Knowledge of the religion of ancient Syria has increased thanks to a number of important archaeological discoveries. Findings relating in particular to the second millennium bce have shed new light on the religious beliefs and practices of the Levant, the southern part of which was later to be the home of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For example, Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh) was a thriving city in the Early and Middle Bronze and was destroyed by fire in about 1600 bce. A temple on the acropolis was identified by an inscription on part of a statue as having been dedicated to the goddess Ishtar. Four other buildings around the lower tell were also identified as temples. Emar (modern Meskeneth) was an important city in the 3rd and 2nd millennia bce, but was destroyed by enemies in about the 12th century. Several temples were discovered, including one which contained the library of a diviner. From Emar comes the ritual for the installation of a high-priestess of the storm god dIM, probably the equivalent of Baal (Fleming 1992). At Ain Dara was found a temple dating from the late 2nd/early 1st millennium, which has been described as “the most striking parallel to Solomon’s temple discovered to date” (Monson 2005: 932). The most important of these archaeological discoveries has been that of ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra), and it is on Ugarit and its texts that this chapter will focus (see Curtis 1999; Curtis 2005).
In the spring of 1928 a chance discovery occurred on the coast of Syria, about 10 km north of Latakia, close to a small bay, the white rocks at whose entrance gave it both its modern name Minet el-Beida, and its classical name, Leukos Limen (“white harbor”). A farmer was halted while ploughing his land when his plough struck a large piece of stone. This, on closer inspection, turned out to be one of a number of stone slabs which formed the roof of a vaulted tomb. It had been robbed in antiquity, but some items were still there, including an ivory lid depicting a female figure, perhaps a goddess, and a statuette, thought to represent a god. Because a number of antiquities had already been found in the area, it was brought to the attention of the Service des Antiquités en Syrie et au Liban. A member of staff was sent to visit the site and he identified it as a necropolis. Some pieces of pottery were found which appeared to be of Mycenean or Cypriot origin and to date from about the 13th century bce. However, the site was not initially thought to be particularly interesting.
Fortunately a plan of the tomb and some pottery samples were sent to the Louvre, where René Dussaud (curator of the Department of Near Eastern Antiquities) noted similarities between the tomb and Cretan funerary vaults, and suggested that what had been discovered might be the necropolis of an important city. It had already been noticed that there was a mound nearby whose shape suggested that it might be a tell. This hill was known as Ras Shamra, “fennel headland,” because of the plants which grew there. So it was decided that excavations should be carried out there, under the direction of Claude Schaeffer.
The following year, in spring 1929, a team of archaeologists (plus a detachment of soldiers) arrived and undertook a survey of the vicinity. Excavation proper began in the necropolis area on April 2nd, but on May 9th attention turned to the tell, just over a kilometer away. Very soon, evidence of a significant building was discovered, and in less than a week, on May 14, the first find of inscribed clay tablets was found, twenty in all, written in a hitherto unknown cuneiform script. So began a series of excavations and discoveries which are still ongoing, They revealed that Ugarit was a very ancient city, dating back to the Neolithic period, but whose “golden age” was in the Late Bronze Age (c.1550–1200 bce). There were impressive buildings including a large royal palace, temples and sanctuaries (see below), and numerous artefacts, some of which (such as altars and statuettes of deities) point to religious practices. Many texts in a number of languages were found, and of particular significance were those written in the hitherto unknown script and language which, on the assumption that it was the local language, came to be known as Ugaritic.
Perhaps the most important reason the discoveries from Ugarit were seized upon as of relevance for the study of the Bible was the early surmise that this was a Canaanite city. Previously the principal source of knowledge of the Canaanites was the Hebrew Bible, where they were hardly presented in a good light. Perhaps here was a direct witness to Canaanite culture and, in the texts, beliefs. But reasons for the initial interest went beyond the suggestion that Ugarit was a Canaanite city, and that its texts would provide a direct witness to Canaanite religion and culture. That there had been an Israelite conquest of, and settlement in, Canaan was also widely believed, and much of the debate revolved around whether the Exodus took place in the 15th or 13th century bce rather than whether it happened at all. So here was potential evidence of the Canaanites from a time close to when Israelites may have been encountering Canaanites. It is not appropriate to discuss here the issues surrounding the emergence of Israel in the southern Levant. Suffice it to say that there may be more of a temporal divide than was once thought to be the case. Is this necessarily a problem?
In the Hebrew Bible, “Canaanites” sometimes seems to be used rather generally to refer to those who lived in the southern Levant before the arrival (as the biblical narrative presents the story) of the Israelites. The statement “At that time the Canaanites were in the land” (Gen 12:6b; see also Gen 13:7) suggests that this was not the case at the time of writing. The term occurs sometimes on its own (e.g. Josh 17:8, Judg 1:1, 3) but sometimes in conjunction with the names of other ancient peoples in what appear to have become stylized lists of the earlier inhabitants of the land (e.g. Exod 3:8, Josh 3:10). But they are not only presented as former inhabitants as there are some references to Canaanites continuing to live alongside Israelites (e.g. Josh 17:12; Judg 1:27–33).
An area of uncertainty lies in the extent to which it possible to distinguish the Canaanites from other groups such as the Amorites. In Josh 7:7–9 both terms seem to be used to refer to the earlier inhabitants of the land into which the Israelites were entering, rather than to distinct groups. Nor is it always easy to differentiate Canaanites from Phoenicians, and it is possible that Phoenician culture can be understood as a continuation of that of the Canaanites. The Phoenicians have been described as “latter-day Canaanites” (Millard 1973: 36) suggesting that the difference may be primarily temporal. The Israelites themselves have been regarded as Canaanites (e.g. Lemche 1991). However, the writers of the Hebrew Bible appear to have regarded the Canaanites as distinct from the Israelites.
In the Hebrew Bible, the Canaanites are presented above all as the pre-Israelite inhabitants and it may therefore be appropriate to look for evidence of Canaanite beliefs and practices in sources which predate the period when Israelites were living in the region of the southern Levant. That such beliefs and practices may have influenced the Israelites, and that this may be reflected in the Hebrew Bible, seems highly likely. Attention will be drawn to some potential points of relevance for the Hebrew Bible in what follows. [Various spellings of proper names have been used in translations of the Ugaritic texts. Those here follow the usage in Wyatt 2002.]
But perhaps more important is the geographical issue. Was Ugarit a Canaanite city? It is necessary to consider the extent of the area occupied by the Canaanites, and in particular of its northern extent, in view of the question whether it is appropriate to make use of the discoveries from ancient Ugarit as evidence for Canaanite religious beliefs and practices. The biblical “Table of Nations” (Gen 10:15–19) suggests that its compiler understood Canaan to reach from Gaza in the south as far as Hamath in the north. Such an extent would stretch almost as far north as Ugarit. However, a description of the boundaries of Canaan in Num 34:2–12 puts its northern limit considerably further south at Lebo-Hamath (Lebweh). Evidence from Egyptian sources suggests that the Egyptian province of Canaan comprised the area north of Gaza, between the Mediterranean to the west and the Jordan valley to the east (see Millard, 1973: 30–33). However, the northern limit is rather less clear.
According to some definitions, then, Ugarit was too far north to be regarded as Canaanite. Millard has warned against the danger of regarding Ugarit as typically Canaanite (Millard, 1973: 44). Pardee has suggested that some archaic features of Israelite religion may echo a southern Canaanite tradition, whereas Ugarit reflects “older ‘Amorite’ connections” (Pardee, 2002, 236). But it should be noted that texts in Ugaritic have been found in other places, some in the vicinity of Ras Shamra, but others a considerable distance away, including Israel; tablets were discovered at Beth-shemesh and Taanach and an inscribed dagger was found near Mount Tabor. This gives rise to the likelihood that beliefs and practices reflected in the texts from Ugarit may provide evidence of what was believed and practiced more widely. Tubb has suggested, with reference to Ugarit, “it is clear…that this northernmost part of the Syrian coast lay within the cultural continuum as the rest of Canaan” (Tubb, 1998: 73). It can then be suggested with some confidence that Ugarit offers the nearest (and best) evidence available to a direct witness to Canaanite religion.
Excavations have revealed a cosmopolitan city with an impressive royal palace which served as an administrative headquarters as well as a royal residence. Its numerous rooms were arranged around spacious courtyards, and several archive rooms have yielded texts. In one of the courtyards were found a gold bowl and rimmed plate, embossed with illustrations, and ivory plaques which would have decorated items of furniture. These provide evidence of the skilled craftsmanship of the artisans of Ugarit.
In a prominent position on the city’s acropolis was the temple of Baal, identified as such as a result of the discovery of a dedicatory stele, presented by an Egyptian official who was in effect an ambassador. In close proximity to this building was found another stele bearing what is virtually certainly a depiction of Baal. The god appears as a warrior in a striding pose, with a helmet decorated with horns, perhaps symbolizing his divinity though it is possibly that they may point to a connection with fertility, wearing an armband, a “skirt,” and a scabbard. In his raised right hand, he wields a club, and in his left hand, extended in front of him he holds out an object whose lower end is pointed like a spear. These have been understood as symbols of thunder and lightning respectively. Thus Baal is presented as a warrior, armed with the weapons traditionally associated with a storm god.
The temple was surrounded by a walled enclosure which formed what may have comprised a sacred precinct. Within this area the base of a stone altar was discovered. The sanctuary building proper was made up of an outer room, and an inner sanctum inside which was a structure built of large stone blocks and which may have been a platform or altar. It is possible that an image of the god would have been placed in this innermost room. This tripartite pattern of inner sanctum, outer room and courtyard is often a feature of Semitic sanctuaries, and recalls the pattern of Solomon’s Temple with its holy of holies, holy place, and outer court (1 Kings 6).
To the north of Ugarit lies a mountain, Jebel Aqra, formerly known as Mons Casius, the Mount Saphon of the Ugaritic texts. That Saphon was the abode of Baal, the place on which he was believed to dwell and where his palace was built is clear from the texts. And that one of the temples on the acropolis at Ugarit was dedicated to Baal is virtually certain.
Some years ago, Kapelrud (1952: 57–58) suggested the possibility that the tower in the temple of Baal served as a symbolical Saphon:
It was the cultic Sapan where Baal could be met, where he actually was supposed to live, at the same time as he was thought of as living in the ‘real’ mount Sapan.
It certainly seems that the temple of Baal at Ugarit had a staircase which led to an upper area, perhaps a roof chapel with an altar and/or a tower. Keret is described as climbing a tower and sacrificing on the roof (KTU 1.14 iv 3–8; cf. 2 Kgs 23:12). There may be a reference to the “tower of Baal of Ugarit” in text KTU 1.119 12. There is a problem with this reading; the text has mdgl which may be explained as a metathesis for mgdl. Wyatt accepts the understanding of the text as referring to a “tower” and, noting that apparently an offering is to be made for the “tower,” comments:
The idea of the tower of the temple as recipient of an offering seems curious, until we realize that temples were widely deified in the ancient world (Wyatt, 2002: 419 fn 18)
And there is also evidence from the ancient Near East, from Mesopotamia and from the Hittites, that mountains themselves could be regarded as divine. Saphon appears in its own right in the pantheon lists (see 5.1.2).
Here it is appropriate to mention an instance of the Ugaritic texts probably shedding light on the Hebrew Bible. It is possible that, at some time at least, Yahweh’s holy mountain was associated with or likened to Saphon. The particular verses which give rise to this speculation are Ps 48:2–3:
Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised
in the city of our God.
His holy mountain, beautiful in elevation,
is the joy of all the earth,
Mount Zion in the far north (yarkĕtê ṣāpȏn),
the city of the great king. (NRSV)
The obvious difficulty with the above translation is the suggestion that Jerusalem was “in the far north.” It is widely accepted as more likely that we are to take ṣāpȏn here as virtually a proper name, and that we are to see a reference to Saphon, the abode of Baal above all in the Ugaritic texts. It is unlikely that the mountains are being equated, but perhaps Zion is being compared with or likened to Saphon (van Zijl, 1972: 334–5; Curtis, 2004: 105).
In this context we should also note Ps 89:13, which NRSV translates,
The north and south—you created them;
Tabor and Hermon joyously praise your name.
(For “north and south,” NRSV margin suggests “Zaphon and Yamin.”) It may be significant that this statement appears in the context of a declaration of Yahweh’s incomparability including the claim that none of the “sons of gods” is like Yahweh, who has overcome the threat of the waters, and who has crushed Rahab. In a context where Yahweh is credited with precisely the type of mighty acts which were claimed for Baal, it is not impossible that there should be a statement of Yahweh’s lordship over Saphon.
Knowledge of a concept of a mountain of divine assembly in the north (or on Saphon?) is also shown in the taunt against the king of Babylon in Isa 14:13.
You said in your heart,
I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
on the heights of Zaphon.
(A marginal note in NRSV offers the alternative “assembly in the far north.”)
The possibility, therefore, arises that “Saphon” was a term used by the Israelites to refer to the divine dwelling place. It may be that “Saphon” had come to signify merely “dwelling place of god(s).” But the concept of a holy mountain in the north may have its place in descriptions of Yahweh’s abode, and the Israelites may have claimed for Zion what was claimed for Saphon by the people of Ugarit. R. J. Clifford suggested that
Much of the lore concerning Ugaritic Zaphon is found to apply to Mount Zion as well…Elements of Baal’s mountain Zaphon in the Ugaritic myths have clearly attached themselves to Mount Zion in the Old Testament. (1972: 4)
But is it appropriate just to speak of Baal’s holy mountain in such contexts. One of the versions of the “Pantheon List” (see later) is headed il ṣpn, perhaps meaning “the gods of Saphon.” Could this imply that Saphon was believed to be the home of all the gods, including El whose name appears second in the list of deities? In the mythological texts, El’s home is sometimes described as being “at the source of the rivers, at the midst of the springs of the two deeps,” but it is also called hršn, “mountain.”
Wyatt (2002: 99, fn 128), noting a passage which he translates,
And Baal departed for the heights of Saphon.
Then indeed she (i.e. Athirat) set her face towards El
at the source of the rivers,
at the midst of the springs of the two deeps. (KTU 1.4 iv 19–22)
comments, “It appears at first glance as though all depart in different directions. In fact El also dwells on Mt Ṣaphon…: the different descriptions are for dramatic differentiation and effect.” Some time ago, F. M. Cross (1973: 37) described El’s abode as “at the cosmic mount of assembly in the north at whose base the cosmic waters well up.”
In an Akkadian version of the Ugaritic pantheon texts, the Akkadian equivalent (ḫuršan ḫazi) is used of Saphon. Is it possible that Saphon was not simply the abode of Baal but also the abode of El and perhaps also of other gods—a sort of Canaanite Olympus?
If it is correct that Saphon was also the abode of El, Yahweh’s abode may be being likened to or associated with that of El rather than, or in addition to, Baal. And if El, as El Elyon, was worshipped in Jerusalem by the Jebusites, it would perhaps not be surprising if El traditions or associations attached themselves to the Temple in Jerusalem. And if Yahweh was, or came to be identified with, El as has often been suggested, it would not be surprising if similar language was used about their abodes. The possible juxtaposition of the mountainous and watery, noted in descriptions of El’s abode, call to mind various passages in the Hebrew Bible. Examples include Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple on Mount Zion from which flowed a life-giving river which made even the Dead Sea live (Ezek 47:1–12), and Psalm 46, with its linking of God’s abode and life giving water. But that descriptions of the abode of Yahweh—mountainous, at the source of waters, in a temple or even in a tent (see Curtis 2007:312–314)—may owe something to descriptions of the abode of El is a possibility.
Given his prominence in the mythology of Ugarit as at present understood, it might be expected that a temple dedicated to Baal would have been constructed on the city’s acropolis. A second temple on the acropolis has been identified as belonging to the god Dagan, based on the evidence of two dedicatory stele found outside its southern façade. On the face of things, this is more surprising because Dagan plays no active part in the myths known to date. He is, however, named as Baal’s father, which might account for his having a temple close to that of his son. It has been suggested that perhaps Dagan was identified with El, the head of the pantheon, in which case this would in effect be the temple of El and solve the mystery of the apparent lack of a temple dedicated to El. But in the “Pantheon Lists” (see later) Dagan appears separately, after El and before Baal.
Situated between the temples of Baal and Dagan on the acropolis was a building that was identified as the high priest’s house on the basis of the discovery under a paving stone there of a deposit of bronze objects—a tripod, decorated with pomegranate pendants, along with weapons and tools—some of which bore the inscription “chief of the priests” and which were probably an offering made by a craftsman to the high priest. Within this building, several groups of texts were discovered, including some containing myths about Baal, and others which were thought to be scribal writing exercises. It is possible therefore that the building was more than just the high priest’s residence but served other functions as a place where scribes could learn and practice their skills, and as somewhere where texts were produced, copied, and stored. The discovery of mythological tablets in the vicinity of temples might point to the possibility that the texts were used within the cult as practiced there. This is uncertain, but there are hints in some of the texts that they may have been read aloud, perhaps in worship (see 3.1).
In the course of excavations in the center of the city, another sanctuary was found that came to be known as the “rhyton temple.” Some conical drinking cups (rhytons) were discovered close by and it was suggested that they might have some connection with the sanctuary. The building comprised a porch that led to a large room, in which was a stone structure which seemed likely to be an altar, and another smaller room. But another discovery pointed to a possible identification of the deity to whom this temple was dedicated. This was the stone statue of an enthroned figure, bearded and wearing a helmet, which was thought to be a representation of the god El. As already noted, El was a deity in whose honor it might be expected that there would be a temple in Ugarit. However, it not at all certain whether this temple was in fact dedicated to El. Another possibility is that it was a private sanctuary.
There may also have been other sanctuaries in the city. A building to the north of the Royal Palace has been labelled the “Hurrian Sanctuary” and there may also have been a sanctuary within the Royal Palace. It is also possible that there were small shrines or sanctuaries in private houses.
Many of the city’s houses had tombs underneath their floors or courtyards. The tomb itself would often be approached by a flight of steps, leading down into a vaulted stone-built chamber with a paved floor. In some of the tomb walls were niches, and items of funerary equipment, including drinking vessels, were provided. This artefactual evidence may have relevance when considering the question whether the people of Ugarit believed in some form of ongoing existence after death, requiring provision to be made for the dead. An episode in the story of Aqhat may cast light on this (see later), and the discussion of cultic texts later will include reference to funerary rituals (see 4.1).
While places of worship and texts used in worship or prescribing cultic activities are the primary sources of evidence about worship and ritual in ancient Ugarit, it is perhaps appropriate to mention evidence of personal piety which might, in a sense, be considered worship. Numerous theophoric personal names point to an acknowledgement of the power of deities to influence human affairs. Letters, although often highly formulaic, contain expressions of hope that the gods will protect the recipient and keep him/her in good health. In the story of Keret, he is presented as making a vow to the goddess Athirat (KTU 1.14 iv 34–43), a vow which he appears not to have fulfilled (KTU 1.15 iii 25–29) perhaps resulting in his subsequent sickness. This may again be a pointer to a belief in the importance of honoring the gods and retaining their good will. In the story of Danel there is an intriguing passage (KTU 1.17 i 24–34). After an invitation to El to bless Danel because he has no son, there follows a description of the duties that a pious son is expected to perform on behalf of his father. These duties appear to range from the mundane (for example plastering his roof, washing his clothes, supporting him when drunk) to the religious (setting up a stele of his ancestral deity in the sanctuary, and caring for his tomb).
This is not the place to give detailed surveys of the contents of the myths, and only a brief indication can be given. [Translations of the major mythological texts can be found in e.g. Wyatt 2002, Pardee 1997, Gibson 1978.] The texts recounting the activities of the god Baal focus on three major episodes: Baal’s conflict with, and defeat of, Yam (“Sea”), the building of a palace for Baal, and Baal’s periodic conflict with Mot (“Death”). There has been debate as to whether these texts should be seen as forming a “Baal Cycle” of myths and, if so, in what sequence should the episodes be read. A widely held view is that the above sequence is correct: the building of Baal’s palace is a consequence of his defeat of Yam and attaining kingship, but his conflict with Mot is ongoing. Many see Baal’s encounters with Mot as reflecting the seasonal fertility cycle, but another possibility is that it explained periodic droughts while providing the assurance of the ultimate victory of Baal, the god of rain and storm. Wyatt (2002: 35) has suggested that the focus is on royal legitimization rather than any seasonal pattern.
But were such texts used in worship? The discovery of texts close to temples might suggest that they were used in connection with the temple cult. Earlier suggestions that they might be cult-dramas have not, on the whole, proved persuasive. But there are hints within the texts that they may have been read aloud. In the Baal texts there is an instruction which Wyatt places in brackets and translates “Now return to the narrative of how the divine assistants were sent for” (KTU 1.4 42–3), and describes in a footnote as an “Editorial note” (Wyatt 2002:103). Gibson translates the words as “And again recite: When the pages were sent,” and suggests this is a “Rubric reminding the minstrel to introduce standard description of dispatching servants, which is here omitted” (Gibson 1978: 61). The use of “minstrel” is certainly to go beyond the evidence, but the words may point to an oral performance or presentation. A similar phrase occurs at the end of the story of Aqhat as presently known. Wyatt translates it as “And the recitation of this he is to repeat” (Wyatt 2002: 312).
But the connection between myths and rituals is much more complex than whether myths were read or recited in the context of rituals. Mythological texts may contain ritual elements, and rituals may be undergirded by myths.
A text that has given rise to much debate is KTU 1.23, which contains what appear to be a number of liturgical instructions and possible allusions to myths, with a longer myth that describes El becoming aroused and having intercourse with two wives, Athirat and Rahman, and the resultant birth of the gods Shahar and Shalem, who may represent the morning and evening stars, and perhaps other “gracious gods.” The text has been given various titles, for example “Shachar and Shalim and the Gracious Gods” (Gibson 1978). The relationship, if any, between the longer myth and the other elements has been the cause of much speculation. Wyatt (2002: 324) heads his translation of the text “The Gracious Gods: A Sacred Marriage Liturgy.” In a detailed study of the text, Smith has argued against its interpretation in terms of sacred marriage and suggested a nuanced reading of the text as a whole in which lines 30–76 are not an “explanatory myth” for lines 1–29 (the rituals and other mythic allusions), but “lines 30–76 evoke a narrative representation of the world invoked by the lines in 1–29 that share its content in abbreviated ritual forms” (Smith 2006: 165).
This text gained some early attention because one of the instructions was thought to refer to a ritual act condemned in the Hebrew Bible (Exod 23:19b, “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”), and appeared to support the idea that a number of biblical injunctions were prohibitions of Canaanite practices. However, the Ugaritic text is not at all clear. The verb is incomplete, and the suggested reconstruction would mean “slaughter” rather than “boil.” There is no reference to “mother,” and the word originally rendered “kid” has been understood as “coriander” (see Gibson 1978:123; Wyatt 2002: 127; Smith 2006: 20). So the original suggestion has become a rather notorious example of jumping to a conclusion not in fact supported by the evidence.
Two groups of texts should perhaps be called epics or legends rather than myths since they deal with the interplay between gods and humans. They tell the story of Keret (KTU 1.14, 1.15, and 1.16) and of Danel and his son Aqhat (KTU 1.17, 1.18, and 1.19). Keret and Danel were probably both thought of as kings, although this is not said explicitly of Danel, and the stories about them may therefore offer some evidence about what the people of Ugarit believed about the king in terms of his status and religious function. Both stories underline the importance of the king having heirs to ensure the continuance of the dynasty and suggest the possibility that a king’s weakness or illness might have a detrimental effect on the land. They present the king as making sacrifices, as acting as judge and as the defender of the weak and vulnerable within society. Two incidents, one from each story, are worthy of particular mention.
In the Keret story, Keret falls ill and one of his sons asks, “How can it be said that Keret is the son of El, the offspring of the Wise and Holy One? Or do the gods die, the offspring of the Wise One not live?” (KTU 1.16 i 20–23: Wyatt’s translation). This has given rise to the suggestion that the kings may have been held to have some sort of divine status, and to have been thought to be immortal. The idea of Keret as a “son of El” recalls Psalm 2.7 where the king appears to have been thought to take on sonship of God at his coronation.
In the story of Danel, there is an encounter between Aqhat and the goddess Anat when the latter seeks to persuade Aqhat to part with a marvelous bow which has been fashioned for him by the divine craftsman, first by offering silver and gold, and then, when that is refused, she says, “Ask for life, O hero Aqhat: ask for life and I shall give (it) you, immortality and I shall bestow (it) on you” (KTU 1.17 vi 26–28: Wyatt’s translation). This episode has been thought to suggest that the people of Ugarit believed in some sort of afterlife. However, the continuation of the story points against this. Aqhat insists that Anat’s offer of immortality is a lie and declares that the death is the common lot of all humans. The story could perhaps point to a belief that it was possible for the gods to grant immortality in special circumstances. (In the Hebrew Bible, Enoch [Genesis 5.24] and Elijah [2 Kings 2.11] were apparently allowed to avoid death.)
In this context it is noteworthy that there is a text (KTU 1.113) that appears to contain, on the obverse, fragments of a liturgy and on the reverse, a list of the kings of Ugarit, each preceded by the word ỉl (“god”) pointing to the likelihood that the dead kings were regarded as gods. There are also fragments of a myth (KTU 1.20, 1.21 and 1.22) that describe the activities of the rpủm, who are perhaps to be understood as dead and deified kings or heroes, and who journey to take part in a ritual (see 5.1.6.) This story may provide the mythology lying behind such rituals as the royal funerary liturgy preserved in KTU 1.161 (so Wyatt, 2002: 314 and del Olmo Lete, 1999 [2004]: 168). A number of other rituals have been thought to be associated with the royal funerary cult (see 5.1.5 and del Olmo Lete, 1999 [2004]: 213–253). Yet others confirm the picture given in the stories of Keret and Danel that the king played his part in the sacrificial cult, for example KTU 1.115, which opens with a specific instruction that the king is to make a sacrifice (Pardee, 2002: 66).
Not surprisingly, attention initially concentrated on the mythological texts for the understanding of Ugaritic religion, but subsequently there has been more interest in the various ritual texts that have been discovered and translated.
The cultic and religious texts have been categorized in various ways. Two works perhaps deserves special mention by way of example, G. del Olmo Lete’s Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (1999 [2004]) and D. Pardee’s Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (2002). Del Olmo Lete deals first with texts that relate to the pantheon. (He has calculated that a complete list of all the gods would comprise some 240 in total! The best known are in the myths and epics, while others are known from various ritual and liturgical texts.) He then treats the material under the headings of “the Liturgy of Ugarit” (subdivided into sacrificial rituals and non-sacrificial liturgies); “Royalty: its Myth and Cult”; “the Funerary Cult of the Palace”; “the Non-funerary Palace Cult”; “the Royal Liturgy of the Word: Prayers and Oracles”; and “the Religion of Everyday Life”. Pardee presents the texts in two main categories: those relating to the sacrificial cult, and those relating to ritual activity outside the sacrificial cult. Among the former, he includes deity lists, prescriptive sacrificial rituals (some with and some without an indicated time frame), descriptions of sacrificial rituals, memorials of mortuary offerings, a votive inscription, and texts relating to divination, its practice (including liver models and a lung model) and what he calls “manuals”, dealing with malformed foetuses and various omens, and finally two prayers. Texts relating to ritual activity outside the sacrificial cult include incantations, what he terms “historiolae” (texts that link myth with magic), rites including divine participation, a myth explaining a ritual practice, and administrative texts relating to the provision of wine and oil for cultic acts and of a meeting place for a mrzḥ (see section 5.1.7). It is possible only to give a few examples here.
Some of the texts take the form primarily of sacrifice lists, sometimes simply involving the name of a deity and the animal to be offered, sometimes with other liturgical instructions. One of these sacrifice lists (KTU 1.48) is particularly interesting. It is to be found in what Wyatt (2002: 427) has described as “A Compendium of Ritual Texts” on a single tablet. In addition to the list to which we shall return there is another short list of sacrifices, a hymn in Hurrian, a description of a ritual perhaps involving the dressing of a cult image of Athtart and the provision of perfume and ointment, and a third sacrifice list. The first of the lists is significant because of the order in which the deities are mentioned. The order matches that of the so-called pantheon lists (see 5.1.2).
A number of different terms are used with reference to sacrifices in the Ugaritic texts, and attention has been drawn to the fact that there seem to be some parallels to sacrificial terminology in the Hebrew Bible, giving rise to speculation, for example, that the Israelites borrowed their sacrificial practices from the Canaanites. That there are some verbal parallels cannot be denied. The predominant Ugaritic term for “sacrifice” is dbḥ and del Olmo Lete (1999 [2004]: 20) has suggested that a number of other terms are virtually synonyms of dbḥ. However, P. Merlo and P. Xella (1999: 292) note that the terms were distinct, even if there might be some “functional synonymity.” Ugaritic dbḥ has been thought to be related to Hebrew zeḇaḥ but Merlo and Xella reject this in favor of a link with Akkadian zību, “food offering.” Other Ugaritic terms include šlm(m), “communion sacrifice(s)” or “peace offering(s)” (compare Hebrew šĕlāmîm, “peace offerings”), nsk, “pour a libation” (compare Hebrew nāsaḵ, “pour”), ndr, “vow” (compare Hebrew neḏer), and perhaps mnḥ, “offering” (compare Hebrew minḥāh, “gift.” Ugaritic šrp, “burnt offering” may be the equivalent of Hebrew “ōlāh, ‘burnt offering.” However, it is necessary to be wary of assuming that the meaning and usage would have been the same in Ugarit and in Israel, even if there was a common stock of west-Semitic vocabulary.
Although these lists are often described as “Pantheon lists,” Pardee (2002: 11) has rightly pointed out that such lists are in fact connected with sacrificial practice. However, they reveal that there may have been what amounted to an “official” list with carefully arranged groupings of deities. Two copies of this list, plus an Akkadian translation, have been found. Del Olmo Lete has described this “Pantheon” as reflecting “a special synthesis, different from those known in other parts of the ancient Near East and determined by specific geographic and social factors: a coastal location, a dependence on rain, and the monarchic and feudal organization of the state” (1999 [2004]: 53–54). He argues that the list begins with what are in effect three names for the same deity—the god-Father, El, and Dagan. He suggests (1999 [2004]:74):
Although the epithets might be distinct in the cult and in the prayers of the faithful, in myth and theology they correspond to the same god.
(The suggested equation of El and Dagan is far from certain, but it is a possibility and, as noted earlier, might account for the apparent lack of a temple for El.)
Del Olmo Lete goes on to suggest that a similar process can be seen at work in the list in the case of Baal and Hadad. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that after the first mention of Baal, linked with his mountain Saphon, there are six more manifestations of Baal. (This may be of relevance to the fact that the name of Baal often occurs in the plural in the Hebrew Bible, perhaps reflecting the various manifestations, though perhaps the Hebrew writers also wanted to stress the plurality of the gods of Canaan.) There then follow seven deities, headed by the dual deity “Heaven and Earth”—chthonic astral, or cosmic deities, including Saphon. Then come another seven, also headed by a dual deity “Mountains and Valleys” and then six goddesses. The final group is headed by another composite entity “the Helper gods of Baal” and it may be that it is divided into a Baal section and an El section, but the lists differ somewhat in this final section.
It is noteworthy that Mot does not appear although Resheph, the god of plague, does. So this is not a complete deity list. Nor does Mot appear in any other cultic text yet discovered. Mot is not to be placated, let alone worshipped.
Noteworthy is what Wyatt (2002: 342–347) entitles A Liturgy for a Rite of Atonement for the People of Ugarit. Several copies of this ritual have survived, the most complete being KTU 1.40. Del Olmo Lete (1999 [2004]: 144–160) speaks of “Rites of Purification and Atonement,” but Pardee (2002: 77) entitles it a “Ritual for National Unity.” The crucial word npy has been variously understood (see Wyatt 2002:324 fn 2). Pardee gives “well-being,” and Wyatt picks up on his explanation of the underlying meaning as “being made whole,” suggesting that the obvious technical equivalent in English is “atonement.” If this understanding of the text is correct, it provides a possible parallel to the idea of an annual Day of Atonement in the Hebrew Bible (see Leviticus 16).
Perhaps sometimes closely associated with sacrifices is the practice of divination. Models of livers and lungs probably reflect the practice of consulting the entrails of sacrificial animals for omens. Divinatory “manuals” suggest the taking of omens from malformed human and animal foetuses, as well as divination by means of the heavenly bodies. KTU 1.124 may reflect the consultation of some sort of divine oracle for the purposes of a healing; del Olmo Lete (1999 [2004]: 312) sees an analogy with the incident described in 2 Kings 1:2–3.
Tablet KTU 1.119 includes what may be the only example yet known of a prayer directed to Baal. It begins, “O Baal! If you will drive the strong one from our gates, the warrior from our walls, a bull, O Baal, we shall dedicate, a vow, Baal, we shall fulfil, a male animal, Baal, we shall dedicate, a propitiation we shall fulfil, a feast, Baal, we shall prepare” (Wyatt, 2002: 421–422). Where Wyatt translates “male animal,” it is possible that “firstborn” should be read, and an allusion to child sacrifice has been seen. But even if that is the correct reading, the reference need not be to a child (see Pardee, 2002: 233). In fact, there is no clear evidence of the practice of child sacrifice in the Ugaritic texts.
Palace rituals have been subdivided into the categories of “funerary” and “non-funerary.” Among the former, text KTU 1.106 has been described as “Royal Funerary Ritual for the Month of gannu” (del Olmo Lete 1999 [2004]: 219–232). The text stipulates sacrifices and actions for various days of the month. Text KTU 1.105 contains a “Royal Funerary Ritual for the Month of Ḫiyyaru” (del Olmo Lete 1999 [2004]: 247–253). Wyatt (2002: 430–441) refers to text KTU 1.161 as “A Royal Funeral Liturgy” and, noting that it involves the summoning up of rpum (corresponding to the rĕpā’îm of the Hebrew Bible), suggests that it “provides a remarkable backdrop to Isa. 14.9–21” (Wyatt 2002:431). Non-funerary texts include KTU 1.113, described by Wyatt (2002:399) as, “A Royal Liturgy, and the Ugaritic King List.” The text on the recto is fragmentary but seems to refer to liturgical actions. The reverse contains a list of kings, preceded by il, which suggests that the dead kings were thought to gain divine status. It is uncertain whether there is any connection between the liturgy and the king-list. Text KTU 1.132 has been variously understood. It may refer to a rite of incubation or possibly a hieros gamos involving the bed of the goddess Pidray. Del Olmo Ledte suggests it may be the liturgy for the enthronement of a new king, a festival which lasted in total 21 days (del Olmo Lete 1999 [2004]: 207–212). Pardee notes that no details are indicated, apart from the preparation of the bed, and heads it a “Three-Day Ritual for the Bed of Pidray” (Pardee 2002: 96–99).
There are also a number of what Pardee (2002: 167) has described as “historiolae,” where mythological and more practical or magical elements are juxtaposed, for example in two stories involving the gods Shapsh and Horon that involve spells against snakebite and perhaps the ridding of the land of serpents. Another of these (KTU 1.114) describes El at a banquet, and may include a recipe for hangover; El is described as being in his mrzḥ, a term that has been understood as referring to a feasting house (see Wyatt, 2002: 410) or drinking club (so Pardee, 2002: 169). The Hebrew prophets criticized the behavior associated with such institutions (Jeremiah 16:5; Amos 6:7).
Expectations that Ugarit and its texts would reveal the wicked ways of Canaanites, with their child sacrifices, ritual prostitution, and debauched fertility cults, have largely proved unfounded. A more sober assessment is that Ugarit has given us an alphabet and a language important for understanding the development of the Semitic languages, and Hebrew in particular; evidence of a highly cultured people, with an elaborate religious life and quite nuanced religious beliefs, as they tried to make sense of the world in which they lived and the powers which controlled it. The Hebrew writers, while not prepared to acknowledge explicitly a debt to the Canaanites, let alone their gods, inherited, borrowed, adapted, and challenged Canaanite beliefs and practices in developing their own religious life and theological understanding.