BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

.Fo
/

Published By
The American Schools of Oriental Research
(Jerusalem and Baghdad)
409 Prospect St., New Haven 11, Conn.

Vol. VIII May, 1945 No. 2

Fig. 1. The Harbor of Ancient Ugarit in Northern Syria. The excavations in the foreground
reveal the ruins of the port-town. The site is called today Minet el-Beida. (From C. F. A.
Schaeffer, Ugaritica I, P1. VIII:2)

UGARITICSTUDIESAND THE BIBLE

H. L. GINSBERG
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York City

The name Ugarit is not new to readers of the Biblical Archaeologist.

42 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. Viii,
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December)
by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable,
non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they are related
to the Bible.
Editor: G. Ernest Wright, McCormick Theological Seminary, 2330 N. Halsted St., Chicago
14, IIIll.(Only editorial correspondence should be sent to this address.)
Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; Millar Burrows, Yale Uni-
versity,
Subscription Price: per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research,
409 Prospect St.,50? New Haven, 11.
Entered as second-class matter, October 2, 1942, at the Post Office at New Haven,
Connecticut, under the Act of March 3, 1879.

A special article was devoted to the sensational discoveries asociated with

that name in one of the earliest numbers of this periodical (Vol. II. 1), and
data from Ugarit have been cited in various connections in subsequent
numbers. A new, and more extensive, special article at the present time is
warranted by the importance of the subject, which can hardly be exag-
gerated, and by the considerable quantity of new data which have become
available despite the war and the interruption of excavations.

I. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF UGARIT

Near the northern end of the Syrian coast, only about 25 miles south
of the present Turkish frontier, there is a cove (Fig. 1) called Minet el-
Beida ("the white harbor," "Whiteport"), into which flows a small stream.
Today Minet el-Beida is neither a large nor a safe harbor, and is only used
by a few fishermen; and the nearest town of any size is Latakia (Fig. 2),
some 7 or 8 miles to the south. However, when archaeologists became inter-
ested in it 17 years ago, they discovered clear evidence that it had once
been both larger and safer. At its seaward end, the white chalk cliffs from
which it gets its name have been undermined by the waves and have tumbled
into the sea, forming dangerous breakwaters; while at its landward end,
as a result of the accumulation of sand and gravel thrown up by the bois-
terous winter sea and of soil and stones swept down by the swollen winter
stream, the shoreline has advanced about 400 feet during the 3,000 odd
years that have elapsed since it ceased to be the busy waterfront of the
prosperous city of Ugarit. Of course, it should also be rememberedthat the
ships of those times did not require nearly such large and deep harbors
as ours do.

That there was once a very rich city half a mile to the southeast of
the harbor has always been known to the people of the neighborhood. For
here is the northwestern corner of a mound known as Ras esh-Shamrah
(its ancient name was Ugarit; Fig. 3), in and around which they had often
discovered valuable antiquities-including gold objects-both by chance
and by treasure hunting. The attention of the scholarly world, however,
was only attracted to this rather lonely spot in the spring of the year 1928,
when, in the vicinity of the harbor, a peasant's plough struck what proved
to be one of the stone slabs of the convex roof of a sepulcher. The latter
was full of silt and valuables, and the peasants lost no time in removing
most of the latter. However, the discovery came to the notice of the police,
who in turn apprised the Department of Antiquities in Beirut; and when
the representatives of the Department arrived they were still able to recover
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 43

some beautiful Cypro-Mycenaean pottery of the 13th century B.C. from

the rubbish. As a result, both the harbor and, more especially, the afore-
mentioned mound were excavated by a French expedition headed by Mr.
Claude F. A. Schaeffer for about three months every year from 1929
through 1939. (May France and Mr. Schaeffer soon be in a position to
resume these epoch-making excavations.)
A few exploratory shafts have revealed that the mound is the grave
of not one but five cities lying one on top of the other. The lowest one is,
of course, the most ancient. It flourished in the fifth, and perhaps even as
early as the sixth millennium B.C. Of greatest interest to us, however, are

Fig. 2. Latakia, Syria. A French Air Force photograph, showing the harbor and a section of the
moden city. Both the harbor and this city have replaced Ugarit and Minet el-Beida as the chief
city and port of the area. (Courtesy of M. Henri Seyrig)

the second and first strata, representing respectively the first and second
halves of the second millennium B.C. Both these cities were known as
Ugarit. Obviously no stratum can be investigated methodically before those
above it have been cleared away; and at present only the top one, or the
younger Ugarit (c.1500-1200 B.C.), is at all well known. It is primarily
with this Ugarit that we are concerned here. Roughly speaking, its history
begins with the establishment-which may have been a reestablishment-
of Egyptian sovereignty over this remote corner of Syria and ends with
the irruption of the Aegean sea-peoples whom we also encounter in Pal-
 AW\

HA""
U AI
LirI
r LA

Oned
ft
LT N
L'7

ANAA!. 6

AI
LASYLON

DUY

Fig. 3. A pictorial map of the ancient Near East. Igarit appears along the c
Syria, opposite Cyprus.
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 45
estine from the twelfth century on under the name of Philistines. The
abandonment of Ugarit around 1200 B.C. was no doubt due to just this
invasion of the sea-peoples.
II. WRITINGIN WESTERNASIA IN GENERALAND AT UGARITIN PARTICULAR
Within the above period, the most interesting phase, not only in the
history of Ugarit but in that of the Ancient Orient as a whole, is the first
half of the fourteenth century. This is what is known as the Amarna Age,
from the circumstance that the first insight into its character was afforded
by the archives of Amenophis IV, better known as Akhnaten, discovered
at Tell el-Amarna (in Egypt). These documents revealed that: Firstly,
both this Pharaoh and his predecessor Amenophis III cultivated diplo-
matic relations with practically all the independent kings of western Asia
and married their daughters. Secondly, their correspondence not only with
Babylonia and Assyria but also with the other independent states of west-
ern Asia, and even with the Egyptian dependencies in Syria, was conducted
in the script and (with very few exceptions to which I shall refer imme-
diately) in the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians. The name of
that language is Accadian, and for the sake of convenience I shall also
refer to its script as Accadian.
It was subsequently discovered that the peoples in question had been
doing their writing in the Accadian script long before the Amarna Age.
However, the leading non-Semitic nations had adapted it to the notation
of their own languages at an early date, so that already in the Amarna
Age the kings of Arzawa (in Asia Minor) and Mitanni (in northern
Mesopotamia) were disregarding the privileges of Accadian as the diplo-
matic medium and the convenience of the Egyptian Foreign Office by
corresponding with it in their own respective idioms. But with regard to
the western Semites, it was believed up to the year 1929 that their written
language, even in purely domestic matters, remained Accadian until not
long before the end of the second millennium, when writing in the ver-
nacular became common among them simultaneously with the use of the
Phoenician alphabet.
Then came the first season of digging at Ugarit (spring 1929) which
brought to light a number of inscribed clay tablets from the Amarna Age;
and behold, the great majority of them employed not the very compli-
cated Accadian script but a previously unknown one. Upon examination the
new system was found to consist of only some thirty simple signs, which
obviously represented single sounds rather than syllables or ideograms
(signs representing single words or ideas). We shall call it the Ugaritic
alphabet. I may say here that to date no specimens of it have turned up at
any other site, with two exceptions: 1. In 1933 a clay plaque inscribed with
Ugaritic writing in reverse was unearthed at Beth-shemesh, Palestine.
Unfortunately, too much of it is missing for any coherent reading. Is it a
local product or did some much traveled person bring it to Beth-shemesh
from Ugarit? 2. In 1944 a bronze dagger with an inscription in this alpha-
bet was discovered near Mt. Tabor, Palestine, and an article on it by 1Mr.
S. Yeivin has probably already appeared in the second volume of Kedem,
a periodical publication of the Museum of Jewish Antiquities of the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
46 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,
Provided the language is known and the material not too limited, and
provided that the words are separated from each other-in our texts they
are fortunately marked off from each other, as a rule, by a special sign
which we call a 'word divider'-such an alphabetic writing is relatively
easy to decipher. By adopting the working hypothesis that the language,
in view of the location of the find and of the brevity of the words, was
akin to Phoenician ( which in turn, as is well known, is closely related to
Biblical Hebrew), the German scholar Hans Bauer succeeded in an aston-
ishingly short time in identifying half of the letters correctly. That meant
that every word which contained only letters from that half was translit-
erated by him in a manner which we now know to be correct. Then, with
the help of a newspaper article in which Bauer gave a popular presenta-
tion of his results, the French savant, Ed. Dhorme, corrected Bauer's
identifications of most of the remaining characters, so that he ( )hornme)
read nearly every complete word correctly.
All this was accomplished despite the fact that the texts on which the
decipherers had to work were, unlike some of those discovered in later
campaigns, rather crudely written and very fragmentary and for the most
part contained only lists.'
How was it done? In the observations which the French scholar,
Virolleaud, prefaced to his copies of the first texts, he noted that in the first
line of one of the tablets. a line which is marked off from the following
lines by a horizontal stroke (in the manner in which the headings are fre-
quently marked off from the bodies of letters in Accadian writing), a sign
which we shall represent by x is followed by a sequence of six signs which
also appears on 5 bronze adzes (Fig. 4). From this Virolleaud rightly con-
cluded that the tablet in question is a letter, that its initial sign, x, means
'to,' and that the sequence of six signs designates in the letter the addresee.
and on the adzes the owner. Now, in Hebrew and Phoenician the single
letter that means "to" is 1 and is written together with the following word,
so that a large proportion of words in a Hebrew or Phoenician text begin
with 1. Bauer observed that similarly a large proportion of words in these
new texts began with our x; so apparently x had the value of 1, and the
language really was (as he had tentatively assumed) related to Phoenician.
In another text was found a word consisting of x flanked on either
side by a sign which we shall call y. If x really = 1, then y = sh, for the
only Hebrew and Phoenician word consisting of 1 flanked by two identical
consonants is the numeral sh(a)-l(o)-sh "three." These identifications were
confirmed by the presence in the neighborhood of the word read sh-l-sh of a
word sh-sh, evidently equivalent to Hebrew sh(e)-sh "six." A four-letter
word in the same vicinity was tentatively read '-r-b-' 'four," and it was
noted that the last two letters of it frequently combined with I to produce
what was evidently the name of the great Phoenician god b-'-l "Baal." Fur-
ther, the first two letters of the word tentatively read '-r-b-' "four" fre-
'The scholar who, by publishing very careful copies of these first texts, made Bauer and
Dhorme's contributions to their decipherment possible was the French Assyriologist Ch. Virolleaud.
As we shall see in a moment, Virolleaud also discovered the first clue to the decipherment, of which
Bauer made grateful use. It was also Virolleaud who was charged with the editing of most of the
texts discovered in subsequent campaigns, with whose help he isolated and determined the values of
most of the letters which Bauer and Dhorme had failed either to distinguish from others which
they resembled or to interpret correctly.
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 47

quently occurred along with the letter identified above as sh in the combina-
tion '-sh-r-z, where s represents still another letter whose value had not yet
been determined. Obviously, this combination is the name of the goddess
'-sh-r-t, Phoenician 'Ashirt (Biblical Asherah); so that z2 t. The five-
letter combination '-sh-t-r-t could now be identified without further ado
as the name of the goddess Astarte, Phoenician 'Ashtart (Biblical Ash-
toreth). And so on. The working hypothesis that the texts were composed
in a language similar to Phoenician soon became an established fact.

Fig. 4. Adzes from Ugarit. now in the Louvre Museum, Paris. The one on the right has the
inscription "Kharusenni, chief of priests" (hrsn rb khnm). The one on the left is one of four
which were found, all of which bore the inscription "chief of priests" (rb khnm). Both inscriptions
were written (and therefore are to be read) horizontally, not vertically. (From C. F. A. Schaeffer,
Ugaritica I, P1 XXIV)

We shall call the Phoenician-like language which was written at

Ugarit in the Ugaritic alphabet the Ugaritic language.
However, not long after the alphabet had been deciphered it was dis-
covered that it was also employed for writing the language of at least one
non-Semitic minority of the population of Ugarit; but the material of this
48 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST" Vol. VIII,
nature that has come to light is limited in quantity and still very imperfectly
understood. On the other hand, the writings in the Ugaritic language pub-
lished to date (for a certain amount of material still awaits publication)
consist of thousands of lines. Large sections of them are now quite well
understood, and at every turn comparison with the Bible is suggested.
III. MATERIALS FOR COMPARATIVE BIBLICAL AND UGARITIC STUDIES
While, however, it is primarily the Ugaritic texts that are of interest
to the student of the Bible, it should be noted that, for obvious reasons, the
Ugaritians still employed Accadian in diplomatic correspondence and.
maybe out of sheer conservatism, often preferred it as the language of
legal documents, business accounts and seals. Most surprising of all, per-
haps, are a few Accadian hymns to Mesopotamian deities transcribed in
Ugaritic characters and provided with rubrics in the Ugaritic language.
The Biblical scholar has much to learn from all these writings too. I shall
cite only two cases in point.
1. The Khabiru of the Tell el-Amarna correspondence, who act in co-
operation with rebels against the Pharaoh's authority, used to be regularly
identified with the Hebrews and adduced as proof that the Israelite con-
quest of Palestine took place in the 14th or even in the 15th century. Par-
ticularly since the First World War, however, evidence has accumulated
to the effect that the word in question (1) is rather to be read Khapiru,
(2) was in use all over the Orient in the second millennium B.C., and (3)
designated men of any and every nationality. What all the people so desig-
nated have in common is that they are economically rootless or broken, just
like those who gathered around the outlaws Jephthah (Jud 11:3) and
David (1 Sam 22:2) or hired their swords to the usurper Abimelech (Jud
9:4). It is obviously this circumstance, and not racial kinship, that accounts
for the analogous roles played by Khapiru in Amarna Age Palestine on
the one hand and "vain and light fellows" in early Israel on the other. But
the severest blow of all was dealt to the identification of Khapiru with
Hebrezwsby the discovery at Ugarit of partly parallel Accadian and Uga-
ritic lists of towns of the kingdom of Ugarit. For the town which is called
"Khalb of the Khapiru" in Accadian is called "Khalb of the 'apirim" (not
'ibriyyinm[="Hebrews"] or the like) in Ugaritic.'
2. That the system of weights in use at Ugarit (Fig. 5) was not the
Babylonian one but the one which the Israelites employed is proved not
by an Ugaritic document but by a business account in the Accadian lan-
guage and by a series of uninscribed balance-weights. The document reck-
ons 3,000 shekels to the talent in agreement with Exod 38:25-26 and as
against the Babylonian system, which (consistently sexagesimal) reckoned
3,600 shekels. The common balance-weights of Ugarit3 tell the same story.
2To the negative result that the Israelites are not identical with the Khapiru of the Amarna
Age, may be added the positive observation that both archaeological and literary indications point
rather definitely to the third quarter of the thirteenth century as the date of the Israelite conquest
of Palestine. Most of the Ugaritic documents on the other hand, were copied in the second quarter
of the fourteenth century; and in the case of literary works, that will usually mean that they were
composed considerably earlier. When, therefore, a comparative study of Ugaritic and Biblical litera-
ture reveals resemblances which can hardly be accounted for otherwise than by borrowing, it must
be the Israelites who borrowed from the Canaanites and not vice versa.
3In addition to the native mina of 470 grammes, the Ugaritians made occasional use of the
Egyptian mina of 440 grammes and of the Babylonian mina of 490 grammes.
4See most recently Albright, Annual of the American Schools of Or. Res. XXI-XXII, 1943,
pp. 76 ff.--The Palestinian units were heavier than the Ugaritian (11.4 grammes to the shekel as
against 9.5 grammes), but their inner relationships were the same (50 shekels to the mina).
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 49

The largest is evidently a mina (one-sixtieth of a talent) and the others

equal one-fiftieth of this mina or multiples or fractions of one-fiftieth.
Evidently, therefore, the Ugarit mina was divided into 50 shekels (not
into 60 like the Babylonian), so that again a shekel comes to (1/50 x 1/60
) 1/3,000 of a talent. Interestingly enough the mutual relationships of the
uninscribed weights of Judah similarly confirm Exod 38:25-26.4
But let us proceed at last to
IV. THE UGARITICWRITINGSAND THE BIBLE
While letters, records of various sorts, a manual on the treatment of
horse ailments," and even a schoolboy's exercise are not wanting, the bulk
of the Ugaritic writings are literature-or rather, unfortunately, frag-
ments of literature-in the strict sense of the word. This literature is ex-
clusively poetical, and it is for the most part epic. There are parts of two
epics embodying legends about kings and parts of what was probably one
great epic embodying myths about gods. There is also one smaller writing
which seems to be a ritual text embodying a myth about gods.6
Obviously, such writings are not likely to furnish exact data on his-
tory or geography-least of all, in view of the place where they were
found, on Palestinian history and geography. Yet that is precisely what
was claimed for them by some European scholars during the nineteen-
thirties. Some readers of the Biblical Archaeologist have doubtless heard
of this "Negebite hypothesis." It asserted that some of the Ugaritic texts
preserve the memory of the expulsion of the Phoenicians from their al-
leged original homes in an allegedly thriving South of Judah. Their sup-
planters were said to be a people bearing the name of Terah, which in the
Bible is the name of Abraham's father. The events in question were con-
sequently connected with the Abrahamic migration from Mesopotamia to
Palestine. South Palestinian localities like Ashdod, Sharuhen, and the
wilderness of Kadesh were also said to be named in the texts. However,
some of the words in question (e.g., the alleged 'Terah' in some of its oc-
curences) are in reality verbs, and others are common nouns. A probable
exception is "the wilderness of Kadesh," but we shall see presently that
the region thus designated is at least as close to Phoenicia as to Palestine.
No, the startlingly prosperous and populous Negeb (south) of the Ugarit
texts belongs in the same limbo as the important state of Musri flourishing
in the dreary wastes of Sinai and Midian which Hugo Winckler claimed to
have discovered in the annals of the kings of Assyria forty-odd years ago,
and which he proposed substituting for "Egypt" (Hebrew Misrayim) in
large segments of the Bible! What one can expect to learn from the poetical
myths and legends of the Ugaritians is something about (1) their ideas
and ideals and (2) the technique and quality of their poetry. Then, since
in the Amarna Age the Semites of Palestine and the Syrian coast consti-
tuted a cultural continuum which may be called "the sphere of Canaanite
culture," we may, with due caution, generalize our findings so as to cover
the Canaanites of Palestine as well.
5The materia medica includes "old fig-cakes," with which cf. II Ki. 20:7; Isa. 38:21.
6This text is of special interest to Bible students for two reasons. Firstly, a feature of the
ritual was the boiling of a kid in milk, so that Maimonides was apparently right in attributing the
prohibition of this very practice in Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21 to its pagan associations.
Secondly, apart from Ps. 29:8, this is the only text in or out of the Bible in which "the wilderness
of Kadesh" is named. On this, see anon.
50 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,
1. IDEAS AND IDEALS
To put it tritely, their ideas about men are distinctly more edifying
than those about gods. The piety, the loves, and the family life of the hu-
man heroes are (always allowing for human frailty) appealing. A good
monarch like King Daniel "judges the cause of the widow, adjudicates the
case of the fatherless"-a phrase which is familiar to every reader of the
Bible. On the other hand King Keret, who is convalescing after a very
serious illness, is admonished by his scapegrace son Yassib approximately7
as follows:
Hearken, I pray thee O Keret the noble! List, and let thine
ear be attentive ... Thou shouldst judge the cause of the widow,
adjudicate the case of him that is in anguish of spirit. Thou
shouldst deliver the poor man from his oppressors, shouldst feed
the fatherless before thee and the widow behind thy back. How
long hast thou been a brother of the bed of sickness, a friend of
the lofty couch? Descend from the king's throne! Let me be king.
Upon the seat of thy dominion let me sit.
No doubt the monarchic reality often contrasted luridly with this ideal
among the Canaanites, as it notoriously did at times in the Israelite mon-
archy. But the ideal was there, and when the Israelites, late in the eleventh
century B.C., took over from their neighbors the millennia-old institution
of monarchy, they evidently also took over the ideal connected with it.8
For one thing, they almost certainly knew about the legend of King Daniel,
the ruler who was not remiss in "judging the cause of the widow, adjudi-
cating the case of the fatherless." The prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 14:12 ff.)
enunciates the doctrine that, when God visits upon a sinful land a nation-
wide calamity, the righteousness of an indivdual dweller of that land can
save the life of that individual but not the lives of any of his fellow-
citizens, not even those of his own children. To bring his point home, he
keeps reiterating that under such circumstances not even Noah, Daniel.
and Job would save either a son or a daughter. There can be no doubt
that in naming these men, Ezekiel is citing three classical saints of yore.
The antiquity of Noah requires no proof. That Job was thought to have
lived "in the days of the patriarchs" is evident from certain well known
indications in our Book of Job. Between these two, the Daniel of the
Book of Daniel, at best Ezekiel's own younger contemporary, is out of
place; especially as Ezekiel is obviously illustrating a proposition,
which is applicable to any land, with types of pious men that might con-
.eneral
ceivably be found in any nation. Obviously his Daniel, whom, by the way,
he refers to again in another passage (Ezek 28:3), is like Noah and Job,
a saint of hoary antiquity, and consequently belongs to mankind as a
whole. His identity with the Daniel of the Canaanite epic is highly probable.
But the Bible also contains a striking parallel to the son's rebuke of
7The passage in question, II K 6:41-54, was published in Syria XXIII (1942-43) p. 12. Like
everything else published in France after 1939, it has remained inaccessible to the scholarly world
at large (I only learned of it very recently by a stroke of good luck), and so has not had the
benefit of its concerted ingenuity. Consequently, the translation given here probably misses a num-
ber of fine points. The general sense, however, is clear.
sThat ideal is the origin of the concept of the Messiah, the ideal ruler of "the latter days."
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 51

Keret, the king who allegedly did not "judge the cause of the widow,
decide the case of the fatherless." The opening paragraph of Jeremiah 22,
the famous chapter on kings of Judah, reads as follows:
Thus saith the Lord, go down unto the house (palace) of
the king of Judah and speak there this word. Say, Hearken unto
the word of the Lord, O king of Judah that sittest upon the
throne of David, thou and all thy servants that enter in by these
gates (of the palace). Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye justice
and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the

Fig. 5. Bronze weight from Ugarit, now in the Louvre Museum, Paris. It weighs 190 grammes,
which make it 20 Ugaritian shekels. The remarkably lifelike face may possibly be a portrait of
the merchant in whose shop it was found-but then again it may not! (From C. F. A. Schaeffer,
Ugaritica I, P1. XII)

oppressor; and do no wrong, do no violence, to the stranger, nor

the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this
place. For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there (continue
to) enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the
throne of David ... But if ye will not hear these words, I swear
by myself, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a
desolation.
The resemblance of this admonition to the Ugaritic admonition to
King Keret is of course not due to imitation, but it is due to the common
52 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,

premise that a king's job is to execute justice. At the same time, the dif-
ference between the two cases should not be overlooked. The story of
Keret is legend, that of Jeremiah history. Keret's son was demanding the
throne for himself, and his high-sounding sermon was only a hypocritical
pretext. But Jeremiah was motivated solely by the intense religious and
moral earnestness of a Hebrew prophet. Even if it is granted (though it is
very improbable) that the fate of the royal house, and even of the temple,
was a matter of indifference to him, that of the nation was surely not;
yet in another passage he makes the fulfilment of the same requirements
an indispensable condition for the continued existence of both the temple
and the nation (ch. 7).
Indeed, the Utaritic texts themselves make it difficult to conceive
ot a Nathan, an Elijah, an Amos, or a Jeremiah arising in Ugarit, or
Byblus, or Tyre, to denounce the failure of their princes to live up to the
ideal of the legendary King Daniel. For the example of the human char-
acters of Canaanite literature was heavily offset by that of the divine ones.
The gods of the Ugaritic epics are not only anthropomorphic (in human
form) and anthropopathic (with human emotions), but morally some-
times inferior to the genus homo at its best.
One of the most shocking examples, and the one most germane to
our subject, is that of the ferocious warrior-goddess Anath. King Dan-
iel's son Aqhat possesses a cunningly wrought bow, a gift of the crafts-
man-god Kothar. Anath coaxes him to give it to her in exchange for
wealth or immortality, but Aqhat will on no account part with his bow.
Thereupon Anath commissions an assassin to dispatch Aqhat. I do not
pretend to be certain that the Phoenician princess Jezebel, who found the
same happy solution for the problem of Naboth's unwillingness to sell his
vineyard to her husband, the Israelite king Ahab (I Ki. 21), had read
this particular story of Aqhat's bow or been told it by her nurse. But it
does seem obvious that, other things being equal, a sovereign who had
been brought up, like Ahab, in the sternly ethical religion of the Lord of
Hosts would be less likely to get such bright ideas, and less ready to act
upon them if he did, than one who had been brought up in a milieu where
the notions of divinity prevailed which we find in the Canaanite litera-
ture. And a monarch who did resort to such practices was infinitely more
likely to meet with an Elijah in a society which harbored the Israelite
concept of deity than in one that harbored the Canaanite concept.
It is indeed fortunate that the Israelites did not borrow any funda-
mental ideas about God from the Canaanites! On the other hand, they
did borrow, with profit, some subsidiary ones. An example is the notion
of His successful combat, long, long ago, with a hydra-headed sea-dragon
(Ps. 74:14), known as Leviathan and by several other names and epithets.
and with other enlemies. The seven-headed dragon, the very name Levia-
than, and most of the other names and epithets recur in the Ugarit texts,
according to which the same beings were vanquished by Baal (with the
aid of trusty allies). Similarly, the Hebrew poets described Jehovah, just
as the Canaanite poets described Baal (Fig. 6), as a storm-god riding in
a cloud-enveloped chariot, uttering peals of thunder and sending out darts
of lightning; and they even borrowed Baal's epithet of the "Cloudrider"
and transferred it to Jehovah.
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 53
We also have a complete composition, namely Ps. 29, which is full
of echoes of Canaanite poetry and whose geographical standpoint is not
Palestine but Phoenicia, or at least the Syro-Palestinian "sphere of Ca-
naanite culture."
It is well known that all of the rainstorms of Syria and Palestine

Fig. 6. A bas-relief from Ugarit, now in the Louvre Museum, showing the Canananite weather-god.
His proper name was Hadad, but he was familiarly called Baal (Lord). In his right hand he
brandishes his thunder-bolt, and in his left he holds his lightning. Note his horned cap, short
skirt, and dagger. The small figure beneath the dagger is probably the king, whose hands are
upraised in prayer. He stands on a chest or tub with a lid, an archaeological illustration of the
"brazen scaffold" (bronze chest or tub) which Solomon stood on to pray at the dedication of the
Temple (II Chron. 6:13). (From Syria XIV, Pl. XVI. Photograph by C. F. A. Schaeffer)

originate in the Mediterranean Sea and proceed in a landward direction.

(Cf. I Ki. 18:43-45.) Well, our Ps. 29 speaks of such a storm as if it were
a ride across the skies by a thundering God. Naturally, His voice is first
heard roaring over the "mighty waters" (v. 3). Next, it shatters the cedars
54 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,
of Lebanon (v. 5). Still further inland, it shakes the Anti-Lebanon range
(v. 6). Finally, far to the east, it causes the Syrian Desert to tremble
(v. 8). (1) Now, while the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon do lie within
the ideal boundaries of the Promised Land (Deut 11:24; Jos 1:4), they
do not lie within the historic boundaries of Israel. (2) Furthermore, the
name by which the Anti-Lebanon is designated here, namely Sirion (v.
6), is not the usual one. Apart from I Chr. 5:16, where Sirion is per-
haps to be read for Sharon, the name only occurs again in the Scriptures
in Deut 3:9, which verse states that it is the Sidonian, i. e., Phoenician,
name of the range which is otherwise known as Hermon or Senir. And
in effect, it is the name employed by Ugaritians and other northern peo-
ples. (3) So, too, the great desert to the east of the Anti-Lebanon range,
the Syrian Desert, is called in our Psalm "the wilderness of Kadesh,"-
a name found nowhere else in the Bible9 but mentioned in a ritual text of
Ugarit, where only preconceived notions could have led anybody to take
it to refer to a very circumscribed area on the border between the Pales-
tinian Negeb (southland) and the Sinai Peninsula. (4) Finally, the cli-
mactic ("staircase") parallelism which is so characteristic of our Psalm
(vv. 1, 4, 5, 8) is exceedingly common in the Ugaritic poems.
And I have already pointed out (5) that the very notion of the storm-
riding thunder-god is a Canaanite borrowing.
The cumulative evidence for the ultimately Canaanite origin of Ps.
29 is therefore overwhelming, and examples of some shorter pieces of
Canaanite verse adapted by the Hebrew poets will be cited presently. How-
ever, the procedure of the Israelites with these borrowings was the opposite
of that which we observed in connection with the king-ideal; that is to
say, they took them less seriously than the Canaanites, more as poetic
ornamentation than as fact. (Compare the Puritan Milton's use of Greek
mythology even in poems of a specifically theological nature.) For Israel-
ite monotheism leaves no room for any powers which are not subject to
the sovereign will of God. Consequently it leaves no room for mythology;
which is why the Bible contains only a few fossils or erratic boulders of
mythology. And it is incompatible with the notion of God's needing to
fight; which is why such combats are only introduced for rhetorical or
poetic effect, and why "God's enemies" becomes merely a figure of speech
for "evildoers." Not only do the two expressions alternate with each other
(Ps 68:1-2), but-very characteristically-they alternate with each other
in a verse which is unquestionably adapted from a passage in a Canaanite
epic that speaks only, and literally, of an enemy. In an Ugaritic text, an ally
of Baal encourages him in preparation for an encounter with another god
with the words: "Lo, thine enemy O Baal, lo, thine enemy wilt thou smite;
lo, thou wilt cut off thine adversary." The Psalmist, on the other hand
(Ps 92:9), expresses his confidence in the ultimate triumph of righteous-
ness as follows: "For lo, Thine enemies, O Jehovah, lo, Thine enemies

"Contrary to an impression which is not confined to adherents of the Negebite hypothesis,

none of the wildernesses in the vicinity of Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea, which admittedly plays an
important part in the account of Israel's wanderings prior to her entry into the Promised Land, shares
with that oasis the name of Kadesh. That oasis lies between the wilderness of Zin and the wil-
derness of Paran. (See Wright-Filson, Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible [1945], Pls. V,
X.) Indeed, in view of Gen. 14:7 it is doubtful whether even the oasis was called Kadesh at the
time when the Ugarit texts were written.
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 55

shall perish; all they that work iniquity shall be scattered."

This example, however, illustrates not only the ideas of the Canaanites
as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and Israel's reaction to them, but also the
2. FORM AND QUALITY OF CANAANITE POETRY

and its influence upon Israelite poetry. And indeed, the most important
and assured results of comparative Biblical and Ugaritic studies come
under this heading. The formal elements of Hebrew poetry are largely
borrowed from the Canaanites. I have already mentioned that climactic
parallelism is a favorite device of Canaanite poets. The Ugaritic passage I
have just translated is an example-as is also, of course, its Biblical
modification. That the same kind of climactic parallelism also occurs in

Fig. 7. A view from the Lebanon mountains, looking down to the coast and the Mediterranean
Sea. The city in the distance is the modern capital of Lebanon, Beirut, over 100 miles south of
Ugarit. (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago)

early Accadian poetry is beside the point. The Canaanites, whose written
language, as we have seen, was originally Accadian, doubtless adopted
this and other techniques from Accadian poetry. But that was long be-
fore the Israelites appeared upon the scene, and the latter could only have
borrowed those techniques from the Canaanites. Moreover, for the de-
termination of mutual relationships, the frequency of a feature is at least
as important as its mere presence. The well known parallelism of clauses
is present in a certain measure in the poetry of many ancient and modern
peoples. (It is very prominent, for example, in the national epic of the
Finns !) But in the Ancient Orient, it is only in Canaanite poetry that its
56 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAJEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,
use attains the same, sometimes monotonous, regularity as in Hebrew. In
order to meet the exigencies of such a prosody, the Canaanite and Hebrew
poets have some fixed pairs of synonymous words or phrases for certain
concepts which poets have frequent occasion to express (e. g.: head,
eternity, to fear, to rejoice). Many such fixed pairs are common to Uga-
ritic and Biblical poetry (though of course the words were not pronounced
exactly alike in the two languages). Moreover, the members of such a
pair are-with apparently no exceptions in Ugaritic poetry and with very
few in Hebrew-always employed in the same order, and that order is
also nearly always the same in both literatures. Common to both is the
rule that it is the more usual expression that comes first, the second in
some cases being hardly used at all except precisely for the purpose of
balancing the first. For example, the ordinary Hebrew word for "eternity"
is 'olaml (or 'olamini.), and if the poet wishes to express this concept a
second time in a parallel clause he uses "generation and generation," dor
wa-dor (or dor dor, or dor doriin). And except for the pronunciation, it
is the same in Ugaritic. Thus, the continuation of the encouragement of
Baal which I quoted above is, literally:
"Thou wilt win thy kingdom of eternity ('lin = Heb. 'olami), thy
dominion of all generations (dr dr = Heb. dor dor) ;"
with which compare (Ps. 145:13):
"Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all eternity ('olamim), and Thy
dominion endureth through all generations (dor wa-dor)."
I need not point out that the importance of this illustration is not lim-
ited to the use, in the same sequence, of the same pair of synonyms for
"eternity"! Our verse, like Ps. 92:9 which I quoted above, is obviously
borrowed and adapted from its Canaanite parallel.
But to return to the identical use of fixed pairs of parallel synonyms,
such agreement goes beyond a mere agreement of form and results in a
considerable similarity of diction. So great, in fact, is the agreement in
poetic diction that the Ugarit texts have become-in absolute terms to a
very modest extent, but in relation to their limited bulk to a surprisingly
large extent--an aid to the texrtual criticism of poetical passages in the
Hebrew Bible; sometimes confirming emendations previously proposed,
sometimes suggesting convincing new ones. For example, Ps. 42:2a is
rendered in both the Authorized and the Revised Version: "As a hart
panteth after the water brooks." However, "hart" is masculine, whereas
the verb rendered "panteth" is feminine in form in the Hebrew. Now, all
that is necessary for changing the Hebrew word for "hart" into the word
for "hind" is the addition of a final t; and as the following word begins
with a t, scholars have long suspected that, as frequently happens, our
"hart" is simply due to the failure of a scribe to write the t twice (at the
end of the substantive as well as at the beginning of the following verb)
instead of only once. It so happens that the same figure of speech occurs
in an Ugaritic passage, and there the feminine form of our substantive
(i. e., with final t) is employed, thus confirming the proposed emendation
in the Psalms passage. So, too, an Ugaritic parallel to II Sam 1:21 shows
that instead of u-sde terumot "nor fields of offerings"-which no serious
exegete regards otherwise than as a makeshift
tehomiot "nor upwelling of the deeps" (i. e., flowingtranslation-••e-shera'
of springs) is to be
1945,2 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 57

read. Again, in Job 37:3 the rendering "He sendeth it under the whole
heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth" is unsatisfactory for
three reasons: firstly, because a mere pronoun "it" stands in parallelism
to a substantive "lightning"; secondly, because "it" does not mean "light-
ning" but refers back to the "sound" (i. e., "thunder") of the preceding
verse; and thirdly, because the verb rendered "sendeth" does not have
that meaning anywhere else in Hebrew or in the related idioms. However,
the observation that a substantive from the same root means in Ugaritic
"a flash of lightning" suggests that we have here an example of the opposite
error from that which we have just noted in Ps. 42:1; i. e., the scribe

Fig. 8. The Plain of Antioch, some fifty miles northeast of Ugarit. St. Paul and many other
Christians of the early Church crossed this plain on their way from Antioch to Tarsus and other
cities in Asia Minor via the pass through the mountains to be seen in the center background.
Here was the scene also of pre-Christian activities and cities. The mound in the foreground is
now called Tell-ej-Judeideh, first settled in the sixth or fifth millennium B. C. It has been excavated
by the Oriental Institute and is the key to unlocking the early history of Syria. In the right
center of the photograph may be seen another mound, called Chatal Huyuk, also excavated by
the Oriental Institute. Both of these sites were occupied in the early Christian period. A small
church, dating from the sixth century A.D., was found among the surface ruins of the former.
(Oriental Institute, University of Chicago)

has repeated at the end of the verb the w with which the following word
begins. With this final w omitted, the word reads instead of vishrehu "he
sendeth(?) it"-yisre(h) "he flasheth"; and in a flash, all three of our
difficulties are solved. (Probably Sarai, the original name of Abraham's
wife Sarah, is from the same root and means "brilliance.")
A fourth example is Prov. 26:23, in which a person with smooth lips
but a bitter heart is compared, as our text now reads, to "an earthen vessel
overlaid with silver dross." Apart from the question as to what exactly
"silver dross" is, the Hebrew expression means rather "dross silver"-which
58 THE BIBLICAL ARCHA4EOLOGIST
is not much easier to define. Moreover, neither "silver d(ross" nor "dross
silver" is used for plating earthenware in real life and, what is more
serious, neither would form a particularly attractive exterior. However, if
the two Hebrew words in question (ksp sygym) are written together, i. e.,
as kspsygym, the intial k can be taken as the particle meaning "like," while
the rest of the word can be identified with Ugaritic spsg "quartz, glaze."
And "an earthen vessel overlade with glaze" is exactly what the context
requires."1
The last three examples illustrate, besides the value of Ugaritic litera-
ture for the textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures, its contribution to
Hebrew lexicography. Under this heading may also be included the con-
firmation which it affords for the surmise, previously made by an American
scholar on the basis of the Arabic, that the verb rendered "to be dismayed"
in Isa. 41:10, 23 is not the hithpael of sha'ah "to look" but an independent
verb shata' "to be dismayed," as also its testimony that the Hebrew word
for "table" does not mean properly "a skin mat," nor the word for "win-
dow" "a hollow." In general, the number of Hebrew words whose
meanings have been correctly understood but whose etymologies will have
to be revised in view of their Ugaritic correspondences is surprisingly high.
I have yet to say a word about the quality of Uaaritic poetry. After
what I have already hinted about the crudity of the Canaanite concept of
divinity, it will come as no surprise that some of the passages are quite
crude, and that few display real power or profundity. However, some-
especially those about men !-are not without delicacy and grace. But there
can be no two opinions about it: the Israelite pupils far outstripped their
Canaanite masters.
I would add, however, that the purpose of comparative studies is not
invidious comparison, but better understanding. The literature, archaeol-
ogy, history, and individuality of Israel, the world it lived in, and its place
in that world and in history, have all been clarified in varying degrees by
the discoxeries made at Ugarit, and will undoubtedly be further clarified
by further study and discovery.

"0For further examples see Jour. of Biblical Literature LXII (1943), pp. 109 ff.

Have You Read:

Nelson Glueck, TIlE OTHER SIDE OF THE JORDAN

This interesting book describes Dr. Glueck's explorations in

Transjordan. It was first published in 1940, but the original
edition was sold out some time ago. It is again available in a
student's edition at one-half the original price:
$1.25
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
409 Prospect St., New Haven 11, Conn.
 k
GackacE~c&qccQicaQ and
cir (Il9wb
B. A. PROGRESSREPORT that they recommend it to their
Readers may be interested in the friends.
progress which The Biblical Archae- Now for a financial report. Here
ologist is making: that is, in regard follows the record of receipts and
to its circulation and financial posi- expenditures for each full year of
tion. We publish these figures be- the journal's existence:
cause this journal is prepared as a Year Receipts Expenditires
service, not for profit, and because 1938 $361.24 $318.05
we should like subscribers to feel 1939 488.84 375.00
that it is their journal. 1940 420.51 274.95
1941 687.95 563.63
Starting from scratch in 1938 the 1942 740.38 446.50
B. A. has come along surprisingly 1943 1313.36 1209.47
well. The first issue was a four 1944 1338.76 1180.32
page lithoprinted pamphlet, 2500 TOTALS $5351.04 $4367.92
copies of which were printed and
mailed. By 1940 the paid circulation Thus in the seven years it would
was about 950 copies. Since the appear that we have made a total
outbreak of the War, that number profit of $983.12. However, this
has more than doubled, so that the "profit" is not entirely clear, since
circulation of the February number the B. A. budget does not include
(Vol. VIII.1) was 2027. Of this any provision for secretarial help
figure 1766 were sent to subscribers, or office upkeep. The "profit" means
while 261 were sent to members of that we have been paying a bit over
the American Schools above the $140 per year on the average for
rank of Associate Member and to a such expense.
few people as gifts or in exchange What about the future? I cer-
for other journals. Most of the tainly hope that the circulation will
issues in the first five volumes have continue to increase so that two
had to be reprinted, sometimes re- years from now, when we reach Vol.
peatedly. While at the moment re- X, we shall be mailing at least 3000
printing has been suspended because copies of every issue. There is a
of the paper shortage, we plan to certain degree of pride in the fact
keep all issues available for those that already our journal has a larger
who desire them at 15c per copy or circulation than any other dealing
50c per volume. specifically with Biblical, archae-
The present size of our circulation ological, or oriental subjects. That
has been achieved, not so much does not mean, however, that there
through the efforts of the Editor is no room for improvement! At
and Publisher, but through you, the this point, the suggestions and ad-
readers. Before the War we sent vice of our readers are needed and
out a few sample copies each year, greatly appreciated. There is no
but that is the only advertising doubt but that this journal could
which we have done. This journal play a much more significant role
has grown and will, we trust, con- in the future, provided that there
tinue to grow because readers find is sufficient vision behind it. There
enough of value and interest in it are certain things in my own mind,
60 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Vol. VIII,

however, which thus far have gov- terestingly written so that people
erned both form and content. who are not specialists can under-
stand them, and yet which do not
In the first place, the purpose of
the journal is a limited one. It does suppress data merely because of its
technical nature. I have never been
not aim to teach the whole of Bib- able to understand why it is that
lical truth, theologically or historic- more scholars do not see the im-
ally. Instead it simply seeks to pro- portance of using the English lan-
vide an aid to Biblical understand-
guage as it is intended to be used:
ing through the publication of cer- that is, of writing up their material
tain information and discussion of in such a way that the language is
a type which is virtually inaccessible a help rather than a hindrance, and
in reliable form elsewhere, at least that one is encouraged rather than
to most people.
discouraged from reading it. Typ-
In the second place, since the ical scholarly writing all too often
above is our aim, it would appear digs a hole and pulls the earth in
advisable to keep the journal some- over it, so that comparatively few
where near its present size. The last can peep in to see what is going on.
two issues of Vol. VII were 24 pp. This is one of the major causes of
each, instead of the customary 20 the intellectual fragmentation and
pp.; and in the future occasional segregation of our day. It is scarce-
numbers might be as large as 28 ly wisdom. It is not even folly. It
or 32 pp. As it is now, however, one is foolishness!
gets the impression that the jour-
nal is being read. It is sufficiently Nevertheless, the fact remains
that the average scholar, who knows
compact that the average reader can so many things which we all ought
go through it at one sitting. Were it to know, hesitates to take the time
to become more bulky, this would
not be the case, and less of its mat- to write what he considers to be a
ter would be read. Any future en- "popular"article; and, when he does
largement, therefore, might better so, it is often with a degree of con-
be in the issuing of six, instead of descension. This has made the task
four numbers per year. Such a of this journal difficult. Your for-
bearance is requested, as is also and
move, however, would have to wait
for the time when the circulation especially your continued criticism
reaches 3000 or more. and advice.
In the third place, what about the G. E. W.
style of the journal? Such criti-
cisms as we have had in the past P. S. Your Editor, having reread
have been to the effect that the arti- what he had written in the preced-
cles are either too popular or too ing two paragraphs with some per-
technical! Since the criticisms have turbation, should hasten to add that
largely cancelled each other, we he does not consider his own con-
have simply continued in the way tributions to the B. A. as shining
we have been going, not knowing examples of the way things should
which way to turn! Frankly, our be done! To the contrary! Yet he
aim has been to get a new type of and others who have been writing
scholarly writing: that is, to secure are trying to learn, and with your
articles which are clearly and in- aid perhaps they can.