An Introduction to Ugarit

A Paper Submitted to

the Faculty of the Seminary & Graduate School of Religion

Bob Jones University

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies

by

Nathaniel Paul Labadorf

Greenville, South Carolina

April 2018
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ii

Ugaritic Studies and Biblical Criticism 1

The City of Ugarit 1

Location 2

History 3

Linguistic Comparisons 4

Typological Comparisons 5

Grammatical Comparison 6

Nouns 6

Verbs 7

Vocabulary Comparisons 7

Example One: Ḥ MD (Desire) 8

Example Two: NQD (Shepherd) 9

Example Three: BMT (Back) 10

Literary Comparisons 12

Example One: Canaanite Mythology 12

The Mythological Background of Isaiah 14 14

Sheol and RS 2.[008] 14

The Spirits of the Dead and RS 34.126 15

The Deification of a King 16

The Limitations of the Parallels 17

Example Two: A Certificate of Divorce 19

RS 17.159—Initial Certificate of Divorce 19

2
 RS 17.396—Addendum 20

Biblical Comparison 21

Theological Considerations 23

Summary 24

Selected Bibliography 25

Appendix A Tables 29

3
 An Introduction to Ugarit

The Ancient Near East—a vast era of epic accounts, powerful empires and

beautiful cites—was lost to the Western World for most of Medieval and Renaissance

Eras. There were few sources of information which they had about the Ancient Near

East: Philo, Herodotus, and the Bible. Recently, however, through the development of

modern archeology, knowledge of the Ancient Near East has exponentially expanded. In

the middle 1800s, this school of science began to develop, unearthing the treasures of the

past. Vast civilizations were exposed, with their artifacts, monuments, and texts.

As they began to piece the ancient world together, they found that the Bible did

not develop in a vacuum. Rather, it was written in the middle of a culture which was like

its own. The similarities from these other cultures have shed new light on obscure

passages of Scripture, helping Bible students understand how to read and interpret what

God wrote. One of these cultures more recently discovered is the city of Ugarit. The

purpose of this paper is to introduce the discoveries of the city of Ugarit and its

implications for Biblical research.

The City of Ugarit

In 1928, an Arab farmer was out in his field near his village of Ras Shamra when

he discovered a tomb. Upon entering, he found several artifacts made of gold, and soon

his discovery was reported to the Antiquities Department of Syria. In 1929, French
1

Archeologist C. F. A. Schaeffer began to excavate the area. Very quickly, the team

became successful in their excavations. The first season of excavation exposed what they

later determined was a library, full of tablets. These tablets eventually shook the world of

Biblical studies and shaped the way scholars today understand the Bible and its culture. 2

Ninety years later, Ugarit is still under excavations, and the French Mission

1 J. Philip Hyatt, “Canaanite Ugarit: Modern Ras Shamra,” The Biblical Archaeologist 2,
no. 1 (1939): 1–2.Ibid.Ibid.Ibid.
4
Archéologique de Ras Shamra - Ougarit continues to excavate it with the hopes of

learning more about Ugarit’s ancient past. 3

Location

The city of Ugarit lies near Mediterranean Sea, to the north of Israel and just

under Turkey. From the northern most tip of

the Island of Cyprus, Ugarit is due east. This 4

location was right in the middle of three major

areas of power: to the East lay Assyrian

Empire, to the North lay the Hittite Empire,

and to the South lay the Egyptian Empire.

With its Western boarder on the sea, Ugarit

Figure : Location of Ugarit; Adapted
was able to trade with Minoan and other sea- from Fischer, 2007
faring civilizations. Because of their location
5

in the center of these empires, Ugarit prospered as an economic center in the area and

they attracted business from around the region. For example, records from Ugarit show

that they also had a substantial population of international business men who came to

Ugarit to seek their fortune. However, this position was only a benefit during times of
6

peace. Although Ugarit always maintained some degree of independence, it was

2 Peter Craigie, “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,”
Biblical Archaeology Review 9, no. 5 (1983): 62.

3 “Présentation,” Mission Archéologique de Ras Shamra - Ougarit, last modified 2016,

accessed April 17, 2018, http://www.ras-shamra.ougarit.mom.fr/.

4 Michael Williams, Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook, and

Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2012), 12.

5 Ibid.

6 A. F. Rainey, “Business Agents at Ugarit,” Israel Exploration Journal 13, no. 4 (1963):
313–321.
5
repeatedly forced to switch its allegiance between the Hittites to Egyptians, depending

upon which empire was more powerful at the time. 7

History

Ugarit’s golden age was between ~1350 BC and 1150 BC during the time of the

Exodus through the time of the Judges. Thus, the discoveries of Ugarit have the most
8

relevance to parts of the Bible written during these time periods: the Pentateuch, Joshua,

Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Job, and some of the Psalms and Proverbs. Outside of these 9

books, the parallelism between Ugaritic texts and the Bible grows increasingly

speculative, because it is highly unlikely later Biblical writers knew about Ugarit since its

destruction in the twelfth century. However, there may be some exceptions to the general

rule, like the link between the Legend of ’Aqhat and Ezekiel’s mention of Daniel (Ez.

14:14, 28:3). But these conclusions must be considered speculative unless documentation

from that time period can be established.

Linguistic Comparisons

The greatest importance for Bible Studies is the language and literature

discovered at Ugarit. When French archeologist C. F. A. Schaeffer discovered the tablets,

he sent them off to a colleague of his—Charles Virolleaud—to translate. The text was
obviously in cuneiform, because it had the characteristic wedge-shaped letters in soft

clay. However, the signs were different from other languages written with cuneiform.

Unlink normal cuneiform which may have hundreds of symbols, these texts had only 30

7 Williams, Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon,

12–13.

8 See Table 1 in appendix for approximate timeline.

9 As it is not my intention to argue for the dates of these books against JEPD etc. theories,
I refer the reader to Duane Garrett, “The Documentary Hypothesis,” Bible and Spade (Second Run) 6, no. 2
(1993): 34–49.
6
distinct characters. Virolleaud concluded that the Script was an alphabetic cuneiform—

each symbol representing the different sounds of the language. The new language was

called Ugaritic after the city of Ugarit. Over time, the language was deciphered and to

date linguists have a good grasp of the grammar of the language. However, there are still

parts of the language which we do not understand. 10

Typological Comparisons

The Ugaritic and Hebrew scripts differ greatly in many of their surface features. 11

Ugaritic is written using a cuneiform script, and Hebrew uses a block script. Also,

Hebrew is written from right to left, and Ugaritic is written from left to right.

The Ugaritic alphabet is longer than Hebrew having 30 signs, and displays a

remarkable attention to distinction between phonemes. The letters parallel the Hebrew

alphabet, even though it is shorter; most of the space is made up by adding extra sibilants.

The Aleph is rendered three different ways, changing its sign based on the following

vowel. If there is no vowel after the aleph, the default sign is ’i. For example, the word

’arašu (ar1) means “to wish”. If it occurs in the yqtl conjugation (Heb. Imperfect), it

would be y’irašu (yer1). The aleph becomes vowelless because it is placed against

another letter. So the default form would be written as ’i.

When scholars work with Ugaritic texts, they use transliterations, for a few

reasons. First, it is for ease of learning when a student is just starting out. It is much

easier to work with transliterations than the actual script. Second, the main reason is so

that these texts can be compared to other Semitic texts. Semitic languages use many

10 Craigie, “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” 62–63.

11 For cross-script comparison, see Table 2 in Appendix.

7
different scripts, and even the same language from different eras may have different

scripts. So, for easy cross-script comparisons of languages, the letters are transcribed. 12

Grammatical Comparison

Because of their close proximity to each other, Ugaritic and Hebrew share many

common features. For example, the base form for many of their words has three radicals.

From these radicals, endings are added, or vowels changed to use the words in a variety

of ways.

Nouns

The noun systems in Ugaritic and in Hebrew are very similar, but they do have

some major differences. The greatest difference is that in addition to Hebrew’s gender,
13

number, and state, Ugaritic adds three cases (Nominative, Genitive, and Accusative). The

cases function like they do in Greek: nominative is the subject of the sentence. Genitive is

the prepositional case. And accusative is the object of a sentence.

What is the difference between the genitive case and the construct state? The

genitive case relates to the previous word, while the construct state relates to following

words. Take the example: “Doug of Greenville of South-Carolina.” Doug would be in the

construct state because it relates Greenville which comes after it. Greenville would be in
the genitive case because it relates back to Doug and it would also be in the construct

state because it relates forward to South-Carolina. South-Carolina would be in the

genitive case because it relates back to Greenville and it would be in the absolute state

because it ends the construction.

12 Kevin Cathcart, “The Comparative Philological Approach to the Text of the Old
Testament,” in The Old Testament in Its World (presented at the Society for Old Testament Study and Het
Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België, Boston: Brill, 2005), 1 n. 1.

13 For a chart comparing the noun endings, see Table 4 in the Appendix.
8
Verbs

Hebrew and Ugaritic are very similar in their verbs systems. Ugaritic has the same

states as Hebrew, except they add energic state. This state adds a suffix to the end of the

yqtl (or imperfect) forms which communicates energy or necessity with the verb.

Ugaritic and Hebrew themes overlap greatly. However, Ugaritic lacks its

equivalence to the Hophal and Pual themes. But, it has three themes which are unique.

The Gt theme is the basic ground theme (G), but it has an infixed t, which makes the verb

reflexive. Also, they have an R theme, which is for verbs with two letter roots. In this

theme, both radicals reduplicate (hence, the R theme) to make the verb’s force mean to

cause a state. Finally, the L theme is for hollow and geminate verbs. In this theme, a long

vowel (hence, the L theme) occurs after the first radical. This too means the verb causes a

state.

Vocabulary Comparisons

According to David Steinberg, the overlap of vocabulary roots “between Ugaritic

and Hebrew . . . is about 79 percent.” Because of this overlap, Ugaritic has given
14

Biblical scholars more contexts to determine the meaning of the words. However,

comparative linguistics can be dangerous territory. Issues such as chronology, cultural

interaction, physical distance, and shared heritage must be considered when comparing
the two languages. For purposes of this article, the cultural heritage and connection is
15

assumed.

14 “History of the Hebrew Language by David Steinberg,” accessed April 10, 2018,
http://adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm.

15 For more information, see Williams, Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar,
Workbook, and Lexicon, 24–25. And also the classic critic of James Barr, Comparative Philology and the
Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
9
 Example One: Ḥ MD (Desire)

The Hebrew word ḥ md can mean: “1. desire and try to acquire, crave, covet Ex

20:17;—2. find pleasure in Is 1:29; 53:2 †—3. ‫ חָמּוד‬a) beloved Is 44:9; b) treasure Jb

20:20. nif.: pt. ‫ נֶ ְחמָדִ ים‬,‫נֶ ְחמָד‬: desirable Gn 2:9; 3:6. piel: pf. ‫ ִחמַּדְ תִּ י‬: desire passionately SS

2:3.” Ugaritic has a similar root, ḥ md (6md). In Ugaritic literature, the word appears 8
16

times. Here are their usages:

Occurrenc Catalog Transliteration17
e Number
1, 2, 3 KTU tbl k.ģrm.
1.4.v.16,33, mid.ksp.gb‘m.mḥmd.
39, . the quarries bring you choicest
ḫrṣ.w bn.bht.ksp.
w ḫrṣ.bht.ṭhrm.
iqnim.šmḫ.aliyn
4, 5 KTU y[tl]k.l lbnn.w ‘ṣ h.
1.4.vi.19,21 l [šr]yn.mḥmd.arz h.
h[n.l]bnn.w ‘ṣ h.
[šr]yn.mḥmd.arz h.
6 KTU 1.92:29 M h.nšat ẓl h kbkbm.
… b km kbkbt k ṯn.
… b‘l yḥmdn h.yrṯ y.
… dmrn.l pn h yrd.
7,8 KTU Wn.ymģy.aklm.
1.12.I.40 W ymẓa. ‘qqm.
b‘l.ḥmd m. yḥmd m.
bn.dgn.yhrr m.
b‘l.ngṯ hm.b p‘n h.
Translation18
Let the rocks yield you much
silver, the hills desirable gold, let
gems. And build a house of silver
and of gold, a house of jewels
and lapis lazuli!
They [we]nt to Lebanon and its
trees, to [Si]ryon and its choicest
cedars; Yes, [Le]banon and its
trees, Siryon and its choicest
cedars.
When the Virgin had changed,
Baal desired her; the Mighty
One would possess her beauty
Baal went out hunting and came
to the edge of the desert. And
now he found the eaters, and he
came upon the devourers. Baal
greatly desired to have them, the
Son of Dagan was eager for
them.

16 William Holladay and Ludwig Köhler, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 108.

17 G. Douglas Young, Concordance of Ugaritic., Analecta orientalia, commentationes

scientificae de rebus Orientis antiqui, 36 (Roma : Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1956., 1956), 260,
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat04680a&AN=bju.b1096760&site=eds-live.

18 Translations borrowed from Nicolas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 2nd ed. (New
York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003).
10
 Occurrences 1-3 mean something pleasurable or desirable. This is like the

Holladay’s second definition: “2. find pleasure in.” Occurrences 4-8 are like Holladay’s

first definition: “1. desire and try to acquire, crave, covet.” It is interesting how broad this

word can be. It can mean to desire some object (4,5) or to lust after a person, like in

Exodus 20:17. Or it can mean to desire someone’s death (7-8).

Example Two: NQD (Shepherd)

While comparing Ugaritic and Hebrew does not help us understand ḥ md much

better than we already do, it does, however, help us understand rare words in the OT. For

example, about the word noqed in Hebrew, Peter Creige states:

Amos is called a “shepherd” (Amos 1:1). But why is the Hebrew word noqed used, rather
than the common Hebrew word ro’eh? Noqed is used in only one other text in the
Hebrew Bible to describe Mesha, King of Moab (2 Kings 3:4). In the Ugaritic texts, the
cognate word nqd is used approximately ten times. It designates not a simple shepherd
but somebody in the sheep business; the [073] was responsible for vast herds of sheep; he
was a significant person in society, a member of the business elite. Amos, then, was
probably not a simple shepherd. We are told that he was also involved with cattle and
fruit farming (Amos 7:14–15). In light of the insight derived from the Ugaritic word nqd,
we can conclude that Amos was engaged in agribusiness on a fairly large scale. Perhaps
his business, selling wool or mutton, took him from his native Tekoa, in Judah, to the
northern market places of Israel where he became involved in his prophetic ministry.
Amos thus becomes not only a more human figure but also a more challenging figure to
us in the 20th century, in the light of Ugaritic.19
The one caveat with this conclusion, however, is that Amos lived during the mid-

eighth century and Ugarit was destroyed sometime in the early twelfth century. There is

about a 400-year gap between the use of the comparative materials. Therefore, the

conclusion can be only tentative until more texts are found where this word appears

which are closer to the time of Amos.

Example Three: BMT (Back)

A final example shows how the meaning of some words can be refined for better

translation. The word bāmā appears 101 times in the Bible means according to BDB a

19 Craigie, “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” 72–73.
11
mountain, a battle field, a high place or funeral mound. In Ugaritic, a similar word
20

appears which is spelled bmt. It means height, back or loin. Here are its usages: 21

Catalog Transliteration Translation

KTU 1.5 VI 22 k ˁmq yṯlṯ bmt like a valley he ploughed (his) back
they placed DN on the back of the ass,
KTU 1.4 IV 14s yštn aṯrt l bmt ˁr l ysmsmt bmt pḥi
on the best of the donkey's back
KTU 1.3 II 12 ˁtkt rišt l bmth she fastened heads to (her) back
KTU 4.247:17 ˁšr bmt alp mri ten loins [backs] of fattened ox
KTU 1.4 VII 34 bmt ar[ḥ] tṭṭn the heights of the earth shook

In KTU 1.4 VII 34, bmt overlaps with the Hebrew cognate bāmā taking the same

meaning. But the other uses point to a person’s/animal’s anatomical back.

Bāmā appears in Deuteronomy 33:29 in the construct state, spelled bāmôṯê. Here

is the passage: “Blessed are you, O Israel; Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord,

Who is the shield of your help And the sword of your majesty! So your enemies will

cringe before you, And you will tread upon their [bāmôṯê].” Traditionally, this word has

been translated high places, rendering the phrase “And you will tread upon their high

places” (NASB). Recent scholarship, however, suggests that this use should reflect the

Ugaritic meaning of a person’s anatomical back, rendering it “and you shall tread upon

their backs” (ESV).

While there is a connection between the words, is it legitimate to render the

Hebrew word according Ugaritic meaning? First, the two texts were written within the

same period of each other (Late Bronze Age), thus giving a higher probability of

semantic overlap. Second, according to Kitchen, this depiction reflects a common motif

in Egyptian art, where the conquering hero steps on the backs of his fallen enemies. It 22

20 Francis Brown, Samuel Driver, and Charles Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 119.

21 Information taken from Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Joaquin Sanmartin, A Dictionary of
the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, vol. 67, Handbook of Oriental Studies Section One:
The Near and Middle East (Bostan: Brill, 2003), 224.

22 Kitchen in Kenneth L. Barker, “The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 133, no. 530 (1946): 127.
12
could be that Moses was drawing on a common theme in the Ancient Near East found in

Ugarit and Egypt. Third, the passage is focusing on God personally defeating a foe face

to face. The Ugaritic meaning fits better the use of the word kḥš (cringe) in the parallel

line. Where kḥš means cringe elsewhere in the Bible, it is used of one’s enemies being

subjected under one’s self. In each of these passages, it is not the enemy’s land that is in
23

view, but the enemies themselves are the conquered. The picture of God treading on the

back of his enemies would complete the image of subjection. With these considerations

in mind, it seems that using the mean of anatomical back found in the Ugaritic cognate
makes better sense here in this passage.

Literary Comparisons

The discoveries of Ugarit included a vast array of literature. Ugarit contained the

largest Canaanite body of literature known to date. The best-known portion of this
24

literature is the Baal Cycle. It is an epic about the exploits and challenges of Baal. In

addition to the well-known mythical texts, the literature also includes texts concerning

administration, contracts, dedications, divinations, economics, hymns, incantations,

labels, legal practices, letters, medical practices, rituals, schooling, and treaties. 25

Example One: Canaanite Mythology

As far as the gods are concerned, El is the high god, the father of the other gods.

Thus, many of the lesser deities are called “sons of el” which is an interesting

correspondence to the same phrase found in Genesis 6 and Job 1-2. Also, his name

23 2 Samuel 22:45, Psalms 18:44, 66:3, and 81:15.

24 There is much debate over whether Ugarit was Canaanite or not. While this debate is
important, for the purposes of this introductory paper, I will merely assume that they were Canaanites for
the purpose of simplification.

25 Categories taken from Sandra Schloen, Online Cultural and Historical Research
Environment, Windows 10 (en_US, 2018), http://ochre.uchicago.edu.
13
obviously corresponds to the biblical title for God which is also El. He is sometimes

referred to as El-Elyon—the Most-High God. Astarte is El’s consort and the mother of

the gods. She is correlated the goddess Asherah in mentioned in the Bible. Baal is El’s

son and the most popular deity, even though he is not the chief. He is the god of Storm.

Anat is Baal’s consort and sister. She is a blood thirsty warrior goddess, like a hardened

female warrior from a graphic young adult fiction novel. She is not mentioned directly in

the Bible. The only possible place is the place-name Anathoth. Yam is the god of the sea

who hates Baal. He controls epic sea monsters and waves. He is not identified as such in
the Bible, although some commentators would read him into some Psalms. Mot is the 26

god of death and also another enemy of Baal. He lives in the underworld kingdom

surrounded by filth. 27

In addition to the gods, there are other important religious concepts. Their home

was in Mountain Zaphon, which is the Mount Olympus of Canaanite mythology. It is the 28

abode of Baal and Anat. The gods amuse themselves there and the people of Ugarit

offered sacrifices to Zaphon. Also, the Ugaritic texts reference beings called the rpum.
29

These beings appear to be the spirits of the departed kings, heroes of the ancient past.

They live in the underworld and are summoned on occasion to join the living in some of

their celebrations. 30

26 Simon B. Parker, “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible,” Near Eastern Archaeology
63, no. 4 (2000): 228–231.

27 James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 135.

28 The NET Bible, 1st ed. (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Is. 14:13 n. 28.

29 Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Joaquin San Martin, “Ṣ pn,” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2003).

30 Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Joaquin San Martin, “Rpu,” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Boston: Brill, 2003).
14
The Mythological Background of Isaiah Fourteen

How does this information help Bible students interpret the Scriptures? The Baal

Cycle and other religious texts help Bible students understand some references to Semitic

cosmology as found in the Bible. For example, Isaiah 14 is filled with Semitic

mythology, which could be missed without knowing the background.

In Isaiah 14, God addressed this chapter to the King of Babylon. The king of

Babylon is a pagan king who had a cosmology similar to that of Ugarit. And so, God

borrows this pagan’s cosmology to mock him in this “taunt song” (Is. 14:4). The taunt

song begins with a demonstration of his power over the king of Babylon (vv. 4-8). Isaiah

cries, “Look how the oppressor has met his end!” He declares that “the Lord broken the

club of the wicked.” He was a terrible conqueror, but now the world can rest in peace

because this oppressor has died. This peace is because Yahweh has destroyed the

conqueror.

Sheol and RS 2.[008]

However, Isaiah does not focus on the destruction of the king in this life, but

moves quickly to what this king believed about the afterlife. Isaiah says, “Sheol [the

underworld] below is stirred up about you, ready to meet you when you arrive” (v. 9).

The word sheol does not have a known cognate in Ugaritic. However, there are many
other connections between the Ugaritic concept of the afterlife and that found in this

chapter. Sheol is a place where “maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And

worms are your covering” (v. 11) and where “you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the

recesses of the pit” (v. 15). The description of Sheol is like the description of Mot’s home

in the Baal Cycle in RS 2.[008] VII: “There now, be off on your way . . . And descend to

the depth of the earth, / Be of those who descend into earth. . .. Into his city Pit, / Low the

15
throne that he sits on, / Filth the land of his inheritance.” With these shared
31

characteristics, Isaiah begins to reflect a pagan cosmology of the underworld.

The Spirits of the Dead and RS 34.126

Besides the general setting of Sheol, Isaiah also describes the inhabitances of

Sheol in a way which parallels Ugaritic literature. Verse nine reads, “It rouses the spirits

of the dead for you, all the former leaders of the earth; it makes all the former kings of the

nations rise from their thrones.” The “spirits of the dead” is the word rəphă’ȋm in the

plural or rəphă’ in the singular, which is a cognate in Ugaritic rpum. These beings appear

in RS 34.126 which has a similar context. It is a ritual of the deceased king Niqmad,

where the rpum are summoned to attend the dead king on his journey to the underworld.

Order of service for the sacrifice(s) of the (divine) Winged Disc: ‘You are invoked, O
saviours[rpum] of the under[world], you are summoned, O assembly of Di[dan]. Invoked
is Ulkan the saviour; invoked is Taruman the savior; invoked is Sidan-and-Radan;
invoked is the eternal one, Thar. They have been invoked, the ancient saviours [rpum].
You are invoked, O saviours [rpum] of the underworld, you are summoned, assembly of
Didan. Invoked is Ammithtamru the king (and) invoked as well is Niqmad the king. O
throne of Niqmad, may you be mourned! And lamented be his footstool. Let the table of
the king be mourned in his presence. But let their tears be swallowed, and their dreadful
lamentations. Go down Shapsh [Sun goddess], yea, go down, Great Luminary! May
Shapsh shine upon him. After your lords, from the throne, After your lords into the
underworld go down: into the underworld go down and fall into the dust, down to
Sidanu-and-Radanu, down to the eternal one, Thar, down to the anci<ent> saviours
[rpum], down to Ammithtamru the king and also down to Niqmad the king.’ 32
In Isaiah, the departed kings rise from their thrones as this newly deceased king

arrives. But instead of congratulating him, they too mock him saying, “You too have

become weak like us! You have become just like us! Your splendor has been brought

down to Sheol, as well as the sound of your stringed instruments. . ..  Look how you have

fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the

ground, O conqueror of the nations!”

31 Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 135.

32 Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 431–439. Italicized brackets added.

16
The Deification of a King

But this end in Sheol was not what the king of Babylon thought was going to

happen. The rəphă’ȋm reveal his surprise by quoting what the king of Babylon thought

would happen: “You said to yourself, ‘I will climb up to the sky. Above the stars of El I

will set up my throne. I will rule on the mountain of assembly on the remote slopes of

Zaphon. I will climb up to the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High!”

There are several points of pagan cosmology in this statement. First, the “Stars of El” is a

reference to “astral deities under the authority of the high god El.” Second, here also is a
33

reference to Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. Third, the Most-High is probably not a

reference to YHWH, but to the god El who also (falsely) claimed this epitaph.

To summarize this passage, the King dies from the judgment of Yahweh the true

God. He will be brought down to the land of filth—Sheol. This end is the exact opposite

to what he expected. He expected to become a god—to join the gods on Mount Zaphon.

Like many other kings of his time, he thought that when he died he would become one of

the great gods that he believed in. He wanted a glorious funeral, to be held in great honor,

to be surrounded by the glory of his kingdom. He probably wanted to be buried with his

treasure—the necessary goods needed for his journey in the afterlife.

Instead, the only one true God condemned him to a miserable death, as he says in

verses 18-20: “All the kings of the nations lie in glory, Each in his own tomb. But you

have been cast out of your tomb Like a rejected branch, Clothed with the slain who are

pierced with a sword, Who go down to the stones of the pit Like a trampled corpse. You

will not be united with them in burial, Because you have ruined your country.”

33 The NET Bible, Is. 14:13, n. 27. Compare with sense b of: Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and
Joaquin San Martin, “Kbkb,” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Boston:
Brill, 2003).
17
The Limitations of the Parallels

These parallels are striking, and some connection exists between Ugaritic

literature and the Bible. But what is the exact connection? Scholars differ greatly on this

subject, as Michael Heiser notes: 34

Craigie argues for a distinctly Ugaritic provenance. 35 Other scholars argue for a
Mesopotamian source and want to trace Isaiah xiv 12-15 to either the Babylonian Irra-
Myth36 or to the Gilgamesh Epic.37 Oldenburg argues for an origin in South Arabian
religion, but as he admits, there are no myths to be found among the South Arabic
inscriptions upon which to base his argument.38
The main problem with comparing Isaiah 14 with any literature is that there is no

single piece of literature that directly parallels it. In addition, a problem with the Ugaritic-

Origin Theory is that Isaiah lived 400-500 years after Ugarit fell. Therefore, a direct

connection between Isaiah 14 and Ugarit is highly suspect.

The answer to this quandary lies in the text of Isaiah 14 itself. First, God directs

his taunt song against the King of Babylon, so whatever material Isaiah used probably

came from that area. Second, the text also reflects the cosmological thoughts of this

pagan king, so there might not even be a written document upon which this is based.

Therefore, unless a parallel is discovered in Babylon, it is better to assume that God is

34 Michael Heiser, “The Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12-15: A

Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material,” in Faculty Publications and Presentations (Liberty
Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, 2001), n. 2,
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/280. Parenthetical citations were converted into
footnotes for ease of presentation.

35 Peter C. Craigie, “Helel, Athtar, and Phaeton [Jes 14 12-15],” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1985): 223–225.

36 W. S. Prinsloo, “Isaiah 14 12-15—Humiliation, Hubris, Humiliation,” Zeitschrift

für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 435.

37 Robert O’Connell, “Isaiah XIV 4b-23 Ironic Reversal Through Concentric

Structure and Mythic Allusion,” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 4 (1988): 414.

38 U. Oldenburg, “Above the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion,”

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 187–208.
18
drawing on a common ANE cosmological belief system to mock this king, and that

Ugaritic literature illustrates some of his beliefs.

Example Two: A Certificate of Divorce

Often, that ancient culture of Ugarit seems distant, wild and mysterious. The

religious texts make Ugarit feel like a mystical Atlantis, full of magic and lore. But, while

the religious texts are helpful, they do not provide a complete picture of Ugarit. However,

many of the texts discovered at Ugarit are non-religious in nature: lists of people on

international caravans, letters to friends, contracts, tax receipts and so much more. These

non-religious texts are important for biblical studies because they bring a sense of the

humanness to the ancient world. They were people, who married and gave in marriage,

set out on expeditions, traded, grew their businesses, engaged themselves in international

politics and so much more. Through the study of these non-religious texts, aspects of the

Scriptures are illustrated with real-life scenarios making it easier to understand and apply

portions of the Bible to one’s every day life.

This final example represents the non-religious material from Ugarit. It is a

Certificate of Divorce from the 13th century. Apparently, Ammistamru the king of Ugarit

had some trouble with his wife and decided to divorce her. He wrote up the divorcement

in two tablets, RS 17.159 and RS 17.396.

RS 17.159—Initial Certificate of Divorce 39

Before My Sun, Tudḫ aliya, Great-king, king of Hatti.

Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, took for wifehood the daughter of Bentešina king of
Amurru. With regard to Ammistamru, — she sought to cause him headache.
Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, has divorced the daughter of Bentešina forever.

And she shall take anything belonging to the daughter of Bentešina, that to the house of
Ammistamru she brought, and she shall go from the house of Ammistamru. And

39 Translations adapted from R. Yaron, “A Royal Divorce at Ugarit,” Orientalia 32,

no. 1 (1963): 22–23. Some of the word order has been changed in order to give it clarity in English.
19
 whatever Ammistamru will deny, the sons of Amurru shall swear and Ammistamru shall
compensate them.

And Utrišarruma is heir-apparent, in Ugarit. If Utrišarruma will say, I will go after my

mother', — he shall put his dress upon the throne, and shall go. And Ammistamru will
appoint another son of his as heir-apparent in Ugarit.

If Ammistamru will go to his fate, and Utrišarruma (then) takes his mother, and restores
her to queen(mother)hood in Ugarit, Utrišarruma shall put his dress upon the throne (?),
and he shall go wherever he pleases. And My Sun will appoint another one of
Ammistamru's sons in Ugarit for kingship.

And in the course of time, the daughter of Bentešina shall raise no claim with regard to
her sons, her daughters and her sons-in-law (?): they belong to Ammistamru, king of
Ugarit. If she raises a claim this tablet he will produce against her.

RS 17.396—Addendum

Before Initešub, king of Carchemish, the son of Šaḫ unuruwa, king of Carchemish
grandson of Šarrukušuḫ , king of Carchemish , the hero.

Whatever the daughter of Bentešina, king of Amurru—silver, gold , copper , objects of

bronze , tribute (?), gifts, donations, slave, hand-maiden, dress and tunique—that the
daughter of Bentešina, king of Amurru, has acquired in Ugarit, all [these things] belongs
to Ammistamru, king of Ugarit.

In future, the daughter of Bentešina will raise no claim with regard to these movables
against Ammistamru, king of Ugarit, and against his sons and grandsons. If she raises a
claim, this tablet he will produce against her.
Ammistamru had this document drawn up before the king of Hatti, who was his

suzerain at that time. The document drew sharp boundaries between “his” and “hers.”

She could take her dowry and anything she brought with her, but she could not take

anything she obtained in Ugarit (as noted by the Addendum) nor did she have claim on

any of her children fathered by Ammistamru.

Interestingly, the only charge brought against her is that she “sought to cause him

a headache.” Literally, this phrase is “the illness of his head she sought.” The

interpretation of this phrase is hard to determine. It could be a political or private

embarrassment to the king. Or to put the phrase in modern terms, the reason could have
40

40 Ibid., 25.
20
been for incompatibility. Whatever the reason, it caused the king enough headache that

he divorced her.

The last significant item to note is that the wife is never named. She is only

mentioned as “the daughter of Bentešina, king of Amurru.” According to Yaron, this is

highly unusual because most often men and women had their names given in the legal

texts. This namelessness may have been “to assign her to oblivion.” 41

Biblical Comparison

The term Certificate of Divorce occurs only four times in the Scriptures, and none

of these describes the contents of the certificate. And so, the Ugaritic texts serve as an

excellent example of what the contents of one of these certificates would have looked

like. These texts are what Moses would have been thinking about when he wrote

Deuteronomy 24:1.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no
favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her
a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Even though there is little semantic overlap between this passage and RS 17.159,

they do share some similarities. As far as timing, both were written within the Late

Bronze Age. Both documents give a vague reason for divorce: in Israel, it was “some

uncleanness” and in Ugarit it was “a headache.” Both documents ended up in the same

situation, the divorcee was sent out of the house.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is part of the legal code, and as such it seems a little cold.

The law presents a scenario in black-and-white, if-then statements. No exceptions to this

rule are allowed, and no one can alter it. In addition, the scenario presented is a little odd,

at least to the modern reader. The wife leaves her first husband and marries as second.

Then, she leaves the second and attempts to come back to the first. And, although this

41 Ibid., 24.
21
situation is not totally improbable, it is not universally applicable. Thus, this passage may

be difficult to apply to the modern reader.

While RS 17.159 may not provide additional exegetical information, it does

provide a real-life scenario to compare with Deuteronomy, making the Law feel more

human. The Ugaritic divorce paper presents a king who is frustrated with his wife and

wants to divorce her for an almost humorous reason: a headache. Also, the anger and

hatred are present in the text. The text divides strictly between “his” and “hers” and she

can have no more than what she brought in. The text does not even mention her name,
even though it mentions the names of everyone else involved.

In addition to the moral and ethical issues in divorce cases, RS 17.396—the

addendum—provides a clear example of what it means to not love one’s neighbor. The

king not only selfishly took back anything he might have giver to her in RS 17.159, be he

also forbade her from taking anything she might have acquired in Ugarit. These actions

display a self-centered attitude, not to unlike divorce cases today.

Theological Considerations

It is no wonder, then, that God says, “I hate divorce.” About a thousand years

later in the days of Malachi the Prophet, God spoke these words to a society rampant with

divorce. The men were dealing treacherously with their wives, in ways probably not too

dissimilar to the Ugaritic texts. Drawing lines between “his” and “hers,” not giving her

what she had acquired, and assigning her to oblivion. And so, while God allowed divorce

in Deuteronomy 24, he did not want it to occur.

Another theological consideration comes from the other two contexts where the

term certificate of divorce occurs: Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8. In both situations, God is

describing his relationship with Israel in not so pleasant terms: Israel had committed

adultery against her Husband, both metaphorically and literally. God’s divorce of Israel

22
was not a friendly divorce between two people who had decided to go different directions

in life. God declared that he had given Israel a certificate of divorce, sending them into

captivity.

The Ugaritic texts illustrate what that divorce looked like. A clean line was drawn

between God and Israel. As a wandering people they came into the land, and as a

wandering people they went out. He sent them away with only what they brought into the

land. All the wealth that they had acquired belonged to someone else and they became

slaves in the land to which they went. And in a sense, like Abraham came from
Mesopotamia, so they returned to the land of their fathers. Thankfully, the story did not

end there. He did bring them back into the land and they were reconciled to him.

Summary

The discoveries at Ugarit are helpful from the narrow confines of grammar to the

broad expanse of literary works. However, there is the danger of pan-Ugaritism, as

exemplified by Mitchell Dahood’s commentary on the Psalms. Pan-Ugaritism claims

42

that “just as in Ugarit, so in Israel” and it indiscriminately draws parallels between the

two cultures. However, any parallel drawn between Israel and Ugarit is only tentative,

because of the distance and time gap between the two cultures.

But this caution should not deter study in this arena, nor should the conclusions be

rejected just because they are only tentative. While not a magical answer for Biblical

questions, Ugarit and its literature can serve as useful tool for understanding the

Scriptures. And Bible students both in Academia and the Church can profit from the

study of Ugarit.

42 Example taken from Craigie, “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for
Biblical Studies,” 71. Dahood’s commentary: Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50, The Anchor Yale
Bible Commentaries (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).
23
 Selected Bibliography

Barker, Kenneth L. “The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 133, no. 530 (1946): 119–29.

Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968.

Brown, Francis, Samuel Driver, and Charles Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Cathcart, Kevin. “The Comparative Philological Approach to the Text of the Old
Testament.” In The Old Testament in Its World, 1–14. Boston: Brill, 2005.

Craigie, Peter. “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies.”
Biblical Archaeology Review 9, no. 5 (1983): 62–73.

Craigie, Peter C. “Helel, Athtar, and Phaeton [Jes 14 12-15].” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1985): 223–225.

Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms I: 1-50. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966.

Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and Joaquin San Martin. “Kbkb.” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Boston: Brill, 2003.

———. “Rpu.” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition.

Boston: Brill, 2003.

———. “Ṣpn.” A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition.

Boston: Brill, 2003.

Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and Joaquin Sanmartin. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language
in the Alphabetic Tradition. Vol. 67. Handbook of Oriental Studies Section One:
The Near and Middle East. Bostan: Brill, 2003.

Fischer, Erika. “PL.1: The Levant in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age.” Map. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament: Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus
Megiddo und Lachisch : Inschriftenfunde, Flaschen, Löffel. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2007.

Garrett, Duane. “The Documentary Hypothesis.” Bible and Spade (Second Run) 6, no. 2
(1993): 34–49.

Heiser, Michael. “The Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12-15: A Reconsideration

of the Ugaritic Material.” In Faculty Publications and Presentations. Liberty
 25
Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, 2001.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/280.

Holladay, William, and Ludwig Köhler. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Hyatt, J. Philip. “Canaanite Ugarit: Modern Ras Shamra.” The Biblical Archaeologist 2,
no. 1 (1939): 1–8.

O’Connell, Robert. “Isaiah XIV 4b-23 Ironic Reversal Through Concentric Structure and
Mythic Allusion.” Vetus Testamentum 38, no. 4 (1988): 414.

Oldenburg, U. “Above the Stars of El: El in Ancient South Arabic Religion.” Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 187–208.

Parker, Simon B. “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible.” Near Eastern Archaeology 63, no.
4 (2000): 228–231.

Prinsloo, W. S. “Isaiah 14 12-15—Humiliation, Hubris, Humiliation.” Zeitschrift für die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 435.

Pritchard, James, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.

Rainey, A. F. “Business Agents at Ugarit.” Israel Exploration Journal 13, no. 4 (1963):
313–321.

Schloen, Sandra. Online Cultural and Historical Research Environment. Windows 10.
en_US, 2018. http://ochre.uchicago.edu.

Williams, Michael. Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook, and

Lexicon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2012.

Wyatt, Nicolas. Religious Texts from Ugarit. 2nd ed. New York: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2003.

Yaron, R. “A Royal Divorce at Ugarit.” Orientalia 32, no. 1 (1963): 21–31.

Young, G. Douglas. Concordance of Ugaritic. Analecta orientalia, commentationes

scientificae de rebus Orientis antiqui, 36. Roma : Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1956., 1956. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=cat04680a&AN=bju.b1096760&site=eds-live.

“History of the Hebrew Language by David Steinberg.” Accessed April 10, 2018.
http://adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm.
 26
“Présentation.” Mission Archéologique de Ras Shamra - Ougarit. Last modified 2016.
Accessed April 17, 2018. http://www.ras-shamra.ougarit.mom.fr/.

The NET Bible. 1st ed. Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

27
28
29