¹ Pope, Marvin, El in the Ugaritic Texts, Supplements to VT, II (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Abbreviated as EVT henceforth.

² Eissfeldt, Otto, El im Ugaritischen Pantheon (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Pope, EUT, 27ff.

⁴ Gray, John, The Legacy of Canaan, 2nd rev. ed., Supplements to VT, vol. V (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), 162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Through 1965, i.e., including new texts in Virolleaud's Palais Royale d'Ugarit V and Herdner's Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques (CTA).

⁶ A number of important mythological and liturgical texts from the 24th campaign of excavations at Ras Shamra are to appear in Ugaritica V, scheduled for publication in 1967. For a provisional description of their contents see CH. Virolleaud, Les nouveaux textes mythologiques de Ras Shamra, CRAIBL (1962; Avril-Decembre), 105–13, and Eissfeldt, O., Neue keilalphabetische Texte aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1965), 45–4910.1515/9783112746073-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Cf. Text 129:17–18, where the same threat is made to ‘Aṯtar. [The texts are cited according to the sigla of Gordon, C. H., Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: 1965)Google Scholar.]

⁸ Cf. Jacobsen, T., ZA NF 17 (1957), 103ffGoogle Scholar. In these pages Jacobsen shows how in Mesopotamia the l u g a l was first the war leader in both the human and divine realms.

⁹ The classic example, of course, is Marduk, who was given kingship of the gods in order to do battle against Tiamat. So also Baal is king after his defeat of Yamm (UT 68:32).

¹⁰ The best illustration of this phenomenon is the deity Dagon, who plays no role in the published mythological texts from Ugarit and yet must be reckoned as one of the principal male deities of that city in the light of his apparently significant place in the cultus at Ugarit evidenced by the temple and stelae dedicated to him as well as his presence in two lists of sacrifices to the gods (UT 9:3 and 19:5) and a list of divine names (UT 17:16). Cf. M. J. DAHOOD, Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine, Le Antiche Divinità Semitiche, ed. S. Moscati (Studi Semitici, I; Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, Universita di Roma, 1958), 65–94. According to Eissfeldt, Neue Keilalphabetische Texte aits Ras Schamra-Ugarit, 45–49, Dagon appears in at least two of the texts to appear in Ugaritica V: one mythological text (RS 24.244) and one list of deities (RS 24.271). That Dagon also was a significant deity in South Canaan is well attested from the Old Testament (e.g., I Sam. 5). Cf. most recently H. Kassis, Gath and the Structure of the Philistine Society, JBL 84 (1965), 265f., and Astour, Michael C., Some New Divine Names from Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966), 27910.2307/597035CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 27. Thus inferences about the role of Dagon based only on the Ugaritic mythological texts would be somewhat misleading.

¹¹ The strong association of Yahweh with El has been ably demonstrated most recently by Cross, F. M. Jr., Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs, HTR 55 (1962), 225–5910.1017/S0017816000007914CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Although POPE draws on Philo, he gives the wise stricture that “the use of Philo of Byblos and other late sources for the elucidation of the Ugaritic myths should be made with extreme caution.” POPE, EUT, 5. It should be noted that some Egyptian material is present and should be taken into account when one is seeking to discern the originally Canaanite data.

¹³ Albright, W. F., Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 4th rev. ed. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), 70Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Pope, EUT, 4–5. Cf. Albright, op. cit., 70, who says: “Since not only the names of gods and the mythological atmosphere, but also many details of Philo's narrative are in complete agreement with Ugaritic and later Phoenician inscriptions, we are fully justified in accepting provisionally all data preserved by him, though we may often remain in doubt as to the exact meaning of a passage or the original name underlying Philo's Greek equivalent. We must, of course, also allow for mistakes in interpretation made by Philo of his precursors.”

¹⁵ Cf. the excellent summary of Guterbock, H. G., Hittite Mythology, Mythologies of the Ancient World, ed. Kramer, S. N. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961), 139–79Google Scholar. He notes the similarity to Sanchuniathon's account. The more extended treatment is his Kumarbi (Istanbuler Schriften, xvi; Zurich-New York: Europaverlag, 1946), esp. 110–15Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Pope, EUT, 29–32 and 931.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ K. Mras, ed., Eusebius' Werke: Band VIII, Teil I: Die Praeparatio Evangelica (Die Griechischen Chrisllichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954), 47, para. 17–19Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. Barrelet, Marie-Thérèse, Les décsses armées et ailées, Syria 32 (1955), 222–6010.3406/syria.1955.5100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and specific reference in unpublished Ugaritic texts to Anat's flying (Virolleaud, CRAIBL [1962]).

²⁰ On Baal as warrior and leader of a divine host, cf. the writer's unpublished dissertation, Holy War and Cosmic War in Early Israel, Harvard University, 1963, 114–49.

²¹ Pope, EUT, 45, notes that there is at least one instance in the Ugaritic texts where El's nature appears kindred to that of Kronos: “El is not always benevolent: in the lamentably fragmentary and obscure poem BH he contrives the undoing of Baal by a cunning and cruel stratagem, laughing inwardly as he sends out his female agents, BH I I2ff.” It is unfortunate that this text (UT 75) is as obscure and broken as it is. For it might reveal even closer kinship to Philo's Kronos. El appears in it as a belligerent deity perhaps in command of “allies” (gods?) who do battle for him against his protagonist. On the bull imagery which appears here, see below.

²² Pope, EUT, 16–19, gives a number of these suggested etymologies and maintains a rather strong skepticism about all of them.

²³ Albright, op. cit., 72.

²⁴ Albright, op. cit., 72, and Pope, EUT, 35–42, who entitles this section of his book: El as Bull, His Marital Relations. Eissfeldt, EUP, 56, Gray, op. cit., 158f., and W. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (BZAW; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1961), 5, have seen that the term ṯr indicates strength more than procreation. In a recent article GRAY argues for a somewhat stronger character and role for El than he is sometimes given (Social Aspects of Canaanite Religion, Volume du Congrès, Genève, 1965, Supplements to VT, XV [Leiden: E. H. Brill, 1966], 170–92).

²⁵ Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 159.

²⁶ On UT 52 see Pope, EUT, 35–42.

²⁷ Even this act of Baal, however, can be interpreted as taking place “to secure the strength of a bull for his ordeal” (Gray, op. cit., 81).

²⁸ An unpublished text due to appear in Ugaritica V and discussed by Loren Fisher in a paper read to the 1965 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature apparently refers to “the two horns” and “the voice of the bull” of Baal, but this does not appear to have to do with fertility. Another unpublished text (RS 24.258) describes the entry on the scene of a figure who, according to Viroixeaud, frightens El. His name is not given, but he is described as bél qrnm ω ḏnb, “Baal/Lord with two horns and a tail.” This prefiguration of Satan, as Virolleaud calls him, may be a bull man. That would be the most obvious explanation of his appearance. See Virolleaud, CRAIBL (1962), 112.

²⁹ It is possible also to read this as “And against them the face of Baal,” but the line appears to continue the description of the monsters. In any event, these creatures can hardly be separated from the bull-men or androcephalic bulls so common to Mesopotamian cylinder seals, frequently appearing in some sort of fighting scene. Cf. P. Amiet, Le Glyptique Mesopotamienne Archaïque, passim, and for further reference Pope, M., Job, The Anchor Bible, 15 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965), 270Google Scholar.

³⁰ Cf. qeren in Köhler-Baumgartner.

³¹ On this word see Cross, F. M. Jr., VT 2 (1952)10.1163/156853352X00192CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Dahood, M. J., Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology (Biblica et Orientalia, N. 17; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 54Google Scholar.

³² ANEP, Nos. 490 and 491.

³³ ANEP, No. 493.

³⁴ Virolleaud, Op. tit., 110.

³⁵ “There is not, of course, a perfect equation between the Canaanite and Israelite uses of the bull-symbol. With the latter the purpose was to signify power (italics mine), whereas with the former the bull, together with the lion, the serpent, and the dove, was primarily a fertility symbol, a divine concept foreign to, if not abhorrent to, Yahwism.” (B. Vawter, The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49, CBQ 17 [1955], 11. This distinction is endorsed by Dahood, Is 'Eben Yiśrā'ēl a Divine Title? [Gen. 49.24], Biblica 40 [1959], 1006.) Vawter's judgment about the use of the bull-symbol in Israel is correct. The view that this symbol had an entirely different meaning in Canaan is a notion that has perhaps been too easily assumed in our tendencies to make sharp lines of separation between Israel and Canaan. It was quite possible for non-Israelites to understand the bull imagery in the same way as Israel, i.e., as symbolic of might and power, and in fact that they did so understand this symbol the writer has sought to demonstrate in these pages.

³⁶ Gen. 49:24–25 is particularly interesting because in these lines — heavy with Canaanite influence — the appellative “Bull of Jacob” appears in close relationship to 'ēl-'ābîkā, which Vawter, op. cit., translates as “El thy Father,” noting the Ugaritic expression il ab, which appears in various combinations and with pronominal suffixes. It most frequently appears in combination with ṯr “bull” as in UT 49: IV: 34, ṯr il abk, “Bull El, thy Father.” In this very early poem the author seems to be drawing upon traditional El terminology in describing Yahweh (cf. El Shaddai in vs. 25). The verb יעדוז may be from דזע II and possibly is to be translated “By El, thy Father, who strengthens thee.” There can be no certainty here, but the root דזע II, “to be strong, mighty” appears frequently in Biblical Hebrew, as the writer hopes to demonstrate elsewhere. Cf. M. HELD, The Action-Result (Factitive Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic, JBL 84 (1965), 278f., n. 31.

³⁷ Gordon, UT, Glossary, No. 39. In Biblical Hebrew it can also refer to “stallion.”

³⁸ Cf. Akkadian abāru, “strength.”

³⁹ E.g., in RSV.

⁴⁰ The writer hopes to treat this phenomenon, which is characteristic of both Ugaritic and Hebrew, in a separate study. Cf. provisionally HTR 57, 242; Dahood, , Biblica 40 (1959), 161f.Google Scholar; and Psalms I, The Anchor Bible, 16 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), 9Google Scholar. Cf. Gen. 49:6 ךוש//שיא, and Vawter, op. cit., 4.

⁴¹ The simile here is to be compared with the scene depicted on the Narmer Palette, which is discussed below.

⁴² Cross, F. M. Jr., and Freedman, D. N., The Blessing of Moses, JBL 67 (1948), 205, n. 41Google Scholar.

⁴³ This reading has been proposed by Cross and Freedman, op. cit., 207, n. 60, as well as others.

⁴⁴ The parallelism of ṯr//ibr//rum is attested in Ugaritic. See, e.g., UT 76: III:36–37 where ibr//rum. The parallelism of ṯr and ibr has been discussed above.

⁴⁵ The translation is that of CROSS and Freedman, op. cit., 195.

⁴⁶ It has been suggested that the expression ṯr il, “Bull El” of Ugaritic is preserved in the difficult first two words of Hosea 8:6, where the context has to do with the “calf of Samaria.” The reading would be לא דש ימ יכ “For who is the Bull El (or ‘bull god’).” This translation is of course uncertain, but it involves no emendation in the consonantal text and makes much better sense in the context than the text does as it now reads. Cf. in this regard, N. H. Tur-Sinai, “דיכא, דבא” Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. I (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1950), 31f.

⁴⁷ Once again comparison with the bull scene on the Narmer Palette is apt. See below.

⁴⁸ On the bull cult in general see Otto, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stierkulte in Aegypten, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Aegypten, ed. Kees, H., Band 48 (Leipzig, 1938Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim, 1964). For a brief discussion of Montu as warrior god see the writer's dissertation referred to in n. 20, 91–93.

⁴⁹ Mercer, S. A. B., The Religion of Ancient Egypt (London: Luzac and Company, Ltd., 1949), 156Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Breasted, J. H., Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906), vol. IV, 441Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Otto, op. cit., 50.

⁵² Ibid. Otto, p. 45, gives the following description of Montu as war god: Auffallend häufig ist in Medamud von einer Arena und von Kämpfen die Rede: “stark in der Arena” der grosse Gott in der Arena “es ist eine Arena dort mit Kampfen” “der mit seiner Kraft in der Arena des ‘angenehm Lebenden’ fortführt.” Und anscheinend als Name von Medamud begegnet mehrfach “Kampfhaus.” Zwar kommen diese Epitheta meist nicht unmittelbar als solche des Stieres vor, sondern als die des Month; aber da alle diese Wendungen die Annahme einer wirklichen Arena mit wirklichen Kampfen den Stier, das dem Month heilige Tier, denken miissen. Das ist nicht weiter befremdlich, denn auch die antiken Schriftsteller wissen ja von Stier kämpfen zu berichten; in welcher Form sie freilich stattgefunden haben, wissen wir nicht. Auch sonst führt der Stier Beinamen, die seinen kämpferischen Charakter betonen: “Der Jungstier mit spitzen Hörnern.” Es trifft sich hier das Wesen des Month als Kriegsgott mit der urspriinglich verehrten Eigenschaft des Stieres, seiner Kraft und Stärke. So geht vielleicht auch das Beiwort “starker Stier,” das die Könige des NR, führen (s.a.s.2) auf den Monthstier zurück (hieroglyphs omitted).

⁵³ Wilson, J. A., The Texts of the Battle of Kadesh, AJSL 43 (1927), 275fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ Pictures of both of these palettes may be fonud in Yadin, Y., The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, 122I. The Bull Slate Palette is supposed to be a representation of Narmer also.

⁵⁵ On possible connotations of fertility see E. D. van buren, Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (Analecta Orientalia 23; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1945), 36.

⁵⁶ ANET, 73 (Tablet I [ii], Il. 8–9).

⁵⁷ Ibid., 78.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 83–85.

⁵⁹ H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, V, 75ff.

⁶⁰ F. M. Cross, Jr., op. cit., 250–59.

⁶¹ Cross's translation. He regards this as “a title of the divine warrior and creator.” Ibid., 256.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Cross describes this as “a phrase from a ‘liturgical’ sentence name or protocol of a kind.” Ibid.

⁶⁴ Pope, EUT, 22–24; Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 160.

⁶⁵ Cf. Gray, op. cit., 160f.; Eissfeldt, Malkiel (König ist El) und Malkijah (König ist Jahwe): Gottesglaube und Namengebung in Israel, Kleine Schriften (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966), vol. Ill, 384f.

^65a The name also appears in Gordon's NO. 321: I: 9, although he reads it ilmkr. In Herdner's Corpus des Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques, 211 (and facsimile), the name is read ilmhr. Cf. Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon, 46. M Gordon, UT, Glossary, No. 1545. Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon, 46, follows Virolleaud in questioning whether il at the end of this name represents the Semitic il.

⁶⁷ Vriezen, T., The Edomitic Deity Qaus, OTS 14 (1965), 331Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ A. Murtonen, A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament Divine Names לא, הזלא, םיהלא, and הזהי (Studia Orientalia edidit societas orientalis Fennica, XVIII: 1; Helsinki, 1952), 95–103.

⁶⁹ On ḏmr as applied to El at Ugarit, see below.

⁷⁰ Huffmon, Herbert B., Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 256Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Virolleaud, op. cit., and Eissfeldt, Neue keilalphabetische Texte aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit.

⁷² Cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit., 45. The identification of El with rpu mlk ‘lm is not absolutely clear. Virolleaud makes this equation, however, according to Loren Fisher (private communication), who accepted it in a paper read to the Society of Biblical Literature, December, 1965, and it is most probable when the text is looked at as a whole. El is one of the two deities most prominent in the text. Immediately after the mention of rpu mlk ‘lm at the beginning the text says that El sits with Aṯtart rules with Hadd. Further the title mlk is El's title. The term rpu is enigmatic here as elsewhere. It may be a sort of honorific as appears to be the case in regard to Dan'el who is called mt rpi. Cf. btk rpi arṣ (UT 128: III: 14). It is not impossible that we have here “Rapa'u of the Eternal King,” i.e., Rapa'u of El, and thus one of the warrior Rephaim which appear elsewhere in association with Baal and Anat. The weight of evidence and context, however, point to an equation of rpu mlk ‘lm with El.

⁷³ Cf. Gordon, UT, Glossary, Nos. 631 and 1144a.

⁷⁴ Fisher, Baal Who Orders, Paper read to the SBL, December, 1965.

⁷⁵ Idid.

⁷⁶ Cross, op. cit., 225–59.

⁷⁷ On Baal as a divine warrior see the writer's dissertation referred to in n. 20. The new texts will probably add additional material, e.g., the terminology b'l 'rk, perhaps “Baal, Man of War.”

⁷⁸ Cf. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (4th rev. ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 38, 42. “It is still unclear to what extent Baal was identified with Yahweh in the period of the Judges, but the frequency of Baal names among the families of both Saul and David (see below) makes it appear likely that syncretism between Yahweh and Baal was already favored in certain circles.” And with reference to Gideon: “The fact that his own personal name was formed with ‘Baal’ while that of his father Joash was formed with ‘Yahweh’ vividly illustrates the confused religious situation prevailing at that time in north-central Israel.”

⁷⁹ Pope, EUT, 44f.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 104.

⁸¹ “But the positive identification with El suggests a period for the Patriarchal traditions when El was the dominant figure in the Canaanite religious pattern. This would take us back to an earlier stage of Canaanite religion for the background of the Patriarchal narratives than that reflected in the Ugaritic poems.” D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of Israel and the Ancient Near East, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. Wright, G. Ernest (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961), 206Google Scholar.

⁸² Cross, op. cit., 251.

⁸³ Albright, op. cit., 13, and especially Cross, op. cit., 238.

⁸⁴ Cross, op. cit., 258, lists the basic functions and traits of Yahweh in which kinship or comparison with El may be recognized. The one principal trait not listed is the warrior character of Yahweh. In the light of this discussion perhaps that also may now be added.