The Fertility Pair Ba’al and ‘Anat in the Ugaritic Texts more

The Fertility Pair Ba‘al and ‘Anat in the Ugaritic Texts1 THOMAS HENTRICH Faculté de théologie Université de Montréal C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville Montréal (Québec) Canada H3C 3J7 hentrict@magellan.umontreal.ca Cet article présente un aperçu du panthéon de la religion ougaritique, dont les textes mythologiques restent toujours les meilleurs témoins de la religion cananéenne ancienne. Nous nous concentrerons surtout sur l'interaction des dieux. ‘El et ‘Ašerah sont considérés comme les dieux suprêmes, dieu-père et déesse-mère. Ils ont créé tous les autres dieux, qui luttent entre eux pour la royauté et la suprématie. D'abord, le dieu Ba’al vainc Yam, le dieu du chaos et de la mer, afin d'établir l'ordre sur terre. Avant qu'il puisse revendiquer le premier rang parmi les dieux, ce qui lui vaudrait un palais, Ba’al est battu par Môt, le dieu de la mort. Après une période d'incertitude, Môt est battu lui aussi, cette fois-ci par la déesse ‘Anat, la soeur de Ba’al, qui réclame un palais pour son frère. Môt n'accepte pas et essaie de battre Ba’al encore une fois; les deux se livrent à perpétuité un combat sans issue. Ba’al et ‘Anat s'imposent comme représentants de la fertilité du pays et maintiennent la vie, malgré la menace constante de Môt, le représentant de la mort. INTRODUCTION The ambiguity between a polytheistic assembly of gods and a monotheistic god has always been at the centre of Ancient Near Eastern religious imagination and for a long time the Hebrew Bible was the only literary source existing. Since the beginning of the 20th century, excavations at Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Byblos, Hazor or Mari have shed a new light on the ancient oriental religions. The assembly of gods in the myths of the NorthwestSemitic people proved to be a complex system of gods and goddesses with each of them having their respective place and function. This system was based on a cosmic fertility cycle around the gods ‘El and Ba’al, the goddesses ‘Atirat (‘Ashera), ‘Anat and ‘Attart (‘Astart) and other gods like Môt, Yam or Kôtar. The following article examines the interaction between the deities during the Ba’al-cycle and attempts a theological interpretation. THE UGARITIC PANTHEON: TWO CONTRASTING INTERPRETATIONS Over the years, there have been many discussions and speculations about the relationships among these deities. 2 Most of the interpretations were based on either one of the two different models presented below, explaining the divine interaction in the Ugaritic pantheon. One model was based on an internal conflict among the deities, while the second one sought to integrate the various gods and goddesses with their functions. 1 THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS ╔═══════╗ ║ ‘ El ┌───────┐ ┌────────┐ │ Dagân │ └───┬────┘ │ ╔════╧═══╗ ┌─────┐ ║ Ba_al ╟─┤’Anat│ ╟──┬─┤’Atirat│ 2 ╚═══════╝ │ └───────┘ ┌───────┼──────┐ against ┌──┴──┐ ┌──┴──┐ ┌─┴────┐ │Yamm │ │ Môt │ │’Attar│ └─────┘ └─────┘ └──────┘ | | ╚════════╝ └─────┘ ┌──────┐ ┌─────┐ │ Špš │ │Kôtar│ ending in the defeat of Ba’al by the Israelite YHWH, who was identified with the creator god ‘El (Ibid., 183f.). In cases of compromised textual material, Oldenburg in his argumentation often referred to Phoenician, Hittite and Greek mythology (Ibid., 122)4 where the respective father god is dethroned and emasculated as well. 5 This influence might explain his dualistic view of the Ugaritic assembly of gods. Conrad E. L’Heureux was one of the first to refute the theory of a divided divine assembly (L'Heureux 1979: 4-28) and to establish Ba’al as a deity introduced by the Amorites. In his opinion, Ba’al represented a city society based on a royal system and he was in no way opposed to the more traditional pantheon which ‘El presided over. In fact, the city system complemented the more ancient divine assembly and was easily integrated into it (Ibid., 4. 104-107.). E. Theodore Mullen went a bit further in the same direction with his examination of the Ugaritic divine assembly. Based on his judgment that ‘El and Ba’al do neither oppose nor battle each other (Mullen 1980: 109f.), he advocated an integrative model of the Ugaritic divine assembly (Table 2), which will be the base for the following analysis. We will discuss each of the gods and goddesses in their respective interaction with the other deities of the pantheon as they appear as a part of the entire Ugaritic Ba’al-cycle (Ibid., 9-110). ----------| Dagân 6 | ----------| | ┌───────┐ ┌──────┐ │’Atirat├───┬──┤ ‘El │ └───────┘ │ └──────┘ │ │ └──────┘ └─────┘ Table 1: The Ugaritic assembly of gods according to U. Oldenburg Ulf Oldenburg3 assumed two divine families in the Ugaritic pantheon that are constantly battling each other over who will be the reigning royal family (Oldenburg 1969: 101-163, see also Table 1). The divine complex « ‘El and his family » (Oldenburg 1969: 15-45) is opposed to the system « Ba’al with his allies » (Ibid., 46-100). His argumentation is based on the fact that in some Ugaritic texts, Ba’al is not named as son of ‘El, but as son of Dagân, in his opinion a fertility god who found his way into the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon via the Amorites and Babylon. (Ibid., 46-48) According to Oldenburg, ‘El deserves the title of Supreme God of Ugarit (Ibid., 16) as universal creator and father of the original pantheon, though his physical weakness causes the other gods to rebel against him and Ba’al to contest his royal status. ‘El accepts this challenge to his leadership without much opposition. (Ibid., 23.25f.) After Ba_al's initial victory over Yam, ‘Atirat switches her allegiance to Ba’al’s camp and accepts him as the new King. Oldenburg claimed that in the end, ‘El tries one last time to regain his family’s leadership role: He succeeds in luring Ba’al into the fringes of the desert where Ba’al is killed by the devouring monsters in the burning heat. (Ibid., 141f. with reference to UM 75). With this in mind, Oldenburg separated Ba’al’s fight with Môt from the general conflict about the kingship and dated this incident into a later timeframe when ‘El has reconciled again with Ba’al. (Ibid., 142). Regarding the relationships among the gods and goddesses in Ba’al’s clan, some inconsistencies remain: Except for the presumption that ‘Anat is Ba’al’s sister and Ba’al is Dagân’s son, nothing more is said about the « genetic » origin of the allies ‘Anat, Špš and Kôtar than that they were of foreign origin. Oldenburg regarded ‘El’s overthrow by Ba’al as the beginning of a religious revolution during the second millennium B.C., which slowly advanced from Ugarit in the North to Canaan in the South, |┌──────┬────────┬────────┼───────┬─────────┬───────┐ |│ |│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ |│ ┌──┴───┐ │ |│ │’Anat │ │ |│ └──────┘ │ ┌───┴────┐ │ Ba’al │ ┌──┴───┐ │ │ Môt │ │ │ Kôtar │ │ └───────┘ │ ┌─────┴┐ └──────┘ │ ┌───┴───┐ ┌───┴────┐ │Šapšu │ │ Yam │ │ _Attar │ └────────┘ └───────┘ └────────┘ └──────┘ Table 2: The Ugaritic assembly of gods according to E. T. Mullen ‘ATIRAT/’ASHERA AND ‘EL: THE GOD AND GODDESS OF CREATION THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS ┌─────┐ ┌──────┐ │’Atirat ├┬─┤ ‘El │ └─────┘ │ └──────┘ │ Table 3: The creator pair ‘El and ‘Atirat In Ugarit, ‘Atirat and ‘El represent the supreme deities responsible for the entire creation. With the exception of Ba’al, every god and goddess of the pantheon is their descendant. There are slight differences between the two deities expressed in the titles that they were given. While ‘Atirat is worshipped explicitly as qaniyatu ‘ilīma (Mullen 1980: 18), bearer of gods, ‘El’s title is the more extensive baniyu binwati (Ibid., 13.), creator of all creation. He is considered the creator and as ‘abu banu ‘ili fathered all deities (Ibid., 15). As the supreme divine authority, he decrees the position and role of each of the other deities. Without his consent, neither the crowning of a king of all gods nor the construction of a palace could take place, which will be of some importance in the presumed conflict with Ba’al. ‘El stands above all other gods and goddesses. He remains the supreme instance concerning matters of other gods, even though ‘Anat's behavior towards him, concerning the question of the palace for Ba’al after his victory over Yam, was interpreted differently by some scholars to demonstrate ‘El’s weakness.7 The mythological origin of ‘El situates him in the transition from the ancient theogonical deities with divine pairs like Ουραvός (heaven = father) and Γη (earth = mother) to the cosmogonical deities who are themselves procreating other gods. According to the Phoenician mythology, Kronos (= ‘El) overcomes his father Uranos, emasculates him and attains thus the highest position of the divine hierarchy. Maybe those different character traits in the Phoenician und Ugaritic mythologies are suggesting a parallel development of the relationships of Kronos/Uranos and Ba’al/’El. The Phoenician Kronos is portrayed as very militaristic, while in Ugarit, he is enthroned almost apatheticly above the activities of the other deities (Mullen 1980: 32f.). Mullen counters here correctly that his wars belong to the myths of theogony-- the myths about the olden gods,...who stand behind the pantheon. ‘El does not participate directly in the conflicts between his sons, who fight for kingship over the cosmos (Ibid., 34). Both conflicts are taking place on two seperate levels and despite all of Ba’al’s or ‘Anat's aggressivity towards ‘El, his position remains untouched. 3 The Ugaritic myths do not reveal much more about the role of ‘Atirat in the pantheon than the fact that she is the consort of ‘El and therefore is worshipped as mother of all gods and goddesses.8 She is one of the most discussed goddesses of the Ugaritic pantheon9: In the Ancient Near East she is also known under her more commonly used name Qudšu.10 This description has often been the reason for an analogy between ‘Atirat and the Great Goddess known through iconographical research. 11 A main part of this parallel is the so-called Sacred Marriage (Winter 1983: 313-368) and its affiliated question, whether it symbolizes the procreation of gods between ‘El and ‘Atirat 12 or the eternally repetitive Ba’al-cycle. A disputed aspect among biblical scholars is the question whether the cult object ‫ﬣﬧשׁ‬ℵ is identical with the goddess of the same name (Winter 1983: 555-560; Frevel 1991; 1995: 898-912; Olyan 1988: 73f.). Regarding an often recurring comparison between ‘Atirat and the other goddesses ‘Anat and ‘Attart, already Eißfeldt mentioned a fundamantal difference in the perceived character traits between the three goddesses (Eißfeldt 1964: 76-91.79). In her role as mother of all gods, she is documented less as a warrior or sexually aggressive goddess, but more with maternal traits that emphasize fertility and creation. 13 She influences ‘El, especially during the mediation process between ‘El and Ba’al concerning the construction of a palace in his name (Mullen 1980: 68-71 against Maier 1986: 193f.). BA’AL ALIAS HADAD The question of Ba’al’s genealogy certainly ----------contributed to the | Dagân | discussion about his role ----------in the Ugaritic pantheon. | His actual description is | ‘ilu haddu (god Hadad), | the title Ba’al just means |┌─→ ‘El « Lord ». The name |│ Hadad (« noise »), which |│ can be traced back to the |│ pantheon of Ur III, points |│ to his role as storm, ┌───┴────┐ weather, lightning and │ Ba’al │ thunder god, who was └────────┘ worshipped throughout the Table 4: Ba’al’s origin Ancient Near East in the form of a calf with thin horns and a short beard. 14 His position within the pantheon is that of a king over the cosmos after he THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS triumphed over his rival, the god of chaos Yam. This role is one major argument against the conflict theory between ‘El and Ba’al, because as king over the universe, he is in no direct conflict with ‘El at all, who is considered to be one step above him in the pantheon. In fact, both gods complement each other quite well. Even though ‘El is also worshipped as a calf, but with large horns and a thick white beard, he represents more the principles of wisdom and balance, while Ba’al is considered a representative of action and progress (Caquot Sznycer 1980: 12). Mullen considers him also as defender of the divine assembly, even though during the palace dispute he seems to appear hostile towards ‘El and the pantheon (Mullen 1980: 255-260). During his death and resurrection cycle, Ba’al remains king over the universe and as fertility god is opposed to the god of the underworld, Môt, who aspires to rule the cosmos as well. THE DIVINE COMBAT OVER THE COSMOS 4 palace on his own mountain, apan. For the construction of this palace though, Ba’al needs the permission and acceptance of ‘El, which would be equivalent to his recognition as divine king. Ba’al turns to his sister and companion in battle ‘Anat to plead on his behalf to ‘El. 17 The rough and warriorlike behavior during her encounter with ‘El lead to the speculations of the conflict theory, ‘El is being intimidated by ‘Anat which was interpreted as a sign of weakness on his part (Oldenburg 1969: 87). The Ugaritic texts document though that in no way ‘El gives in immediately and that Ba’al receives his desired recognition and palace only after a second intercession by ‘Atirat. Its construction is immediately commissioned to Kôtar. 18 ↑ ’El ┌──────┬────────┼───────┬─────────┐ │ ┌──┴───┐ ┌──┴───┐ │ │ │ │’Anat │ │ Môt │ │ │ │ └──────┘ └──────┘ │ │ ┌───┴────┐ ┌───┴────┐┌───┴──┐ │ Ba’al │ │ ‘Attar ││Šapšu │ └────────┘ └────────┘└──────┘ ↑’El ┌────────────┼─────────┐ │ │ ┌───┴───┐ │ │ │ Kôtar │ │ │ └───────┘ ┌───┴────┐ ┌───┴───┐ │ Ba’al │ │ Yam │ └────────┘ └───────┘ Table 5: The triumph of Ba’al over Yam Before Ba’al can establish himself as Lord of the Universe, he first has to overcome Yam, the god of the sea (= chaos).15 As personified chaos, Yam represents the natural counterpart to the cosmogonic order which is to be established. Nevertheless, as member of the Ugaritic pantheon, ‘El endows Yam with a palace which proves him to be a ruling king (Mullen 1980: 46f.). His titles zub’lu yammu (prince of the sea) or tāpitu naharu (judge of the river) with its root tpt/špt pointing to royal and judging functions in semitic languages, can attest to that fact. (Ibid., 47f, 54.) Even if Yam is not explicitly referred to as king in Ugarit, it is clear that he holds a similarly high function. With the help of the crafts god Kôtar who is making him a miracle weapon, Ba’al finally conquers the sea god Yam and is proclaimed king.16 This victory is securing stability and fertility over chaos. As a reward, Ba’al is entitled to his own royal Table 6: The Ba’al-cycle of Life and Death As soon as Ba’al has established himself as guarantor against chaos, he has to defend his newly attained royal status as weather god and fertility symbol, this time against a much stronger opponent, the god Môt. Môt is the god of death and the underworld and is therefore by nature in opposition to Ba’al’s royal aspirations. Their very first confrontation ends in Môt’s triumph. Ba’al surrenders himself as slave of the underworld and is declared dead.19 ‘El recognizes the death of Ba’al, but refuses to grant Môt his presumably rightful status as the new king over the universe including the accompanying palace, which would have been the logical consequence. 20 Instead, ‘El and ‘Atirat agree to name the god ‘Attar as the new king (Mullen 1980: 79f.). 21 The character of the god ‘Attar is disputed. He is one of the least documented deities in the Ancient Near East with only three mentions (Pritchard 1969: 320).22 and the similarity to the goddess ‘Attart poses some questions. Already Eißfeldt formed the hypothesis that both deities represent the male and female aspect of the same divine principle (Eißfeldt 1964: 14f.) and therefore as one of the first deities transcend their own sexuality. ‘Attar is considered the main deity in Southern Arabia, while his popularity was already in decline in the North. Compared to ‘Anat, ‘Attart appears THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS rather bland, but she gains stature later on as goddess ‘Astart. In the Keret-text she is called ‘name of Ba’al’ (‘ttrt šm b’l) in one of the few associations with the Ugaritic pantheon. Through Phoenician influence (Atargatis) she is finally imported from Ugarit to Israel/Palestine where she takes over the position of ‘Anat, who is losing importance, as ‘Astart. Typical for the lack of ‘Attar's profile is the fact that physically, he cannot fulfill the royal position that was given to him. Consequently, he returns it to ‘El.23 In the meantime, ‘Anat took the initiative and visits Môt to demand the return of her brother. When her request is denied, she kills Môt and Ba’al is resurrected to finally restore his own royal status (Mullen 1980: 80f.).24 This triumph over the power of death is equivalent to the reconstitution of fertility in the cosmos as well as establishing the limits of the power of death by the power of life. But ‘Anat's triumph is not fully complete: To secure his newly acquired kinghood, Ba’al has to defeat Môt himself once again. Their second encounter is interrupted by ‘El’s mediator Šapšu, when both gods are beaten and therefore avoids a final decision (Mullen 1980: 82).25 This is how the eternally self-repeating Ba’alcycle is established: The powers of life and death are keeping each other at bay in a balance of power, with ‘El being the supreme authority.26 THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT AS A RESULT OF THE DIVINE CONFLICT ‘El ↑ ┌──────┤ │ ┌──┴───┐ │ │’Anat │ │ └──────┘ ┌───┴────┐ │ Ba’al │ └────────┘ Table 7: The fertility pair Ba’al and ‘Anat Like Ba’al, ‘Anat plays a major role in this fertility cycle which needs to be elaborated. Her relation to Ba’al is of special interest in this matter. She is generally considered as Ba’al’s sister, but in some texts she is described as his wife. She always acts on Ba’al's side, e.g. at his resurrection to life and the consequential establishment of the Ba’al-Môt-cycle or as ‘mediator’ in the preceding palace crisis. By nature, ‘Anat is extremely aggressive and warrior-like, which is shown in the Ugaritic Aqhatepic and the palace demand towards ‘El. Arvid Kapelrud sees ‘Anat as simultaneous personification 5 of the powers of death and life 27, since she appears explicitly sexual as partner of Ba’al, but is also known as a bloodthirsty and violent warrior (Kapelrud 1969: 114-117). 28 In the Aqhat and Ba’al myths, she can also be seen as a goddess of mourning.29 Her cultic representation is generally a cow figure (Ug. ‘rht / ‘lp). Kapelrud on the other hand, considers her as winged goddess, partly human and partly bird. In his opinion, she could be a multipersonal goddess, who appears in different animal forms (Kapelrud 1969: 108f.). According to the known texts, ‘Anat's relationship to Ba’al exceeds by far the common siblings’ relationship. Both can be described as a socalled fertility pair in which both parties complement each other. After ‘Anat’s victory over the sea monster Lôtan, she is mythologically equal to Ba’al who previously defeated (without the help of ‘Anat) the sea god Yam. Their complementarity is also documented through certain determinations within the Ba’al-cycle. CONCLUSION The Ugaritic Ba’al-cycle establishes an internal hierarchy among its main deities in the pantheon. ‘Atirat and ‘El are considered the supreme god and goddess, responsible for creation and also act as supreme judges. Below this level, an intense battle for supremacy is erupting between a variety of deities. These battles can be qualified as a fight between the forces of chaos and death against the forces of fertility and life. After « chaos » is initially defeated by « fertility », « life » and « death » are in a permanent deadlock with each other. Some peculiarities concerning the life-death struggle are based on the special relationship between Ba’al and ‘Anat: If we presume as ‘mytho-logic’ that a deity needs to defeat his predecessor in order to be named king by ‘El, it seems to be valid only for the Ba’alYam confrontation. Already after the first Ba’al-Môt encounter, this method is disregarded by ‘El, because it is simply unacceptable and impossible to invest the god of death as king of the universe. On the other hand, after her victory over Môt, ‘Anat does not become queen either. She leaves this honor to Ba’al who is being resurrected to new life. Ba’al and ‘Anat’s relationship to each other is often compared to that of ‘El to ‘Atirat. This is somewhat simplistic. Their relationship is more intense and it seems that Ba’al is the male part and THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS ‘Anat the female part of the same fertility principle. It is generally assumed (e.g. von Reden 1992: 336f.) that Ba’al alone finally is established as representative of fertility, yet we would contend that both, Ba’al and ‘Anat, act inseparably as fertility symbol. From the Ba’al-cycle we can deduct that the female, life-bearing part is stronger than death, but can only exist as fertility symbol in conjunction with the male part. In turn, both together are on equal footing with death and both dictate the course of life, according to Ugaritic imagination, a primeval version of the ‘mutual annihilation’ theory. NOTES 1 2 This article is a revised excerpt from the author's dissertation (Hentrich 1999: 12-32). See the discussion in Albright 1968; Habel 1964; Jirku 1966; Kinet 1977; Lemaire 1994. Aside from the deities discussed in the Ba’alcycle, the Ugaritic pantheon consisted of many more gods and goddesses with secondary functions that are not relevant for the present subject matter. For a complete list of those deities see Gregorio del Olmo Lete, "The Offering Lists and the God Lists" (Watson Wyatt 1999, 305-352). With him see also Pope 1955; Kapelrud 1952. In his first analysis of the divine family in Ugarit, Umberto Cassuto (1971: 53-57) also identifies ‘El with Kronos, but denies his opposition to Ba’al. Heaven (Phoen.), Anu (Hitt.) and Uranos (Gr.) are dethroned by ‘El, Kumarbi and Kronos respectively, who in turn are dethroned and emasculated by Ba’al, Tešub and Zeus. Ba’al is regarded as son of ‘El as well as bn dgn (son of Dagân) which is probably the reason for Oldenburg's conflict theory. The Ugaritic myths speak of Dagân only as father of Ba’al. It is probable that Dagân was a Mesopotamian storm and fertility god who was worshipped at Tuttul since the third millennium and was imported to Ugarit by the Amorites at the end of the third millennium. His son Ba’al had a similar position as the son of ‘El at Ugarit and was therefore easily identified with the Ugaritic Ba’al while establishing a new secondary genealogical line through Dagân. (Eißfeldt 1964: 15.76-91; Caquot - Sznycer 1980: 15). 9 6 For other interpretations of Dagân's role see L’Heureux 1979: 12; Mullen 1980: 19f., Note 26; Niehr 1994: 165-177.172f. L'Heureux (1979: 13f.) interpretes the description bn dgn as associated with grain insteads of an explicit father-son relationship. 7 See especially those who are advocating a conflict theory between ‘El and Ba’al (Oldenburg 1969; Kapelrud 1952). A more or less intense rivalry with Ba’al is also supposed, depending on which of the two pantheon theories ‘Atirat is being attached to. (Pettey 1990: 16). For the discussion about the role of ‘Ashera in the Ancient Near East see Maier 1986; Olyan 1988: 74; Pettey 1990: 203-211; Frevel 1995: 925-930; Binger 1997: 94-109; Wiggins 1993: 189-193; Watson 1993: 51f.. 8 10 Mullen 1980: 19, Note 24; Maier 1986: 42-44 with reference to Krt = CTA 14 = I K:4:197. 11 See especially Pritchard 1943; Winter 1983; Schroer 1987; Hestrin 1991; Pettey 1990: 177f.; Maier 1986: 121. 12 A hypothesis put forward mainly by de Moor (1987: 117f.) which is based on the fragmentary text UT 52 = CTA 23 = SS:13:28f.: w.šd.šd.ilm šd.atrt.wrhm His interpretation states, that the king and the queen of Ugarit replay the procreation of the gods by ‘El and ‘Atirat through a sexual ritual, assisted by a princess, representing ‘Anat (= rhmy). C. Frevel (1995: 618) on the other hand, excludes absolutely any possibility of a Sacred Marriage between either ‘El and ‘Atirat or between Ba’al and ‘Anat in Ugarit. For a detailed discussion of this text see Kinet 1981: 95-100. 13 The scholars advocating the conflict theory though, are attesting her a more aggressive character (Maier 1986: 44). 14 For early Ancient Oriental divine assemblies see McBee Roberts 1972. 15 See ‘nt, pl. IX-X, UT 68, 137, 129 = CTA 1-2 = VI AB - III AB A-C. For the textual analysis of VI AB see Cassuto 1971: 156-174; for a general overview of the Yam-conflict see van Zijl 1972: 3 4 5 6 THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS 13-46. 16 UT 68 = CTA 2 IV = III AB A:8-32. (Ginsberg in Pritchard 1969: 130f.; Mullen 1980: 55-58). 17 ’nt = CTA 3 = V AB:III:26-28; IV:2-6.7-V:12; Mullen 1980: 58-62. 18 ’nt = CTA 3 = V AB:V:35-41; UT 51 = CTA 4 = II AB:IV:27-39.62; V:63.87-91.113-119; VI:36-38. (Mullen 1980: 65-74); For the textual analysis of V AB and the palace conflict see Cassuto 1971: 82-155; van Zijl 1972: 47-156. 19 UT 51 = CTA 4 = II AB:VIII:14-37; UT 67 = CTA 5 = I* AB:II:11-20; VI.9f. (Mullen 1980: 75-78). 20 Yam and Môt are regarded as dead deities in Ugarit and Phoenicia, without their own temple. But contrary to the theogonic ancient deities, like Heaven and Earth who are also inactive, they both have their place in the respective fertility cycle. It may astonish that in Ugarit traces of Yam-worship were discovered, but it should not surprise that no traces of Môtworship could be found, which would be equivalent to worship of the underworld (Mullen 1980: 91f.) Even though in Egypt extensive worship of the underworld god Osiris is known, the lack of Môt-temples in Ugarit is quite agreeable with the logic of the mythology, according to which ‘El refuses the sole royal reign to the god of death and is therefore not entitled to a palace (=temple). On the subject of Môt see a recent dissertation by Karkajian (1998). In a to-date unpublished lecture at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1998, Mark Smith opposes the anthropomorphic deities of the divine council to the divine monster-like beings, as part of which he includes Môt and Yam. Some of their characters are the associations with the outer world (oceans, underworld) and with the primeval history, the lack of an own cult and their appearance in connection with demons and monsters (snake, repha’im). In the Ba’al-cycle, Yam and Môt represent flood and drought, the natural enemies of fertility, personified by the weather god Ba’al. A country's fertility may be caused by a flood, but alternates in the annual cycle of the seasons with dry periods. 21 UT 49 = CTA 6 = I AB:I:32-58. 7 22 Apart from the previously mentioned text only UT 129 = CTA 2 III = III AB C:17 and in an inscription of king Meša of Moab. 23 UT 49 = CTA 6 = I AB:I:59-65. 24 UT 49 = CTA 6 = I AB:II:9-23. 25 UT 49 = CTA 6 = I AB:VI.16-31f. 26 For an exact text analysis of the cycle see van Zijl 1972: 157-242). Mark Smith sees five possible inerpretations of this fertility cycle: a seasonal, a ritual and a cosmogonic interpretation, another interpretation highlighting the opposition of life/death and finally the construction of Ba’al’s kingdom as cause for the divine conflict, which is Smith’s preferred interpretation (Smith 1986: 332; Walls 1992: 7). 27 Walls mentions that in slaying Death, Anat’s life-taking is actually life-giving. Significantly, Anat does not bestow life through the female process of childbirth, but through the masculine act of depriving her male enemy of his life (Walls: 1992: 222). For ‘Anat’s character, see also Watson 1993: 48-50. 28 ’nt = CTA 3 = II AB:II:4-41. 29 See UT 67 = CTA 5 = I* AB:VI:9-31; UT 62/49 = CTA 6 = I AB:I:1-29. THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS REFERENCES Albright, William F. 1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. A historical Analysis of two Contrasting Faiths, Garden City/NY: Doubleday. Binger, Tilde 1997 Asherah. Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 232, Sheffield: JSOT Press. Caquot, André; Sznycer, Maurice 1980 Ugaritic Religion, Iconography of Religions 15/8, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Cassuto, Umberto 1971 The Goddess Anath. Cannaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Eißfeldt, Otto 1964 Kanaanäisch-ugaritische Religion, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/8.1, Leiden Cologne: E.J.Brill. Frevel, Christian 1991 Die Elimination der Göttin aus dem Weltbild des Chronisten, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103, 263271. 1995 Aschera und Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch Bonner Biblische Beiträge Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. der YHWHs, 94/1-2, 8 Kapelrud, Arvid Schou 1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, Copenhagen: Gad. 1969 The Violent Goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Karkajian, Lourik 1998 La maisonnée patrimoniale divine à Ougarit: une analyse wébérienne du dieu de la mort, Môt, Diss. Université de Montréal. Kinet, Dirk 1977 Ba’al und Jahwe. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Hoseabuches, Europäische Hochschulstudien 87, Frankfurt/Main: P. Lang. 1981 Ugarit - Geschichte und Kultur einer Stadt in der Umwelt des Alten Testamentes, Stuttgarter Biblische Studien 104, Stuttgart: Kath. Bibelwerk. Lemaire, André 1994 Déesses et dieux de Syrie-Palestine d'après les inscriptions (c. 1000-500 av. n. è.) in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte, eds. W. Dietrich and M. Klopfenstein, Orbis Biblicus Orientalis 139, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 127158. L'Heureux, Conrad E. 1979 Rank among the Canaanite Gods. El, Baal and the Repha_im. Harvard Semitic Monographs 21, Missoula/MO: Scholars Press. Maier, Walter III 1986 ‘Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Harvard Semitic Monograph 37, Atlanta: Scholars Press. McBee Roberts, Jimmy Jack 1972 Earliest Semitic Pantheons, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. de Moor, Johannes 1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts for Habel, Norman 1964 Yahwe versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures, New York: Bookmans Associates. Hentrich, Thomas 1999 Die Kritik Hoseas an der kanaanäischen Religion. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse, Diss. Université de Montréal. Hestrin, Ruth 1991 Understanding Asherah. Exploring Semitic Iconography, Biblical Archaeology Review 17/5, 50-59. Jirku, Anton 1966 Der Mythus der Kanaanäer, Bonn: R. Habelt. THE FERTILITY PAIR BA’AL AND ‘ANAT IN THE UGARITIC TEXTS Ugarit, Nisaba Religious Texts Translation Series 16, Leiden - New York Copenhagen - Cologne: E.J. Brill. Mullen, E. Theodore 1980 The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Harvard Semitic Monograph 24, Chico/CA: Scholars Press. Niehr, Herbert 1994 Zur Frage der Filiation des Gottes Ba_al in Ugarit, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20/2. Oldenburg, Ulf 1969 The Conflict between El and Ba_al in Canaanite Religion. Supplementa ad Numen, Altera Series 3, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Olyan, Saul 1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBL Monograph Series 34, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Parker, Simon B. (ed.) 1997 Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 9, Scholars Press. Pettey, Richard J. 1990 Asherah. Goddess of Israel, American University Studies 7/74, New York - Berne - Frankfurt/Main - Paris: P. Lang. Pope, Marvin H. 1955 El in the Ugaritic Texts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 2, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pritchard, James B. 1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through Literature, American Oriental Series 24, New Haven/CT: American Oriental Society. 3 9 darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 74, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag -Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Smith, Mark S. 1986 Interpreting the Baal-Cycle, Forschungen 18, 1986, 313-339. Ugarit- Walls, Neal H. 1992 The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 135, Atlanta: Scholars Press. Watson, Wilfred G.E. 1993 The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey, Studi epigrafici e linguistici 10: 47-59. Watson, Wilfred G.E. - Wyatt, Nicolas (edd.) 1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/39, Leiden - Boston Cologne: E.J.Brill. Wiggins, Steve 1993 A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’. A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E., Alter Orient und Altes Testament 235, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Winter, Urs 1983 Frau und Göttin. Exegetische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und dessen Umwelt, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 53, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. van Zijl, Peter 1972 Baal. A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 10, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker - Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1969 (ed.)Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), Princeton/NJ: Princeton University Press. von Reden, Sibylle 1992 Ugarit und seine Welt. Die Entdeckung einer der ältesten Handelsmetropolen am Mittelmeer, Bergisch Gladbach: G. Lübbe Verlag. Schroer, Silvia 1987 In Israel gab es Bilder. Nachrichten von