary History 24:293–320.
Baldacci, M.
1998 Il libro dei morti dell-antica Ugarit. Spa: Piemme.
1999 “Future Life in Phoenician-Punic.” Biblica et Semitica: Studi in memoria di Fran-
cesco Vattioni. Ed. L. Cagni. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di
Studi Asiastici Series Minor LIX. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale,
Napoli. 17–20.
ip Death and Future Life in the Syro-Palestinian Funerary Inscriptions. In preparation.
Barber, E. J. W.
1991 Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with
Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton University.
Barnett, R. D.
1978 “The Earliest Representation of ‘Anath.” ErIs 14:28*–31*.
1981 “Bringing the God into the Temple.” Temples and High Places in Biblical
Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union
College —Jewish Institute of Religion. Ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: The Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaelogy of Hebrew Union College—Jewish
Institute of Religion. 10–20.
Baron, R. A.
1992 Psychology. Second ed. Boston: Alyn and Bacon.
Barr, J.
1973 “Ugaritic and Hebrew ‘ŠBM’?” JSS 18:17–39.
1974 “Etymology and the Old Testament.” Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew
Language and Biblical Exegesis. Ed. A. S. van der Woude. OTS 19. Leiden:
Brill. 1–28.
Barré, M. L.
1982 “An Analysis of the Royal Blessing in the Karatepe Inscription.” Maarav
3/2:177–94.
1992 “ ‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15:2.” CBQ 54:623–37.
Barrick, W. B.
1975 “The Funerary Character of ‘High Places’ in Ancient Palestine: A Reas-
sessment.” VT 25:565–95.
Bartlett, J. R.
1989 Edom and the Edomites. JSOT/PEF Monograph Series 1. JSOTSup 77. Shef-
field: JSOT.
Bassetti, S.
1996 “Anat in a Text from Emar.” Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and
the Hurrians. Volume 8: Richard F. S. Starr Memorial Volume. Ed. D. I. Owen and
G. Wilhelm. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. 245–46.
Batto, B. F.
1987 “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” CBQ
49:187–211.
734 bibliography
Baumgarten, A. I.
1981 The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Études Préliminaires aux
Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 89. Leiden: Brill.
Beck, A.
1996 “Depression of an Evolutionary Strategy.” Human Behavior and Evolution Society
Annual Meeting 1996.
Becking, B.
1986 “A Remark on a Post-Exilic Seal.” UF 18:445–46.
Beckman, G. A.
1996 Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen. History of the
Ancient Near East/Monographs—II. Padova: Sargon srl.
1997 “Elkunirša and Ašertu.” COS 1:149.
Beeston, A. F. L.
1982 Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters Press.
Ben-David, I.
1980 “A Ugaritic Parallel to Isaiah 24, 18–19.” Lesh 45:60 (Heb.).
Berlin, A.
1985 The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Berrin, S. L.
2001 “4QpNah (4Q169, Pesher Nahum): A Critical Edition with Commentary, His-
torical Analysis, and in-depth Study of Study of Exegetical Method.” Ph.D.
diss., New York University.
Beyer, D.
2001 Emar IV. Les sceaux. OBO, Series Archaeologica 20. Fribourg Suisee: Editions
Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Beyerlin, W., ed.
1975 Religionsgeschtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Biggs, R. D.
1967 ŠÀ.ZI.GA, Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from Cuneiform Sources
II. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin.
Binsbergen, W. van, and F. Wiggermann
1999 “Magic in History. A Theoretical Perspective, and Its Application to Ancient
Mesopotamia.” Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical and Interpretative Perspec-
tives. Ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination I.
Groningen: Styx. 1–34.
Binger, T.
1997 Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. JSOTSup 232. Copenhagen
International Seminar 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Biran, A.
1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Hebrew Union College—Jew-
ish Institute of Religion.
Biran, A., and J. Naveh
1995 “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.” IEJ 45:1–18.
Birot, M.
1980 “Fragment de rituel de Mari relatif au kispum.” Death in Mesopotamia. XXVIe
Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Ed. B. Alster. Mesopotamia 8. Copen-
hagen: Akademisk forlag. 139–50.
Bjorkman, J. K.
1968 “A Sketch of Metals and Metalworkers in the Ancient Near East.” M. A. Thesis,
University of Pennsylvania.
1993 “The Larsa Goldsmith’s Hoards—New Interpretations.” JNES 52:1–23.
bibliography 735
Black, J.
1996 “The Imagery of Birds in Sumerian Poetry.” Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sume-
rian and Akkadian. Ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Cuneiform
Monographs 6. Groningen: Styx Publications. 23–46.
Blake, F. R.
1951 A Resurvey of Hebrew Tenses. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 103. Rome: Pontifi-
cal Biblical Institute.
Blau, J.
1972 “Marginalia Semitica II.” IOS 2:57–82.
1977 An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence Adverbials in Frontal Posi-
tion Separated from the Rest of the Sentence. The Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities Proceedings Volume VI No. 1. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities.
Blau, J., and J. C. Greenfield
1970 “Ugaritic Glosses.” BASOR 200 (Festschrift for William F. Albright): 11–17 =
AKY 885–91.
Blau, J., and S. E. Loewenstamm
1970 “Zur Frage der Scriptio Plena im Ugaritischen und Verwandtes.” UF 2:19–34.
Blenkinsopp, J.
2000 Isaiah 1–39. AB 19. New York: Doubleday.
Bloch-Smith, E. M.
1992 Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. JSOT/ASOR
Monograph 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
1994 “‘Who Is the King of Glory?’: Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism.” Scripture
and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Ed.
M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum and L. E. Stager. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox. 18–31.
Boadt, L.
1978 “Textual Problems in Ezekiel and Poetic Analysis of Paired Words.” JBL
97:489–99.
Boling, R. G.
1982 Joshua. AB 6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bordreuil, P.
1989 “La citadelle sainte du Mont Nanou.” Syria 66:275–79.
Bordreuil, P. and F. Malbran-Labat
1995 “Les archives de la maison d’Ourtenou.” CRAIBL 443–49.
Bordreuil, P., and D. Pardee
1989 La Trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit: 1. Concordance. RSO V. Mémoire no. 86.
Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
1993 “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques.” MARI
7:63–70.
2001 “Une incantation (n. 52.).” Études ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995. M. Yon and
D. Arnaud, Eds. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 387–392.
2004 Manuel d’Ougaritique. Two volumes. Paris: Geuthner.
Borger, R.
1956 Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. AfO Beiheft 9. Graz: Weidner.
Reprinted: Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967.
1963 Babylonische-assyrische Lesestücke. AnOr 54. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Borghouts, J. F.
1978 Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Nisaba 9. Leiden: Brill.
Bounni, A., E. and J. Lagarce
1998 Ras Ibn Hani, I: Le palais nord du bronze récent: Fouilles 1979–1995, synthèse prélimi-
naire. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique CLI. Beyrouth: Institut francçais
d’archéologie du proche-orient.
736 bibliography
Bowen, N. R.
2001 “The Quest for the Historical Gĕbîrâ.” CBQ 63:597–618.
Bowman, R.
1944 “An Aramaic Religious Text in Demotic Script.” JNES 3: 219–31.
Brekelmans, C. H. W.
1959 De erem in het Oude Testament. Nijmegen: Centrale Drukkerij.
Brenner, A.
1982 Colour Terms in the Old Testament. JSOTSup 21. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Bretschneider, J.
1991 “Götter in Schreinen: eine Untersuchung zu den syrischen und levantischen
Tempelmodellen ihren Bauplastik und ihren Götterbildern.” UF 23:13–32.
Brock, S.
1979 “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 20:69–87.
Brody, A. J.
1998 “Each Man Cried Out to His God”: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoeni-
cian Seafarers. HSM 58. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Bronner, L.
1968 The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship. Praetoria Oriental
Series 6. Leiden: Brill.
Brown, C. M.
1983 “Kali, the Mad Mother.” The Book of the Goddess Past and Present: An Introduction
to Her Religion. Ed. C. Olsen. New York: Crossroad. 110–23.
Brown, J. P.
1968 “Literary Contexts of Hebrew-Greek Vocabulary.” JSS 13:163–91.
1969a The Lebanon and Phoenicia. Vol. 1: The Physical Setting and the Forest. Beirut: The
American University of Beirut.
1969b “The Mediterranean Vocabulary of the Vine.” VT 19:146–70.
Bryce, G. E.
1975 “Omen-Wisdom in Ancient Israel.” JBL 94:19–37.
Buccellati, G., and M. Kelly-Buccellati
1997 “Urkesh: The First Hurrian Capital.” BA 60/2:77–97.
Buchholz, H. G.
1999 Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis: Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT
261. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2000 “Furcht vor Schlangen und Umgang mit Schlangen in Altsyrien, Altkypros
und dem Umfeld.” UF 32 (In memoriam Cyrus H. Gordon): 37–168.
Budge, E. A., and L. W. King
1902 Annals of the Kings of Assyria. Vol. I. London: Harrison and Sons.
Bunimovitz, S.
1994 “The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and its
Socioeconomic Implications.” UF 26:1–20.
1995 “On the Edge of Empires—Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 BCE).” The Archaeol-
ogy of Society in the Holy Land. Ed. T. Levy. London: Leichester University Press.
320–31.
van Buren, E. D.
1936 “Mesopotamian Fauna in the Light of the Monuments: Archaeological Remarks
upon Landsberger’s ‘Fauna des alten Mesopotamien’.” AfO 11:1–37.
1946 “The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Or 15:1–45.
1952 “Foundation Rites for a New Temple.” Or 21:293–306.
Burns, D. C.
2002 “Contents, Texts and Contexts: A Contextualist Approach to the Ugaritic Texts
and Their Cultic Vocabulary.” Two vols. Ph. D. diss., University of Sheffield,
Sheffield.
bibliography 737
Busink, T. A.
1970 Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter
Berücksichtigung des westsemtitischen Tempelbaus. I. Der Tempel Salomos. Nederlands
Institut voor het Nabije Oosten, Studia Francisi Scholten Memoriae Dicata 3.
Ed. A. A. Kampen. Leiden: Brill.
Cannadine, D.
1992 “Introduction: Divine Rites of Kings.” Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial
in Traditional Society. Ed. D. Cannadine and S. Price. Cambridge: Cambridge
University. 1–19.
Caquot, A.
1958 “Le dieu ‘Athtar et les textes de Ras Shamra.” Syria 35:45–60.
1959 “La divinité solaire ougaritique.” Syria 36:90–101.
1969 “Problèmes d’histoire religieuse.” La Siria del Tardo Bronzo. Orientis Antiqui Col-
lectio 9. Rome: Centro per le Antichìta e la Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente.
61–76.
1974 “Notes de lexicographie ougaritique.” Actes du premier congrès international de lin-
guistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique. Paris 16 –19 juillet 1969. Ed. A. Caquot and
D. Cohen. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 159. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
203–8.
1978 “Remarques sur la tablette ougaritique RS 1929 No 6 (CTA 13).” ErIs 14:14*–
18*.
1988 “Un recueil ougaritique de formules magiques: KTU 1.82.” SEL 5 (O. Loretz
Festschrift): 31–43.
Caquot, A. and Dalix, A.-S.
2001 “Un Texte mythico-magique (n. 53).” Études Ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995.
Ed. M. Yon and D. Arnaud. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
393–405.
Cassuto, U.
1942 “The Palace of Baal.” JBL 61:51–56.
1967 A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes. First
published in Hebrew in 1956.
Caubet, A.
1996 “La musique à Ougarit: nouveaux témoignages matériels.” Ugaritic, religion and
culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion and culture. Edinburgh,
July 1994. Essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Ed. N. Wyatt,
W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 9–31.
Caubet, A. and P. Pouyssegur
1998 The Ancient Near East. Paris: Terrail.
Cave, D.
1996 “The Domicile in the Study and Teaching of the Sacred, Using the Meth-
odological Assumptions of Jonathan Z. Smith and Mircea Eliade.” The Sacred
and its Scholars: Comparative Methodologies for the Study of Primary Religious Data. Ed.
T. A. Idinipulos and E. A. Yonan. Numen LXXIII. Leiden: Brill. 156–68.
Cazelles, H.
1956 “L’hymne ugaritique à Anat.” Syria 33:49–57.
1960 Review of O. Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Aegypten, Ugarit und Israel.
VT 10:231–34.
1969 “Essai sur le pouvoir de la divinité à Ugarit et en Israël.” Ugaritica VI. MRS
XVII. Paris: Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra/Geuthner. 25–44.
Ceresko, A. R.
1975 “The A:B::B:A Word Pattern in Hebrew and Northwest Semitic with Special
Reference to the Book of Job.” UF 7:73–88.
Černy, J.
1958 “Stela of Ramasses II from Beisan.” EI 5:*75–82.
738 bibliography
Charpin, D.
1991 “Un traité entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibâl-pî-El II d’Esnunna.” Marchands,
diplomates et empereurs: Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli.
Ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
139–66.
Christides, V.
1973 “Once Again the ‘Narrations’ of Nilus Sinaiticus.” Byzantion 43:39–50.
Claasen, W. T.
1971 “The Role of / / in the West Semitic Languages.” AION 31:285–302.
Clemens, D. M.
1993 “KTU 1.108.3–5 (RS 24.252): dyšr.wydmr. . . .” UF 25:63–74.
2001a “KTU 1.45 and 1.6 I 8–18, 1.161, 1.101.” UF 33:65–116.
2001b Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice: Vol. I: Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts.
AOAT 284/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2003 Review of P. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. JNES 62:290–
94.
Clifford, R. J.
1975 “Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel.” VT 25:298–306.
1984 “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible.” Or 53 (M. Dahood
Memorial Volume):183–201.
1994 Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. CBQMS 26. Washington,
DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Cogan, M, and H. Tadmor
1988 II Kings. AB 11. New York: Doubleday.
Cohen, H. R. (Chaim)
1978 Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. SBLDS 37. Missoula,
MT: Scholars.
1995 “The Basic Meaning of the Term ‘arāpel ‘Darkness’.” HS 36:7–12.
1996 “The Meaning of twmlc ‘Darkness’: A Study in Philological Method.” Texts,
Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Ed. M. V. Fox et al. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 287–309.
Cohen, M.
1947 Essai comparatif sur le vocabulaire et la phonétique du chamito-sémitique. Biblio-
thèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences historiques et philologiques,
deux cent quatre-vingt-onzième fascicule. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré
Champion.
Cohen, M. E.
1988 The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Collins, T.
1971a “The Psychology of Tears in the Old Testament: Part I.” CBQ 33:18–38.
1971b “The Psychology of Tears in the Old Testament: Part II.” CBQ 33:185–97.
Coogan, M. D.
1978 Stories from Ancient Canaan. Louisville: Westminster.
Cooper, A.
1981 “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts (With Introduction and
selected comments by Marvin H. Pope).” Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from
Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. III. Ed. S. Rummel. AnOr 51. Rome: Pontifi-
cium Institutum Biblicum. 333–469.
Cooper, J. S.
1993 “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia.” Official Cult and
Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient
Near East—The City and Its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan
(Mitaka, Tokyo). March 20 –22, 1992. Ed. E. Matsushima. Heidelberg: Univer-
sitätsverlag. 81–96.
bibliography 739
Coote, R. B.
1974 “Ugaritic PH(Y), ‘see’.” UF 6:1–5.
Coqueugniot, E.
1991 “Outillage de pierre taillée au bronze récent: Ras Shamra 1978–1988.” Arts
et industries de la pierre. Ed. M. Yon et al. RSO 6. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur
les Civilisations. 127–204.
Cornelius, I.
1993 “Anat and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals’: Aspects of the Iconography
of the Canaanite Goddesses.” SEL 10:21–45.
1994 The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I
Periods (c. 1500 –1000 BCE). OBO 140. Fribourg Switzerland: University Press;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
1995 “The Iconography of Divine War in the Pre-Islamic Near East: A Survey.”
JNWSL 21/1:15–36.
1996 “Some Additional Representations of the God Baal-Seth on Seal Amulets.”
JNWSL 22/2:157–66.
Craigie P. C.
1973 “Helal, Athtar and Phaeton ( Jes 14, 12–15).” ZAW 85:223–25.
1977 “Three Ugaritic Notes on the Song of Deborah.” JSOT 2:33–49.
1978 “Deborah and Anat: A Study of Poetic Imagery ( Judges 5).” ZAW 90:374–
81.
Crenshaw, J. L.
1972 “ ‘W edōrēk ‘al-bāmotê ’āre ’.” CBQ 34:39–53.
Cross, F. M.
1976 “The ‘Olden Gods’ in Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths.” Magnalia Dei.
The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest
Wright. Ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke and P. D. Miller, Jr. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday. 329–38.
1969 “Judean Stamps.” EI 9 (W. F. Albright Volume): 20–27.
1979 “A Recently Published Phoenician Inscription of the Persian Period from
Byblos.” IEJ 29:40–44.
1998 From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore/London: Johns
Hopkins.
Culican, W.
1976 “Baal on an Ibiza Gem.” RSF 4:57–68, pl. VIII:1.
Cunchillos, J. L.
1989 “Les tablettes trouvées à Ras Shamra (Ugarit) en 1929, 1930, et 1931: Enquête
critique des sources.” Sefarad 49:37–96.
Curtis, A. H. W.
1990 “Some Observations on ‘Bull’ Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old
Testament.” OTS 26:17–31.
Dahood, M. J.
1958 “Ancient Semtiic Deities in Syria and Palestine.” Le antiche divinità semitiche. Ed.
S. Moscati. Studi Semitici 1. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici. 65–94.
1965 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications. BiO 17. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1966 Psalms I: 1–50. AB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1969 “Ugaritic-Hebrew Syntax and Style.” UF 1:15–36.
1970 Psalms III: 101–150. AB 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1979 “Eblaite, Ugaritic and Hebrew Lexical Notes.” UF 11 (C. F. A. Schaeffer Fest-
schrift): 141–46.
Dalix, A. S.
1996 “Exemples de bilinguisme à Ougarit. ’Iloumilku: la double identité d’un scribe.”
Mosaïque de langues, mosaïques culturelle: Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien.
740 bibliography
Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organisée par l’URA 1062 “Etudes Sémi-
tiques”. Ed. F. Briquel-Chatonnet. Antiquités Sémitiques 1. Paris: Maisonneuve.
81–90.
1997 “Ilimilku, scribe d’Ougarit au XIIIe siècle avant J. C.” (unpublished doctoral
thesis; unavailable to us).
Dalley, S.
1987 “Near Eastern Patron Deities of Mining and Smelting in the Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages.” RDAC: 60–66.
1991 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford/New
York: Oxford University.
Danby, H.
1933 The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University.
Davila, J. R.
2000 Liturgical Works. Eerdman Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6. Grand
Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Day, J.
1979 “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habak-
kuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI.” VT 29:143–51.
1985 God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testa-
ment. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
1992 “Baal.” ABD 1:545–49.
1994 “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan.” Eine Gott allein? JHWH-
Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen
Religionsgeschichte. Ed. W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein. 13. Kolloquium der
Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 1983. OBO
139. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. 181–96.
2000 Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Day, P. L.
1991 “Why is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?” The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays
in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Ed. D. Jobling, P. L.
Day and G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press. 141–46, 329–32.
1992 “Anat: Ugarit’s ‘Mistress of Animals’.” JNES 51:181–90.
Deem, A.
1978 “Anath and Some Biblical Hebrew Cruces.” JSS 23:25–30.
Delougaz, P. P.
1933 Plano-convex Bricks and the Methods of their Employment. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 7/1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dever, W. G.
2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology
Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK:
Eerdmans.
Dhorme, E.
1923 L’emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien. Édition
anastatique d’un ouvrage publié en 1923. Paris: Geuthner.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1970 “Problems of Root Structure in Proto-Semitic.” ArOr 38:453–80.
Dietrich, M.
1995 “Ugaritische Lexicographie.” SEL 12:113–16.
Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz
1969 “Die soziale Struktur von Alalakh und Ugarit (II).” WO 5:57–93.
1972 “Zur ugaritischen Lexicographie (V).” UF 4:27–35.
bibliography 741
1994 “The Myth of Astarte, the Huntress (KTU 1.92): New Fragments.” UF
26:113–26.
1997 “Semitic Worship at Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai).” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik
10:89–97.
1999 “Azaryaw, the Great Princess.” BN 97:18–23.
1999a “Ugaritic Prose.” Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. HdO 39. Ed. W. G. E. Watson
and N. Wyatt. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill. 140–64.
Dijkstra, M., and J. C. de Moor
1975 “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Aqhâtu.” UF 7:171–215.
Dijkstra, M., J. C. de Moor and K. Spronk
1981 Review of KTU. BiOr 38:371–80.
Dion, P. E.
1991 “YHWH as Storm-god and Sun-god. The Double Legacy of Egypt and
Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104.” ZAW 103:43–71.
Di Vito, R. A.
1993 Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and
Conception of the Personal God. Studies Pohl: Series Maior 16. Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico.
Dobrusin, D. L.
1981 “The Third Masculine Plural of the Prefixed Form of the Verb in Ugaritic.”
JANES 13:5–14.
Doniger, W.
1999 Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India. Chicago/London:
University of Chicago.
Donner, H.
1967 “Ugaritismen in der Psalmenforschung.” ZAW 79:322–50.
Driver, G. R.
1947 “On a Passage in the Baal Epic (IV AB iii 24) and Proverbs xxxi 21.” BASOR
105:11.
Dumbrell, R. J.
1998 The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient Near East. London: The Tadema
Press.
Dupont-Sommer, A.
1956 “Une stèle araméenne d’un prêtre de Ba‘al trouvée en Égypte.” Syria 33:79–80.
Durand, J. M.
1988 Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. Archives royales de Mari XXVI. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilisations.
1993 “Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopo-
tamie.” MARI 7:41–61.
2002 Le culte d’Addu d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alahtum. Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 8. Florilegium
marianum VII. Paris: SEPOA.
Durand, J. M. and M. Guichard
1997 “Les rituels de Mari.” Florilegium Marianum III. Memoires de NABU 4. Paris:
SEPOA: 19–71.
Eaton, J. H.
1984 “Music’s Place in Worship: A Contribution from the Psalms.” Prophets, Worship
and Theodicy: Studies in Prophetism, Biblical Theology and Structural and Rhetorical
Analysis and the Place of Music in Worship. Ed. A. S. van der Woude. OTS XXIII.
Leiden: Brill. 85–107.
Edzard, D. O.
1997 Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods
Volume 3/1. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto.
bibliography 743
Eichmann, R.
1997 “Ein Hund, ein Schwein, ein Musikant.” Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik: Beiträge
zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig. Ed.
B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella. AOAT 247. Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 97–108.
Elayi, J.
1988 “L’exploitation des cèdres du mont Liban par les rois assyriens et néo-babylo-
niens.” JESHO 31:14–41.
Elliott, C.
1991 “The Ground Stone Industry.” Arts et industries de la pierre. Ed. M. Yon et al.
RSO 6. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 9–99.
Ellison, J. L.
2002 “A Paleographic Study of the Alphabetic Cuneiform Texts from Ras Shamra/
Ugarit.” Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.
Emerton, J. A.
1982 “Leviathan and ltn: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon.”
VT 32:327–31.
1997 “The Biblical High Place in the Light of Recent Study.” PEQ 129:116–32.
Engnell, I.
1967 Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Erndl, K. M.
1993 Victory to the Mother: the Hindu Goddess of Northwest India in Myth, Ritual, and Symbol.
Oxford: Oxford University.
Evans, G.
1958 “Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies: An Addendum.” JAOS 78:114.
Falkenstein, A., and W. von Soden
1953 Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Zurich: Artemis.
Fauth, W.
1990 “Das Kasios-Gebirge und Zeus Kasios. Die antike Tradition und ihre vorder-
orientalischen Grundlagen.” UF 22:105–18.
Feliu, L.
2003 The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Trans. W. G. E. Watson. CHANE 19. Leiden/
Boston: Brill.
Fensham, F. C.
1959 “Thunder-Stones in Ugaritic.” JNES 18:273–74.
1965 “The Destruction of Mankind in the Near East.” AION 15:31–37.
1966 “Winged Gods and Goddesses in the Ugaritic Texts.” OA 5:157–64.
1977 “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal,
Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat.” PEQ 109:113–15.
Fenton, T. H.
1969 “Command and Fulfillment in Ugaritic—‘TQTL’: ‘YQTL’ and ‘QTL’: ‘QTL’.”
JSS 14:34–38.
1994 “Nexus and Significance: Is Greater Precision Possible?” Ugarit and the Bible: Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September
1992. Ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis and J. F. Healey. UBL 11. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag. 71–91.
Ferrera, A. J., and S. B. Parker
1972 “Seating Arrangement at Divine Banquets.” UF 4:37–39.
Firmage, E.
1992 “Zoology.” ABD 6:1109–67.
Fisher, H. E.
1992 Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce. New York/
London: W. W. Norton.
744 bibliography
Freedman, D. N.
1981 “Temples without Hands.” Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings
of the Colloquium in Honor of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College—Jewish Insti-
tute. Ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: The Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archae-
ology of Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion. 21–30.
Freilich, D. F.
1992 “Ili-malku the ‘Y.” SEL 9:21–26.
Fritz, M. M.
2003 “. . . Und weinten um Tammuz”: Die Götter Dumuzi-Ama’ushumgal’anna und
Damu. AOAT 307. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Fronzaroli, P.
1955 La fonetica ugaritica. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
1997 “Les combats de Hadda dans les textes d’Ébla.” MARI 8:283–90.
Frost, H.
1991 “Anchors Sacred and Profane: Ugarit-Ras Shamra, 1986; the Stone Anchors
Revised and Compared.” Arts et industries de la pierre. Ed. M. Yon et al. RSO 6.
Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 355–408.
Frymer-Kensky, T.
1992 In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of
Pagan Myth. New York: The Free Press.
Fulco, W. J.
1976 The Canaanite God Rešep. American Oriental Series Essay 8. New Haven,
CT: American Oriental Society.
Gachet, J.
1992 “Ugarit Ivories: Typology and Distribution.” Ivory in Greece and the Eastern
Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period. Ed. J. L. Fitton. British
Museum Occasional Papers 85. London: Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities. 67–89.
Gager, J. G. (ed.),
1992 Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York/Oxford:
Oxford.
Gai, A.
1982 “The Reduction of Tenses (and Other Categories) of the Consequent Verb
in North-West Semitic.” Or 51:254–56.
Galán, J. M.
1993 “What is He, the Dog?” UF 25:173–80.
Galling, K.
1936 “In der Werkstatt des Hephaistos von Ugarit.” OLZ 39:593–97.
Gangloff, F. and J. C. Haelewyck
1995 “Osée 4, 17–19: Un marzeah en l’honneur de la déesse ‘Anat?” ETL
71:370–82.
Garr, W. R.
1986 “On Voicing and Devoicing in Ugaritic.” JNES 45:45–52.
1987 “A Population Estimate of Ancient Ugarit.” BASOR 266:31–43.
2003 In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism. CHANE 15.
Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Gaselee, S.
1917 Achilles Tatius. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; New
York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Gaster, T. H.
1933 “The Ritual Pattern of a Ras-Šamra Epic.” ArOr 5:118–23.
1935 “Notes on the Ugaritic Texts.” OLZ 38:473–77.
1936–37 “The Combat of ’Aleyân-Ba‘al and Mot. Two Missing Portions.” JRAS:
225–35.
746 bibliography
1979b “The Blood Bath of the Goddess Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts.” UF 11
(C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 315–24.
Grayson, A. K.
1991 Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods Volume 2. Toronto/Buffalo/
London: University of Toronto.
Green, A.
1997 “Myths in Mesopotamian Art.” Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. Ed. I. L.
Finkel and M. J. Geller. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publica-
tions. 135–58.
Green, A. R. W.
2003 The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East. Biblical and Judaic Studies 8. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Greenfield, J. C.
1958 “Lexicographical Notes I.” HUCA 29:203–28 = AKY 653–78.
1959 “Lexicographical Notes II.” HUCA 30:141–51 = AKY 679–89.
1962 “Studies in Aramaic Lexicography I.” JAOS 82:290–99 = AKY 6–21.
1964 “Ugaritic mdl and Its Cognates.” Bib 45:527–34 = AKY 847–54.
1969a “Some Glosses on the Keret Epic.” EI 9 (W. F. Albright Volume): 60–65 =
AKY 864–74.
1969b “Amurrite, Ugaritic and Canaanite.” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Semitic Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
92–101 = AKY 875–84.
1971 “The Zakir Inscription and the Danklied.” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress
of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. 174–91 = AKY
75–92.
1973 “Un rite religieux araméen et ses parallèles.” RB 80:46–52 = AKY 104–10.
1977a “našû-nadānu and its Congeners.” Essays on the Ancient East in Memory of Jacob
Joel Finkelstein. Ed. M. de Jong Ellis. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy
of Arts & Sciences 19. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. 87–91 = AKY 720–24.
1977b Review of L. R. Fisher (ed.), The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets. JCS 29:187–88.
1978 “Notes on the Asitawadda (Karatepe) Inscription.” ErIs 14:74–77 (Heb.).
1979 “The Root šql in Akkadian, Ugarit and Aramaic.” UF 11 (C. F. A. Schaeffer
Festschrift): 325–27 = AKY 731–33.
1982 Review of F. Bron, Recherches sur les inscriptions phénicienne de Karatepe, IEJ
32:179–81.
1984a “Notes on the Phoenician Letter from Saqqara.” Or 53:242–44 = AKY
756–58.
1984b “A Touch of Eden.” Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito Oblata. Acta Iranica
23. Hommages et Opera Minor 9. Leiden: Brill. 219–24 = AKY 750–55.
1985 “Baal’s Throne and Isa 6:1.” Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de
M. Mathias Delcor. Ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse and M. Tardieu. AOAT 215.
Kevelaer Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
193–98 = AKY 892–97.
1986 “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (Prov. 9:1)—A Mistranslation.” JQR 76:13–20 =
AKY 766–773.
1987a “Larnax tēs Lapethou III Revisited.” Studia Phoenicia V. Phoenicia and the East Mediter-
ranean in the First Millennium B.C.: Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven from the
14th to the 16th of November 1985. Ed. E. Lipiński. OLA 22. Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peeters. 391–401 = AKY 774–84.
1987b “The Epithets RBT// RRT in the KRT Epic.” Perspectives on Language and Text:
Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday July 28, 1985.
Ed. E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 35–37 =
AKY 898–900.
bibliography 749
1990 “The ‘Cluster’ in Biblical Poetry.” Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented
to Stanislav Segert. Ed. E. M. Cook. Santa Monica, CA: Western Acaemic
Press = MAARAV 5–6:159–68 = AKY 789–98.
1991 “Doves’ Dung and the Price of Food. The Topoi of II Kings 6:24–7:2.”
Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin. Ed. D. Garrone
and F. Israel. Brescia: Paideia. 121–26 = AKY 815–20.
1992 “Two Notes on the Apocryphal Psalms.” “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the
Bible Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Ed.
M. Fishbane and E. Tov with the assistance of W. W. Fields. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns. 309–14 = AKY 640–45.
1993 “Etymological Semantics.” ZAH 6:26–37 = AKY 821–32.
1994 “Keret’s Dream: HRT and HDRT.” BSOAS 57:87–92.
Greenfield, J. C. and A. Schaeffer
1983 “Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye.” Iraq
45:109–16 = AKY 217–24.
Greenstein, E. L.
1973 “Another Attestation of Initial > ’ in West Semitic.” JANES 5 (T. H.
Gaster Festschrift):157–64.
1982 “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic.” MAARAV 3:195–216.
1986–87 “Aspects of Biblical Poetry.” Jewish Book Annual 44:33–42.
1998 Review of D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. IOS 18:397–420.
2006 “Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse.”
Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspec-
tives. Ed. S. E. Fassberg and A.Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes/Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns. 75–102.
Gröndahl, F.
1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Groneberg, B. R. M.
1997 Lob der Ištar. Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin: Tanatti Ištar.
Cuneiform Monographs 8. Groningen: Styx Publications.
Gruber, M.
1980 Aspects of Non-Verbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. Studia Pohl 12/I
and 12/II. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
Guichard, M.
1999 “Les aspects religieux de la guerre à Mari.” RA 93:27–48.
Gunkel, H.
1895 Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Gurney, O. R.
1989 Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT XI. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Güterbock, H. G.
1952 “The Song of Ullikummi: Revised Text of the Hittite Version of a Hurrian
Myth (Continued).” JCS 6: 8–42.
Guthrie, S.
1996 “The Sacred: A Skeptical View.” The Sacred and its Scholars: Comparative
Methodologies for the Study of Primary Religious Data. Ed. T. A. Idinipulos and
E. A. Yonan. Numen LXXIII. Leiden: Brill. 124–38.
Guttmann, J.
1971 “Leviathan, Behemoth and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Symbols in Art.” No Graven
Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible. Ed. J. Guttmann. New York: KTAV.
515–26.
750 bibliography
Hackett, J. A.
1980 The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Allā. HSM 31. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
1989 “Can A Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near Eastern ‘Fertility’ Goddesses.”
Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5:65–76.
Hadley, J. M.
2000 The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Hallo, W. W.
1985 “Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos.” JQR 76:21–40.
1988 “The Birth of Kings.” Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor
of Marvin H. Pope. Ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Hamden, CT: Four
Quarters. 45–52.
1996 Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions.
Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East VI. Leiden/New
York/Köln: Brill.
Hallo, W. W. and J. J. A. van Dijk
1968 The Exaltation of Inanna. Yale Near Eastern Researches 3. New Haven/London:
Yale University.
Handy, L. K.
1990 “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the
Bible.” Biblical Research 35:18–35.
1994 Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
1996 “The Appearance of the Pantheon.” The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to
Judaisms. Ed. D. V. Edelman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 27–43.
Hanson, P. D.
1972 “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern.” JBL
92:37–59.
Haran, M.
1978 “Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk.” ErIs 14:12–18.
1985 “Das Böcklein in der Mich seiner Mutter und das saügende Muttertier.” TZ
41:135–59.
Harrington, D. J.
1996 Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London/New York: Routledge.
Harris, M.
1987 The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture. New York:
Simon Schuster.
Healey, J. F.
1979 “The Pietas of an Ideal Son in Ugaritic.” UF 11 (C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift):
353–56.
1980 “Ugaritic tk: A Note.” UF 12:408–9.
1986 Review of J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, VT 36:495–99.
1988 “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ugarit: Further Notes.” SEL 5 (Fs. O. Loretz): 103–12.
1993 Review of F. Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. UF 25:505–7.
Hehn, J.
1913 Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee: Die israelitische Gottesauffassung im Lichte der
altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Heimpel, W.
1982 “A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities.” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/3:9–22.
Held, M.
1959 “*m /*m š in Ugaritic and Other Semitic Languages (A Study in Compara-
tive Lexicography.” JAOS 79:169–76.
1962 “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew
and in Ugaritic.” Studies and Essays in Honor of A. A. Neuman. Ed. M. Ben-
Horin, B. D. Weinryb and S. Zeitlin. Leiden: Brill, For the Dropsie College.
281–90.
bibliography 751
Kelso, J. L.
1948 The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament. BASOR Supplement 5–6. New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Kempinski, A. and S. Košak
1977 “Hittite Metal ‘Inventories’ (CTH 242) and their Economic Implications.” TA
4:87–93.
Killen, G.
1980 Ancient Egyptian Furniture. Vol. I: 4000 –1300 BC. Warminster, Wilts, England:
Aris & Phillips.
Kinet, D.
1978 “Theologische Reflexion im ugaritischen Ba‘al-Zyklus.” BZ 22:236–44.
Kinsley, D. R.
1975a “Freedom from Death in the Worship of Kali.” Numen 22:183–207.
1975b The Sword and the Flute: Kālī and K a, Dark Visions of the Terrible and Sublime in
Hindu Mythology. Berkeley/Los Angelos: Universiity of California.
1996 “Kālī: Blood and Death Out of Place.” Devī: Goddesses of India. Ed. J. S. Hawley
and D. M. Wulff. Comparative Studies in Religion and Society 7. Berkeley/Los
Angeles/London: University of California. 77–86.
Klein, J.
1997 “The God Martu in Sumerian Literature.” Sumerian Gods and Their Representa-
tions. Ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen:
Styx Publications. 99–116.
Kloos, C. J. L.
1986 Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel.
Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot; Leiden: Brill.
Knudtzon, J. A.
1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. Mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen. Two vols. Reprint edition.
Allen: Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964.
Koch, K.
1993a “ azzi-Safôn-Kasion: Des Geschichte eines Bergs und seiner Gottheiten.”
Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testa-
ment. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990. Ed. B. Janowski,
K. Koch and G. Wilhelm. OBO 129. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 171–223.
1993b “Wind und Zeit als Konstituenten des Kosmos in phönikischer Mythologie
und spätalttestamentlichen Texten.” Mesopotamica—Ugaritica—Biblica: Fest-
schrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992. Ed.
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 232. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 59–91.
Koenen, K.
1994 “Der Name ‘GLYW auf Samaria-Ostrakon Nr. 41.” VT 44:396–400.
Kogan, L., and S. Tishchenko
2002 “Lexicographic Notes on Hebrew bamah.” UF 34:319–52.
Koitabashi, M.
1998 “Music in the Texts from Ugarit.” UF 30:363–95.
Korpel, M. C. A.
1991 A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. UBL 8. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
1998 “Exegesis in the Work of Ilimilku of Ugarit.” Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel:
Papers read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and Het
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie held at Oxford, 1997. Ed.
J. C. de Moor. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill. 86–111.
bibliography 755
Krebernik, M.
1992 “Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6, and ARET 5, 7.” Literature and
Literary Language at Ebla. Ed. P. Fronzaroli. Quaderni di Semitistica 18. Florence:
Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenza. 63–149.
Kruger, P. A.
1995 “Rank Symbolism in the Baal Epic: Some Further Indicators.” UF 27:169–75.
Kselman, J. S.
1975 “A Note on Gen 7:11.” CBQ 35:491–93.
Kugel, J. L.
1981 The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New Haven/London: Yale
University.
Kühne, C.
1973 “Ammishtamru und die Tochter der ‘Grossen Dame’.” UF 5:175–84.
Kupper, J. R.
1961 L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans le glyptique de la I èr dynastie babylonienne. Brussels:
Palais des Académies.
Lackenbacher, S.
1983 “Nouveaux documents d’Ugarit—II—Une lettre de Mari?” MARI 3:185–89.
2002 Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit: Textes provenant des vingt-cinq premières campagnes. LAPO
20. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.
Lafont, B.
1997 “Le fonctionnement de la poste et le métier de facteur d’après les textes de
Mari.” Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour
on His 80th Birthday. Ed. G. D. Young, M. W. Chavalas, and R. E. Averbeck.
Bethesda: CDL. 315–34.
Lambdin, T. O.
1971 Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Lambert, W. G.
1960 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon.
1963 “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Year: the Conflict in the Akītu
House.” Iraq 25:189–90.
1980 “New Fragments of Babylonian Epics.” AfO 27:71–82.
1981 “Old Akkadian Ilaba = Ugaritic Ilib?” UF 13:299–301.
1985a “The Pantheon of Mari.” MARI 4:525–39.
1985b “Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia.” BSOAS 48:435–51.
1986 “Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation.” Keilschriftliche
Literaturen: Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
Münster, 8.–12.7.1985. Ed. K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld. Berliner Beiträge
zum Vorderen Orient 6. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 55–60.
1988 “Old Testament Mythology in its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Congress
Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Ed. J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill. 124–43.
1990 “Ancient Mesopotamian Gods: Superstition, Philosophy, Theology.” RHR
207:115–30.
1991 “Metal-Working and Its Patron Deities in the Early Levant.” Levant 23:183–86.
1996 Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Reprint of 1963 original. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard
1969 Atra-hasis. The Babylonian Story of the Flood. With the Sumerian Flood Story by
M. Civil. Oxford: Clarendon.
1999 Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. With the Sumerian Flood Story by
M. Civil. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Landsberger, B.
1960 Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon VIII/1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Landsberger, B., and J. V. Kinnier Wilson
1961 “The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Elish.” JNES 20:154–79.
756 bibliography
2005 “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images.” Cult Image and Divine
Representation in the Ancient Near East. Ed. N. H. Walls. Boston: American
Schools of Oriental Research. 69–107.
Lewy, J.
1945–46 “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the
Time of Nabonidus.” HUCA 19:405–89.
L’Heureux, C. E.
1979 Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba‘al and the Repha’im. HSM 21. Missoula,
MT: Scholars.
Lichtenstein, M. H.
1968 “The Banquet Motifs in Keret and in Proverbs 9.” JANES 1/1:19–31.
1969 “Dream-Theophany and the E Document.” JANES 1/2:45–54.
1977 “Episodic Structure in the Ugaritic Keret Legend: Comparative Studies in
Compositional Technique.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York
City.
Lichtheim, M.
1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Berkeley/Los
Angeles/London: University of California.
1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume II: The New Kingdom. Berkeley/Los Angeles/
London: University of California.
Limet, H.
1971 “La poème épique ‘Innina et Ebi ’, une version des lignes 123 à 182.” Or
40:11–28.
Lindenberger, J. M.
1983 The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.
Liphschitz, N., and G. Biger
1991 “Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) in Israel during Antiquity.” IEJ 41:167–75.
Lipiński, E.
1967 “Recherches ugaritiques 1.” Syria 44:253–87.
1970 “Banquet en l‘honneur de Baal. CTA 3 (VAB), A, 4–22.” UF 2:75–88.
1971 “El’s Abode. Mythological Traditions related to Mt. Hermon and the
Mountains of Armenia.” OLP 2:13–69.
1972 “The Goddess A irat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit: Her
Relation to the Moon-god and the Sun-Goddess.” OLP 3:101–19.
1973 “Recherches ugaritiques 4.” Syria 50:35–51.
1981 Review of K. Aartun, Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen. BiOr 38:383–86.
1983 “The ‘Phoenician History’ of Philo of Byblos.” BiOr 40:305–10.
Liverani, M.
1977 “Communautés de village et palais royal dans le Syrie du IIème millénaire.”
JESHO 18:146–64.
1978 Three Amarna Essays. Trans. From the Italian M. L. Jaffe. Malibu: Undena.
1990 Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C.
Padova: Sargon.
2003 Oltre la Bibbia: Storica antica di Israele. Rome: Laterza & Figli.
Livingstone, A.
1986 Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars.
Oxford: Clarendon.
1989 Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria III. Helsinki:
Helsinki University.
1993 “The Case of the Hemerologies: Official Cult, Learned Formulation and
Popular Practice.” Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers
of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Middle East—The City and its Life held at the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo). March 20–22, 1992. Ed.
Eiko Matsushima. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. 97–113.
758 bibliography
Lloyd, J. B.
1996 “Anat and the ‘Double’ Massacre of KTU 1.3 ii.” Ugaritic, religion and culture:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion and culture. Edinburgh,
July 1994. Essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Ed. N. Wyatt,
W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 151–65.
Loewenstamm, S. E.
1956 Review of C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual, Rome, 1955.” Tarbiz 25:468–72
(Hebrew) = CS 30–38.
1959 “The Muzzling of the Tannin in Ugaritic Myth.” IEJ 9:260–61 = CS
91–92.
1965 “The Seven-Day Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature.” IEJ 15:122–23 = CS
192–209.
1969a “Remarks on the Infinitive Absolute in Ugaritic and Phoenician,” JANES 2/1:
53.
1969b “Ugaritic Formulas of Greeting.” BASOR 194:52–54 = CS 362–65.
1974 “Did the Goddess Anath Wear a Beard and Side-Whiskers?” IOS 4:1–3 = CS
459–62.
1975 “Anat’s Victory over the Tunnanu.” JSS 20:22–27 = CS 465–70.
1980 “The Sending of Messengers to the Land of No Return (CTA 4:VIII).” CS
526–38. Translated from the Hebrew version in ErIs 13 (1978, H. L. Ginsberg
Volume):1–6.
1982 “Did the Goddess Anat Wear Side-Whiskers and a Beard? A Reconsideration.”
UF 14:119–23.
1984 “Die Wasser der biblischen Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden.”
VT 34:179–94.
Lohfink, N.
1977 “ āram.” TWAT III 2/3:192–213 (= TDOT 5:180–91).
Løkkegaard, F.
1953 “A Plea for El, the Bull, and Other Ugaritic Miscellanies.” Studia Orientalia
Ioanni Pedersen: Septuagenario A.D. VII Id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII a Collegis Discipulis
Amicis Dicata. Hauniae: Einar Munksgaard. 219–35.
1955 “The House of Baal.” Acta Orientalia 22:10–27.
Lombard, P.
1995 “Contexte archéologique et données épigraphiques. Quelques réflexions sur
l’interpretation du gisement de 1973–1992.” Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200
av. J.-C.: Actes du colloque international Paris, 28 juin–1er juillet 1993. RSO XI. Ed.
M. Yon, M. Sznycer and P. Bordreuil. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations. 227–37.
Lord, A. B.
1965 The Singer of Tales. New York: Atheneum.
Loretz, O.
1979 Die Psalmen II. AOAT 207/2. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
1990 Ugarit und der Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
1993 “Ugaritisch-hebräich mr/ mr und msk (/mzg): Neu- und Mischwein in der
Ägäis und in Syrien-Palästina.” UF 25:247–58.
1995a “Die Einzigkeit Jahwes (Dtn 6,4) im Licht des ugaritischen Baal-Mythos: Das
Argumentationsmodell des altsyrisch-kanaanäischen und biblischen ‘Mono-
theismus’.” Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn
von Soden zum 85. Geburstag am 19. Juni 1993. Ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz.
AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag. 215–304.
1995b Review of Smith, UBC 1. UF 27:726–27.
1995c “Ugaritische Lexikographie.” SEL 12:105–20.
bibliography 759
1996 “A Hurrian Word ( kt) for the Chariot of the Cloud-Rider? (KTU 1.4 V 6–9).”
Ugaritic, religion and culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion
and culture. Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L.
Gibson. Ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag. 167–78.
1999 “Die Rückkehr des Wettergottes und der königlichen Ahnen beim Neujahr-
fest in Ugarit und Jerusalem: ,,Thronbesteigung“ im Blick altorientalisticher
Argumentationsforschung.” ‘Schnittpunkt’ Ugarit. Ed. M. Kropp and A. Wagner.
Frankfurt: Lang. 163–244.
2000 “ ‘Schwarze Magie’ des Tages in Hi 3,8 und KTU 1.6 VI 45b–53; 1.14 I
19–20; 1.4 VII 54–56: Zur Überlieferung der ,,schwarzen Magie’’ in Altsyrien-
Palästina.” UF 32 (In memoriam Cyrus H. Gordon): 261–87.
2001a “Literarische Quellen zur Stele des “Baal au foudre” (RS 4.427). Ug. bmt I,
bmt II, akkadische und hebräische Parallelen.” UF 33:325–76.
2001b “Ugaritic ‘tq I–II, ‘tq und hebräisch ‘tq in Ps 6,8: Zur Nominalform qtly ( rry)
in KTU 1.16 I 2–9a.” UF 33:303–24.
2002a “Die Einzigkeit eines Gottes im Polytheismus von Ugarit: Zur Levante als
Ursprungsort des biblischen Monotheismus.” Polytheismus und Monotheismus in
den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. Ed. M. Krebernik and J. van Oorschot. AOAT
298. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 71–89.
2002b “Die Gefä e Rdmns für ein Marzihu-Gelage zu Ehren Baals und Nestorbecher
der Ilias: Zu den mykenisch-ugaritischen Bezeichungen nach KTU 1.3 I
10–15a.” Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem
65. Geburstag. Ed. O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig. AOAT 281.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 299–323.
Lust, J.
1989 “Isaiah 34 and the erem.” The Book of Isaiah. Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs
relectures. Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Ed. J. Vermeylen. BETL LXXXI. Leuven:
University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters. 275–86.
Mabie, F.
nd “Scribal Auxiliary Marks in the Ugaritic Corpus.” Paper presented at the
Society of Biblical Meeting.
Machinist, P.
1986 “On Self-Consciousness in Mesopotamia.” The Origins and Diversity of Axial
Age Civilizations. Ed. S. N. Eisenstadt. Albany: State University of New York.
184–91.
Maidman, M. P.
1994 Two Hundred Nuzi Texts from the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Part I.
Studies on the Civilizations and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 6. Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press.
Maier, W. A.
1986 ’Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence. HSM 37. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Majidzadeh, Y.
1982 “Lapis Lazuli and the Great Khorasan Road.” Paléorient 8/1:59–69.
Malamat, A.
1965 “Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Early Mesopo-
tamian Rulers.” Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday
April 21, 1965. Ed. H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen. Assyriological Studies
16. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 365–73.
1998 Mari and the Bible. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East XII. Leiden: Boston/Köln: Brill.
2002 “Weapons Deposited in a Sanctuary by Zimri-Lim of Mari and David and
Saul of Israel.” Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu
seinem 65. Geburstag. Ed. O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig. AOAT
281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 325–27.
760 bibliography
Malul, M.
1992 “David’s Curse of Joab (2 Sam 3:29) and the Social Significance of m zyq
bplk.” AO 10:49–67.
Mankowski, P. V.
2000 Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. HSS 47. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mann, T. W.
1977 Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: the Typology of Exaltation. The
Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies 9. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins.
Marcus, D.
1968 “The Three Alephs in Ugaritic.” JANES 11:50–60.
1972 “The Verb ‘To Live’ in Ugaritic.” JSS 17:76–82.
1973a “A Famous Analogy of Rib-Hadi.” JANES 5:281–86.
1973b Review of J. C. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. JAOS 93:589–91.
1974 “Ugaritic Evidence for ‘The Almighty/the Grand One’?” Bib 55:404–07.
1977 “The Term ‘Chin’ in the Semitic Languages.” BASOR 226:53–60.
Margalit, B.
1979 “Alliteration in Ugaritic Poetry: Its Rôle in Composition and Analysis.” UF
11 (C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift):537–57.
1995 “K-R-T Studies.” UF 27: 215–315.
Margueron, J. C.
1977 “Un ‘ ilani’ à Emar.” AASOR 44:153–76.
Márquez Rowe, I.
2000 “The King of Ugarit, His Wife, Her Brother, and Her Lovers: The Mystery
of a Tragedy in Two Act Revisited.” UF 32 (In memoriam Cyrus H. Gordon):
365–72.
Marzal, A.
1976 Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari. Studia Pohl 11. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press.
Massart, A.
1954 The Leiden Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen,
Supplement op Nieuwe Reeks XXXIV. Leiden: Brill.
Matthiae, P.
1981 Ebla: An Empire Discovered. Trans. C. Holme. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1992 “Some Notes on the Old Syrian Iconography of the God Yam.” Natural Phe-
nomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East. Ed. D. J.
W. Meijer. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 169–92.
Mattila, R.
2002 Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal through Sin-
šarru-iškun. SAA XIV. Helsinki: Helsinki University.
Mayerson, P.
1975 “Observations on the ‘Nilus’ Narrationes: Evidence for an Unknown Christian
Sect?” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 12:51–74.
Mazzini, G.
1998 “The Shining Shadow: Lexical Observations on the Ugaritic Word l.” SEL
16:27–34.
2003 “The Defeat of the Dragon in KTU 1.83,4–10: Ugaritic ŠBM and the South
Arabian Root ŠBM.” UF 35:391–406.
McCarter, P. K., Jr.
1980 I Samuel. AB 8. Garden City: Doubleday.
1987 “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic
Data.” Ancient Israelite Religion; Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Ed. P. D.
Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. 137–55.
ip “The Garden of Eden: Geographical and Etymological Ruminations on the
Garden of God in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Presented to the
Colloquium for Biblical Research, Duke University, August 19, 2001. Cited
with permission.
bibliography 761
McCarthy, D. J.
1964 “Vox bśr praeparat vocem ‘evangelium’.” Verbum Domini 42:26–33.
1967 “ ‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry.” CBQ 29:393–406.
McGovern, P. E. and R. H. Michel
1984 “Royal Purple and the Pre-Phoenician Dye Industry of Lebanon.” MASCA
Journal 3/3:67–70.
McLaughlin, J. L.
2001 The marzēa in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-
Biblical Evidence. VTSup 86. Leiden/Boston/Köln.
Meier, S.
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.
1989 The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. HSM 45. Atlanta: Scholars.
Meiggs, R.
1982 Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mendelsohn, I.
1948 “The Family in the Ancient Near East.” BA 11:24–40.
Merkur, D.
1996 “The Numinous as a Category of Values.” The Sacred and its Scholars: Comparative
Methodologies for the Study of Primary Religious Data. Ed. T. A. Idinipulos and E. A.
Yonan. Numen LXXIII. Leiden: Brill. 104–23.
Merlo, P.
1997 “Note critiche su alcune presunte iconografie della dea Ašera.” SEL 14:43–63.
Mettinger, T. N. D.
2001 The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East. CBOT
50. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Metzger, M.
1970 “Himmlische und irdische Wohnstatt Jahwes.” UF 2:139–58.
Meyers, C.
2003 “Material Remains and Social Relations: Women’s Culture in Agrarian House-
holds of the Iron Age.” Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan,
Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors —From the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina.
Ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. The AIAR Anniversary Volume. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns. 425–444, with comments on page 560.
Michalowski, P.
1993 Letters from Early Mesopotamia. Ed. E. Reiner. SBLWAW 3. Atlanta: Scholars.
Mieropp, M. Van De
1992 Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient
12. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
1999 Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. London/New York: Routledge.
Milgrom, J.
1985 “An Archaeological Myth Destroyed: ‘You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s
Milk.’ ” BAR 1/3:48–55.
1991 Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday.
Millard, A. R.
1984 “The Etymology of Eden.” VT 34:103–6.
Miller, C. L.
1999 “Patterns of Verbal Ellipsis in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 31:333–72.
Miller, N., and Wetterstrom, W.
1999 “The Beginnings of Agriculture: The Ancient Near East and North Africa.”
The Cambridge World History of Food. Volume II. Ed. K. Kiple and K. Ornelas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University. 1123–39.
Miller, P. D.
1965 “Fire in the Mythology of Canaan and Israel.” CBQ 27:256–61.
762 bibliography
Mori, L.
2003 Reconstructing the Emar Landscape. Quaderni de Geografia Storica, 6. Rome:
Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza.”
Moroder, R. J.
1974 “Ugaritic and Modern Translations of the Psalter.” UF 6:249–64.
Morris, S. P.
1992 Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Morrison, M. A.
1981 “Evidence for Herdsmen and Animal Husbandry in the Nuzi Documents.”
Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians: In Honor of Ernest R.
Lacheman on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 29, 1981. Ed. M. A. Morrison and
D. I. Owen. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. 257–96.
Muffs, Y.
1992 Love & Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York/Jerusalem: The
Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Mullen, E. T., Jr.
1980 The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. HSM 24. Chico, CA:
Scholars.
Muraoka, T.
1985 Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden:
Brill.
Nasgowitz, D. W.
1975 “Prices of Commodities, Slaves, and Real Estate at Ugarit.” Ph.D. diss., Uni-
versity of Chicago.
Nebes, N.
1995 Die Konstruktionen mit /FA-/ im Altsüdarabischen: Syntaktische und epigraphische Unter-
suchungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Negri Scafa, P.
1994 “The Scribes of Nuzi and Their Activities Relative to Arms According to
Palace Texts.” General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9/3. Studies on the Civiliza-
tion and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 5. Ed. D. I. Owen. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns. 53–69.
Neiman, D.
1969 “The Supercaelian Sea.” JNES 28:243–49.
Nesse, R. M.
1988 “Panic Disorder: An Evolutionary View.” Psychiatric Annals 18(8):478–83.
1990 “Evolutionary Explanations of Emotions.” Human Nature 1:261–89.
Nibbi, A.
1996 “Cedar Again.” Discussions in Egyptology 34:37–59.
Niccacci, A.
1990 The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Trans. W. G. E. Watson. JSOTSup
86. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Niehr, H.
1994 “Überlegungen zum El-Tempel in Ugarit.” UF 26:419–26.
1997 “Zur Semantik von nordwestsemitisch ‘lm als ‘Unterwelt’ und ‘Grab’.” Ana šadî
Labnāni lū allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für
Wolfgang Röllig. Ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella. AOAT 247.
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 295–305.
1999 “Zu den Beziehungen Zwischen Ritualen und Mythen in Ugarit.” JNSL
25:109–36.
Nissinen, M.
2001 “Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love.” Mythology and Mythologies: Meth-
odological Approaches and Intercultural Influences. Ed. R. M. Whiting. Melammu
Symposia II. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. 93–136.
764 bibliography
Noegel, S. B.
1995 “A Janus Parallelism in the Baal and Anat Story.” JNWSL 21/1:91–94.
2004 “Geminate Ballast and Clustering: An Unrecognized Literary Feature in
Ancient Semitic Poetry.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5:1–18.
Obermann, J.
1947 “How Baal Destroyed a Rival. A Mythological Incantation Scene.” JAOS
67:195–208.
O’Bryhim, S.
1996 “A New Interpretation of Hesiod, ‘Theogony’ 35.” Hermes 124:131–39.
O’Callaghan, R. T.
1952 “The Word ktp in Ugaritic and Egypto-Canaanite Mythology.” Or 21:37–46.
O’Connor, M. P.
1989 “Semitic *mgn and Its Supposed Sanskrit Origin.” JAOS 109:25–32.
Ogden, G. S.
1982 “Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament:
The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7–22 and Obadiah.” JSOT
24:89–97.
Ohshiro, M.
2000 “A Study of Lapis Lazuli in the Formative Period of Egyptian Culture: An
Approach in Terms of Culture Contact.” Orient 35:60–74.
Oldenburg, U.
1970 “Above the Stars of El. El in South Arabic Religion.” ZAW 82:187–208.
Olmo Lete, G. del
1978a “Notes on Ugaritic Semantics IV.” UF 10:37–46.
1978b “The Ugaritic War Chariot: A New Translation of KTU 4.392 (PRU V, 105).”
UF 10: 47–51.
1983 “A iratu’s Entreaty and the Order of the Ugaritic Tablets KTU 1.3/4.” AO
1:67–71.
1984 Interpretacíon de la mitología cananea: Estudios de semántica ugaritíca. Institucíon
San Jerónimo para la Investigación Bíblica. Fuentes de la Ciencia Bíblica 2.
Valencia: Institución Jerónimo.
1992 “Receta mágica para un infante enfermo (KTU 1.124).” Sefarad 52:187–92
1995 “The Sacrificial Vocabulary at Ugarit.” SEL 12:37–49.
1996 “El Ciclo de Baal revisado.” AO 14:269–77.
1996a “KTU 1.83: An Astro-mythological Text?” AuOr 14:130–33.
1998 “Le phén. ‘rpt, l’acc. urpatu(m) et le group lexical ‘/¿-r-b/p.” Transeu 14:167–74.
1999 Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Trans. W. G. E. Watson.
Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
2006 “Una ‘ventana’ en el templo de Baal.” Aula Orientalis: 26:177–88.
Oppenheim, A. L.
1963 “Mesopotamian Conchology.” Or 32:407–12.
1964 Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago.
1974 “A Babylonian Diviner’s Manual.” JNES 33:197–220.
Orel, V., and O. Stolbova
1995 Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
Oren, D. A.
1996 “Humoral Phototransduction: Blood is a Messenger.” The Neuroscientist 4/2:
207–10.
Overland, P.
2000 “Did the Sage Draw from the Shema? A Study of Proverbs 3:1–12.” CBQ
62:424–40.
Owen, D. I.
1991 “The ‘First’ Equestrian: An Ur III Glyptic Scene.” Acta Sumerologica 13:259–73.
1995 “Pasuri-Dagan and Ini-Teššup’s Mother.” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots:
Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Ed. Z. Zevit,
S. Gitin and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 573–84.
bibliography 765
Paden, W. E.
1997 “Sacrality as Integrity: ‘Sacred Order’ as a Model for Describing Religious
Worlds.” The Sacred and its Scholars: Comparative Methodologies for the Study of
Primary Religious Data. Ed. T. A. Idinopulos and E. A. Yonan. Numen LXXIII.
Leiden: Brill/New York/Köln. 3–18.
Page, H.
1996 The Myth of Cosmic Rebellion: A Study of Its Reflexes in Ugaritic and Biblical
Literature. VTSup 65. Leiden: Brill.
1998 “The Three Zone Theory and Ugaritic Conceptions of the Divine.” UF
30:615–31.
Pardee, D.
1973 “A Note on the Root ‘tq in CTA 16. I 2, 5 (UT 125, KRT II).” UF 5:229–34.
1974 “The Ugaritic Text 147 (90).” UF 6:275–82.
1975 “The Preposition in Ugaritic.” UF 7:329–78.
1976 “The Preposition in Ugaritic.” UF 8:215–322.
1977 “A New Ugaritic Letter.” BiOr 34:3–20.
1978 “A Philological and Prosodic Analysis of the Ugaritic Serpent Incantation.”
JANES 10:73–108.
1980 “The New Canaanite Myths and Legends.” BiOr 37:269–91.
1984 “Will the Dragon Never be Muzzled?” UF 16:251–55.
1986 Review of E. T. Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew
Literature, JNES 45:64–67.
1987 “ ‘As Strong as Death.’ ” Love & Death in the Ancient Neast East: Essays in Honor
of Marvin H. Pope. Ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four
Quarters Publishing Company. 65–69.
1988a Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e Campagne (1961). RSO IV. Mémoire no
77. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations.
1988b Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt I and Proverbs 2). VTSup
39. Leiden: Brill.
1989–90 “Ugaritic Proper Nouns.” AfO 36–37:390–513.
1991 “The Structure of RS 1.002.” Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau: On the
Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday. November 14th, 1991. Ed. A. S. Kaye. Two
vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2.1181–96.
1992 “RS 24.643: Texte et Structure.” Syria 69:153–70.
1993 Review of Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, and The Structural Analysis of
Biblical and Canaanite Poetry, JNES 52:155–57.
1997a “The Ba‘lu Myth.” COS 1:241–74.
1997b “Dawn and Dusk.” COS 1:274–83.
1997c “A Ugaritic Incantation Against Serpents and Sorcerers.” COS 1:327–28 .
1998a “A Brief Reply to G. del Olmo Lete’s Reply.” AuOr 16:255–60.
1998b “Remarks on J. T.’s ‘Epigraphische Anmerkungen’.” AuOr 16:85–102.
1998c Review of M. S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, JNES 57:46–48.
2000 Les textes rituels. Two vols. RSO XII. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations.
2002 Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Ed. T. J. Lewis. SBLWAW 10. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
2003 “Une formule épistolaire en ougaritique et accadien.” Semitic and Assyriological
Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz. 446–75.
2003a “Le traité d’alliance RS 11.772+.” Semitica 51:5–31.
2004a “La fête de la pleine lune à Ougarit (XIIIe s. av. J.-C.).” La fête. La rencontre des
dieux et des hommes: Actes du 2e Colloque International de Paris. Ed. M. Mazoyer
et al. Collection KUBABA, Séries Actes IV. Paris/Budapest/Turin: Har-
mattan. 67–75.
766 bibliography
2004b “Ugarit.” The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Oldest Languages. Ed. R. D.
Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 288–318.
2005 “Online-Version von Rezension von J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT
273), Ugarit-Verlag, Münster 2000.” Archiv für Orientforschungen website: http://
www.univie.ac.at/orientalistik/Afo.html.
i.p. “A New Join of Fragments of the Baal Cycle.” Essays in Honor of Larry Stager.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
i.p.2 “La première tablette du cycle de Ba‘lu (RS 3.361 [CTA 1]): mise au point
épigraphique.” [ Proceedings of the 2005 Cherbourg conference].
Pardee, D. and P. Bordreuil
1992 “Ugarit. Texts and Literature.” ABD 6:706–21.
Parker, S. B.
1989a “KTU 1.16 III, the Myth of the Absent God and 1 Kings 18.” UF 21:283–96.
1989b The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the Ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat.
SBLRBS 24. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
1990 Review of D. Pardee, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism. JBL 109:503–4.
1997 Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic
Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. New York/Oxford: Oxford University.
Parpola, S.
1987 The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West. State
Archives of Assyria I. Helsinki: Helsinki University.
2000 “Monotheism in Ancient Mesopotamia.” One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in
the Ancient World. Ed. B. N. Porter. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological
Institute I. Casco Bay, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute. 165–209.
Parpola, S., and K. Watanabe
1988 Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria II. Helsinki:
Helsinki University.
Partridge, R.
1996 Transport in Ancient Egypt. London: The Rubicon Press.
Paul, S. M.
1968 “Cuneiform Light on Jer 9, 20.” Bib 49:373–76.
1993 “Gleanings from the Biblical and Talmudic Lexica in Light of Akkadian.”
Min ah le-Na um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour
of His 70th Birthday. Ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane. JSOTSup 154. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press. 242–56.
Paul, S. M., and W. G. Dever
1973 Biblical Archeology. Jerusalem: Keter.
Paulus, M. J.
1985 “Traditional Building Materials in Ancient Mesopotamian Architecture.” Sumer
41:130–32.
Pentiuc, E. J.
2001 West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. HSS 49. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Perlman
1978 “Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament.” Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theologi-
cal Union, Berkeley, CA.
Petersen, A. R.
1994 “Where Did Schaeffer Find the Clay Tablets of the Ugaritic Baal-Cycle?”
SJOT 8:45–60.
1998 The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? JSOTSup 259.
Copenhagen International Seminar 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Petersen, D. L., and M. Woodward
1977 “Northwest Semitic Religion: A Study of Relational Structures.” UF 9:233–48.
bibliography 767
Pinnock, F.
1988 “Observations on the Trade of Lapis Lazuli in the IIIrd Millennium B.C.”
Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla. Ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann.
Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. 107–10.
Piquer Otero, A.
2000 “Estudios de Sintaxis Verbal Ugarítica en El Combate de Ba‘lu y Yammu.” Memo-
ria de Licenciatura, Departamento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos, Facultad
de Filología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
2003 “Estudios de Sintaxis Verbal en Textos Ugaríticos Poéticos.” Tesis Doctoral.
Departamento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos, Facultad de Filología, Uni-
versidad Complutense de Madrid.
2007 Estudios de sintaxis verbal ugariticos: El Ciclo de Baal y la “poesia biblica arcaica”.
Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino.
Pitard, W. T.
1992a “A New Edition of the “Rāpi ūma” Texts: KTU 1.20–22.” BASOR 285:33–77.
1992b “The Shape of the ayin in the Ugaritic Script.” JNES 51:261–79.
1996 “The Archaeology of Emar.” Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian
Town in the Late Bronze Age. Ed. M. W. Chavalas. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
13–23.
1998 “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.83.”
JNES 57:261–80.
2007 “Just How Many Monsters Did Anat Fight (KTU 1.3 III 38–47)?” Pp. 75–88
in Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Ed Lawson K. Younger. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
i.p. “Watch That Margin! Understanding the Scribal Peculiarities of CAT 1.4
Obverse.” Maarav 15.
Pleiner, R., and J. K. Bjorkman
1974 “The Assyrian Iron Age: The History of Iron in the Assyrian Civilization.”
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 118:283–313.
Plutchik, R.
1994 The Psychology and Biology of Emotion. New York: HarperCollins College
Publishers.
Polak, F. H.
2006 “Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects of Epic Formulae in Ancient Semitic Poetry
and Biblical Narrative.” Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting. Ed.
S. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magness. 285–304.
Pomponio, F., and P. Xella
1997 Les dieux d’Ebla: Étude analytique des divinité éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du
III e millénaire. AOAT 245. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Pope, M. H.
1947 “A Note on Ugaritic ndd-ydd.” JCS 1:337–41 = Pope 1994:359–63.
1953 “ ‘Pleonastic’ Wāw before Nouns in Ugaritic and Hebrew.” JAOS 73:95–98 =
Pope 1994:311–16.
1962 “Seven, Seventh, Seventy.” IDB 4:294–95.
1964 “The Word š t in Job 9,31.” JBL 83:269–78 = Pope 1994:133–43.
1965 “Anat.” In “Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phönizier,” by M. H. Pope and
W. Röllig. WdM: 235–41.
1966 Review of J. Gray, Legacy of Canaan. JSS 11:228–41 = Pope 1994:109–26.
1971 “The Scene on the Drinking Mug from Ugarit.” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright. Ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins.
393–405 = Pope 1994:17–27.
1973 Job. Third ed. AB 15. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
1974 “Of Locusts and Locust Eggs.” JBL 93 (1974) 293 = Pope 1994:127.
768 bibliography
1977a “Notes on the Rephaim Texts.” Essays on the Ancient East in Memory of Jacob
Joel Finkelstein. Ed. M. de Jong Ellis. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of
Arts & Sciences 19. Hamden, CT: Archon Books. 163–82 = Pope 1994:185–
224.
1977b Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 7C. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
1978a “A Little Soul-Searching.” MAARAV 1/1:25–31 = Pope 1994:145–150.
1978b “Mid Rock and Scrub, a Ugaritic Parallel to Exodus 7:19.” Biblical and Near
Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Ed. G. Tuttle. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 146–50 = Pope 1994:41–46 (with “An afterthought
22/12/92) on ‘Mid rock and Scrub’ ”).
1980 Job. Third ed. AB 15. New York: Doubleday.
1981a “The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit.” Ugarit in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Ugarit and
Ugaritic. Ed. G. D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 159–79 = Pope
1994:225–50.
1981b Review of B. Margalit, A Matter of Life and Death. UF 13:316–21.
1986 “The Timing of the Snagging of the Ram, Genesis 22:13.” BA 49:114–17 =
Pope 1994:305–10.
1994 Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature: Collected Essays. Ed. M. S.
Smith. UBL 10. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Pope, M. H., and J. H. Tigay
1971 “A Description of Baal.” UF 3:117–30 = Pope 1994:63–82.
Porten, B.
1968 Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley/
Los Angeles: University of California.
Potts, D.
1984 “On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JESHO 27:225–71.
Powell, M. A.
1992 “Weights and Measures.” ABD 6:897–908.
Preschel, D.
1996 Die Göttin Ishara: Ein Beitrag zur altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. ALASP 11.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Prosser, M.
2001 “Reconsidering the Reconstruction of KTU 1.4 VII 19.” UF 33:467–78.
Quirke, S.
1992 Ancient Egyptian Religion. London: British Museum.
Rainey, A.
1965 “The Kingdom of Ugarit.” BA 28:102–25.
1968 “The Scribe at Ugarit. His Position and Influence.” Proceedings of the Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities 3/4:126–43.
1973a “Gleanings from Ugarit.” IOS 3:34–62.
1973b “ilānu rē ūtni lillikū!” Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the
Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Ed. H. A. Hoffner, Jr. AOAT 22. Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. 139–42.
1987 “A New Grammar of Ugaritic.” Or n.s. 56:391–402.
1996 Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by
the Scribes from Canaan. Four vols. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.
Ratner, R., and B. Zuckerman
1985 “On Reading the ‘Kid in the Milk’ Inscription.” BAR 1/3:56–58.
1986 “ ‘A Kid in Milk’? New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14.” HUCA 57:15–
60.
Redford, D. B.
1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
bibliography 769
Reese, D. S.
1979–80 “Industrial Exploitation of Murex Shells: Purple-dye and Lime Production
at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice).” Libyan Studies 11:79–93.
Reif, S. C.
1985 “A Root to Look Up? A Study of the Hebrew nś’ ‘yn.” Congress Volume:
Salamanca 1983. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill. 230–44.
Reiner, E.
1958 Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO Beiheft 11. Graz:
Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers.
1987 “Magic Figurines, Amulets, and Talismans.” Monsters and Demons in the Ancient
and Medieval Worlds: Papers Presented in Honor of Edith Porada. Ed. A. E. Farkas,
P. O. Harper and E. B. Harrison. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 27–36.
1995 Astral Magic in Babylonia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
Volume 85, Part 4. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.
Riede, P.
1993 “‘Denn wie der Mensch jedes Tier nennen würde, so sollte es heissen’:
Hebräische Tiernamen und was sie uns verraten.” UF 25:331–78.
Rendsburg, G. A.
1984 “UT 68 and the Tell Asmar Seal.” Or 53:448–52.
1987 “Modern South Arabian as a Source for Ugaritic Etymologies.” JAOS 107:
623–28.
1997 “Double Polysemy in Proverbs 31:19.” Humanism, Culture and Language in
the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff. Ed. A. Afsaruddin and A. H.
Mathias Zahniser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 267–74.
Renfroe, F.
1992 Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. ALASP 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Ribichini, S., and P. Xella
1984 “Il dio pdr.” UF 16:267–72.
Richardson, M. E.
1978 “Ugaritic Place Names with Final -y.” JSS 23:298–315.
Ringgren, H.
1979 “Ugarit und das Alte Testament: Einige methodologische Erwägungen.”
UF 11 (C. F. A. Schaeffer Festschrift): 719–21.
Ritner, R.
1997 “The Legend of Astarte and the Tribute of the Sea.” COS 1:35–36.
Roberts, J. J. M.
1972 The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mespotamia
before Ur III. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins.
Roberts, K. L.
2000 “God, Prophet, and King: Eating and Drinking on the Mountain in First
Kings 18:41.” CBQ 62:632–44.
Robertson, N.
1982 “The Ritual Background of the Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine.”
HTR 75:313–59.
Rosenthal, F.
1940 Review of C. Virolleaud, La déesse ‘Anat. Or 9:290–95.
Ross, J. F.
1970 “Prophecy in Hamath, Israel and Mari.” HTR 63:1–28.
1975 “Job 33:14–30: The Phenomenology of Lament.” JBL 94:38–46.
Roth, W. W.
1965 Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study. VTSup 13. Leiden:
Brill.
Rowe, A.
1930 The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Publication of the Palestine Section
of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania I. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania.
770 bibliography
1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. Publication of the Palestine Section of
the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania II. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.
Rowlands, M., M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, eds.
1987 Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Rummel, S.
1978 “The ‘NT Text: A Critical Translation.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate
School.
1981 “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts.” Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts
from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. III. Ed. S. Rummel. AnOr 51. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. 221–332.
Ryckmans, G.
1951 Les religions arabes préislamiques. Second ed. Bibliothèque de Muséon XXVI.
Louvain: Publications universitaires.
Sadka, Y.
2001 “Hinne in Biblical Hebrew.” UF 33:479–93.
Sahlins, M.
1979 “Cannibalism: An Exchange.” New York Review of Books 26/4:45–47.
1983 “Raw Women, Cooked Men, and Other ‘Great Things’ of the Fiji Islands.” The
Ethnography of Cannibalism. Ed. Paula Brown and Donald Tuzin. Washington,
D.C.: Society for Psychological Anthropology. 72–93.
Salles, J.-F.
1995 “Rituel Mortuaire et Rituel Social à Ras Shamra/Ougarit.” The Archaeology of
Death in the Ancient Near East. Ed. S. Campbell and A. Green. Oxbow Mono-
graph 51. Oxford: Oxbow. 171–84.
Salonen, A.
1972 Die Ziegeleien im alten Mesopotamien. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae,
series B, 171. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
Sanday, P. R.
1986 Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Sanmartín, J.
1973 “Semantisches über ’mr/‘sehen’ und ’mr/‘sagen’ im Ugaritischen.” UF 5:
263–70.
1976 “arbdd, ‘Liebes-Opfer’: ein hurrisches Lehnwort im Ugaritischen.” UF 8:
461–64.
1978a “Die Lanze (kt¿d) des B‘l.” UF 10:447–48.
1978b “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (II).” UF 10:349–56.
1978c “Die Ug. Basis N und das “Nest” des B‘l (KTU 1.3 IV 1f ).” UF 10:449–50.
1995 “Das Handwerk in Ugarit: Eine Lexikalische Studie.” SEL 12:169–90.
Saracino, F.
1982 “Il letto di Pidray.” UF 14:191–99.
1984 “Ger. 9,20, un polmone ugaritico e la forze di Mot.” AION 44:539–53.
Sasson, J. M.
1979 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist
Interpretation. The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies. Baltimore/London:
Johns Hopkins.
1989 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist
Interpretation. Second edition. Sheffield: JSOT.
Sasson, V.
1982 “Ugaritic ‘ and ¿zr and Hebrew šôwa‘ and ‘ōzēr.” UF 14:201–8.
Sauvage, M.
1998 La brique et sa mise en oeuvre en Mésopotamie des origines à la l’époque achéménide. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
bibliography 771
Schade, A.
2005 “New Photographs Supporting the Readings ryt in Line 12 of the Mesha
Inscription.” IEJ 55:205–08.
Schaeffer, C. F. A.
1929 “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra (campagne du printemps
1929). Rapport sommaire.” Syria 10:285–303.
1931 “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra, deuxième campagne
(printemps 1930). Rapport sommaire.” Syria 12:1–14.
1933 “Les fouilles de Minet el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra: Quatrième campagne
(printemps 1932).” Syria 14:93–127.
1934 “Les fouilles de Ras-Shamra: Cinquième campagne (printemps 1933).” Syria
15: 105–131.
1935 “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Sixième campagne (printemps 1934).”
Syria 16: 141–76.
1939 Ugaritica I. MRS III. Paris: Geuthner.
1949 Ugaritica II. MRS V. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique XLVII. Paris:
Geuthner.
1954 “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit: Quinzième, seizième et dix-septième
campagnes (1951, 1952 et 1953): Rapport sommaire.” Syria 31:14–67.
1962 Ugaritica IV. MRS XV. Paris: Imprimerie nationale/Geuthner.
1979 Ras-Shamra 1929–1979. Collection Maison de l’Orient (CMO), Hors serie No.
3. Lyon: Maison de l’orient Méditerranéen.
Scheel, B.
1989 Egyptian Metalworking and Tools. Aylesbury: Shire.
Schloen, J. D.
1993 “The Exile of Disinherited Kin in KTU 1.12 and KTU 1.23.” JNES 52:209–20.
1995 “The Patrimonial Household in the Kingdom of Ugarit: A Weberian Analysis
of Ancient Near-Eastern Society.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.
2001 The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and
the Ancient Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Schmidt, B. B.
1994 Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and
Tradition. FAT 11. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Schwemer, D.
2001 Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen:
Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Scott, D. A.
1991 Metallography and Microstructure of Ancient and Historic Metals. n.p.: The Getty
Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Museum.
Scurlock, J. A.
1988 “Magical Means of Dealing With Ghosts in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Ph.D.
diss., University of Chicago.
Segert, S.
1958 “Die Schreibfehler in den ugaritischen literarischen Keilschrifttexten in
Anschluss an das textkritische Hilfsbuch von Friedrich Delitzsch klassifiziert”.
Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung.
Ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost. BZAW 77. Berlin:Töpelmann. 193–212.
1971 “The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Ed H. Goedicke. Baltimore/
London: Johns Hopkins.
Selms, A. van
1954 Marriage & Family Life in Ugaritic Literature. Pretoria Oriental Series I. London:
Luzac.
772 bibliography
1975a “A Guest-Room for Ilu and its Furniture: An Interpretation of CTA 4, I, lines
30–44 (Gordon, 51,I,30–44).” UF 7:469–76.
1975b “A Systematic Approach to CTA 5, I, 1–8.” UF 7:477–82.
1979 “The Root k- -r and its Derivatives in Ugaritic Literature.” UF 11 (C. F. A.
Festschrift):739–44.
Selz, G. J.
1997 “The Holy Drum, the Spear, and the Harp. Towards an Understanding of
the Probems of Deification in the Third Millennium Mespotamia.” Sumerian
Gods and Their Representations. Ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller. Cuneiform
Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publications. 167–213.
Seow, C. L.
1989 Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. HSM 44. Atlanta, GA: Schol-
ars.
Sharlach, T.
2002 “Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court.” Studies on the Civiliza-
tion and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Volume 12: General Studies and Excavation
at Nuzi 10/3. Ed. D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
91–114.
Shepherd, D. J.
1995 “Bear, Elk, and Fish Symbolism in Finnish Contexts.” The Symbolic Roles of
Animals in Science and Archaeology. Ed. K. Ryan and P. J. Crabtree. MASCA
Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 12. Philadelphia: MASCA, Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 27–37.
Shils, E.
1975 Center and Periphery: Essays in Macrosociology. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Shkolnik, Y.
1994 The Hula Nature Reserve. n. p.: ERETZ Ha-Tzvi.
Sigrist, M.
1987 “On the Bite of a Dog.” Love and Death in the Ancient Neat East: Essays in Honor
of Marvin H. Pope. Ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Hamden, CT: Four
Quarters. 85–88.
1993 “Gestes symboliques et rituels à Emar.” Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near
East: Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991. Ed. J. Quaegebeur. OLA 55.
Leuven: Peeters/Departement Oriëntalistiek. 381–410.
Simpson, W. K., ed.
1973 The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions and Poetry. New
Haven: Yale University.
Singer, I.
1993 “Appendix: Preliminary Remarks on the Seal Impressions.” kinattūtu ša darâti:
Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Ed. A. Rainey. TASup 1. Tel Aviv: Institute
of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. 185–87.
1995 “Borrowing Seals at Emar.” Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings
of the Symposium Held on September 2, 1993. Jerusalem, Israel. Ed. J. G. Westenholz.
Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem Publications No. 1. Jerusalem: Bible Lands
Museum. 57–63.
Sivan, D.
1982 “Final Triphthongs and Final Yu/a/i-Wu/a/i Diphthongs in Ugaritic Nominal
Forms.” UF 14:209–18.
1984 Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts
of the 15th–13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria. AOAT 214. Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1996 “A Note on the Use of the ’u-Sign in Ugaritic Roots with First ’aleph.” UF
28:555–59.
1997 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. HdO 1/28. Leiden/New York/Köln:
Brill.
bibliography 773
Skehan, P. W.
1975 “Jubilees and the Psalter Text.” CBQ 37:343–47.
Skaist, J.
2001 Ancient Near Eastern Seals from the Kist Collection: Three Millennia of Miniature Reliefs.
CHANE 18. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Smith, J. Z.
1989 “Dying and Rising Gods.” The Encyclopedia of Religion. Volume 4. Ed. M. Eliade.
New York: Macmillan; London: Collier Macmillan. 521–27.
Smith, M. S.
1984a “Baal’s Cosmic Secret.” UF 16:295–98.
1984b “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank.” UF 16:359.
1984c “The Magic of Kothar, the Ugaritic Craftsman God, in KTU 1.6 VI 49–50.”
RB 91:377–80.
1985 “Kothar wa-Hasis, The Ugaritic Craftsman God.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
New Haven, CT.
1986 “Baal in the Land of Death.” UF 17:311–14.
1987 “Biblical and Canaanite Notes to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from
Qumran.” RdQ 12:585–88.
1988 “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-Exilic Israelite Religion.” ZAW
100:424–27.
1990 “Poetic Structure in KTU 1.3 I 4–21.” UF 22:317–19.
1991 The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive. HSS 39. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars.
1994a “Mythology and Myth-Making in Ugaritic and Israelite Literatures.” Ugarit and
the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester,
September 1992. Ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healey. UBL 11.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 293–341.
1994b “The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I: Corrections to Transcription.” UF 26:455.
1995 “Anat’s Warfare Cannibalism and the Biblical Herem.” The Pitcher Is Broken:
Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Ed. S. Holloway and L. K. Handy. JSOT-
Sup 190. Sheffield: JSOT. 368–86.
1997 “Psalm 8:2b–3: New Proposals for Old Problems.” CBQ 59:637–41.
1998a “The Death of ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Biblical World: An Update,
with Special Reference to Baal in the Baal Cycle.” Scandinavian Journal of the
Old Testament 12/2:257–313.
1998b “A Potpourri of Popery: Marginalia from the Life and Notes of Marvin H.
Pope.” UF 30:645–64.
1999 “Grammatically Speaking: The Participle as a Main Verb of Clauses (Predica-
tive Participle) in Direct Discourse and Narrative in Pre-Mishnaic Hebrew.”
Sirach, Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17
December 1997. Ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Studies in the Texts of the
Judean Desert 33. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill. 278–332.
2001a The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts. New York/Oxford: Oxford University.
2001b Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers.
2003 “When the Heavens Darkened: Yahweh, El, and the Divine Astral Family in
Iron Age II Judah.” Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient
Israel, and Their Neighbors—From the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Ed.
W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. The AIAR Anniversary Volume. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns. 265–77, with comments on 558.
2005 “Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People),” Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel.
Ed. J. Day. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, formerly Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement series 422. London/New
York: T. & T. Clark. 3–27.
774 bibliography
2006 The Sacrificial Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods, KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Construc-
tions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration and Domination. SBLRBS 51. Atlanta,
GA: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Smith, M. S. and E. M. Bloch-Smith
1988 “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel.” JAOS 108:277–84.
Smith, W. Robertson
1927 Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions. Third ed. Ed.
S. A. Cook. New York: KTAV [1969].
Soden, W. von
1936 “Die Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen: Nebst einigen Beobach-
tungen zur Vorgeschichte des A iqar-Romans.” ZA 43:1–31.
Sokoloff, M.
1990 A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar
Ilan University.
2002 A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat
Gan: Bar Ilan University; Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins.
van Soldt, W. H.
1988 “The Title t‘y.” UF 20:313–21.
1989 “ ’Atn prln. ’Attā/ēnu the Diviner.” UF 21:365–8.
1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit. Dating and Grammar. AOAT 40. Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
2001 “Studies on the sākinu-Official (I): The Spelling and the Office-Holders at
Ugarit.” UF 33:579–99.
Sollberger, E.
1967 “Samsu-iluna’s Bilingual Inscription B, Text of the Akkadian Version.” RA
61:39–44.
Sollberger, E., and J. R. Kupper
1971 Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes. LAPO 3. Paris: Cerf.
Spencer, A. J.
1979 Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster, Wilts, England: Aris & Phillips.
Spronk, K.
1986 Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Stadelmann, R.
1967 Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Probleme der Ägyptologie 5. Leiden:
Brill.
Stager, L. E.
1985 “The Archeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260:1–35.
1991 Ashqelon Discovered: From Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and Moslems. Wash-
ington: Biblical Archaeology Society.
Starodoub-Scharr, K.
1999 “The Royal Garden in the Great Royal Palace of Ugarit: To the Interpreta-
tion of the Sacral Aspect of the Royalty in the Ancient Palestine and Syria.”
Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, July 29–August
5, 1997: Division A. The Bible and Its World. Ed. R. Margolin. Jerusalem: World
Union of Jewish Studies. 253*–68*.
Steiner, R. C.
1997 “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script.” COS 1:309–27.
2000 “Does the Biblical Hebrew Conjunction w- Have Many Meanings, One
Meaning, or No Meaning at All?” JBL 119:249–67.
Stern, P. D.
1989 “I Samuel 15: Towards an Ancient View of the War— erem.” UF 21:413–20.
1991 The Biblical erem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience. Brown Judaic Studies
211. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
bibliography 775
Stieglitz, R. R.
1979 “Commodity Prices at Ugarit.” JAOS 99:15–23.
1990 “Ebla and the Gods of Canaan.” Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite
Language. Volume 2. Ed. C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg. Publications of
the Center for Ebla Research at New York University. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 1990. 79–89.
Stol, M.
1993 Epilepsy in Babylonia. Cuneiform Monographs II. Groningen: Styx.
Stolz, F.
1982 “Funktionen und Bedeutungsbereiche des ugaritischen Ba‘almythos.” Funk-
tionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele. Ed. J. Assman et al.
OBO 48.Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
83–118.
Stordalen, T.
2000 Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Lit-
erature. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25. Leuven: Peeters.
Stott, P., and S. Sullivan, eds.
2000 “Introduction.” Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. New York: Oxford
University; London: Arnold. 1–11.
Stuart, D.
1976 Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. HSM 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars.
Szubin, H. Z.
1993 “The Term šn’, hate, in Aramaic Legal Documents.” American Academy of
Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting Abstracts 1993. Scholars
Press. Cited with permission. Pg. 95.
1995 “The ‘Beloved Son’ in the Hebrew Bible and the ‘Beloved Disciple’ in the New
Testament in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Legal Texts.” Society of Biblical
Literature International Meeting. Abstract. Cited with permission.
Tadmor, H.
1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities.
Tallqvist, K.
1934 Sumerisch-Akkadische Namen der Totenwelt. Studia Orientalia 4. Helsinski: Societas
Orientalis Fennnica.
1938 Akkadische Götterepitheta. Helsinki: Societas Gernica.
Talmon, S.
1978 “On the Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels.” ErIs
14:117–24 (Hebrew).
1986 King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes.
de Tarragon, J. M.
1980 Le Culte à Ugarit: d’après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques. CRB 19.
Paris: Gabalda.
Teeter, E.
1999 “Celibacy and Adoption Among God’s Wives of Amun and Singers in the
Temple of Amun: Re-examination of the Evidence.” Gold of Praise: Studies on
Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente. Ed. E. Teeter and J. A. Larson. Studies
in Ancient Oriental Civilization 58. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 405–14.
Tessier, B.
1984 Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection. Berkeley/Los Angeles:
University of California.
Te Velde, H.
1967 Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion. Problem
der Ägyptologie 6. Leiden: Brill.
776 bibliography
Thackeray, H. St. J.
1926 The Life/Against Apion. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann
Ltd; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Thackeray, H. St. J., and R. Marcus
1934 Josephus V. Jewish Antiquities, Books V–VIII. Loeb Classical Library. London:
William Heinemann Ltd; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Theuer, G.
2000 Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von
KTU 1.24. OBO 173. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tigay, J. H.
1982 The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Tournay, R. J.
2001 “À propos du Psaume 16, 1–4.” RB 108:21–25.
Tromp, N.
1969 Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. BibetOr
21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Tropper, J.
2001a “‘Anats Kriegsgeschrei (KTU 1.3 II 23).” UF 33:567–71.
2001b “Brot als Opfermaterie in Ugarit. Eine neue Deutung der Lexeme dqt und
gdlt.” UF 33:545–66.
2002a Ugaritisch Kurzgefasste Grammatik mit Übungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum
Orientis 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2002b “Zur Rekonstruktion von KTU 1.4 VII 19.” UF 34:799–803.
2003 “Ein Haus für Baal: Schwierige Passagen in KTU 1.4 IV–V.” UF 35:649–56.
Tropper, J., and E. Verreet
1988 “Ugaritisch ndy, ydy, hdy, ndd und d(w)d.” UF 20:339–50.
Tsevat, M.
1974 “Sun Mountains at Ugarit.” JNWSL 3:71–75.
1978a “Comments on the Ugaritic Text UT 52.” ErIs 14:24*–27*.
1978b “A Window for Baal’s House, The Maturing of a God.” Studies in the Bible and
the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday.
Ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein. 151–61.
Tsirkin, J. B.
1981 “The Labours, Death and Resurrection of Melqart as Depicted on the Gates
of the Gades’ Herakleion.” RSF 9:21–27.
Tsumura, D. T.
1993 “The Interpretation of the Ugaritic Funerary Text KTU 1.161.” Official Cult
and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the
ancient Middle East—The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center
in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo). March 20 –22, 1992. Ed. E. Matsushima. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag C. Winter. 40–55.
Tuell, S. S.
1993 “A Riddle Resolved by an Enigma: Hebrew glš and Ugaritic gl .” JBL 112:
99–104.
Turcan, R.
1996 The Cults of the Roman Empire. Trans. A. Nevill. The Ancient World. Oxford/
Malden, ME: Blackwell.
Tuttle, G. A.
1976 “di dit in UG 5.12.1.8.” UF 8:465–66.
1978 “Case Vowels on Masculine Singular Nouns in Construct in Ugaritic.” Biblical
and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Ed. G. Tuttle. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 253–68.
Udd, S. V.
1983 “More on the Vocalization of ltn.” VT 33:509–10.
bibliography 777
Uehlinger, C.
1992 “Audienz in der Götterwelt: Anthropomorphismus und Soziomorphismus in
der Ikonographie eines altsyrischen Zylindersiegels.” UF 24:339–59.
Ullendorff, E.
1951 “Ugaritic Marginalia.” Or 20:270–74.
1962 “Ugaritic Marginalia II.” JSS 7:339–51.
1978 “Ugaritic Marginalia IV.” ErIs 14:19*–23*.
1994 “Grace in Ugaritic?” Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September 1992. Ed. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W.
Curtis and J. F. Healey. UBL 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 355–61.
VanderKam, J. C.
1994 “Jubilees.” Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Ed. H. Attridge et al.
DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon. 1–185.
2000 From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature.
JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill.
van der Toorn, K.
1985 Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study. Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 22. Assen: Van Gorcum.
1989 “La pureté rituelle au Proche-Orient ancien.” RHR 206:339–56.
1991a “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts
and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Ed.
J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill. 331–44.
1991b “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible.”
BiOr 48:40–66.
1994a From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the
Babylonian Woman. Trans. S. J. Denning-Bolle. The Biblical Seminar 23. Shef-
field: JSOT Press.
1994b “Gods and Ancestors in Emar and Nuzi.” ZA 84:38–59.
1996 Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of
Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
VII. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.
Vanstiphout, H. L. J.
1996 “Why Did Enki Organize the World?” Sumerian Gods and Their Representations.
Ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller. Groningen: Styx. 117–33.
Vaughn, A. G.
1993 “il ¿zr—An Explicit Epithet of El as Hero/Warrior.” UF 25:423–30.
Veldhuis, N.
1991 A Cow of Sîn. Library of Oriental Texts 2. Groningen: Styx Publications.
1993 “An Ur III Incantation against the Bite of a Snake, a Scorpion, or a Dog.”
ZA 83:161–69.
Vidal, J.
2000 “King Lists and Oral Transmission: From History to Memory.” UF 32 (In
memoriam Cyrus H. Gordon):555–66.
Viganò, L.
2000 “Rituals at Ebla II, ì-giš sag: A Purification Ritual or Anointing of the Head?”
JNES 59:13–22.
Virolleaud, C.
1931 “Le déchiffrement des tablettes alphabétiques de Ras-Shamra.” Syria 12:15–23.
1932 “Un nouveau chant du poème d’Aleïn-Baal.” Syria 13:113–63.
1936 “La déesse ‘Anat: Poème de Ras Shamra (V AB) (Premier article).” Syria 17:
335–45.
1937a “La déesse ‘Anat: Poème de Ras Shamra (Deuxième article, ou V AB, B).”
Syria 18: 85–102.
1937b “La déesse ‘Anat: Poème de Ras Shamra (Troisième article, ou V AB, C).”
Syria 18: 256–70.
778 bibliography
1938 La déesse ‘Anat: Poème de Ras Shamra publié, traduit et commenté. MRS 4. Paris:
Geuthner.
de Vito, R. A.
1993 Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and
Conception of the Personal God. Studies Pohl: Series Maior 16. Rome: Pontificio
Istituto Biblico.
Vogelzang, M. E.
1990 “Patterns Introducing Direct Speech in Akkadian Literary Texts.” JCS 42/
1:50–70.
1996 “Repetition as a Poetic Device in Akkadian.” Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sume-
rian and Akkadian. Ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Cuneiform
Monographs 6. Groningen: Styx Publications. 167–82.
Wakeman, M. K.
1969 “The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic Combat Myth.” JBL 88: 313–20.
1973 God’s Battle With the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Waldman, N.
1969 “Akkadian ka āru and Semantic Equivalents.” JNES 28:250–54.
1981 “The Wealth of Mountain and Sea: The Background of a Biblical Image.”
JQR 71:176–80.
Wallace, H. N.
1985 The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars.
Walls, N. H., Jr.
1992 The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth. SBLDS 135. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Ward, W. A.
1969 “La déesse nourricère d’Ugarit.” Syria 46:225–39.
Ward, W. H.
1910 The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of
Washington.
Wassermann, N.
2003 Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Cuneiform Monographs 27.
Leiden: Brill; Boston: Styx.
Watanabe, C. E.
2002 Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia: A Contextualist Approach. Wiener Offene Orien-
talistik, Band 1. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.
Watkins, C.
1995 How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York/Oxford:
Oxford.
Watson, W. G. E.
1975 “Verse-Patterns in Ugaritic, Akkadian and Hebrew Poetry.” UF 7:483–92.
1977 “Ugaritic and Mesopotamian Literary Texts.” UF 9:273–84.
1977a “Reclustering Hebrew l lyd—.” Bib 58:213–215.
1978 “Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic.” UF 10:397–401.
1980 “Quasi-Poetics in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 12:445–47.
1981a “Reversed Word-pairs in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 13:189–92.
1981b “Gender-matched Synonymous Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 13:181–87.
1982 “Trends in the Development of Classical Hebrew Poetry.” UF 14:265–77.
1983 “Introductions to Discourse in Ugaritic Narrative Verse.” AO 1:253–61.
1986a Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Second ed. JSOTSup 26. Shef-
field: JSOT Press.
1986b “Lexical Notes.” Newsletter for Ugaritic Studies 36:18.
1986c “Unraveling Ugaritic mdl.” SEL 3:73–78.
1989 “Notes on Some Ugaritic Words.” SEL 6:47–52.
1989a “Parallelism with Qtl in Ugaritic. UF 21:435–39.
1991 “The Negative Adverbs L and LM + L in Ugaritic.” JNWSL 17:173–88.
bibliography 779
Westenholz, J. G.
2000 Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar
Tablets. Cuneiform Monographs 13. Groningen: Styx.
Westhuizen, J. P. van der
1986 “Some Proposed Restorations to Atrahasis.” Keilschriftliche Literaturen: Ausgewählte
Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Münster, 8.–12.7.1985. Ed.
K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 6.
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 89–92
Whiting, R. M.
1985 “An Old Babylonian Incantation from Tel Asmar.” ZA 75:179–87.
Widengren, G.
1954 Review of M. Seligson, The Meaning of npš mt in the Old Testament. VT 4:97–
102.
Wiggermann, F. A. M.
1992 Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts. Cuneiform Monographs I. Gronin-
gen: Styx & PP.
1996 “Scenes from the Shadow Side.” Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akka-
dian. Ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vantiphout. Cuneiform Monographs
6. Groningen: Styx Publications. 207–220.
1997 “Transtigridian Snake Gods.” Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. Ed. I. L.
Finkel and M. J. Geller. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publica-
tions. 33–55.
Wiggins, S. A.
1991 “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess.” UF 23:383–94.
1993 A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two
Millennia B.C.E. AOAT 235. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
1996 “Shapsh, Lamp of the Gods.” Ugaritic, religion and culture: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion and culture. Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays
presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson
and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 327–50.
2000 “The Weather under Baal: Meteorology in KTU 1.1–1.6.” UF 32 (In memoriam
Cyrus H. Gordon): 577–98.
Williams, R.
1970 “The Passive qal Theme in Hebrew.” Essays on the Ancient Semitic World. Ed.
J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford. Toronto: University of Toronto. 43–50.
Williams-Forte, E.
1983 “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria during the
Bronze Age.” Ancient Seals and the Bible. Ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte.
Malibu: Undena. 18–43.
Wilson, E. J.
1994 “Holiness” and “Purity” in Mesopotamia. AOAT 237. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Wiseman, D. J.
1952 “A New Stele of Aššur-na ir-pal II.” Iraq 14:24–44.
Wolff, H. W.
1974 Anthropology of the Old Testament. Trans. M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Wright, D. P
2001 Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the
Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wyatt, N.
1980 “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad.” UF 12:375–79.
1985a “ ‘Jedidiah’ and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation.” Bib 66:
112–25.
bibliography 781
1992a “The End of the Kingdom of Ugarit.” The Crisis Years: The Twelfth Century
B.C., From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Ed. W. A. Ward and M. Joukowsky.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 111–22.
1992b “Ugarit.” ABD 6:695–706.
1995 “La maison d’Ourtenou dans le quartier sud d’Ugarit (Fouilles 1994).” CRAIBL
427–43.
2006 The City of Ugarit on the Tell of Ras Shamra. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Young, M. A., G. Watel, H. W. Lahmeyer and C. I. Eastman
1991 “The Temporal Onset of Individual Symptoms in Winter Depression: Dif-
ferentiating Underlying Mechanisms.” Journal of Affective Disorders 22:191–97.
Zadok, R.
1993 “On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia.” The Tablet and the Scroll: Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of William H. Hallo. Ed. M. Cohen, D. C. Snell and
D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. 315–33.
Zamora, J. A.
2000 La vid y el vino en Ugarit. Banco de datos filológicos semíticos nordoccdentales:
Monografías 6. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas.
Zeeb, F.
1993 Review of S. A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Ashera’. UF 25:512–15.
Zettler, R. L.
1992 The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: The Operation and Organization of Urban
Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium. Berliner Beiträge
zum Vorderen Orient 11. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Zettler, R. L., and L. Horne
1998 Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Zevit, Z.
1991 “How Do You Say ‘Noble’ in Phoenician, Biblical Hebrew, and in Ugaritic?”
Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau: On the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday.
November 14th, 1991. Ed. A. S. Kaye. Two vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2.1704–15.
Zijl, J. van
1972 “The Root prq in Targum Isaiah.” JNWSL 2:60–73.
Zorn, J.
1992 “LU.PA-MA- A-A in EA 162:74 and the Role of the Mhr in Egypt and Ugarit.”
JNES 50:129–38.
INDEXES
UGARITIC CITATIONS
Ugaritic Texts
CAT/KTU 1.1 III 21–25 515
1.1 9, 10, 87, 223, 1.1 III 22 447
245, 247, 293, 1.1 III 24–25 207, 340, 358
343, 385, 386 1.1 III 26 447, 481
1.1–1.2 1, 9, 41, 50, 264,
472, 687 1.1 IV 9 26
1.1 IV 12 447, 481
1.1 II 205, 228, 282 1.1 IV 13 24, 351
1.1 II–2 282 1.1 IV 13–27 472
1.1 II 1–3 224, 503 1.1 IV 15 27
1.1 II 13 23 1.1 IV 20 247
1.1 II 13–17 62 1.1 IV 22–23 472
1.1 II 14 147 1.1 IV 23–24 291
1.1 II 14–17 25 1.1 IV 24 185
1.1 II 15 282 1.1 IV 24–27 245
1.1 II 17–24 282 1.1 IV 28–30 26
1.1 II 19 223 1.1 IV 28–32 594
1.1 II 19–21 224, 296 1.1 IV 30 628
1.1 II 21–23 224 1.1 IV 30–32 468, 499, 600,
628
1.1 III 10, 35, 228, 1.1 IV 31 594
573
1.1 III 1*–1 667 1.1 V 4 626
1.1 III 1*–3 379 1.1 V 17 626
1.1 III 1*–6 380 1.1 V 22 447, 481
1.1 III 1 28
1.1 III 1–3 63 1.2 1, 9, 121, 244,
1.1 III 2 285 245, 247, 249,
1.1 III 2–3 207 255, 293, 343,
1.1 III 4–5 27 384, 385, 386,
1.1 III 5–16 576 550, 607
1.1 III 10–12 224, 502, 503
1.1 III 10–16 223, 228, 282 1.2 I 10, 88, 144, 185,
1.1 III 12–16 224, 228 382–83, 384, 385
1.1 III 13–14 32 1.2 I–IV 10
1.1 III 15 228 1.2 I 11 710
1.1 III 16 229 1.2 I 11–14 684
1.1 III 17 24 1.2 I 11–19 710
1.1 III 17–18 301 1.2 I 13 29
1.1 III 17–21 282, 301 1.2 I 13–14 710
1.1 III 17–25 576 1.2 I 13–17 306
1.1 III 18–19 301 1.2 I 14 29
1.1 III 19–20 149 1.2 I 14–15 207, 223, 261,
1.1 III 20–21 301 710
1.1 III 21–22 282, 571 1.2 I 15 29
1.1 III 21–24 337–38, 339 1.2 I 15–16 472
786 indexes
1.4 III 6 457 1.4 III 30–32 33, 34, 467, 480
1.4 III 7 457, 470 1.4 III 31 408, 447
1.4 III 8 457 1.4 III 32–33 467
1.4 III 9 457, 470 1.4 III 33–36 33, 34, 39, 467,
1.4 III 10 457, 469 480
1.4 III 10–11 464, 470, 479 1.4 III 34 304, 459, 481
1.4 III 10–22 39, 110, 470–80 1.4 III 35 408, 459
1.4 III 11 457–58, 686 1.4 III 36 459–60
1.4 III 12 458, 472, 605 1.4 III 37–39 468, 482
1.4 III 12–13 474 1.4 III 39 460
1.4 III 12–14 464–65, 472, 1.4 III 40 578
603, 605–6 1.4 III 40–41 482, 483, 577
1.4 III 12–16 470, 476–77, 479 1.4 III 40–43 468, 521, 601
1.4 III 12–22 479 1.4 III 40–44 453, 482, 634
1.4 III 13 458, 472, 473, 1.4 III 41 460, 483, 630
605 1.4 III 41–42 482
1.4 III 14 458, 473 1.4 III 41–43 483
1.4 III 14–16 465, 472, 473, 1.4 III 43 460
476 1.4 III 43–44 468, 601
1.4 III 15 458, 459, 1.4 III 44 417, 460
474–75, 477 1.4 III 51 460
1.4 III 16 458–59 1.4 III 52 460
1.4 III 17 387, 459 1.4 III 53 460
1.4 III 17–18 465, 475
1.4 III 17–21 476 1.4 IV 2, 51, 79–81,
1.4 III 17–22 470, 475 185, 305, 306,
1.4 III 18–21 465, 475–77 357, 358,
1.4 III 19 459 381–83, 384,
1.4 III 19–22 103 385, 386, 388,
1.4 III 20 479 444, 452, 459,
1.4 III 20–21 479 484, 485–86,
1.4 III 21 459 490–92, 501,
1.4 III 21–22 466, 476 502, 505, 549,
1.4 III 22 479 570–71
1.4 III 23 242, 477 1.4 IV–V 39, 369, 402, 506
1.4 III 23–24 466, 469, 480, 1.4 IV 1 502, 503
576 1.4 IV 1–2 495, 496
1.4 III 23–26 27, 481 1.4 IV 1–19 376, 502–14
1.4 III 23–39 522 1.4 IV 1–26 501
1.4 III 23–44 38, 49, 469, 470, 1.4 IV 2 487, 503
480–84 1.4 IV 2–4 495, 579
1.4 III 24 467 1.4 IV 2–7 502, 508
1.4 III 25 459 1.4 IV 2–22 453
1.4 III 25–26 33, 34, 446, 453, 1.4 IV 3 487
466, 467, 480–81 1.4 IV 4–7 496, 502, 506
1.4 III 26 408 1.4 IV 4–12 30, 505
1.4 III 27 404, 466, 467 1.4 IV 5 487
1.4 III 27–32 523, 609 1.4 IV 6 487
1.4 III 28–29 404 1.4 IV 7 487, 626
1.4 III 28–30 33, 34, 467, 476, 1.4 IV 8 496, 502
480, 694 1.4 IV 8–12 508
1.4 III 28–32 38–39, 481, 562 1.4 IV 8–28 330
1.4 III 28–36 480 1.4 IV 9 297
1.4 III 29 408 1.4 IV 9–12 496, 502
796 indexes
1.4 VII 56 374, 646, 695 1.4 VIII 24–29 63, 207, 708, 710
1.4 VII 56–57 695 1.4 VIII 24–35 724
1.4 VII 56–60 657 1.4 VIII 25–27 34
1.4 VII 57 646, 695–96 1.4 VIII 26 699
1.4 VII 58 647, 696 1.4 VIII 26–29 207, 223
1.4 VII 58–60 695 1.4 VIII 28 726
1.4 VII 60 371, 647, 696 1.4 VIII 29 699, 709
1.4 VIII 29–32 341, 708, 710
1.4 VIII 3, 85–86, 144, 1.4 VIII 29–37 603
222, 348, 1.4 VIII 30 54, 699
381–83, 384–85, 1.4 VIII 31 699
386, 388, 619, 1.4 VIII 31–32 52, 659
658, 696, 1.4 VIII 32 646, 700
697–98, 701–3, 1.4 VIII 32–35 709–10
703–4, 725 1.4 VIII 33 700
1.4 VIII–1.6 VI 9 1.4 VIII 34 700
1.4 VIII 1 687 1.4 VIII 35 388, 700, 709
1.4 VIII 1–4 706–7 1.4 VIII 35–37 34, 709, 724
1.4 VIII 1–6 42 1.4 VIII 35–47 710
1.4 VIII 1–9 710, 711–16 1.4 VIII 36 709
1.4 VIII 1–14 709 1.4 VIII 36–37 709
1.4 VIII 2–3 712–13 1.4 VIII 37 700
1.4 VIII 2–4 633 1.4 VIII 38 700, 724
1.4 VIII 4 711, 712, 714 1.4 VIII 38–47 723
1.4 VIII 5–6 706, 713–14 1.4 VIII 38–48 704, 709, 723–30
1.4 VIII 7–8 32 1.4 VIII 39 724
1.4 VIII 7–9 32, 707, 711 1.4 VIII 40 700
1.4 VIII 8 685 1.4 VIII 41 700
1.4 VIII 9 685, 699 1.4 VIII 42 700, 724
1.4 VIII 9–12 699 1.4 VIII 43 700
1.4 VIII 10–12 379, 707 1.4 VIII 44 700, 724
1.4 VIII 10–14 710, 711, 716–19 1.4 VIII 45 701, 724
1.4 VIII 11 699, 717–18 1.4 VIII 46 701
1.4 VIII 12–14 28, 368, 380, 1.4 VIII 47 21, 237, 426,
707, 718–19 701, 707, 724
1.4 VIII 14 32, 699, 720 1.4 VIII 49 701, 709
1.4 VIII 14–17 707
1.4 VIII 14–20 626, 690 1.5 9, 88, 386, 683,
1.4 VIII 14–24 710, 719–23 687
1.4 VIII 14–29 709 1.5–1.6 9, 41, 221, 245,
1.4 VIII 15 50 603
1.4 VIII 15–16 29 1.5 I 54, 144, 704, 725
1.4 VIII 15–17 720 1.5 I 1 252
1.4 VIII 16 54 1.5 I 1–3 54, 244, 249, 252
1.4 VIII 16–20 690 1.5 I 1–4 29, 725
1.4 VIII 17–18 30, 720 1.5 I 2–3 258
1.4 VIII 17–19 34 1.5 I 3 251
1.4 VIII 17–20 708, 721–22 1.5 I 6–8 722
1.4 VIII 19 721 1.5 I 7–8 717
1.4 VIII 21–24 320, 345, 708, 1.5 I 8 52, 659
723 1.5 I 9 28, 50
1.4 VIII 23–24 659 1.5 I 9–11 237, 329
1.4 VIII 24 285, 699 1.5 I 9–12 357, 707
1.4 VIII 24–27 579 1.5 I 12 50, 223
802 indexes
1.5 I 12–27 702, 709, 710 1.6 9, 10, 20, 88, 123,
1.5 I 12–35 705, 725 349, 358, 385,
1.5 I 13–14 659 386, 683, 687,
1.5 I 14–16 722 725, 726, 728
1.5 I 23 626
1.5 I 26 705 1.6 I 11, 310, 405
1.5 I 27–30 249, 725 1.6 I 3–4 554
1.5 I 27–31 29 1.6 I 4–8 684
1.5 I 30–31 251 1.6 I 6 47
1.6 I 7–8 30
1.5 II 2–3 720, 722 1.6 I 8–9 345
1.5 II 2–6 722 1.6 I 8–10 346
1.5 II 3–4 171 1.6 I 11 345
1.5 II 6–7 238 1.6 I 13 345
1.5 II 8 28 1.6 I 13–15 346
1.5 II 8–9 252 1.6 I 32–34 329
1.5 II 9 52, 659 1.6 I 36–37 25
1.5 II 10 223 1.6 I 44 404
1.5 II 12 32, 577 1.6 I 45 404
1.5 II 13 28, 50 1.6 I 45–46 30
1.5 II 13–15 329, 707 1.6 I 47 404
1.5 II 17 223 1.6 I 52 29, 47
1.5 II 20 32 1.6 I 53 404
1.5 II 21–24 722 1.6 I 56–58 292
1.5 II 22 626 1.6 I 57–61 682
1.6 I 58 682
1.5 III 19–20 32 1.6 I 59–61 63
1.6 I 66 631
1.5 IV 7 626
1.5 IV 11–16 482 1.6 II 149, 185, 237
1.6 II 2–3 690
1.5 V 603 1.6 II 12 32
1.5 V 6–8 297 1.6 II 15 30
1.5 V 6–9 664 1.6 II 15–19 720
1.5 V 8–11 298 1.6 II 15–23 722
1.5 V 9 148 1.6 II 19 113, 171
1.5 V 9–10 252 1.6 II 19–23 721
1.5 V 10–11 49, 604 1.6 II 22–23 626, 720
1.5 V 13–14 32 1.6 II 24–25 320, 345, 708,
1.5 V 14–15 32 723
1.5 V 17–22 221 1.6 II 30–35 49
1.5 V 20–21 662 1.6 II 30–37 45
1.5 V 25 171 1.6 II 36 277
Ugaritic Grammar
A-word 472, 474, 475, Ct-stem 510, 685
482, 483, 679
(see also B-word) D-stem 122, 134, 308,
adverbial accusative 25, 140, 146, 408, 462, 472,
240, 336, 613, 543
661 diphthong 462
aleph(s) xxxii, 136, 201, “dynamic copula” 618
326, 347, 419, dual 136, 367
510, 538, 566,
576, 615, 676 ellipsis 155, 241, 413,
anacrusis xxxiv, 138, 139, 444
287, 399, 400 ellision 326
enclitic -m 65, 189, 229,
B-word 472, 474, 482, 246, 256, 258,
483, 679 (see also 420, 421, 482,
A-word) 612, 616, 660,
661, 678, 683
consonant changes enclitic -n 288, 379, 370,
*y (initial) 404, 678
(< PS *w) 243
*¿ (< PS *£ ) 242 first ’ roots 510
*št < * t 245, 259 first person plural
* < *št 577 speech 355
consonant correspondences “cluster”
* (and Hebrew z) 244, 477, 565 geminates 141, 655
*s (and š elsewhere) 423, 520 reduplicated forms 497, 548
* (and Hebrew š ) 244
C-stem 290, 302, 370, Ginsberg’s dictum xv
417, 511, 577, Gt-stem 97, 117–18, 138,
600, 628, 140, 161, 212,
630–31, 633, 213, 215, 245,
685 246, 676, 685, 691
ugaritic citations 813
*qtl 26–27, 28, 31–32 imperative syntax 32, 496, 508, 521
[ Particle] + *qtl modal clause 225
+ [subject] 26–27, 295 narrative infinitives 539
[ Particle] + *qtl participles 105
+ [subject/ protasis 223
object] 31 speech-opening
W- + *qtl 27, 31 formulas 211, 242, 283,
W- + X +*qtl 32 289, 294, 349,
[Particle] + X + 466, 467, 496,
*qtl 27, 31 500, 503, 541,
precative 537, 541, 558 544, 547, 548,
*qtl in initial 549, 571, 595,
position 28, 286, 302, 596, 599, 652,
409 657
*qtl + object 98 vocalization xxxi–xxxii
*qtl + *yqtl + *yqtl 98, 103, 146 vocative 279, 326, 327,
*qtl//*qtl 466 542, 554, 657,
*qtl//*yqtl 668
parallelism 465, 474, 542, vowel assimilation 538
558, 600, 632 vowel harmony 136, 204, 398,
424, 510, 541,
reduplicated forms 346, 471, 509, 565, 576
519
“rhetorical” *yqtl 23–26, 29–31
questions 450, 521, energic indicative 243
524–25, 563–64 particle (optional)
+ *yqtl +
sentence adverbial 223 [subject] 23–24, 29, 238
second ’ roots 347 W- + *yqtl 24, 29, 295, 349
syncope 96, 537 W- + X + *yqtl 30
syntax 22 X + *yqtl 25, 30
Particle + subject
tD-stem 471, 571 + *yqtl 25–26, 238
text linguistics 23 Particle + X +
t-forms 116, 117–18, *yqtl 31
138, 161 Subject + object
third -w roots 310 + *yqtl 26
third -y roots 310, 347 *yqtl in initial
position 146, 241, 304,
u/i variation 424 312
*yqtl//*qtl
verbal syntax (see also *qtl and *yqtl) parallelism 143, 599, 613
’al + jussive 326 *yqtl + w- + *yqtl 140
asyndetic relative *yqtl volitive 29, 30, 144, 229,
clause 29, 30, 99, 143, 284, 653, 690,
144, 186, 524 720–21
double imperatives 299, 368 following ’al 690, 720
Pyrgi Tobit
lines 5–6 551 3:10 335
6:1 263
Serabit el-Khadem 555 6:15 335
Classical Texts
Achilles Tatius Odyssey
II:2 484 3:51 107
3:53 107
Damascius,
De Principiis 260 Philo of Byblos
PE 1.10.1 260
Galen PE 1.10.9 263
On the Decisive Days 219 PE 1.10.10 179
PE 1.10.11 668, 671
Hesiod PE 1.10.18–19 679
Theogony, line 35 230 PE 1.10.31 447
Iliad
18:545f. 107
Egyptian Texts
Astarte and the Sea 105 Instructions of Amenemhet
iii 1f. 553
Chester Beatty Papyrus
VII, verso I 8–9 164 Leiden Magical Papyrus I
343 + I 345 153, 681
Contest of Horus and obv. II, 2–4 681
Seth for the Rule 303
Papyrus Sallier 236
The Deliverance of
Humanity from Three Tales of Wonder 188
Destruction 152, 161,
177, 181 Wenamun 231, 473
Hittite Texts
Elkunirsha 48, 52, 96, Iluyanka (Version 1)
103, 242, A I 14–B I 112 626
309, 310,
442, 450, Kumarbi
515, 629 2.III.9’–13’ 297
2.IV.10’–11’ 297
Hittite Laws
#57 628 KBo 18:153.16 418
KBo 26 105
GENERAL INDEX
Anat as announcer 303 Athirat 12, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47,
Anat as bird 337, 514, 571 (see also 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 96, 99, 101,
Anat as flyer) 103, 109–10, 185, 214, 234, 238,
iconography 337, 514, 571 239, 286, 308, 309, 311, 335, 345,
Anat as flyer 179, 185, 191, 336–37, 353, 354, 357, 358, 368, 369, 370,
503, 514, 571 371, 376, 380, 402, 403, 405, 406,
Anat as warrior 149–59, 184–85, 408, 414–16, 425, 426, 440–51, 453,
661 469, 470, 476, 480–84, 499, 501,
Anat-em-nekhu 149 502, 503, 505–6, 509, 513, 514, 515,
anchors 620 517–25, 549, 551, 553, 554, 555,
angels 234, 307 556, 560, 563, 564, 565, 568, 570,
anger 49, 157, 161, 169–70, 172, 174, 571, 572, 573, 606, 607, 608, 609,
341, 343, 349, 479, 720 619, 628–29, 630, 636, 693, 694
and violence 49 Athirat’s abode 376, 471
Annunaki 525 Athirat’s domestic chores 239,
anointing 164, 187, 188, 194, 304 440–48, 505
anthropomorphism 44, 54, 56, 183, Athirat’s family 309–10, 335, 405,
243, 250, 255, 256, 258 407, 408, 450, 526–27, 572, 573,
anthropomorphic deities 233 628–29, 658
Anti-Lebanon 61, 565, 610, 613 Athirat’s servant 369, 370, 375, 378,
Anu 18, 46, 313, 344, 377, 550, 551, 406, 451–52
552, 578, 720 Athirat’s titles
Anunna 578 “Athirat of the Sea” 495
Apsu 255 “Creatress of the Gods” 407, 499
Aqhat 37, 49, 88, 122–23, 145, 159, “Lady Athirat of the Sea” 105,
239, 337, 343, 344, 350, 351, 352, 311, 404–7, 451, 452
357, 358, 609 “Lady” 281, 404–6, 413, 499,
Aqhat’s bow 122–23, 159 541
title, “Hero” 688 patroness of weaving 442
Arhalba 8 and the sea 406, 442
Ark (of the Covenant) 339, 425, 518 as matriarch 47, 407, 450
arm 351 Athtar 47, 51, 307, 405, 511, 682
arrows 158, 159 Athtart 47, 47, 64, 356 (see also
Arsay 49, 115, 119, 121, 216, 302, Astarte)
604, 605–6, 718 Atik 246, 260–61, 264
title, “Daughter of the Wide World” title, “calf of El” 246, 260–61, 264
221, 397 Atrahasis 18, 183, 184
Arish 54, 246, 259–60, 264 Attenu 11, 14, 725, 726, 728
Asalluhi 354 Azariah 714, 715
Asherah 405, 442
Ashqelon 185 Baal 14–21, 36–42, 45–50, 51–53,
Ashratu(m) 377, 407 55–57, 62, 65, 67, 101, 102, 104,
Ashtar-Kemosh 176 105, 110, 112, 115–17, 119–22, 125,
Ashur 550 148, 149, 151, 159, 185, 192, 208,
Ashurbanipal 111, 194 209, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 219,
Ashurnasirpal II 634–35 221–29, 231, 233, 234, 236–38,
assembly, divine see divine council 241, 242, 244–48, 253, 255, 257,
assonance xxxii, 166, 212, 708 260, 264, 265, 285, 286, 289, 290,
Astarte 151, 337, 611 (see also Athtart) 292–94, 296–302, 304–9, 310, 311,
astrology 233 334, 335, 336, 343, 345, 349, 350,
Atarot 175 352–55, 356, 357, 358, 369, 370,
Athaliah 12 371, 376, 377, 380, 402, 403, 404,
Athena 164 405, 408, 416, 423, 425, 426, 438,
440, 442, 448–51, 453, 469–73,
840 indexes
475–84, 501, 502, 513, 514, 515, Baal’s relationship to Anat 303
517, 523, 525, 527, 542, 549, 550, Baal’s right hand 351
551, 552, 553, 554, 556, 558, 559, Baal’s storm theophany 297, 542,
560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 568, 559–62, 601, 604, 607, 608, 636,
570, 571, 572, 573, 576–82, 595, 657, 674–78, 682 (see also Baal’s
596, 599, 601, 602–10, 612, 615, lightening/thunder)
618, 619, 620, 626, 627, 628, 629, Baal’s temple see temple of Baal
630, 635, 636, 653, 657–58, 659–62, Baal’s titles
665, 666, 668–69, 671–88, 690–96, “Baal of Ugarit” 619, 673
704–5, 709–11, 716, 720–25 “Baal Sapan” 236, 619, 620, 673
Baal’s body 65, 351 “Cloud-rider” 119, 228, 292, 294,
Baal’s “girls” 115–16, 118–19, 213, 297, 449, 561, 579, 671, 677
216, 219, 221, 288, 302, 303, 311, Haddu 52, 599, 626, 660, 679
571, 604, 605–6 (see also Arsay, “Mightiest Baal” 236, 252, 305,
Pidray and Tallay) 347, 355, 453, 565, 572, 659,
Baal’s house (palace) 41, 42, 45, 671, 709, 724
50, 56, 58, 61–67, 228, 233, 237, “Mightiest of Warriors” 236, 709,
286, 289, 299, 304, 311–12, 339, 724
350, 369, 370, 371, 402, 484, 516, “Most High” 355
525–27, 549–53, 554, 556, 565, “Powerful One” 679
568, 571, 573, 579–82, 601, 602–9, “Prince, Lord of the Earth” 105,
613–15, 618, 636, 657, 658, 121, 252
666–73, 682–83, 724 (see also “Son of Dagan” 47, 51, 265,
temple of Baal) 309
window in the house 39–40, 299, Baal’s weaponry 680–82
501, 563, 579–82, 601–9, 657, Baal as warrior 236, 550, 660, 664,
658, 666, 668–72 674–80 (see also Baal’s military
Baal’s household 102 retinue)
Baal’s “helpers” 580 Baal-Shamayn 231
Baal’s hunting 425 “Baal Stele” 21, 620, 680
Baal’s iconography 351, 680–82 Babylon 18, 43, 46, 59
Baal’s kingship 14–16, 18, 19, 20, Badakhshan 569
22, 57, 102, 290, 293, 310, 354, Balaam 231
355–56, 522, 527, 608–9, 662, 673, Bar-rakab 307, 618
682, 684–86, 693 Bashan 250
Baal’s knowledge 228–29 Bashmu 249–50
Baal’s lament 305–12, 356, 370, Bathsheba 17, 37, 215, 225, 307, 578
501, 522, 523, 526 Batiha valley 425
Baal’s lightening/thunder 228, Battle Hymn of the Republic 153
296–97, 298, 374, 557, 561, 608, Beirut 159
620, 672, 673–74, 678, 681–82 bellomancy 353
Baal’s messengers 2, 3, 35, 42, bellows 410
185, 186, 201, 203, 213, 214, 216, Belshazzar 240
217, 221, 222, 237, 238, 239, 287, Benteshina 405
289, 293–94, 296, 299–41, 357, Bethel 230, 260
364, 368–70, 374–76, 378, 579, Beth Shean 149
626, 657, 658, 686, 687, 690, 694, Beth-Shemesh 114
703, 705, 709, 710, 711, 713–14, Bezalel 425, 552, 553, 610
719–20, 724 bird(s) 171, 245, 290–92, 337, 373,
Baal’s military retinue 664–65 446, 515, 514, 562, 571, 695, 696
Baal’s mountain 229, 234, 235–36, Biridiya 692
237, 277, 290, 673 (see also Sapan) bit hilani 608
Baal’s offspring 303 blood 152–53, 154, 156, 157, 159–62,
Baal’s paternity 309 165, 172, 174, 177, 180, 181, 182,
general index 841
579, 660, 694, 706, 707, 711, 713, El’s dream 573
716 El’s family 38, 234, 309
divine weapons 665–66 El’s house 339, 349–50
divine wisdom 554 (see also El’s El’s iconography 555, 680–81
wisdom) El’s lament 716
divine violence 151 El’s mountain 252, 336, 337, 340,
Diviner’s Oak 230 341
dogs 262, 264 (see also divine dogs) El’s temple 516, 621–22
donkeys 185, 260, 261, 297, 298, El’s tent 252, 338–39, 350, 414,
503–4, 509 515, 622
dragons 249–51, 258 (see also El’s titles
snake-dragons) “Begetter” 252
dreams 172, 627 “Beneficent” 38, 79, 77, 252,
drink/drinking 110–12 351, 418, 434, 437, 444, 463,
“dying and rising gods” 124 473, 500
Dtn 231 “Benign” 351, 447, 500
Dublalmah temple 553 “Bull El” 47, 79, 80, 252, 261,
281, 282, 305, 306, 308, 327,
Ea 46, 184, 255, 262, 354, 580, 720 434, 437, 447, 463, 494, 502,
Earth (deity) 233 522
Ebarbar 550, 551, 552 “Creator of Creatures” 244, 310,
Ebla 110, 218, 261, 405, 507, 569 446–47
Eden 60–61, 558 “(His/my) Father” 74, 75, 80,
Edom 153, 162, 175, 181, 182 241, 261, 265, 281, 282, 305,
E-engurra 578 306, 306, 308, 327, 494, 502
Eglon 225 “Father of Humanity” 244
Egypt 50, 149, 218, 667 “Father of Years” 252, 330
Ehud 226 “Father of the sons of El” 244
Ehulhul 550 “Kindly” 418
Ekalte 300 “King” 252, 330
El 17, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, “Lord of the sons of El” 330
47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 103, El’s wisdom 39, 353–54, 522, 549,
179, 185, 214, 224, 228, 239, 242, 554–55
244, 246, 247, 255, 259, 261, 262, El as patriarch 47
264, 287, 288, 289, 296, 301, 302, El as warrior (alleged) 687–89
305, 306, 308, 310, 312, 330, 331, electrum 418, 419
334, 338, 340–41, 342, 343, 345, Eliphaz 241
348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 356, 357, Elisha 225, 415
358, 369, 370, 371, 376, 377, 402, Elkunirsha 48, 52, 96, 103, 242, 310,
403, 405, 406, 408, 414, 416, 440, 337, 442, 450, 515
445–46, 448, 453, 467, 472, 476, El Shadday 377
481, 482, 483, 484, 499, 500, 501, Elysian fields 104
502, 505, 513, 515, 517–27, 541, Emar 48, 51, 52, 149, 185, 188, 189,
549, 550, 551, 553, 554, 556, 564, 190, 235, 261, 300, 447, 608, 635,
565, 568, 570, 572, 573, 575, 578, 665–66, 681
609, 619, 621, 622, 627, 629, 630, Emeslam 218
673, 677, 683, 687–89, 694, 716, emotions see body parts (see also
721, 722 anger, grief, joy)
El’s abode 42, 50, 61, 288, 330, Eninnu 550, 553, 562
335–37, 339, 341, 342, 355, 416, enjambment 108, 292, 655
445, 452, 453, 501, 513, 514, 515, Enki 18, 19, 578
622 Enkidu 300, 554, 720
iconography 445 Enlil 18, 19, 46, 512, 578
El’s blessing 179 Ephraim 661
general index 843
love 49, 65, 71, 72, 73, 80, 117, 121, Mot 19, 20, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49,
150, 151, 166, 201, 202, 206, 207, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 123, 164,
216, 219, 220, 221, 278, 279, 494, 245, 246, 248, 324, 347–49, 357,
522, 523, 560 371, 372, 374, 379, 470, 472, 603–4,
Luash 231 606, 619, 626, 658, 659, 673,
Lugaldimmerankia 692 683–86, 687–91, 695–96, 704–5,
lyre 216–18 708–11, 713, 719, 720–25
divinized 217, 630 Mot’s abode 379, 380, 686, 696,
709–11, 714, 716–19 (see also
Madanu 514 netherworld)
Mami 620 Mot’s mouth/appetite 690, 717,
Mamre 230 720–23
Manasseh 661 Mot’s titles
mantic practice 230, 232 (see also “Beloved of El” 246, 252, 472,
divination, and omens) 659, 687, 708
Marduk 16–17, 18–19, 43, 45, 46, “Divine” 252
57, 59, 158, 228, 240, 256, 259, 261, “Hero” 252, 652, 687
262, 297, 298–99, 354, 525, 675, mourning 517
692, 722 Mount Carmel 159
Mari 149, 154, 188, 189, 226, 231, Mount Hazzi 235
235, 299, 405, 505, 665–66 Mount Mashu 712, 713
Martu 377 Mount Sapan see Sapan
marzeah 110 mountains, iconography 712
massebot 230 mountains, netherworld see
medicine 411 netherworld mountains
Medinet Habu 154 mountains, twin 712
Megiddo 114, 217, 692 Mukannishum 154
Melqart 717 “Muntfrei” marriage 515
melting (metal) 412 murex 145, 215–16
Memphis 28, 42, 375, 376, 378, Murshilis II 107
379–80 music 102, 103, 113–15, 122, 216,
Menander of Ephesus 611 222, 238
Mesha stele 175–76, 180 Mutu 723
messenger formulary 710
messenger-gods ix, x, xii, xiii, 2, 3, 21, Nabonidus 550
23, 35, 42, 43, 50, 63, 185, 186, 201, Nahar 53, 54, 244, 247–48, 253–55,
203, 204, 216, 217, 221, 222, 225, 264, 354, 453 (see also Yamm)
237, 238, 239, 241, 287, 289, 293, Nahar’s titles
294, 296, 299, 300, 301, 305, 357, “Great God” 247–48
364, 368–69, 370, 374, 375, 376, “Judge” 354
380, 396, 451, 469, 470, 480, 512, Nairi 567
549, 582, 584, 585, 586, 589, 626, Nanna 19
657, 658, 686, 687, 690, 694, 703, Nanshe 452
705, 709, 710, 711, 713, 714, 719, Nathan 17, 215
720, 724, 746, 747, 758 Nebo (place) 175
messianic banquet 636 Nebuchadrezzar 721
metallurgy 410–11 Nergal 720
archaeology of 410 netherworld 342, 344, 346, 685–86,
iconography 411 709–20, 724
Milkilu 728 netherworld architecture 717
Minet el-Bheida 114, 145, 150, 215 netherworld mountains 713–15
Moab 175–76 New Year festival 123, 159
Moreh 230 Nibhurrereya see Tutankhamun
Moses 551–52, 553, 610 Nikkal 49, 124, 219, 372, 569
846 indexes
Re 152, 161, 177, 674 Shapshu 12, 47, 51, 345–46, 348–49,
Rebekah 12 373, 626, 627, 668, 712, 713, 723
Rebel 53 titles
Rephaim texts 123 “Divine Light” 345–46
Resheph 580 (see also Rashap) “Great Light” 346, 406
resurrection 123 Sharruma 711
Rib-Adda 505, 568 Shataqat 190
Rimah 299 shells see murex
Shema 579, 692
“sacred marriage” 118, 123 Sheol 335, 722
saddles 507 Shiloh 339
salt 106–7 Shimegi 261
Samsuiluna 550, 551 Shimei 335
Sapan 20, 42, 43, 58, 62, 64, 65, 66, Shimigi 711
101, 121, 147, 150, 223, 228, 234, Shiptu 405
235–36, 289, 292, 300, 301, 514, Shiqmona 114
522, 549, 565, 570, 571, 575, 576, Shiva 153
580, 659, 660, 673, 682 (see also silver 265, 411, 413, 509, 553, 564,
Sapon) 565, 568, 606, 614, 618
Sapon 673 (see also Sapan) Sin 124, 219, 550
sapphire 570 Sippar 550, 551
Sarah 12, 40 Sirion see Anti-Lebanon
Sargon of Akkad 611 Siyannu 107
Saul 175 smelting 410, 411, 412
scirocco 677 snake(s) 243, 248, 249, 250, 252, 254,
scribal colophons 725–30 257, 258, 264, 422, 437, 712, 722,
scribal instructions 576 723 (see also snake-dragons)
scribal lines 21, 237, 292, 426, 506, snake-dragons 249–51, 256, 258,
533, 574–75, 724 264
scribes 725–27 iconography 256–57
iconography 727 snake-incantation(s) 243, 264, 712
Sd 232 Snefru 186
Sea see Yamm Sodom 36
Sea of Reeds 257 Solomon 17, 37, 215, 307, 335, 339,
secret knowledge 209, 234 505, 551, 552, 563, 568, 615, 618,
secret speech 226–27 634, 683
Sekhmet 161 sonant parallelism see parallelism,
Semachionitis see Lake Huleh sonant
Serabit el-Khadem 555 song see music
Seth 303 spindle 440–42
seven-day units 615–17 spitting 473
seven gates 324 star(s) 56, 70, 71, 72, 73, 79, 147,
“Seven-headed” 53, 54, 250–51, 253 191–92, 202, 226, 227, 231, 232,
seventy 48, 628–29, 632 278, 280, 451, 493, 497, 510, 511,
sex see divine sex 512, 619, 626, 764
sexual attraction 117–18 star gods 619
Shahar 47, 51 Sukkot 123, 124, 630
Shalim 47, 51 Sumer 43
Shamash 231, 233–34, 354, 550, 712 Sumu-ila 666
shame 185, 474–76, 479, 494, sword 154
496–98
Shamshi-Adad I 611 Taanach 299
Shamumanu 110 Tabernacles, feast of see Sukkot
848 indexes
Tallay 49, 65, 115, 119, 121, 216, 221, 569, 614, 635, 662, 673, 680, 706,
302, 604, 605–6, 718 730
Tannin 251, 256–57, 258, 259, 673 acropolis 71, 381, 620, 621, 662,
(see also Tunnanu) 683
Tarhu 711 House of the High Priest 87, 88
Tehom 257 House of Urtenu 4, 7, 580, 730
Tel Asmar seal 250 name 730
Tel Dan 414, 417 royal palace 8, 410, 412, 415,
Telepinu 692 614, 622, 635, 723
Tell Abu-Hawam 114 population of 662
Tell Hadidi 300 temples see temple of Baal, and
Tell Mevorakh 114 temple of El
temple-building 35–41, 550–53 underworld see netherworld
temple dedications 56, 552 U¿r 147, 150
temple holiness 62 Ur 217
temple of Baal 21, 56, 58, 59, 61–66, Urtenu 4, 7, 13, 580, 729–30
311–12, 581, 607, 619–20, 622, 665, Uruk 37, 344
680 Uth atu 630
temple of Dagan (alleged) 621 Utnapishtim 183
temple of El 619–22
Terqa 51, 666 violence 148, 149, 151, 153, 158, 165,
Teye 405 180, 190, 312, 335, 343, 663 (see also
Thitmanit 340 anger)
Tiamat 16, 17, 45, 53, 54, 158, 240, and warfare 149, 151, 153
255–56, 299 visual experience 116–17
Tiglath-Pileser I 550, 551, 552, 567,
663 Wadi ed-Daliyeh 558
Tiglath-Pileser III 157 Warad-ili-su 504
Tikulti-Ninurta I 263 warfare 56, 144, 149, 155, 156, 160,
Tishpak 249 175, 178, 180, 181–85, 191–92, 783
tongs 410–11 (see also rm-warfare)
Transjordan 175 “warfare cannibalism” see Anat’s
travel 666 (see also divine travel) “warfare cannibalism”
tribute 413 Wenamun 231
Tudhalias IV 569 window (in Baal’s palace) see temple
tumbaga see gold, red window
Tunnanu 53, 54, 246, 248, 251, windows 580–81
252–59, 264, 668 (see also Tannin) wine 65, 69, 79, 80, 83, 96, 111, 112,
Tutankhamun 412, 418, 553 124, 156–57, 162, 190, 408, 411,
Tuttul 51, 301 412, 417, 464, 483, 484, 496, 515,
Twisty One 53, 54, 249 521, 595, 625, 630–34, 636, 692,
Twisty Snake 249 715, 731, 740
Tyre 568 Wisdom 164, 625
woman/women 109, 110, 119
Udum 661 word order 22
Ugar 42, 50, 213, 222, 289, 300, wordplay 105, 139, 163, 250
301, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374,
375, 376, 378, 379, 449, 695–96, Yahdunlim 611
704–5, 710–11, 716, 720, 723, 724, Yahweh 17, 19, 40, 43, 60, 62, 64,
725 151, 153, 157, 162, 164, 166, 169,
Ugarit 50, 55–57, 58, 61, 107, 110, 175, 176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184,
114, 145, 147, 149, 150, 159, 218, 217, 219, 231, 234, 235, 256, 257,
222, 230, 299, 339, 505, 567, 568, 263, 273, 297, 309, 312, 339, 350,
general index 849
351, 355, 405–6, 415, 425–26, 476, 576, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 620,
551, 552, 561, 563, 570, 572, 578, 630, 658, 659, 668, 673, 687, 708
579, 580, 615, 616, 618, 673, 677, Yamm’s messengers 23, 185, 239,
678, 692, 694 469, 470, 480, 512
Yahweh’s mountain 234, 235 Yamm’s palace 343, 573
Yahweh’s tent 425 Yamm’s titles
Yahweh’s storm theophany 677–78 “Beloved of El” 246, 247, 264,
Yahweh’s thunder/lightening 678 453, 605, 659, 687, 708
Yahweh’s titles “Prince” 354
“Cloud-rider” 677 Yaqqim-Addu 505
“One of Sinai” 447 Yarih 47, 49, 51, 116, 219, 569,
and his consort 217, 405 619
as divine warrior 184–85 Yassib 355, 483, 610, 689
as storm god 676–78 Ydd 232
Yakin 60 Yeho‘addan 558
Yam’an 423–24 Yemen 423
Yamm 17, 19, 38, 41, 45, 47, 50, 52,
53–54, 55, 57, 60, 101, 112, 121, Zakkur 231
158, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247–48, 250, Zebulun 661
253–55, 256, 257, 258, 259, 264, Zeus 611, 679
265, 290, 293, 307, 324, 354, 405, Zimri 158
408, 453, 470, 472, 479, 550, 573, Zimri-Lim 157, 226, 231, 405, 418,
505, 666
AUTHORS CITED
326, 327, 347, 366, 372, 398, 420, Lackenbacher 4, 5, 7, 106, 107, 108,
424, 441, 462, 463, 492, 493, 495, 119, 187, 569, 693, 727
504, 537, 538, 39, 569, 593, 693, Lafont 226
703, 704, 720 Lagarce 5, 176, 410, 680, 681
Huffmon 558, 688 Lahmeyer 173
Hupka 169, 170 Lambdin 28
Hurowitz 35, 36, 233, 234, 307, 525, Lambert 18, 51, 119, 144, 148, 149,
550, 551, 553, 562, 582, 610, 612, 183, 229, 235, 259, 264, 297, 681,
615, 618 688
Hutton 245, 246, 258, 259 Landsberger 169, 248, 594
Lane 120, 133, 221, 249, 291, 300,
Irwin 65, 560, 681 302, 335, 346, 352, 412, 419, 420,
Israel 149 559, 566, 691
Langdon 550
Jacobson 18, 19, 43, 251 Laroche xxiii, 277, 291, 301
Janowski 188 Lauha 165, 167, 168
Jastrow 336, 407, 410, 419, 423, 509, Lawergren 217, 218
667 Layton 119, 441, 442, 718
Jensen 145 LeDoux 117, 173, 238, 239
Jirku 91, 127, 133, 195, 267, 315, 359, Leick 118, 522
391, 427, 455, 485, 529, 583, 630, Lemaire 175, 176
637 Leslau 136, 137, 164, 170, 172, 242,
Johnson 166, 167, 170, 188 336, 342, 372, 417, 504, 557, 615,
Joüon-Muraoka 165 617, 670, 676, 720
Levenson 63, 114
Kaiser 159, 160 Levine 187, 422, 477, 627
Kákosy 574, 581 Lewis xxx, xxxiii, xxxviii, 114, 249,
Kandel 173 250, 346, 504, 506, 518, 626, 628,
Kapelrud 144, 150, 156, 550, 551, 717
607, 609, 615 L’Heureux 261
Katz 713, 719 Lichtenstein 102, 304, 482, 625, 632
Kauffman 291, 441 Lichtheim 152, 161, 177, 188, 231,
Keel 144 553
Kelso 96, 108, 111, 623 Liddell 215
Kempinski 412, 418 Lindenberger 475
Killen 414, 418 Liphshitz 564
Kinsley 153, 193 Lipiński 15, 61, 91, 108, 109, 110,
Klein 377 369, 371, 375, 377, 378, 406, 484,
Knudtzon 121, 125, 569 712, 721
Koch 101, 236, 674 Liverani 38, 39, 408, 568, 616, 617,
Koitabashi 115 715, 716
Kogan 677 Livingstone 219, 723
Korpel 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 109 Lloyd 111, 127, 159, 184
Košak 412, 418 Loewenstamm 111, 140, 142, 160,
Krebernik 611 195, 204, 254, 258, 259, 280, 350,
Kruger 4 366, 517, 541, 554, 568, 603, 615,
Kselman 580 616, 690, 691, 697, 713, 714, 718,
Kugel 114 719, 720
Kuhne 405 Løkkegaard 189, 218, 253, 258, 418,
Kupfermann 173 559, 687
Kupper 377, 550 Lombard 730
Loretz xxx, xxxviii, 1, 4, 91, 92, 93,
104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 121, 123,
authors cited 855
Neiman 562, 580, 608, 637 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
Nesse 238 159, 161, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190,
Nibbi 564, 611, 681 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 217, 221,
Niccacci xxxvi 222, 223, 224, 228, 229, 230, 231,
Niehr 621 233, 235, 236, 240, 241, 245, 246,
Nissinen 219 248, 249, 252, 259, 260, 261, 262,
Noegel 140, 141, 497, 548, 597, 264, 265, 267, 272, 273, 281, 282,
656 290, 291, 298, 299, 300, 308, 310,
311, 312, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320,
Obermann 91, 109, 115, 221, 523, 327, 329, 335, 336, 337, 340, 341,
671 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,
O’Bryhim 230 351, 352, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360,
O’Callaghan 681 361, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373,
O’Connor 111, 408, 467 375, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383,
Oden 180, 260, 263, 447, 668, 671, 384, 385, 391, 406, 407, 411, 412,
679, 687, 689 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419,
Ogden 156 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427,
Ohshiro 569 431, 441, 442, 443, 444, 446, 448,
del Olmo Lete xxii, xxxv, xxxviii, 1, 4, 450, 453, 455, 471, 473, 476, 477,
5, 91, 94, 95, 96, 105, 106, 108, 109, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 485, 503,
111, 116, 121, 124, 127, 133, 134, 504, 508, 509, 511, 512, 516, 518,
135, 136, 140, 145, 148, 151, 157, 519, 520, 523, 529, 533, 540, 554,
162, 163, 170, 177, 185, 191, 195, 556, 557, 559, 560, 563, 565, 566,
199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 222, 569, 574, 576, 580, 581, 582, 583,
223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 248, 249, 589, 603, 604, 605, 609, 613, 614,
254, 260, 261, 262, 262, 267, 277, 619, 620, 621, 626, 627, 628, 630,
290, 291, 300, 306, 308, 310, 315, 631, 632, 637, 640, 661, 662, 663,
325, 326, 327, 329, 332, 334, 340, 666, 667, 668, 669, 673, 674, 679,
345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 352, 353, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686,
359, 365, 370, 373, 375, 376, 377, 687, 688, 689, 693, 694, 697, 712,
391, 397, 398,404, 407, 408, 409, 713, 715, 717, 719, 721, 725, 729,
413, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 730
422, 423, 426, 427, 445, 446, 447, Parker xxxiv, xxxv, 15, 171, 176, 191,
448, 450, 455, 472, 474, 476, 477, 219, 254, 280, 283, 307, 325, 329,
485, 493, 494, 504, 507, 510, 511, 336, 351, 352, 366, 498, 517, 576,
517, 523, 526, 529, 538, 554, 555, 578, 682, 694
558, 559, 560, 564, 565, 569, 574, Parpola 118, 219, 441, 474
579, 580, 583, 594, 630, 631, 637, Partridge 379
640, 641, 659, 660, 674, 675, 676, Paul 106, 114, 153, 262, 411, 603,
679, 682, 685, 686, 690, 691, 693, 617
697, 704, 715, 720, 727, 728, 729 Paulus 623
Oppenheim 145, 182, 183, 231 Pentiuc 5, 96, 105, 111, 118, 135,
Oren 173 189, 190, 203, 217, 235, 300, 370,
Otto 169, 170 404, 441
Overland 163 Perlman 377
Owen 405, 504 Petersen 22, 603
Pinnock 569
Page 4 Pitard xv, xxx, xxxviii, xxxix, 4, 13,
Pardee xvi, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, 149, 195, 247, 248, 253, 429, 431,
xxxv, 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 451, 627, 670, 726, 728
37, 38, 50, 64, 65, 87, 88, 91, 94, Piquer xxxvi, 1, 4, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
96, 97, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 28, 30, 32, 33, 105, 133, 146, 148,
112, 118, 119, 122, 123, 1224, 127, 163, 223, 301, 409
129, 133, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, Plutchnik 169, 172, 173
authors cited 857
Sivan 5, 95, 96, 97, 106, 116, 119, Stern 176, 179
122, 135, 136, 146, 151, 155, 203, Stieglitz 265, 511
205, 215, 241, 242, 245, 248, 258, Stol 219
279, 281, 294, 302, 308, 325, 326, Stordalen 60
327, 338, 347, 353, 355, 397, 403, Sznycer xxxv, 5, 48, 91, 109, 110, 120,
404, 411, 419, 424, 425, 440, 444, 127, 145, 151, 156, 190, 191, 192,
463, 465, 475, 510, 519, 520, 525, 194, 195, 204, 219, 221, 225, 227,
526, 533, 538, 541, 565, 569, 571, 228, 229, 245, 248, 261, 262, 263,
576, 577, 578, 648, 649, 659, 692, 267, 291, 292, 299, 309, 310, 315,
693, 704, 720 327, 329, 336, 349, 359, 366, 371,
Sokoloff 410, 508, 560 375, 377, 378, 391, 403, 404, 412,
Smith xv, xvi, xxix, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxvi, 413, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420,
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 421, 427, 442, 446, 450, 455, 471,
18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 34, 46, 50, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 479, 480,
51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 481, 482, 485, 510, 512, 518, 525,
64, 66, 91, 94, 95, 101, 102, 103, 529, 533, 554, 555, 556, 559, 563,
105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 565, 566, 583, 604, 631, 632, 637,
115, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127, 133, 661, 668, 669, 675, 676, 679, 684,
136, 137, 147, 149, 150, 151, 158, 686, 690, 691, 693, 697, 712, 715,
159, 160, 164, 180, 183, 184, 188, 718, 719, 726
189, 190, 193, 195, 201, 202, 203, Szubin 678
204, 205, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226,
228, 229, 234, 235, 236, 239, 241, Tadmor 170, 291
244, 247, 250, 261, 265, 267, 279, Tallqvist 219, 221, 719
280, 282, 283, 285, 290, 293, 296, Talmon 203, 603
297, 298, 300, 301, 306, 307, 309, Tarabrina 169, 170
310, 311, 315, 329, 338, 341, 342, de Tarragon xvi, xxxviii, 178, 179,
345, 349, 350, 355, 357, 359, 364, 422, 476, 576, 577, 627, 729
365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372, Teeter 188
379, 380, 388, 391, 397, 407, 409, Tessier 185
416, 419, 420, 427, 442, 443, 444, Te Velde 303
446,447, 452, 455, 463, 468, 472, Thackeray 611
473, 481, 482, 485, 493, 498, 506, Theuer 124
508, 510, 513, 515, 517, 520, 529, Tigay 65, 183, 560
532, 537, 539, 540, 541, 556, 558, Tishchenko 677
559, 565, 568, 570, 571, 576, 577, van der Toorn 122, 123, 377, 442,
578, 579, 583,594, 600, 604, 605, 570
607, 609, 616, 617, 618, 628, 629, Tromp 111, 202, 715, 716, 717, 718,
632, 636, 637, 653, 666, 667, 668, 719
669, 671,673, 674, 677, 680, 681, Tropper 5, 94, 95, 96, 97, 110, 133,
685, 686, 687, 688, 692, 693, 694, 134, 135, 136, 146, 147, 163, 178,
697, 706, 709, 712, 714, 718, 722, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 224, 225,
724, 725, 727 279, 280, 281, 304, 326, 327, 346,
van Soden 404, 512, 525, 550 369, 370, 373, 374, 398, 404, 419,
van Soldt 7, 13, 104, 404, 405, 706, 423, 434, 443, 462, 463, 464, 471,
727, 728, 729, 730 475, 510, 538, 539, 593, 613, 617,
Sollberger 550 642, 650, 651, 667, 669, 670, 676,
Spencer 623 691, 704, 705, 706
Spronk 121, 123, 353, 566, 567 Tsevat 605, 711, 712, 713
Stadelmann 149 Tuell 558, 560
Stager 47 Turcan 236
Steiglitz 411 Tuttle xxxii, 179, 337, 578
Steiner 119, 612
Stensman 166, 167 Ullendorff xxxii, 106, 107, 115, 517
authors cited 859