Ugaritic and Biblical Literature

Eric Levy

Ugarit Introduced

Until the archaeological discoveries of the 19^th century, the Hebrew Bible was a work ex nihilo.  As there were no other extant literary works from the Ancient Near East, it could only be judged against itself, with nothing to prove or disprove its data on either the cultural milieu or the geopolitical realities it portrayed.  But with the discoveries and translations of epigraphic works of the Ancient Near East, from Egypt to Mesopotamia, much of the information in the Bible found a match.  Many of the nationalities mentioned in the Bible either produced their own documentation, or were referred to by others’.  Life and times as described by the Bible became not only believable and probable, but in some cases, confirmed.  Cities, city-states, and territories were confirmed—not only their existence, but also their significant geopolitical and cultural impact—as portrayed in the Bible.  Cultural portrayals, such as Joseph’s role in Egypt and Laban’s dealings with Jacob, were supported by legal and administrative texts.  Moreover, entire literary genres were found not to be inventions of Biblical authors, but examples of well-established regional schools of writing.

All of these literatures, however, were foreign to the authors of the Bible, as were the languages they were written in and their cultural and theological perspective.[1]  Even assuming Israel’s familiarity with its neighbors, it seems unlikely that biblical authors would take, as their model, the books of unrelated nations and produce such a polished literary corpus.[2]  What was missing was literature produced by a sister nation, one sharing a close branch on a cultural cladogram, with common cultural and religious mores, oral and written histories, and a related language.  Such a people and such a literature were discovered in the ancient city of Ugarit.

The Discovery

In 1928, the city of Ugarit was discovered on the Mediterranean coast of modern-day Syria, due east from the northeastern tip of Cyprus.  To the north, Mount Zaphon cast a distinctive shadow upon the culture and mythology of the city.  Ugarit, well known from Hittite and Egyptian texts of the 14^th century—the Amarna age—was the trading hub of the Near East, sitting on the north-south Hittite-Egyptian and east-west Mesopotamian-Aegean trade routes.  Its fortunate location contributed to both the material and intellectual wealth of the city.  Its scribes were well versed both in the local Canaanite languages and alphabets as well as in Akkadian (the lingua franca of the Middle East at the time) and its cuneiform technology.  By synthesizing the two systems, these scribes invented a writing system—alphabetic cuneiform—using and expanding on an extant version of the local Canaanite alphabet and applied as cuneiform wedges onto clay.  Its language was Ugaritic,[3] a west Semitic dialect closely related to biblical Hebrew, both of which evolved from an earlier Canaanite dialect.  Ugaritic scribes produced a great amount of documentation in many languages, primarily in Akkadian and in their own alphabetic cuneiform.  The former writings are mostly non-administrative copies of known Mesopotamian works.  The latter are largely administrative in nature, numbering nearly 900 texts, far greater in number than their literary works.  It is, however, the smaller set of literary works, written in Ugaritic and describing their epics and mythology, which are so crucial to illuminating Biblical literature and the cultural and literary backdrop upon which the biblical prophets wrote. 

Chronological setting

Ugarit flourished from the 15^th century to the 12^th century B.C.E, when it was destroyed and lay largely forgotten for three millennia.  During the Amarna age—specifically the middle of the 14^th century—it was ruled by Naqmadu II, who performed a balancing act between the waning Egyptian empire of the 18^th dynasty and the emergent Hittite kingdom under Suppiluliumis.  Naqmadu[4] is listed as having commissioned some of the literary epics; thus they can be dated to the same.[5]  This places these literary works before the time of the earliest biblical writings, and in fact oral traditions probably predated the written by some centuries, based on evident rescentional activity.  Early scholars, such as Virolleaud, attempted to find biblical characters such as Terach in the Ugaritic tales, although these opinions have been largely discredited.  Nonetheless, the epic tales describe a time during the pre-formative years of the new Israelite religion, and illuminate many of the shadowed recesses in the Bible’s foundation.

Is Ugarit Canaanite?

Before evaluating the Ugaritic texts themselves, and their effect on biblical studies, one can ask whether Ugaritic and Canaanite cultures are one and the same.  While the majority of scholars feel that this is the case, both culturally and literarily, no Canaanite writing has been uncovered to prove or disprove this assertion, and the matter is of some debate.  Pope criticizes Gray’s for his overgeneralization when he uses Ugarit and Canaanite synonymously in “Legacy of Canaan.”[6]  To be sure, Ugarit is at the northern end of the range of contact for an emerging Israelite culture, and the Amarna letters make a geopolitical distinction between city-states on the Phoenician littoral and those in what is today modern Israel.  On the other hand, the customs that the Bible describes as Canaanite, and thus anathema to Judaic practice, are found in Ugaritic literature as normative culture and cult, making the definitive classification of Ugarit as Canaanite (relatively) irrelevant for this study.  The Bible is clearly making reference to the culture and cult as championed by Ugarit.

Biblical Studies

Language Partners

While there is some dispute as to whether Ugarit and Biblical Hebrew are two distinct languages descended from a shared Semitic language ancestor, or merely two dialects of the Canaanite language spoken in the mid 2^nd millennium, there is no doubt that the two are closely related.  As such, the knowledge of Biblical Hebrew aided, and continues to aid, in the decipherment of Ugaritic literature.  Conversely, the comprehension of Ugaritic literature reflects back on Biblical Hebrew, making it, in turn, more transparent.  The relationship is apparent from the minutest parts of the language—related consonantal alphabet, phonemes, verbal forms—up through its larger parts, such as idioms, poetic phrasing, and literary style.

Alphabet

The decipherment of the Ugaritic texts moved quickly once the language was recognized as a cognate of Semitic languages.  No doubt the technology of the writing made for a short-termed puzzle.  The symbols were cuneiform, and were written from left to right, as in Acadian.[7]  In addition, the Ugarits, recognizing the ambiguities inherent in a language written only in consonants, added three symbols to represent א followed by one of the vowel sounds u, i, or a.[8] (According to Gordon, these “vowels” were added to maintain compatibility with Acadian which supported these sounds orthographically.) Nonetheless, the fact that the words were on average no larger than five letters (as indicated by the helpful word breaks), and that there were no more than some 30 different letters, identified the writing as consonantal, common to Semitic languages of the time.

Phonemes

Many of the phonemes were recognized as similar or identical to Biblical Hebrew.  Certain phonemes, however, have a more flexible use in Ugaritic, a use that was not always universally identified in biblical Hebrew.  The preposition ל for instance, was shown to mean either “to,” “from,” [9] or even a vocative “Oh.”[10]  Another example is “-ī” which can be a third-person masculine ending.[11] These phonemes are more commonly found in the older Ugaritic dialect, since simplification and reduction of forms had not yet set in.  Therefore, their semantic scope can be more accurately identified.  Once identified, one can argue that these older meanings should be applied to passages in biblical Hebrew, especially poetry, which often draws from older usages.

Lexicography

There are a number of words that are unique or rare in the Bible.  Whether they had fallen out of common use or whether chance simply prevented their common use, their meaning in the context of biblical literature is obscure.  Often these happax or irregular logomena are used with clarity in Ugaritic literature.  One such example is the word “יפח” meaning a witness.[12]  Psalm 27:12 reads אַל תִּתְּנֵנִי בְּנֶפֶשׁ צָרָי\ כִּי קָמוּ בִי עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר\  וִיפֵחַ חָמָס.  The parallel between עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר and יפֵחַ חָמָס was not seen, since the latter יפח was thought to be verbal.  Luther’s bible translates “und tun mir Unrecht ohne Scheu,” using “to do” amorphously.  The King James saw the verbal root as נפח, translating “and such as breathe out cruelty.”  With the identification of the noun, the typical biblical poetic parallel becomes clear.  

Literary Partners

Lexical and syntactic similarities can only prove the close relationship between the languages or dialects.  It cannot prove an affinity between the authors, i.e., that they drew on similar themes, shared cultural experiences, and expressed their visions similarly, as would peoples of a shared culture.[13]  However, other similarities do indicate a shared culture, which includes literary activity, cultural development, and religious imagery.  Cassuto identifies the following areas of similarity, which are best explained by an inherited (or mutually inherited) cultural experience and literary voice.[14] 

Metaphoric language

Both literatures use identical metaphors to portray highly emotional topics and milestone events, such as death and mourning.  The concept of the dead finding their freedom in the afterlife/underworld is expressed in both literatures as “freedom.”  In Job 3:19, the poet writes קָטן וְגָדוֹל שָׁם הוּא \ וְעֶבֶד חָפְשִׁי מֵאֲדנָיו.  The same wording can be found in Baal I* v, 15 “bt hptt . ars tspr by”[15] and Baal II viii, 7-8 “wrd . bthptt / ars . tspr. by”.[16]  This also clarifies an obscure Biblical reference.  After King Uziah’s inappropriate behavior in the temple, he is afflicted with a skin disease (leprosy?) and is incarcerated in the בֵּית הַחָפְשִׁית.  This was probably a leper’s colony; no doubt a hellish place, akin to being damned.[17]  Of course, the meaning was not lost on medieval exegetes, but it was understood literally in the absence of familiarity with the cultural allusion.  Rashi, based on the Palestinian Talmud’s use of the word for the dead, writes: עשה לו בית בבית הקברות.  However, the use of the phrase in Ugaritic paints a clearer picture of Uziah’s fate.

Imagery

Cassuto focuses on images that would not be obvious selections.  Of all the animals that might be cited as “goring,” both Ugaritic and Biblical literature share the image of a goring ראם.  Note that the biblical use appears in poetic portions of the Pentateuch: e.g. Deut. 33:17 בְּכוֹר שׁוֹרוֹ הָדָר לוֹ \ וְקַרְנֵי רְאֵם קַרְנָיו \ בָּהֶם עַמִּים יְנַגַּח \ יַחְדָּו אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ.

Parallelisms

The poetic style is not unique to Ugaritic or Biblical Hebrew; it was used throughout the ANET.  Specifically, a verse is divided into two stichs, each running parallel to the other, where words or phrases in one stich are matched synonymously in the second.[18]  Many of the same synonym pairs can be found in both literatures,[19] although the sequence in which the pairs are presented, while consistent in Ugaritic literature, are ordered more flexibly in biblical literature.[20]  An example of the importance of recognizing the shared use of an identical parallel pair is ירא and שתע, indicating fear,[21] since it also demonstrates the benefit of Ugaritic literature in clarifying rare or even hapax legomena.  Where the reflexive form in the Bible obscures the root, the Ugaritic form does not.[22] 

Descriptions

Ugaritic and Biblical literatures sometimes describe similar substantives and situations with identical adjectives.  These can be demonstrated for sapphires, war, death, saddling up a donkey, and the deep waters.  The “conquest” over the deep is, in both literatures, actualized by the victor’s גער.[23]

Formulaic prose

Both literatures employ identical phrases and phrasing, drawn from older poetic sources, to describe many of the same familiar and recurring events.  For example, the perception of something new is accompanied in both literatures by the image of lifting up one’s eyes.  Speeches begin with lifting up one’s voice.  Relocation by an individual is often detailed as “…and he took with him (list of family and positions) and set out from (location a) to (location b).”  Often a move with notable intent towards a location is preceded by “and he turned (or “placed”) his face towards…”

Another example might be evident in the case of Yael, killer of Sisera. Judges 5:27 reads:

בין רגליה כרע נפל שכב
בין רגליה כרע נפל       
באשר כרע שם נפל שדוד

There was little doubt as to the sexual nature of the events described,[24] and the similarity to Baal’s interaction with his sister Anat is striking:[25]

lpnnh . ydd. wyqm
lp⁽nh . ykr⁽ . wykl[26]

This text deals with the intercourse Baal has with a heifer supplied by Anat, and the offspring of that union.  (The acceptance of bestiality, at least among the gods, is clearly a matter that the Bible takes issue with.)  Thus, the two texts may illuminate one another.

Comparing Genres

In contrast to the substantial overlap between the Ugaritic and biblical literary spheres, there is a lack of correspondence between the two regarding genre.  This area is seen as a desideratum, sometimes causing scholars to create relationships where none exist.

Wisdom literature

Wisdom literature—including instructional material, philosophy, theology, and theodicy—is well represented in the Hebrew Bible.  It is sitz im leben of entire books, e.g., Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastics.  In addition, prophetic books often rely on the wisdom style—rather than the more common prophetic assessment and rebuke—to deliver their message.[27]  Even the “historical” books cite from or employ the wisdom genre, such as the realpolitik of Amorite interests in Moabite land,[28] and Yotham’s scathing political assessment of his half brother’s murderous putsch.  In fact, the Bible mentions a wisdom school with men and women trained in delivering moral messages via the dramatic arts,[29] and available to those searching for direction.[30]

While Akkadian copies of Babylonian wisdom literature have been found in Ras Shamra, none are written in Ugaritic.  In this absence, some scholars have pointed to the Epic of Danel and Aqhat.[31]  Describing the hoped-for conduct and comportment of a son of Danel, the epic uses a list format, which is common in wisdom literature, and in fact may have been drawn from an oral or an as-yet uncovered written wisdom regarding a son’s duties. 

“Who sets up the stellae of his ancestral spirits,

       In the holy place the protectors of his clan;

Who frees his spirit from the earth,

                                    From the dust guards his footsteps;

Who smothers the life-force of his detractor,           

       Drives off who attacks his abode;

Who takes him by the hand when he’s drunk,

       Carries him when he’s sated with wine;

Consumes his funerary offering in Baal’s house,

      (Even) his portion in El’s house;

Who plasters his roof when it leaks,

Washes his clothes when they’re soiled.”

Nonetheless, the lacuna is surprising in the face of so rich an environment of wisdom literature activity, and in fact the Danel and Aqhat wisdoms may have been inherited from a Sumero-Akkadian wisdom text.  Certainly one must be cautious of an argument of silence, and the lack of extant works could simply be a matter for archaeological providence.  Nonetheless one cannot assert in Ugarit a progenitor of the wisdom literature that so permeates the Jewish Bible.

Hymns

The Book of Psalms, which in a certain sense combines the historical, theological, and wisdom genres into a series of liturgical hymns, has no direct counterpart in Ugaritic texts.[32]  Scholars bridge this gap in one of two ways.  First, while admitting to interpretation that is fraught with difficulties, they point to fragment 605, which celebrates the sound of drums and musical instruments, as a progenitor of Psalm 150.[33]  Interestingly, it is possible that the Bible assumes such a genre, as Laban says to a fleeing Jacob: “אשלחך בשמחה ובשרים בתף ובכנור.”  Secondly, scholars propose that Psalm 29 is entirely a Canaanite hymn, lifted into the Psalter by the replacement of Baal’s name with the Tetragrammaton.[34]  In fact, Gordon suggests that the Tetragrammaton is originally Ugaritic,[35] thus sweeping even this small originality from Psalms in specific and the Israelite religion in general.  Notwithstanding counter-arguments proposed by Margulis,[36] and a demonstration by Cassuto that Psalm 29 matches Psalm 68 in structure,[37] it seems likely that the “discovery” of evidence of an Ugaritic/Canaanite Psalm genre will be difficult to abandon.

Epic Literature

Many scholars point to the repetitive nature of biblical narrative, especially in Genesis, indicating equivalence to the epic style used in Ugaritic narrative.  The biblical stories however, often have significant changes during repetition, whereas Ugaritic tales repeat verbatim.  The intended audience of Ugaritic narrative was an actual audience; the legends were performed.  Some tablets even include director’s notes.  Repetitions were somewhat akin to the modern movie sequel: familiarity generates comfort and enjoyment for the entertained.  It would be hard to argue a similar intent with the repetitions found in, for example, the Rebecca-acquisition narrative of Genesis 24. 

The book of Job, however, does display this type of verbatim repetition, indicating an epic.[38]  It is easy to envision the successive messengers of catastrophe running on to a stage: עוֹד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָּא וַיֹּאמַר...עוֹד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָּא וַיֹּאמַר... עַד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָּא וַיֹּאמַר.... [39] 

It is fitting that the book whose genre can be said to match the epic literature of Ugarit is also the book that draws boldly from its mythological imagery.  In most biblical literature, remnants of Canaanite mythology and theology have been carefully denuded, anthropomorphisms removed, gods and creatures shown clearly as literary constructs.  In Job, these beings are left largely in their original state, and nearly come alive.[40] 

Evolution and Revolution

The discovery of Ugaritic mythological and epic cycles demonstrated with certainty that Mosaic Law, and the monotheistic approach founded by Abraham, was as much an evolutionary process, growing out of the theological conceptions of ancient Canaan, as it was a revolution.  The concept of a deity who created the very fabric of time, El, and a Rider on the Clouds who controls nature, Ba’al, were well established in Canaanite culture.  Upon the foundation of these beliefs, monotheistic Mosaic Law grew.  There are hints to this in the Bible itself.  For instance, note the subtle exchange between Malkitzedek, king of Shalem, and Abram following the Battle of Sodom:ברוך אברם לאל עליון- קנה שמים וארץ, to which Abram responds:הרמתי ידי אל י-ה-ו-ה אל עליון - קנה שמים וארץ .  Cassuto comments: “In order to understand the meaning of this, we must bear in mind that the Canaanite belief in a god who was supreme…over the other divinities, and created the whole world, approximated closely to the Israelite belief in One, Unique God, who created all things…and therefore it was possible for Abraham to identify…and to swear to the Canaanite King in the following way.”[41]  Nonetheless, the revolution, while subtle, should not be missed, and Abraham’s message is pointed.  Abraham’s use of the Tetragrammaton points to a God of the covenantal relationship between God and Abraham’s clan as described throughout the Bible.  This is perhaps a statement that the concepts of old will not be accepted without a significant change.  Predictably, a religion that both evolves and revolts from its forebearer will borrow imagery and terminology, while still including precepts that reject and forbid the former practices.

Reactions

A large number of laws found in the Torah are designed to specifically distance and deny the ancient Canaanite cult from whence it evolved.  Some of these laws—which are, unsurprisingly, prohibitive in nature (i.e. “thou shall not”)—are accompanied by this cultic rejection clearly stated.[42]  Thanks to the discovery of Ugaritic cultic texts, others laws can be connected, at least in part, to ancient practices seen as anathema by Mosaic Law.  An example can be found in The Birth of the Seven Good Gods, 52:10.[43]  This tablet directs a theatrical cultic event, describing El’s mating with two women.   It reads:

Coo[k a ki]d in milk

A lamb in butter

And by the flame, seven times, the offer[ing].

It would not surprise if the biblical prohibition against cooking meat in milk were, at least in part, cultically motivated.  This could explain the prohibition’s mention in Exodus 34:26,[44] ending a chapter relating mostly to appropriate and inappropriate cultic activity.[45]  While Jewish philosophers struggled with the reasoning behind this commandment, some declaring it an “incomprehensible law” or an act that nature abhors,[46] the answer may be in the cultic practice of the rejected Canaanite religion.[47] 

The Bible reacts against the Canaanite practice of self-mutilation during mourning.  Note the following passage describing El’s mourning for Baal after his killing by Mot:

Thereupon, Ltpn, God of Mercy

            Goes down from the throne

                        Sits on the footstool

                                    [And] from the footstool sits on the earth

He pours the ashes of grief on his head

            The dust of wallowing on his pate

                        For the clothing he is covered with a doubled cloak.

So far the mourning practices are similar to those described in the Bible.  However:

He cuts [his] skin with a stone

            He makes a double incision with flint

He cuts cheek and chin

            Lacerates his forearms

He plows his chest like a garden

            Like a vale he lacerates his back.

He lifts his voice

            And shouts:

“Baal is dead!

Woe to the people of Dagon’s son.

            Woe to the multitudes of Athar-Baal!

I shall go down to the earth!”[48]

That the biblical prohibition of Leviticus 21 against the mourning practice of self-mutilation[49] was targeted at an existing Canaanite practice was a common assumption, predating the discoveries of Ugarit.  Still, the clear recollection of such a practice sets the biblical restriction in irrefutable perspective.  The similarity between El’s words and those of Jacob, mourning for his son Joseph,[50] further brings into relief the tension of sharing a cultural heritage while rejecting and reviling much of its custom and cult.

Moral reaction against, and condemnation of, the Canaanite culture is also expressed in prophetic writings.  Jeremiah (16:5) reviles the בֵּית מַרְזֵחַ house, and Amos (6:7) decries the מִרְזַח סְרוּחִים.  Compare to the presence of El in his mrzh house, where he drinks to inebriation, followed by a wallowing in filth.[51]

Mythological Imagery

One would expect that with the rejection of cultic practices, the mythology and mythic imagery of the pater-culture would be rejected as well.  However, this mythological imagery is inherited by the Bible, and in fact is built into the shared language. 

Syncretism or Symbolism

As mentioned above, Cassuto emphasizes that the idea of a supreme god was known to the ancient Canaanites.  The very terminology of Koneh Shamayim Va’aretz[52] is borrowed from the ancient mythologies.[53]  In rejecting the father-son god mythology, Baal as a separate deity was rejected, while many of Baal’s attributes—controller of storms, supplier of rains—were transferred to the single God.  Take, for instance, the description of the God of Abraham as רכב בערבות, ‘who rides upon the clouds’ in Psalm 68, among other biblical citations.[54]  While Cassuto shows that the Bible leverages this terminology for its own unique purpose, the link between the ancient Canaanite culture and the new monotheistic religion can hardly be denied. 

Psalm 87, Isaiah 27, and 51—among others—employ imagery from Canaanite mythology.  God battles against creatures bent on His or Man’s destruction, including Rahab, the Serpent, and a nearly anthropomorphic reference to Yamm and Tehom, the waters of the deep.  All of these gods and mythological creatures are found in the Baal cycle, with Baal, rather than the God of Abraham, as their antagonist and conqueror. 

Other theological similarities include the book of Job’s reference to the god of destruction, Reseph, cited also in the Epic of Kret.[55]  Note also the host of seventy Children of God that are mentioned in the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:8, and which are comparable to the seventy sons of the Canaanite goddess—and wife of El—Asheira, found in the Baal cycle: 51:VI:45.[56]

Pan-Ugaritism

One needs to be cautious of over-simplification.  Gordon claims that the Ugaritic cult was the popular form of religion in Israel up until Jezebel’s attempt to destroy the competing monotheistic cult.  He bases this on the Israelite’s consistent use of Ugaritic god names amongst their heroes, including Shamgar ben Anat—Anat being the sister/lover of Baal—Eshbaal the son of King Saul, and Az-Mawet.[57]  Of course, by this logic, one might assume that the Jews of Persia worshipped the Babylonian gods since Mordechai and Esther were named after the supreme Babylonian deities.[58]

Gordon identifies Genesis narratives as descendants of the royal epic genre seen in the Ugaritic epics.  He declares that Abraham’s rescue of Sarah from the Egyptian Pharaoh and Abimelech is an updated version of the Kret epic.[59]  It seems that an attempt to create congruity where none exists does disservice to both the biblical and the Ugaritic literature.  For instance, Gordon resorts to speculative exegesis of the verb “tb⁾” in order to show that Kret’s wife was captured, as in the biblical tales, rather than that she

died, and the destruction of Udum is a rescue mission!   In fact, from a biblical perspective, an El-commanded demolition of Udum’s king, Pbl, who was a loyal servant of El,[60] would be idiosyncratic.[61]

Biblical Criticism

Data from Ugarit greatly affects three areas of biblical criticism, questions of historicity, authorship and composition (higher criticism), and post-canonical textual variations (lower criticism).[62]

Historicity

The historicity of biblical historiography is an issue always in dispute.  Maximalists generally accept biblical narrative as factual, unless it can be shown to be otherwise.  Minimalists generally reject biblical narrative as factual, unless it can be shown to be otherwise.    Most scholars fall somewhere in between.  Discoveries in ancient Iraq enhanced our social and geopolitical knowledge of the Levant during the monarchic period, the first millennium B.C.E., and brought validation of many biblical characters and tales previously thought to be fictional.  Mesha and Ben-Hadad became historical figures, living at the time asserted to by the bible.  The failure of Sennacherib to destroy Jerusalem, and his assassination by his sons, became historical facts upon which the biblical narrative could be assessed.  The visit of Merodach-Beladan to Hezekiah, the confrontation of Josiah and Necho II of Egypt, and many other events, could now be assessed against external epigraphic material and historical data, and the different narratives, biblical and Mesopotamian, can be found to be more often in synch than not.  Unfortunately, Mesopotamia was generally uninvolved with the Levant during the 2^nd millennium, interaction being limited to migrations and trade, rather than realpolitik, which produces the annals and epics.  The events of the pre-monarchic period, from Joshua to Saul, and especially the patriarchic period, are not reported on by Assyrian or Akkadian texts.

Egypt, which either controlled or influenced the Levant during most of those thousand years, did produce documentation, most notably the Amarna letters of the waning 18^th dynasty.  Nonetheless, these are an outsider’s view of life in the Levant, and the concerns are all geopolitical, rather than social.  Additionally, the Egyptian culture and cult is so alien to the Hebrews of the Bible that little can be learned from these texts regarding the historicity of the oldest Biblical narratives.

The effect of the literature of Ugarit on the assessment of the historicity of the Bible should be neither overstated nor understated.  Ugaritic literature is the royal epic of kings and gods, and the human characters and earthbound events, while no doubt based on kernels of historical truth, are clearly the stuff of legend and myth.  Thus Virolleaud’s attempt to find Terach in the Epic of Kret was misguided.  On the other hand, the similarities between the two literatures have caused some to classify the patriarchal stories as legendary, and as secondhand royal epic, thus implying that they make no attempt to paint an accurate historical record. 

The texts do seem to support the origins of Abraham and his family in the heartland of the culture painted by the Ugaritic epics.  These epics also attest to the north’s familiarity with, and involvement in, Canaan proper.  Kret campaigns against Udum in or near southern Canaan, taking him through Sidon and Tyre on route.[63]  While the story is the stuff of myth and legends, it would hardly have been believable were the geopolitical setting alien to its audience. 

Ugarit literature also provided relief for scholars struggling with the identification of Danel, who is grouped with Noah and Job in Ezekiel 14, and also appears alone in Ezekiel 28.  The vocalic reading (“kri”) is Daniel, but the inclusion of a younger contemporary of Ezekiel with the other heroes of Gentile nations was an ill fit, both with the others (who were prominent Gentile personalities), and with the context of the individual salvation of the righteous.  The consonantal text (“Ktiv”) fits well with the rediscovery of the Danel of Ugaritic legend, who longs for a son.

Higher Textual Criticism

Higher textual criticism grew from an analysis of the religious history described in the Bible, as well as an application of literary theories used to distinguish multiple sources used in the creation of biblical literature, even in single books and single literary units.  In the absence of similar literature, and using other classic literature such as Homer’s epics as a guide, a set of literary elements was developed that would allow an author’s fingerprints to emerge.  Indeed, literary sources could not only be identified by the presence or absence of these literary elements, they could be roughly dated, as well.  This methodology, perfected as the Documentary Hypothesis by Wellhausen, is still the commonly held theory of biblical authorship in the scholarly world.  Nonetheless, many of the elements used to centrifuge and late-date biblical sources were shown to be present in Ugaritic writings, which not only pre-dated biblical literature, but which could not be said to be derived from different sources.  Gordon writes: “The magnificent structure of Old Testament higher criticism is not to be brushed aside; but its individual results can no longer be accepted unless they square with the Hebrew text as we can now understand it in light of parallel literatures for the pagan forerunners and contemporaries of the Hebrews, in the Bible Lands.”[64]  In fact, the first pillar of higher biblical criticism was the use of different names for God, said to indicate different authorship.  Ugaritic texts showed that variant names for any god were not only used, but commonly so, due to the need for poetic parallels.  This is so with Baal and Haad,[65] and the supreme god El and Dagon.[66]  Gordon also highlights a difficulty with a second pillar of the Documentary Hypothesis: that a different style indicates different authorship.  Lists and specifications were widely seen to be a hallmark of the priestly school (P), in comparison to the folksy style used by the author J.  However, similar changes in style are evident in Ugaritic texts, and are clearly driven by content, rather than by author.

As mentioned above, the goal of the Documentary Hypothesis was less to identify different sources than it was to redefine the historical evolution of Israelite religion.  The different sources merely allowed for such a reconstruction, since different authorship allows for different times of authorship, and discrepancies can be said to be diachronic rather than situational.   However, many of the cultic practices said to be of later origin, such as the use of Tabernacle, said to be of Solomonic origin invented to support the antiquity of his Temple, are found in Ugarit.

Textual Emendation

Until the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, as the Bible wasn’t written nearly as well as modern scholars would have expected it to be, corruption in textual transmission must have caused the textus receptus to move away from its pristine state.  Lower textual criticism attempted to reconstruct the consonantal text.[67]  However, Ugaritic writings demonstrated that the last word was far from written on the subject of ancient Semitic morphology, lexicography, and syntax.  Many such emendations were deemed unnecessary or unwise in the face of Ugaritic literature.[68] 

Conclusion

It is nearly impossible to overstate the contribution of Ugaritic literature to the true understanding of the meaning of the words of the Bible.  Linguistically, a greater polling universe results with a smaller margin of error.  Words once obscure or misunderstood were clarified.  The skeleton within the body of the language of the Bible was revealed.

Just as vital was the contribution of Ugaritic literature to the context of the Bible.  In order to properly understand the words of the prophets, one must understand their worldview, the real world that they take for granted in their ideas.  Any “Pshat”-oriented exegete, in the attempt to understand what the Bible “really” meant, was at the mercy of his own knowledge of what the real world is.  “Derech eretz” is the plumb line against which all Pshat exegesis is drawn.  In Ibn Ezra’s time, derech eretz might include astrology; nowadays, we have relativity and quantum electrodynamics.  However, neither was part of the worldview of the prophets or their intended audience.

With our new knowledge of the world of biblical times—contributed by Ugaritic documentation—it is far easier to understand the world view of the Bible, and thus to place the words of the Bible in their proper setting of the culture of the Ancient Near East.

Bibliography

Ø            Cassuto, U, “The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age,” Translation into English by Israel Abrahams, Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1971.

Ø            __________, “Jerusalem in the Pentateuch” (1951), in Biblical and Oriental Studies Volume 1., Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1973.

Ø            __________, “Psalm LXVIII” (1940), in Biblical and Oriental Studies Volume 1., Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1973.

Ø            Cross, F. M., “Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament,” BASOR 117 (1950).

Ø            Dahood, M., “The Anchor Bible Psalms,” Vol. 1, Psalms 1-50 (1965).

Ø            __________, “The Anchor Bible Psalms,” Vol. 2, Psalms 51-100 (1968).

Ø            __________, “The Anchor Bible Psalms,” Vol. 2, Psalms 51-100 (1970).

Ø            __________, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” Ras Shamra Parallels: the Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible,” (1972) Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, Vol. 1, pp. 71-382.  (Article written before 1972.)

Ø            __________, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” Ras Shamra Parallels: the Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible,” (1975) Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, Vol. 2, pp. 1-39.  (Article written July, 1972.)

Ø            __________, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” Ras Shamra Parallels: the Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible,” (1981) Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, Vol. 2, pp. 1-39.  (Article written July, 1975.)

Ø            Ginsburg, H. L., “Kitvei Ugarit,” Mosad Bialik (1936).

Ø            Gordon, C. H.,  “Ugaritic Literatue,” Pontifical Biblical Institute (1949).

Ø            ___________, “Ugaritic Textbook; grammar, texts in transliteration,” Pontifical Biblical Institute (1965).

Ø            ___________,  “Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit,” Berytus, The American University of Beirut (1977), pp. 5-133. 

Ø            S. Lieberman, “Hellenism in Jewish Palestine” (1962), Jewish Theological Seminary Of America.

Ø            Olmo Lete, G. del, and Sanmartín J. “A dictionary of the Ugaritic language in the alphabetic tradition,” translated by W.G.E. Watson, Brill (2003).

Ø            Pope, Marvin H., “Probative pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical literature: collected essays” edited by Mark S. Smith, Ugarit-Verlag, (1994).

Ø            Sarna, Nahum M., “Epic substratum in the prose of Job,” Studies in Biblical Interpretation (2000), pp. 411-424

Ø            Smith, M., “Ugaritic Narrative Poetry,” (1997) Scholars Press.

Ø            Spiegel, Shalom, “Noah, Danel, and Job,” in Louis Ginzburg Jubilee Volume (English Section), N.Y. 1945, pp. 305-355. (Especially pp. 305-336.)